It could be resonably argued... but I'll admit they are different beast. I still tend to wrap it up the same though. From a reliability/task perspective they are more alike.
x86 platform = All Compaq gear, HP would continue selling HP brand workstations to stores for contract obligations
unix platform = HPUX is the only one, Dec VMS dead
printers = HP is the only one, Compaq lexmark deal would not be
Compaq always had a superior x86 line than HP. True HP would sell higher-end products, but only in the enterprise space. No matter how smoking fast & high-end this end user product is, it is still an end user product.
I already listed the ones that were found and were publicly announced. They were illegally sold to Iraq. It wasn't against the sanctions for Iraq to have such weapons but it was illegal for Russia to sell them.
As to the oil for profit, yes. Do you believe that if oil was going $20/barrel, Iraq was getting $20 of food for every barrel. The UN charged 2.2% "admin fees" for all the oil going through (over a billion dollars in "fees"). Unfortunately the "oil for food" program was under sealed records that prevented any public oversight for the past decade. Do a quick news search and you'll find that the program was rife with UN member kickbacks.
Sure there's a difference in that you are doing the equivalent of tape recording the radio, but legally there really isn't much of a difference.
I don't really see much of a difference here. It's not the downloading that the *AA have been getting people for it's the sharing. If you leached only the *AA would let you do it to your hearts content.
If someone is legally broadcasting that's basically the same as someone legally sharing a file unlike illegally broadcasting content which is the same as someone sharing a file they don't have distribution rights to. Legally it's the same to put out a stream you don't have rights to or put share out a file you don't have rights to.
Everybody gets wrapped up in the "download" portion and unfortunately get screwed because they've only paid attention to download instead of upload. Maybe if the fined P2P users had been worrying about uploading instead of downloading they wouldn't be getting fined.
Umm... it was in response to "Nice propaganda. Please mod him down, because Saddam bought no weapon : they would have been used and found". They were used and they were found. Russia was violating the UN treaty period. No spin, no half truths, but hard cold fact.
No, it's not about kickbacks; it's that the UN was able to exploit Iraq by getting oil cheaper than it could on the open market. That's why the UN was never going to do anything about Iraq (other than try and expand the oil for food program to get even more cheap oil). Who'd screw up such a sweet deal like that. If the UN had done anything over the past 12 years last year's war in Iraq would not have happened. But the UN was too happy getting their oil so cheap that they did even really want to know for sure, if it was ambiguous than the sanctions could be kept in place indeffinetly and the oil would still be cheaper than anywhere else.
Me thinks you either have no longer term memory or don't read the news. Just because actual facts and truths don't always support your closed-minded view doesn't make it propaganda.
Remember:
The new Russian water mines that were preventing the British from bringing food to port in Iraq?
The whole Russian GPS jammers?
His people starved while the UN sat back and racked in the money. What was the going exchange rate 50 gallons of crude for 1 loaf of bread. The UN would never deal with Iraq because they were getting rich off their asses from it.
You kind of missed the point there. If you have something out running in the wild found you release a useable patch that day. He's talking about exploits found from the vendor, not ones out in the wild. i.e. when Redhat finds an extremely obscure buffer overflow not joe hacker. Instead of releasing a statement about the problem an hour after it's found, and then putting a patch out a day later, with admins patching couple of days after (a weekend you know) he's advocating that since nobody else knows about it: putting out an encrypted patch to the users to download over the weekend, then on let say every tuesday simultaneously unencrypt & activate all the patches, and send out a exploit report. With this method a greater percentage of the population will not have an issue with vendor found exploits.
He's not saying that all exploits are found in house, he's not saying that shit doesn't start outside, but he's saying if it's not in the wild now, why fuck over everybody on the internet over a threat that doesn't exist yet. If there is a threat release the day you find it, if there isn't it'd be nice to be able to wait for the admins to get over their weekend hangover.
It doesn't disable it just won't be able to send data to and from. Basically what they are doing is creating the connection points between items secure. HDCP & 5C are meant to keep the connection secure and only useable on "trusted" equipment. The end equipment is meant to enforce the no copy, copy one, etc rights policy. Basically it's preventing cable/satelite box from sending content to your capture card to get the content to begin with.
