He was talking about the headline, not the content. The headline says they were declared 'not human'. The truth is, they were declared 'not dolls'.
No offense, but in my world, and I think in the world of most others, a headline containin "X-Men" really can't decribe anything we deem as "sensational", no matter what the other words are. See, I'd say it's "humor" for the most people, and "sensationalism" in the Marvel-World.
Because it doesn't scale IMO. There are a lot of people replying to 10-20 posts daily on mailing lists, and a high percentage of the people who they reply to don't have them on their "whitelist". This is annoying, and especially bad since it puts extra burden on those doing free work for others - i.e. the more you answer, the more you have to deal with this mechanism, the more "newb" you are, the higher is the chance that you don't have whitelisted the regulars. Imagine sending 20 mails, wait, and the wade through the email list traffic to find this autoresponses and reply again. Yes I know there are MUAs with filters, but this is more work again.
And since there is still a lot of people reading their mail offline, it may cause a one day delay for the mail to finally get through.
In short, if it helps me, I'd put up with this annoyance and reply, if I'm helping someone else and he uses this mechanism, well, he should ask someone else.
Clearly many others have the same view. Hell, look at any list, all those rtfm and "this is a faq" answers. And these reactions are just caused by people getting annoyed at the extra work _reading_ mails which are superfluous in their opinion.
If I just get a reply with instructions to reply to the reply I don't see why this would be annoying.
1. alice posts to mailing list with a question 2. bob sends a helpful reply to alice 3. alice never reads this mail, instead her mailserver answers, telling bob to resend the same mail with a leading "a34dfdb" in the subject, because the mailserver doesn't know if bob's mail is "legit" 4. bob has to resend the same mail
See? Bob has to send the same mail *twice*, he has to take part on the work to make alice's mail spam-free. Can you imagine the burden for helpful people on a mailinglist if everybody did that?
More likely we'd actually build the entire functional fuel cell as a single encapsulated unit, complete with fuel *and* nasty chemistry for the catalyst; ship them across country both ways in a hideously polluting diesel 18-wheeler; and we'd make them out of a plastic that for reasons no one understands, we can't reuse, so they go to the landfill and we waste even *more* petroleum making more plastic.
You forgot to mention that the fuel cells (or cartridges - this name shows where I am heading) from different manufacturers of i.e. notebooks, will not be compatible. Notebook producers will build small chips into these cartridges, which are protected by patents, locking out potential third party cartridge manufacturers. The prices of notebooks will dramatically go down, while the cartridges will get suspiciously expensive...
The best anti-spam method I've seen, bar none, is a friend of mine's opt-in method. His filters indicate the email addresses of people whose mail he's willing to accept, and dumps the rest in his spam folder.
I hope your friend isn't on a mailing list and ever wants help. If people reply directly to him, they may directly land in his spam folder. Ok, I'm exaggeriting, this can be solved with filters also.
A very annoying method people use is filters which auto-reply if your email is not in a positive list, giving you instructions how you should resend your mail.
You sometimes get these messages when replying to list-messages and cc'ing the original sender. Since I'm not on this world to accomodate these people's mail-filters, I just killfile them.
I think they'll find this gag runs out of steam as soon as P2P clients start using checksum techniques.
I think some do. But I thought about it, while the anti-measures you mention might really help, probably this RIAA guys have no chance to poison P2P networks for some reasons:
1. there's a very fast paced evolution going on: The chance of "poisoned" files to propagate is doubtlessly smaller than the chance of non-poisoned files. Since this propagating is roughly exponential, the gap in "population" numbers between the clean version of a, say, mp3 and a "poisoned" version will grow fast. The poisoned version is always in danger of dying out and has to be artifically kept alive, i.e. constantly refed.
2. Sheer size of p2p space. AFAIK, this kazaa thingy has around millions of users offering also millions of gb of files. It's impossible to get a big enough percentage of "poision" feeders, in order to really affect the network. As long as approx. 80% of all files are clean, nobody will even think about stopping p2p usage.
Anybody who has the slightest doubt, go to google and enter "free porn". You'll get 3,120,000 hits, from which probably 3,199,999 are scam - I assume, didn't check it;) - but nonetheless there seem to be enough people trying to get "free porn" so that making such sites seems to bring in money.
But the RIAA/IFPI will never reach a poisoning rate of 80%, as that would mean feeding an enormous amount of poision into the network, and they'd have to do that permanently, and with a relativly high bandwidth, because, as I said in the first point, their poison has to fight evolutionary disadvantages.
The fact of the matter is that real, professional businesspeople don't have a violent (and childish) aversion to lawyers.
Yep. Do you know why?
Because they have their own lawyers, which will then deal with the lawyers of the other side. No problem here.
Oh, wait, something comes to my mind This guy isn't a "professional businessman" in the context of his website/database, he doesn't get any fscking money for the work he did on this list. His website won't pay any lawyer.
Get it? When they resorted to lawyers, it was clear that they at least potentially dragged him into a mud he never liked to be in, and never deserved to be in. OTOH they would have lost _nothing_ had they tried to resolve the manner in a less professional bussinesspeopleish way, by just uhm, calling him, perhaps?
