much more secure counterpart to 802.11b -- which is 802.11a, a frequency hopping standard
Um... no. 802.11 defined the basic standard as well as Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum and Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum. 802.11a defines the protocol for up to 54Mbps. 802.11b expands the 802.11 standard and includes things such as defining how clients that can support different speeds can all connect to the same access point.
If I understand you correctly, you are willing to consider - at least for the sake of argument - that God can stop the Earth from spinning, but not keep it from colliding with the Sun. If He can do one, He can certainly do the other.
(If you live in the US: ) Easy. MP3 will be found to be an illegal bypass of the security measures found in SDMI and will be declared illegal. So will the CDs you own. And any tapes. And the concept of Fair Use will be thrown out. Just prepare yourself
(If you don't live in the US: ) Try not to laugh too hard at our stupid coporate laws.
IIRC, an SDMI "protection" mechanism is cracked if an application or script can alter the file such that their watermark detecting software cannot detect the watermark, it is reproducable, and their "golden ears" determine that the sound quality has not significantly deteriorated.
Did anyone notice that BMG will be giving Napster a loan? Here's my theory:
Napster & BMG will develop a fee-based service for high quality MP3s. BMG will mandate a subscription fee that is unreasonable in the minds of most people. Very few people (if any) will join pay-Napster. With so few people paying for it, Napster won't be able to pay their bills or the loan back. Eventually Napster (the company) will go bankrupt and BMG will declare (enthusiastically) that the only reason Napster existed was for "pirates" to get free music. Selling music over the internet just doesn't work. BMG will claim that they tried to work along with Napster, but the business model was flawed from the beginning.
On an interesting (but slightly offtopic sidenote) a long time ago I joined one of those music clubs that is owned by BMG. They do the typical, "if you don't respond by (whenever) you will automatically recieve the CD of the month." Then I went away to college, and tried diligently to go to their website to refuse the monthly selection every month. Some months I forgot. When my parents recieved the CDs, I told them to write "Refused: Return to Sender" on them and put them right back in the mailbox - unopened. After having to pay shipping both ways for a number of CDs they stopped automatically shipping them. Now I will only get the monthly selection if I respond positively. Not trying to advocate anything, but I thought it was an interesting story.
The article didn't say what is going to happen to Napster as we know it. A new jointly-developed project will arise, but what happens to good ol' Napster?
When they come foreward to say that their SMDI watermarking in unhackable, all they have to claim is that the sound quality was significantly poorer with the de-watermarked files. Not hard to do when they are paying the "Golden Ears" that do the testing. When the person comes forward saying that it is indeed hackable, he will be faced with litigation for violating the NDA. If he tries to prove it, he will get a royal DMCA smackdown for getting around the security measures. IIRC (and I didn't enter it, I just poked around the site), the agreement for entering into the hacking contest gave contestants explicit permission to try to hack the files during the contest and explicitly forbade them from trying to hack the files _after_ the contest ended.
I'm not trying to say "They're doing this!" but instead I am trying to say "Could this be their plan?" I am also not saying that I think they will get away with it if this is indeed their plan. I'm just hypothesizing.
True but that doesn't mean they are _really_ going to do the test "blind" When money is at stake, people have been known to lie, cheat and steal before. And a lot of money is at stake here.
That's what I've been thinking. What's to stop them, really? Ask yourself could this happen:
The SDMI invites "hackers" to defeat the watermarks on some samples of digital music. Many hackers do so, and hoping to win some of the $10,000 sign away their souls^H^H^H^H^H rights to the de-watermarking techniques they created. The SDMI carefully reviews the hacks and finds that in many cases the watermark was completely removed. These samples get passed on to the "Golden Ears" (note that in this case "Golden" refers to the amount of money these people are being paid to say exactly what they are told to say). The Golden Ears say that none of the hacked music files are worth listening to. (regardless of the actual quality). The SDMI then announces that their watermarking technology is "un-hackable" and companies start developing players for SDMI watermarked files. Those that did find watermark removal techniques are outraged because some of the de-watermarked music files that they can create sound exactly the same as the watermarked files. Because of the NDA, if they say anything, they will find themselves swamped in litigation. The SMDI then sneaks a bill through congress that makes illegal all music devices that fail to recognize the SDMI watermark, thanks to the DMCA.
