The University of Minnesota is threatening all students with revocation of internet access if 'caught' using napster. Whether they actively seek napster users, or just wait until their habit is out of control I haven't quite figured out. I haven't had my access banned yet, so I don't think they are doing either!
It's possible that when you were in diapers, he was tweaked out on drugs. Ethernet was a (and is a) revolutionary concept. How much of computing today relies on ethernet. Lets see, I use it daily, so do millions of other people. It is possible, like many ex-hippies I know and other older folks that had, substance altered mind frame experiences have messed up their lives.
Why hasn't there been any class-action suits against Microsoft right now?
I do agree though, that *right now* the open source 'movement' hasn't gained enough momentum to really compete directly with a proprietary-based corporations. Granted, there are exceptions like Apache for web-serving, but most all software (not most popular - most software in general) that is opensourced is very lousy. Things are improving though.
Anyone working on this system (at whatever organization decides to test the Carnivore system) *must* be 'cleared' before they can work on this?
What a bunch of BS!
"What I don't want to see is a road map of the source code that could give the bad guys the ability to thwart this," [Assistant Attorney General Stephen Colgate] says. "If evaluators say there are security deficiencies that need to be addressed, that's precisely what we want them to address."
What about PGP? It seems like a VERY simple workaround for this system! Plus anyone with any brians could use something like yahoo mail or hotmail; or even better would be a service like www.ziplip.com. This is a waste of everyone's money; in fact, I believe the whole 'war on drugs' falls under the same category. This whole issue is just plain dumb.
This is the patent and trademark office here. Everything from shower nozels to circut boards to flying machines that have never been built are patented. Why would they *not* grant this patent?
Really, does one-click shopping seem like its revolutionary, or just a natural next-step in ecommerce technology? I believe it is the latter, and personally don't see any benifit to Amazon, their competitors or any other organization benifitting from this patent - that is unless Amazon decided to get into the ecommerce software buisiness. At least the technology is obtainable; better than only using it for their own personal benifit.
Virtual machine technology is revolutionary - its new at least, but seeing some of the bizarre patents over at http://www.patents.ibm.com/, I'm really wouldn't be suprised to see this technology accessable to the first organization filing for a patent.
Seti would love to have to utilizing a cray to process data units, I'm sure they'd do what they could get get a port ASAP!!
That's pretty much a donation of super computer usage!
It's a very good idea, but I think implementing it will be a major headache. What is classified as defective? A single hw or sw crash? A few? A chronic problem with them? I have chronic problems with systems that appear to *not* be defective, yet it seems as if they would be covered under this bill.
I read an article on the Wall Street Journal about how Bill Gates lied on testimony. It isn't about digging dirt up on people, or lying to the public (which is really nothing new). This is about lying on sworn testimony.
If you can't trust someone on sworn testimony, how can you trust them at all?
I read an article on the Wall Street Journal about how Bill Gates lied on testimony. It isn't about digging dirt up on people, or lying to the public (which is really nothing new). This is about lying on sworn testimony.
If you can't trust someone on sworn testimony, how can you trust them at all?
When Java was in its earlier stages and MS released a version of Java that was incredibly buggy, they did it for a reason. They wanted customers using their languages. This might hold true for OSs as well. By using MS software, you trash your system, first of all, MS will not cliam the liability because it isn't their 'environment' and why would they even want to do anything good with this? Why haven't we seen MS software for any platform that isn't Windows (of course disregarding their early years when they were in the unix biz). POSIX is evil to them, and they want to bat it down (in my opinion) - why else would they offer instructions on how to dump a linux installation in favor of windows???? Why do they continually keep their software as proprietary as possible? Why would anyone want to be dealing with a dishonest company? Their lack of honesty is a major factor for Judge Jackson's decisions - Bill Gates was blatently lying in a sworn testimony. Its a miracle they are still on their feet. Only in America.
Has anyone here seen the film Casino? Its a great one by the way.
There is a particular scene between two organized criminals and it is very cryptographic without being encrypted. What they are speaking of is spoken differently than they really mean. A 'meet me at the golf course at 6' really means something like 'gate 55b at the airport at 3am' or something to that effect.