Do I think they deserve be rot in hell for that action? Clearly not Do I think he could perhaps have reacted slightly calmer? Hell, yes!
But to look at this only from the business angle is very distorted, IMO.
You know what, I wish some guys from the python community would work on get rid of the GIL (global interpreter lock). I develop in zope myself and am a _huge_ fan, but I see clouds on the horizon.
I fear that products like zope will suffer in the long run, because python server apps just don't scale as well as java apps. Hacks like binding the server process to one cpu and instead spawn multiple processes (each bound to their own cpu) are not the be all and end all of server programming, thei are - well - hacks. And without that binding, the interpreter process will bounce around between cpus and thrash the cache.
Yes, it's not much of a real concern today, and won't be for the majority of users for a long time, but saying the GIL doesn't matter at all is self-delusion - and that assessement is heard everytime someone asks about the GIL.
Lets say I'm just your typical Information Wants to Be Free zealot, and I don't patent it but I then release it to a news group. Then, a big corporation takes the concept (not the source or anything) and files their own patents slightly different to show their innovation that's piggy backed [...]
Patent bad.
You forgot to mention that "big corporation" could do exactly the same even if you had patented Flubberlitzen beforehand. This is a known strategy in patent land, called "surrounding patents", see for instance this article (found on a random google search):
Conversely, patenting can also serve as your sword. If you are competing against a rival technology, you might review your competitor's patents for ways to improve the basic technology. If this can be done, then you might be able to file supplementary patents surrounding your competitor's basic invention. Such surrounding patents would require the competitor to come to you for a license to practice improvements to his or her own invention. Your tactical advantage can then be traded for a reciprocal right to practice the competitor's invention, thus providing you access to a market that you might otherwise not be able to serve.
Not that I'm against the idea of patents, but I don't think patents do serve very well in protecting the small guy - at least not in their current state - and yes, I know "small guys" owning a patent, and they openly admit that they mostly are good for marketing reasons, not for collecting royalties.
hmm.. I think there are simila rules for patents, about alowing a product that you know violates you patent to gain a high market share and then taking them down with you patent.
Three words and an url
unisys gif patent
http://www.google.com
Combine in a sensible way, and you see you might be wrong.
Yes, I painted them very idealistic, you're right. But I still concede that the argument "if it doesn't make a company money, it won't be invented" is complete bullshit. Btw., universities (much to my anger) also try to cash in on patents or 3rd party funded research which leads to patents for companies, and there's more than one case of researchers trying to make money outside universities, with knowledge they wouldn't have acquired without being employed in universities in the first place.
Him: "What about them? It's easy for people to recreate technologies once the expensive research has been done, Vorbis is based on similar ideas to MP3 for instance. Creating them in the first place takes money though, who's going to do that if all the codecs have to be free of charge?"
At that point I usually shut up, because I don't have a good answer.
I'll help you. The answer is science. This old fashioned thing they do on universities. There are these people called scientists, who gave and many still give a flying shit about "patent license fees". Without them, all these "lots of smart people" working on compression schemes would still live in a cage and go in the woods to berry for their daily food.
The idea that mp3 was so original that ogg wouldn't exist without it is blatantly wrong. At best, it showed that there is a market for that which motivated the creator, but nothing more. All the foundations were well known long before mp3 emerged.
You haven't read much of the article, have you? You should do it, it helps in these discussion, although it is not required, this is/. afterall.
I'll help you, right there, the second paragraph, on the top, we read:
In a first-ever move for Microsoft, it set pricing this week for licensing of its audio and video compression technology, or codecs, for use on non-Windows operating systems. The company says it will charge 10 cents per decoder, 20 cents per encoder, and 25 cents for both.
I think it's more likely that cybercafes of the future mostly have many WLAN access points. Or that nearly any public place has WLAN, and cybercafes will cease to exist. No Palladium needed, encrypted communcation is enough.
Fast forward to 2010 when CDs are about as common as 8-track tapes.
Rewind to 2006, in an effort to give consumers an incencitive to buy the new DRM Hifis, CDs are getting rarer everyday, but not many consumers do have a DRMed DVD-audio player. Suddenly someone figures that it's possible to capture the analog sound, reconvert it to digital data and that this makes it possible to again use the old non-DRM equipment. This recoded files pop up all over the 'net because people don't want to throw away their portable mp3 players, HiFis, car cd players and whatnot.
They could always arrive at a compromise which allowed them to run their servers on linux, but which denied you the ability to playback mp3s and divx's.
Hmm, if they got that through, this would be a really impressing political hack. What if I want to record my own compositions to an mp3? I'm with you that this is the wet dream of RIAA/MPAA dudes, but I think the possibility of that dream come true is the same as with some of my dreams concerning Mrs. Jennifer Lopez and her three twin sisters.
One easy first step would be to legally mandate that sound cards would only work with palladium-enabled operating systems.