They use a standardized encryption chip that based upon the manufacturer has a set of keys specific to it. When a revoked key is seen the upstream device won't send the data to it anymore. The dvd you put in your dvd player would include what is not allowed to be played, and your dvd player will not send that on down to your capture card. Because they require a specific encryption chip to do things it becomes very difficult to crack (but as they say not impossible). But again it's not meant for copy protection but to prevent someone from capturing the content from a stream.
Good link: http://www.reed-electronics.com/ednmag/arti cle/CA2 09091?pubdate=4%2F18%2F2002
Unfortunately there is HDCP for encrypted DVI video. This will require that your display device be able to properly talk HDCP with it to do key exchange. No public key exchange no key to the encrypted content. They are allowing content to be played at a lower res if you don't do the exchange or if your outputing to analog.
Unfortunately the industry learned alot from the DVD encryption issue, and now have put in capabilities to revoke keys. So if I'm playing a dvd in a known cracked player, all they have to do is, on the dvd include it's key info as revoked and they've killed that crack for good. Also a nice way to keep the hardware vendor locked in to the party line, who'd want to suddenly have deal with all their customers DVD players no longer working? Some scary shit if you ask me.
Yea, I'm pretty sure Ellisons old lap pool beats those guys: http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/s tories/2003/07/21/focus1.html?t=printable
A candidate for the "bored with extreme wealth" category, though not yet a grandpa, is Oracle CEO Larry Ellison. When he revamped his Pacific Heights home a few years ago and wanted to eliminate a lap pool on the bottom level, Green convinced him to turn it into a massive subwoofer instead.
Green said that when he and Ellison played Jurassic Park to test the system "the part with the dinosaur stomping actually lifted us up out of our seats. (The sound) was moving eight inches of concrete" on the floor.
But I don't have to use the fasttrack network at all. There are multiple ways to do it: use an authorized Kazaa client to do a search and talk to the end user directly, port scan uni ports and find end users, etc. Pretty damn easy to get around.
Essentially all they are doing is they've written their own client for Kazaa, etc. Once they find someone running one of these programs they do ask the equivalent "right click, show all files shared by user" question and it then tells them all that they are sharing. Nothing really legally nefarious going on, basically doing what the programs are meant to do. It's not like they are cracking your box and going through the entire system, just whatever you have shared out in the P2P program you are using.
As to your point of having a collection of software/music wide open: how do you think you get to download those songs & programs to begin with? People do leave collections of songs & software completly wide open to the pubilc, that's basically the cornerstone of filesharing. If you aren't sharing then all you are doing is leaching, if everybody's leaching than nobody's downloading at all anymore. Contrary to the "I'm downloading songs from the Internet legally" commercials which make it seem like the download is what get's you. Nobody has been hit for the act of downloading, it's all about the sharing them out.
Re:I think this is actually a shrewd move by SCO.
on
SCO Aims For The Feds
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Shrewd, but not because of what you are saying.
By going after the federal government, they have made it more difficult for the government to just remove their copyright. If the government were to nullify it, they'd have an excellent case for conflict of interest. In this scenario, if the casee against the government were to actually never make it to the courts it's served it purpose.
As much as it is enjoyable to make fun of SCO and it's lawyers. You must not underestimate them, they are extremely intelligent in being able to manipulate for their benefit.
Umm... let me get this straight. You are saying that if someone comes into my computer I shouldn't be allowed to what I want with that information? This is the PUBLIC internet we are talking about.
Are you familiar with Oracle? It runs basically one system, if you have one user or thousands of users it's the same product. California recieved every single piece of software they purchased. They installed it on the server and just because they only had 25% of the max capacity users signed in does not mean they didn't receive it.
75% of the people don't live in an area legal to go >100mph, again did they not receive the product because they can't legally go that fast?
There is a significant difference between selling you something you don't need but shipping the product to you and selling you something and never getting the end product.
Oracle was acting like a cars salesman (want that clearcoat protector), end of the day you still got the car. They are accusing HP of failure to physically deliver something which was paid for (i.e. never getting the car from the salesman).
Nope. The RIAA, etc are going after the people who share the file. If they can download it from your computer they are going after you.
What this only protects you from is if they go through your stuff and you have their music burned onto a CD. You don't get clipped for having it (but at this time nobody's getting clipped for just having it). So from a "protect your ass" standpoint it doesn't really benefit you at all.