Think about it. The SMDI could be a lot smarter than we gave them credit for. Or maybe I'm just a conspiracy theorist.
Signal Ground did a review of Enterasys Networks' Wireless LAN offerings. They are 802.11b compliant (11Mbs), offer Linux drivers and the sources, and well, you can read the article for yourself.
The appeals court ordered Microsoft to file its first brief, of 150 pages, on Nov. 27. The U.S. government gets 125 pages to reply
It doesn't say when the government's reply must be in, but I would guess it is not Nov. 27. How can you write a 125 page reply to something the same day you see it?
a patent on the business practice of patenting stupid and/or obvious ideas and charging ridiculously high licensing fees to others who wish to use them.
I know similar things have been posted earlier, but phrasing it like this would make it really funny if it actually got approved.
it asks you 3, THREE times if you want to send the email
Not according to the article I read. It asks you if you want to import your contacts from outlook. (first question) If you say yes it asks you if you want to send all of your contacts an email letting them know of your new email address. (second question) If you say yes it shows you the email and asks you ONCE if you want to send it. (third question) Sure it wants a response three times, but only the last is to verify the sending of the email.
"If we are to ensure public safety and responsible computer use, then government, industry and the public must all work together,"
translation:
"if we are to ensure corporate control of the masses and prevent 12-year-old kids from doing BAD THINGS (tm) that we can't otherwise stop, the well-funded politicians, the RIAA/MPAA and othewise gullible parents must work together to spread our propaganda."
Anyone else have an alternate translation of Reno's statement?
Slashdot Mirror
much more secure counterpart to 802.11b -- which is 802.11a, a frequency hopping standard
Um... no. 802.11 defined the basic standard as well as Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum and Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum. 802.11a defines the protocol for up to 54Mbps. 802.11b expands the 802.11 standard and includes things such as defining how clients that can support different speeds can all connect to the same access point.
If I understand you correctly, you are willing to consider - at least for the sake of argument - that God can stop the Earth from spinning, but not keep it from colliding with the Sun. If He can do one, He can certainly do the other.
Why should i use SDMI when i already have MP3!
(If you live in the US: ) Easy. MP3 will be found to be an illegal bypass of the security measures found in SDMI and will be declared illegal. So will the CDs you own. And any tapes. And the concept of Fair Use will be thrown out. Just prepare yourself
(If you don't live in the US: ) Try not to laugh too hard at our stupid coporate laws.
IIRC, an SDMI "protection" mechanism is cracked if an application or script can alter the file such that their watermark detecting software cannot detect the watermark, it is reproducable, and their "golden ears" determine that the sound quality has not significantly deteriorated.
BMG is involved in other online music sales schemes
I was not aware of this. Got any links?
Did anyone notice that BMG will be giving Napster a loan? Here's my theory:
Napster & BMG will develop a fee-based service for high quality MP3s. BMG will mandate a subscription fee that is unreasonable in the minds of most people. Very few people (if any) will join pay-Napster. With so few people paying for it, Napster won't be able to pay their bills or the loan back. Eventually Napster (the company) will go bankrupt and BMG will declare (enthusiastically) that the only reason Napster existed was for "pirates" to get free music. Selling music over the internet just doesn't work. BMG will claim that they tried to work along with Napster, but the business model was flawed from the beginning.
That's my prediction. Maybe I'm just too cynical.
On an interesting (but slightly offtopic sidenote) a long time ago I joined one of those music clubs that is owned by BMG. They do the typical, "if you don't respond by (whenever) you will automatically recieve the CD of the month." Then I went away to college, and tried diligently to go to their website to refuse the monthly selection every month. Some months I forgot. When my parents recieved the CDs, I told them to write "Refused: Return to Sender" on them and put them right back in the mailbox - unopened. After having to pay shipping both ways for a number of CDs they stopped automatically shipping them. Now I will only get the monthly selection if I respond positively. Not trying to advocate anything, but I thought it was an interesting story.
The article didn't say what is going to happen to Napster as we know it. A new jointly-developed project will arise, but what happens to good ol' Napster?
Anyone?
I know it's not exactly what you wanted, but you could always go with a foot mouse.
Good point.
Defending my theory...