The point is there is more to cryptography than just standard encryption of messages. I have a feeling agencies like the NSA are going to have access to quantum computing before the rest of the planet, and at that time (unless they haven't already got them in place), keeping communications and personal files secure is going to require an other dimension or 3. This is all theory, so I might just be blowing smoke out of my ass, but I'm sure that some sort of encrypting, encrypted, encrypted, encrypted messaging will be developed, and not just with standard ordered scrambling of data. The messages/algorithms/whatever, assuming they actually meant something to multiple parties that wish to securely communicate (i.e. golf course means gate 55b and 6 means 3am)
I understand that a quantum computer can solve a problem in a single step, but how is this possible? Especially if one involved multiple variables or possible outcomes? Would it require multiple problem variants, or something to the effect?
How is it possible for a quantum computer to do this, but not a conventional one?
Just setup your proxy to monitor for any questionable content, then, simply deploy someone to bounce this individual off of the system, then get some rubber gloves, and clean up?
I don't know if anyone here recalls that Apple got shafted from Microsoft (of course after Xerox PARC got shafted by Apple:) over the GUI concept. I think they've got every right to be a little edgy about anything under development.
We don't know about what other corporations are researching. Why? Because their future and livelyhood rests on their new products/ideas. I'd definitally want to make sure it is safe and I'd pay through the nose for it too (if I had the fincancial means to do so:). Intellectual property is a powerful... dare I say commodity. The point is, if competitors get a hold of one's secrets, they can easily be turned against themselves as seen with the GUI saga of yesteryear.
The principle of how this device works is the same as carnivore. It has the same downfalls. Does airport security *need* this? I say no - the FBI doesn't *need* carnivore, they just want to bypass the 'beauracy' of ISP upper management. Will a aura detector stop terrorism? As long as terrorists know of its existance (well it's public knowledge at this point; hey, so is carnivore), there are going to be ways around it. With carnivore, you could simply encrypt your mail. Well, what is to stop someone from bathing before they arrive at the airport! Why isn't anyone 'up in arms' about this? This is so close to carnivore, I'd say it was thought-up by the same crack-pot inventor.
This sounds too easy to bypass. Now I guess airports need to be asking themselves if this technology is *really* worth it.
If Microsoft continues on their extremely slow security patch trail, combined with the plethora of security vulnerabilities in Hotmail, combined with the disappointing news of the estimated 65,000 bugs in Windows 2000, I highly suspect that Hotmail will be pretty much always open to anyone that wants access to someones account.
I'm also willing to bet my bottom dollar that they want to use some 'Hotmail runs W2k, you should too' propaganda otherwise they wouldn't touch this with a ten foot pole - look at how much attention this switchover is creating! It better be worth their while, and it isn't going to be any cheaper on a windows 2000 platform. I think its all about the propaganda.
I hate to be the one to shoot down the pessimestic view of the state of the economy, but 'tech-stocks' have been roaring. Albeit, not quite as dramatic as the sell-off, things are more stable, and I'm personally doing better than ever with my investments!
It's pretty much common sense; lighter vehicles usually get totaled. I drive an 1985 dodge dakota, and if I as much as rear ended someone, I'd be in the hospital!!! I like the promise of alternative feuls very much, but I just wont touch one that is lighter than my 'truck.'
This patent predated the WWW which began its explosion in the early 1990s. Why did they decide to wait so long to 'require a royalty'? So they could make it seem like there were no patents or restrictions to setting up shop (i.e. using hyperlinks) on the internet, then coming out with this news to thousands of ISPs once the illusion of free facilited enough growth for them to make a nice wad of cash? I think it has something to do with it. Also, links (as in posix links in the filesystem, and short-cuts in microsoft windows, and aliases in the Mac camp) have been around a while, are quite useful features. I think hyper-linking is a natural extension of this as we can now see with IE x.x internet shortcuts and the like.
Slashdot Mirror
The University of Minnesota is threatening all students with revocation of internet access if 'caught' using napster. Whether they actively seek napster users, or just wait until their habit is out of control I haven't quite figured out. I haven't had my access banned yet, so I don't think they are doing either!
It's possible that when you were in diapers, he was tweaked out on drugs. Ethernet was a (and is a) revolutionary concept. How much of computing today relies on ethernet. Lets see, I use it daily, so do millions of other people. It is possible, like many ex-hippies I know and other older folks that had, substance altered mind frame experiences have messed up their lives.
Right......
Why hasn't there been any class-action suits against Microsoft right now?
I do agree though, that *right now* the open source 'movement' hasn't gained enough momentum to really compete directly with a proprietary-based corporations. Granted, there are exceptions like Apache for web-serving, but most all software (not most popular - most software in general) that is opensourced is very lousy. Things are improving though.