But how much are they getting for royalty per phone; It can't be very much. $.50-$1/phone would probably be pushing the cost limits (especially lately with M$ & Linux putting out competing embeded OS). Put out a few cell phones and it can come up to a bit of money; but still development costs for Java and sustaining it is more then they are making back from it. If it was the other way around, Sun would be intentionally separating java income from their other income and shoving it in everybody's face.
I might be wrong, but I just don't see them making any gross profit directly from selling Java royalties.
I gotta think that Java operates at a loss for them, they've basically been using Java as loss-leader to buy their other sutff lately. With all their corporate wide financial difficulties spinning Java off, letting other people do their development for them makes a lot of $ sense. They've gotten enough brand naming out of Java, so it will always be linked with Sun, so they aren't losing much branding. Why spend lots of money & resources on a free product when you are strapped to the gills with financial problems.
I think we are talking about 2 different but similar issues. I'm talking about open sourcing the DRM from an API perspective. An open common API method that won't require a M$ to use. It can be include with distro's at no cost, content providers can use this at no cost. The secret comes in the player (which is what you were talking about and I wasn't) which would be distributed in binary form. There is a limitation in that you'd have to have the "traffic cop" somewhere in who would get trusted keys. But I believe if I were to create a closed-source application that could be ran on Linux and didn't require an M$ licensing content providers would be willing to provide a key. The paying for licensing a M$ key is the scary part to me and becomes the "de-facto" one, a free open DRM API that can be incorporated into anybody's closed source product is what I'm looking for.
So you think the *massive* linux install base compared to Windows is going to stop the selling of DRM? If Windows didn't have the install base, you'd have a chance or wasn't doing DRM. Since M$ is doing it, do you think content providers are concerned that the 1% of households who have computers who don't have a M$ system of anykind won't use their product compared to releasing their content without any DRM at all?
As to your first statement: I've said it before and I'll say it again... I'm a frequent grammar/speller nazi offender, you might want to get use to it.
Slashdot Mirror
It could be resonably argued... but I'll admit they are different beast. I still tend to wrap it up the same though. From a reliability/task perspective they are more alike.
Actually it was more like this:
x86 platform = All Compaq gear, HP would continue selling HP brand workstations to stores for contract obligations
unix platform = HPUX is the only one, Dec VMS dead
printers = HP is the only one, Compaq lexmark deal would not be
Compaq always had a superior x86 line than HP. True HP would sell higher-end products, but only in the enterprise space. No matter how smoking fast & high-end this end user product is, it is still an end user product.
I already listed the ones that were found and were publicly announced. They were illegally sold to Iraq. It wasn't against the sanctions for Iraq to have such weapons but it was illegal for Russia to sell them.
As to the oil for profit, yes. Do you believe that if oil was going $20/barrel, Iraq was getting $20 of food for every barrel. The UN charged 2.2% "admin fees" for all the oil going through (over a billion dollars in "fees"). Unfortunately the "oil for food" program was under sealed records that prevented any public oversight for the past decade. Do a quick news search and you'll find that the program was rife with UN member kickbacks.
Beginning? If you look back in history a bit, diverting the Jordan river was one of the main reasons for the start of the Israel/Arab conflict.
Sure there's a difference in that you are doing the equivalent of tape recording the radio, but legally there really isn't much of a difference.
I don't really see much of a difference here. It's not the downloading that the *AA have been getting people for it's the sharing. If you leached only the *AA would let you do it to your hearts content.
If someone is legally broadcasting that's basically the same as someone legally sharing a file unlike illegally broadcasting content which is the same as someone sharing a file they don't have distribution rights to. Legally it's the same to put out a stream you don't have rights to or put share out a file you don't have rights to.
Everybody gets wrapped up in the "download" portion and unfortunately get screwed because they've only paid attention to download instead of upload. Maybe if the fined P2P users had been worrying about uploading instead of downloading they wouldn't be getting fined.
Umm... it was in response to "Nice propaganda. Please mod him down, because Saddam bought no weapon : they would have been used and found". They were used and they were found. Russia was violating the UN treaty period. No spin, no half truths, but hard cold fact.