When they come foreward to say that their SMDI watermarking in unhackable, all they have to claim is that the sound quality was significantly poorer with the de-watermarked files. Not hard to do when they are paying the "Golden Ears" that do the testing. When the person comes forward saying that it is indeed hackable, he will be faced with litigation for violating the NDA. If he tries to prove it, he will get a royal DMCA smackdown for getting around the security measures. IIRC (and I didn't enter it, I just poked around the site), the agreement for entering into the hacking contest gave contestants explicit permission to try to hack the files during the contest and explicitly forbade them from trying to hack the files _after_ the contest ended.
I'm not trying to say "They're doing this!" but instead I am trying to say "Could this be their plan?" I am also not saying that I think they will get away with it if this is indeed their plan. I'm just hypothesizing.
True but that doesn't mean they are _really_ going to do the test "blind" When money is at stake, people have been known to lie, cheat and steal before. And a lot of money is at stake here.
That's what I've been thinking. What's to stop them, really? Ask yourself could this happen:
The SDMI invites "hackers" to defeat the watermarks on some samples of digital music. Many hackers do so, and hoping to win some of the $10,000 sign away their souls^H^H^H^H^H rights to the de-watermarking techniques they created. The SDMI carefully reviews the hacks and finds that in many cases the watermark was completely removed. These samples get passed on to the "Golden Ears" (note that in this case "Golden" refers to the amount of money these people are being paid to say exactly what they are told to say). The Golden Ears say that none of the hacked music files are worth listening to. (regardless of the actual quality). The SDMI then announces that their watermarking technology is "un-hackable" and companies start developing players for SDMI watermarked files. Those that did find watermark removal techniques are outraged because some of the de-watermarked music files that they can create sound exactly the same as the watermarked files. Because of the NDA, if they say anything, they will find themselves swamped in litigation. The SMDI then sneaks a bill through congress that makes illegal all music devices that fail to recognize the SDMI watermark, thanks to the DMCA.
Think about it. The SMDI could be a lot smarter than we gave them credit for. Or maybe I'm just a conspiracy theorist.
Signal Ground did a review of Enterasys Networks' Wireless LAN offerings. They are 802.11b compliant (11Mbs), offer Linux drivers and the sources, and well, you can read the article for yourself.
Unless your AIBO always "moons" the mysterious looking van with the dish antenna on top whenever it drives by your house, I wouldn't worry about it.
I really wish that the article quoted above had been written earlier and had come to our attention earlier
Believe it or not, there was a story
both due on Nov 27
The article didn't say that. See below.
The appeals court ordered Microsoft to file its first brief, of 150 pages, on Nov. 27. The U.S. government gets 125 pages to reply
It doesn't say when the government's reply must be in, but I would guess it is not Nov. 27. How can you write a 125 page reply to something the same day you see it?
Anyone have an actual date for the gov. reply?
a patent on the business practice of patenting stupid and/or obvious ideas and charging ridiculously high licensing fees to others who wish to use them.
I know similar things have been posted earlier, but phrasing it like this would make it really funny if it actually got approved.
Beyond utter stupidity..."
What makes you think you have to look beyond utter stupidity for the answer? I think utter stupidity is a perfectly good asnwer.
Why is CNN (or the person they quoted) claiming it was the July 17 exploit when it apparently wasn't?
Because accuracy or quality in reporting is no longer what's most important. What is most important is being the first to report it.
I'll say
How many times have you been looking at old code and thought "What were they smoking when they wrote this?"
it asks you 3, THREE times if you want to send the email
Not according to the article I read. It asks you if you want to import your contacts from outlook. (first question) If you say yes it asks you if you want to send all of your contacts an email letting them know of your new email address. (second question) If you say yes it shows you the email and asks you ONCE if you want to send it. (third question) Sure it wants a response three times, but only the last is to verify the sending of the email.
my bad. couldn't remember. too lazy to hunt it down. good job finding the correct spec.
They are proprietary. From what I remember the last time this story was posted on /. they are called GD-ROM and I think they hold about 4GB of data.
"If we are to ensure public safety and responsible computer use, then government, industry and the public must all work together,"
translation:
"if we are to ensure corporate control of the masses and prevent 12-year-old kids from doing BAD THINGS (tm) that we can't otherwise stop, the well-funded politicians, the RIAA/MPAA and othewise gullible parents must work together to spread our propaganda."
Anyone else have an alternate translation of Reno's statement?
If you own the event, you get to set the terms on which people attend your event.
Does owning the event give you the right to control what people can _say_ about the event?