Anyone working on this system (at whatever organization decides to test the Carnivore system) *must* be 'cleared' before they can work on this?
What a bunch of BS!
"What I don't want to see is a road map of the source code that could give the bad guys the ability to thwart this," [Assistant Attorney General Stephen Colgate] says. "If evaluators say there are security deficiencies that need to be addressed, that's precisely what we want them to address."
What about PGP? It seems like a VERY simple workaround for this system! Plus anyone with any brians could use something like yahoo mail or hotmail; or even better would be a service like www.ziplip.com. This is a waste of everyone's money; in fact, I believe the whole 'war on drugs' falls under the same category. This whole issue is just plain dumb.
This is the patent and trademark office here. Everything from shower nozels to circut boards to flying machines that have never been built are patented. Why would they *not* grant this patent?
Really, does one-click shopping seem like its revolutionary, or just a natural next-step in ecommerce technology? I believe it is the latter, and personally don't see any benifit to Amazon, their competitors or any other organization benifitting from this patent - that is unless Amazon decided to get into the ecommerce software buisiness. At least the technology is obtainable; better than only using it for their own personal benifit.
Virtual machine technology is revolutionary - its new at least, but seeing some of the bizarre patents over at http://www.patents.ibm.com/, I'm really wouldn't be suprised to see this technology accessable to the first organization filing for a patent.
Seti would love to have to utilizing a cray to process data units, I'm sure they'd do what they could get get a port ASAP!! That's pretty much a donation of super computer usage!
A beta microsoft product is a compileable piece of code.
Every other project/company I've known hasn't had the bug problems of microsoft.
I bet it will be about as stable as a final version +service packs copy of NT!
I'd bet my bottom dollar on it, any takers?
Software and Hardware?
It's a very good idea, but I think implementing it will be a major headache. What is classified as defective? A single hw or sw crash? A few? A chronic problem with them? I have chronic problems with systems that appear to *not* be defective, yet it seems as if they would be covered under this bill.
Mp3board most likely deals with illegal material themselves at one point or another.
They even have a damn Gnutella websearch on their own website.
I know that Nullsoft isn't maintaining it anymore, but it seems like a classic case of killing the goose that laid the golden egg... doesn't it??
If stuff like this isn't publicized, for whatever reason, it simply makes a cracker's 'hobby' easier.
And people wonder how a script kiddy can cause so much damage? BS like this!
Soder a ethernet card on the motherboard, tweak the system a bit and sell them!
If you know what is so good for consumers, and there is a demand for it, it is simply foolish for companies *not* to try to fill the market.
You seem to be up on what is hot, only thing left for you to do is sell them.
honesty.
I read an article on the Wall Street Journal about how Bill Gates lied on testimony. It isn't about digging dirt up on people, or lying to the public (which is really nothing new). This is about lying on sworn testimony.
If you can't trust someone on sworn testimony, how can you trust them at all?
honesty.
I read an article on the Wall Street Journal about how Bill Gates lied on testimony. It isn't about digging dirt up on people, or lying to the public (which is really nothing new). This is about lying on sworn testimony.
If you can't trust someone on sworn testimony, how can you trust them at all?
Not a rumor, a consideration!!!
There is a difference.
When Java was in its earlier stages and MS released a version of Java that was incredibly buggy, they did it for a reason. They wanted customers using their languages. This might hold true for OSs as well. By using MS software, you trash your system, first of all, MS will not cliam the liability because it isn't their 'environment' and why would they even want to do anything good with this? Why haven't we seen MS software for any platform that isn't Windows (of course disregarding their early years when they were in the unix biz). POSIX is evil to them, and they want to bat it down (in my opinion) - why else would they offer instructions on how to dump a linux installation in favor of windows???? Why do they continually keep their software as proprietary as possible? Why would anyone want to be dealing with a dishonest company? Their lack of honesty is a major factor for Judge Jackson's decisions - Bill Gates was blatently lying in a sworn testimony. Its a miracle they are still on their feet. Only in America.
Has anyone here seen the film Casino? Its a great one by the way.
There is a particular scene between two organized criminals and it is very cryptographic without being encrypted. What they are speaking of is spoken differently than they really mean. A 'meet me at the golf course at 6' really means something like 'gate 55b at the airport at 3am' or something to that effect.