No, it's not about kickbacks; it's that the UN was able to exploit Iraq by getting oil cheaper than it could on the open market. That's why the UN was never going to do anything about Iraq (other than try and expand the oil for food program to get even more cheap oil). Who'd screw up such a sweet deal like that. If the UN had done anything over the past 12 years last year's war in Iraq would not have happened. But the UN was too happy getting their oil so cheap that they did even really want to know for sure, if it was ambiguous than the sanctions could be kept in place indeffinetly and the oil would still be cheaper than anywhere else.
Me thinks you either have no longer term memory or don't read the news. Just because actual facts and truths don't always support your closed-minded view doesn't make it propaganda.
Remember:
The new Russian water mines that were preventing the British from bringing food to port in Iraq?
The whole Russian GPS jammers?
His people starved while the UN sat back and racked in the money. What was the going exchange rate 50 gallons of crude for 1 loaf of bread. The UN would never deal with Iraq because they were getting rich off their asses from it.
Who here honestly likes real format files, I've been unable to find anyone who actually likes them over any other format.
You kind of missed the point there. If you have something out running in the wild found you release a useable patch that day. He's talking about exploits found from the vendor, not ones out in the wild. i.e. when Redhat finds an extremely obscure buffer overflow not joe hacker. Instead of releasing a statement about the problem an hour after it's found, and then putting a patch out a day later, with admins patching couple of days after (a weekend you know) he's advocating that since nobody else knows about it: putting out an encrypted patch to the users to download over the weekend, then on let say every tuesday simultaneously unencrypt & activate all the patches, and send out a exploit report. With this method a greater percentage of the population will not have an issue with vendor found exploits.
He's not saying that all exploits are found in house, he's not saying that shit doesn't start outside, but he's saying if it's not in the wild now, why fuck over everybody on the internet over a threat that doesn't exist yet. If there is a threat release the day you find it, if there isn't it'd be nice to be able to wait for the admins to get over their weekend hangover.
It doesn't disable it just won't be able to send data to and from. Basically what they are doing is creating the connection points between items secure. HDCP & 5C are meant to keep the connection secure and only useable on "trusted" equipment. The end equipment is meant to enforce the no copy, copy one, etc rights policy. Basically it's preventing cable/satelite box from sending content to your capture card to get the content to begin with.
i cle/CA2 09091?pubdate=4%2F18%2F2002
They use a standardized encryption chip that based upon the manufacturer has a set of keys specific to it. When a revoked key is seen the upstream device won't send the data to it anymore. The dvd you put in your dvd player would include what is not allowed to be played, and your dvd player will not send that on down to your capture card. Because they require a specific encryption chip to do things it becomes very difficult to crack (but as they say not impossible). But again it's not meant for copy protection but to prevent someone from capturing the content from a stream.
Good link:
http://www.reed-electronics.com/ednmag/art
Unfortunately there is HDCP for encrypted DVI video. This will require that your display device be able to properly talk HDCP with it to do key exchange. No public key exchange no key to the encrypted content. They are allowing content to be played at a lower res if you don't do the exchange or if your outputing to analog.
Unfortunately the industry learned alot from the DVD encryption issue, and now have put in capabilities to revoke keys. So if I'm playing a dvd in a known cracked player, all they have to do is, on the dvd include it's key info as revoked and they've killed that crack for good. Also a nice way to keep the hardware vendor locked in to the party line, who'd want to suddenly have deal with all their customers DVD players no longer working? Some scary shit if you ask me.
Whatever. I don't dumb down myself for gui world, so go back to your M$ point and drool land because text is obviously too hard for you.
Yea, I'm pretty sure Ellisons old lap pool beats those guys: http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/s tories/2003/07/21/focus1.html?t=printable
A candidate for the "bored with extreme wealth" category, though not yet a grandpa, is Oracle CEO Larry Ellison. When he revamped his Pacific Heights home a few years ago and wanted to eliminate a lap pool on the bottom level, Green convinced him to turn it into a massive subwoofer instead.
Green said that when he and Ellison played Jurassic Park to test the system "the part with the dinosaur stomping actually lifted us up out of our seats. (The sound) was moving eight inches of concrete" on the floor.
But I don't have to use the fasttrack network at all. There are multiple ways to do it: use an authorized Kazaa client to do a search and talk to the end user directly, port scan uni ports and find end users, etc. Pretty damn easy to get around.
Essentially all they are doing is they've written their own client for Kazaa, etc. Once they find someone running one of these programs they do ask the equivalent "right click, show all files shared by user" question and it then tells them all that they are sharing. Nothing really legally nefarious going on, basically doing what the programs are meant to do. It's not like they are cracking your box and going through the entire system, just whatever you have shared out in the P2P program you are using.
As to your point of having a collection of software/music wide open: how do you think you get to download those songs & programs to begin with? People do leave collections of songs & software completly wide open to the pubilc, that's basically the cornerstone of filesharing. If you aren't sharing then all you are doing is leaching, if everybody's leaching than nobody's downloading at all anymore. Contrary to the "I'm downloading songs from the Internet legally" commercials which make it seem like the download is what get's you. Nobody has been hit for the act of downloading, it's all about the sharing them out.
Shrewd, but not because of what you are saying.
By going after the federal government, they have made it more difficult for the government to just remove their copyright. If the government were to nullify it, they'd have an excellent case for conflict of interest. In this scenario, if the casee against the government were to actually never make it to the courts it's served it purpose.
As much as it is enjoyable to make fun of SCO and it's lawyers. You must not underestimate them, they are extremely intelligent in being able to manipulate for their benefit.
Umm... let me get this straight. You are saying that if someone comes into my computer I shouldn't be allowed to what I want with that information? This is the PUBLIC internet we are talking about.
Are you familiar with Oracle? It runs basically one system, if you have one user or thousands of users it's the same product. California recieved every single piece of software they purchased. They installed it on the server and just because they only had 25% of the max capacity users signed in does not mean they didn't receive it.
75% of the people don't live in an area legal to go >100mph, again did they not receive the product because they can't legally go that fast?
There is a significant difference between selling you something you don't need but shipping the product to you and selling you something and never getting the end product.
Oracle was acting like a cars salesman (want that clearcoat protector), end of the day you still got the car. They are accusing HP of failure to physically deliver something which was paid for (i.e. never getting the car from the salesman).
Well then, click the link for changelog and search for XFS and see if they matter.
(A quick check shows that they don't appear to be "bad stuff" type of fixes)
Nope. The RIAA, etc are going after the people who share the file. If they can download it from your computer they are going after you.
What this only protects you from is if they go through your stuff and you have their music burned onto a CD. You don't get clipped for having it (but at this time nobody's getting clipped for just having it). So from a "protect your ass" standpoint it doesn't really benefit you at all.
But how much are they getting for royalty per phone; It can't be very much. $.50-$1/phone would probably be pushing the cost limits (especially lately with M$ & Linux putting out competing embeded OS). Put out a few cell phones and it can come up to a bit of money; but still development costs for Java and sustaining it is more then they are making back from it. If it was the other way around, Sun would be intentionally separating java income from their other income and shoving it in everybody's face.
I might be wrong, but I just don't see them making any gross profit directly from selling Java royalties.
I gotta think that Java operates at a loss for them, they've basically been using Java as loss-leader to buy their other sutff lately. With all their corporate wide financial difficulties spinning Java off, letting other people do their development for them makes a lot of $ sense. They've gotten enough brand naming out of Java, so it will always be linked with Sun, so they aren't losing much branding. Why spend lots of money & resources on a free product when you are strapped to the gills with financial problems.
I think we are talking about 2 different but similar issues. I'm talking about open sourcing the DRM from an API perspective. An open common API method that won't require a M$ to use. It can be include with distro's at no cost, content providers can use this at no cost. The secret comes in the player (which is what you were talking about and I wasn't) which would be distributed in binary form. There is a limitation in that you'd have to have the "traffic cop" somewhere in who would get trusted keys. But I believe if I were to create a closed-source application that could be ran on Linux and didn't require an M$ licensing content providers would be willing to provide a key. The paying for licensing a M$ key is the scary part to me and becomes the "de-facto" one, a free open DRM API that can be incorporated into anybody's closed source product is what I'm looking for.
So you think the *massive* linux install base compared to Windows is going to stop the selling of DRM? If Windows didn't have the install base, you'd have a chance or wasn't doing DRM. Since M$ is doing it, do you think content providers are concerned that the 1% of households who have computers who don't have a M$ system of anykind won't use their product compared to releasing their content without any DRM at all?
As to your first statement: I've said it before and I'll say it again... I'm a frequent grammar/speller nazi offender, you might want to get use to it.