The point is there is more to cryptography than just standard encryption of messages. I have a feeling agencies like the NSA are going to have access to quantum computing before the rest of the planet, and at that time (unless they haven't already got them in place), keeping communications and personal files secure is going to require an other dimension or 3. This is all theory, so I might just be blowing smoke out of my ass, but I'm sure that some sort of encrypting, encrypted, encrypted, encrypted messaging will be developed, and not just with standard ordered scrambling of data. The messages/algorithms/whatever, assuming they actually meant something to multiple parties that wish to securely communicate (i.e. golf course means gate 55b and 6 means 3am)
I understand that a quantum computer can solve a problem in a single step, but how is this possible? Especially if one involved multiple variables or possible outcomes? Would it require multiple problem variants, or something to the effect?
How is it possible for a quantum computer to do this, but not a conventional one?
Just setup your proxy to monitor for any questionable content, then, simply deploy someone to bounce this individual off of the system, then get some rubber gloves, and clean up?
I don't know if anyone here recalls that Apple got shafted from Microsoft (of course after Xerox PARC got shafted by Apple :) over the GUI concept. I think they've got every right to be a little edgy about anything under development.
:). Intellectual property is a powerful... dare I say commodity. The point is, if competitors get a hold of one's secrets, they can easily be turned against themselves as seen with the GUI saga of yesteryear.
We don't know about what other corporations are researching. Why? Because their future and livelyhood rests on their new products/ideas. I'd definitally want to make sure it is safe and I'd pay through the nose for it too (if I had the fincancial means to do so
My 2 cents.
The principle of how this device works is the same as carnivore. It has the same downfalls. Does airport security *need* this? I say no - the FBI doesn't *need* carnivore, they just want to bypass the 'beauracy' of ISP upper management. Will a aura detector stop terrorism? As long as terrorists know of its existance (well it's public knowledge at this point; hey, so is carnivore), there are going to be ways around it. With carnivore, you could simply encrypt your mail. Well, what is to stop someone from bathing before they arrive at the airport! Why isn't anyone 'up in arms' about this? This is so close to carnivore, I'd say it was thought-up by the same crack-pot inventor.
This sounds too easy to bypass. Now I guess airports need to be asking themselves if this technology is *really* worth it.
If Microsoft continues on their extremely slow security patch trail, combined with the plethora of security vulnerabilities in Hotmail, combined with the disappointing news of the estimated 65,000 bugs in Windows 2000, I highly suspect that Hotmail will be pretty much always open to anyone that wants access to someones account.
I'm also willing to bet my bottom dollar that they want to use some 'Hotmail runs W2k, you should too' propaganda otherwise they wouldn't touch this with a ten foot pole - look at how much attention this switchover is creating! It better be worth their while, and it isn't going to be any cheaper on a windows 2000 platform. I think its all about the propaganda.
I hate to be the one to shoot down the pessimestic view of the state of the economy, but 'tech-stocks' have been roaring. Albeit, not quite as dramatic as the sell-off, things are more stable, and I'm personally doing better than ever with my investments!
It's pretty much common sense; lighter vehicles usually get totaled. I drive an 1985 dodge dakota, and if I as much as rear ended someone, I'd be in the hospital!!! I like the promise of alternative feuls very much, but I just wont touch one that is lighter than my 'truck.'
This patent predated the WWW which began its explosion in the early 1990s. Why did they decide to wait so long to 'require a royalty'? So they could make it seem like there were no patents or restrictions to setting up shop (i.e. using hyperlinks) on the internet, then coming out with this news to thousands of ISPs once the illusion of free facilited enough growth for them to make a nice wad of cash? I think it has something to do with it. Also, links (as in posix links in the filesystem, and short-cuts in microsoft windows, and aliases in the Mac camp) have been around a while, are quite useful features. I think hyper-linking is a natural extension of this as we can now see with IE x.x internet shortcuts and the like.
/08/29/0722236.shtml /08/31/0143246.shtml /10/31/1337238.shtml /04/18/1949239.shtml
This is going to go nowhere. No I'm not just guessing, I'm using common sense. This is BS. Just like that little jpg liscensing fiasco by Unisys that was nothing but rumor. For those that aren't farmiliar, watch the saga unfold!
http://slashdot.org/articles/99
http://slashdot.org/articles/99
http://slashdot.org/articles/99
http://slashdot.org/articles/00
What about suction cups!!!
Sure they wouldn't work to well going up a porous or rough surface, but they'd surely scale skyscrapers pretty well!!