It's simple to build a quite advance soundcard with a DAC, so there we are back to your second point (semiconductor industry). Or write an audio-CDROM which plays in any player - no soundcard involved. As soon as they try to get the consumers to buy DRM-enabled HiFi-equipment their it's-all-for-the-security bubble will burst (look how trivial it is to disable macrovision on nearly all el-cheapo DVD-players).
All in all, DRM is a step in the right direction for "them", but I think they will never really reach their goal, just make some things more inconvinient. It's quite scary that they still try.
Palladium will go through. Trusted Computing will happen. It doesn't matter whether its used for DRM or not. It will happen because it provides an increased level of security and accountability for business computing.
For example, biometric authentication is basically worthless at the moment. It's all too easy to spoof, vulnerable to replay attacks, vulnerable to hardware modifications, etc. If you set up a trusted system that only accepts known hardware and software, biometrics gets a lot closer to being a reality.
Note: The following is not meant anti-USA, just a statement of facts!
I hope you live in the US of A. Because everyone else in the world will gain a shit by a trusted computed which will only run software which is signed by a key which the american three letter agencies surely have.
If echelon has told the non-US of A states anything, it is that industrial espionage happens even between so-called allies. Since a lot of the IT-infrastructure is from US companies, the effect is that this all gives just a false impression of security, in effect weakening the systems if there has been put any trust in this palladium thingy.
Oh, and if terrorists can acquire weapons of mass destruction, they also might be able to get the their software signed. It's just a matter of financial resources and ruthlessness.
This point I forgot Well certainly it could still be using some sort of encryption regardless of what port it using.
Since this device also works with proxies (as per their FAQ), the only thing I could imagine is signing the list of music providers, since they have to use valid http. If they really do that, you have two options: Cracking that, or just redirecting the requests which go to the services they offer to other services. I doubt that mp3.com and others all deliver encrypted streams just for this device, the computing power needed for that would be quite a hurdle.
I bet there's no encryption/cryptography anywhere, because if philips is clever they know that at least 95% of their customers won't go through that hassle, and that any security system is quite sure to be cracked anyway.
The point I wanted to make was for streaming mp3 station from the internet which are not listed in philips' "premium" thingy. "Just" watch the reply from their server and add your own stations - this certainly works only if their reply is unencrypted.
Certainly you could also use this hack to also add your own intranet streaming servers.
Seeing philips fscking around with this premiums services thingy, and taking a quick look at their faq, I found:
Q: What if I have a firewall?
A: For streaming content from the Internet; the standard HTTP port 80 is used, so make sure that this port is open for outgoing traffic (there should be no problem if you can access the web from your PC). Although for business networks you may need you LAN administrator to help you with settings.
Shouldn't it be relativly easy set up a fake server/transparent proxy and/or doing a kind of man-in-the-middle attack to make your own "premium" service? I mean, it doesn't sound like it's encrypted on the transport layer?
You are very right, but if I'd do storage solutions, I could see a certain advantage of an os supporting 30 different filesystems out of the box, including some very proofen ones, and a shitload of ways serving files, compared to anything MS has to offer.
Therefore I'd say that indeed linux is better for quantum's applications.
Cookies are a valid method of transferring state from one page to the next, although admittedly server-side session tracking is usually a better alternative.
Uhm, and how does the server know which session he stores belongs to which request?
Yes, right, either cookies hold this information, or the URI, via mangling the displayed links. If you use session cookies, the two are equivalent privacy wise, it's just that cookies are is far more robust than link rewriting, because the latter can break in a plenty of ways.
Slashdot Mirror
He was talking about the headline, not the content. The headline says they were declared 'not human'. The truth is, they were declared 'not dolls'.
No offense, but in my world, and I think in the world of most others, a headline containin "X-Men" really can't decribe anything we deem as "sensational", no matter what the other words are. See, I'd say it's "humor" for the most people, and "sensationalism" in the Marvel-World.
Because it doesn't scale IMO. There are a lot of people replying to 10-20 posts daily on mailing lists, and a high percentage of the people who they reply to don't have them on their "whitelist". This is annoying, and especially bad since it puts extra burden on those doing free work for others - i.e. the more you answer, the more you have to deal with this mechanism, the more "newb" you are, the higher is the chance that you don't have whitelisted the regulars. Imagine sending 20 mails, wait, and the wade through the email list traffic to find this autoresponses and reply again. Yes I know there are MUAs with filters, but this is more work again.
And since there is still a lot of people reading their mail offline, it may cause a one day delay for the mail to finally get through.
In short, if it helps me, I'd put up with this annoyance and reply, if I'm helping someone else and he uses this mechanism, well, he should ask someone else.
Clearly many others have the same view. Hell, look at any list, all those rtfm and "this is a faq" answers. And these reactions are just caused by people getting annoyed at the extra work _reading_ mails which are superfluous in their opinion.
If I just get a reply with instructions to reply to the reply I don't see why this would be annoying.
1. alice posts to mailing list with a question
2. bob sends a helpful reply to alice
3. alice never reads this mail, instead her mailserver answers, telling bob to resend the same mail with a leading "a34dfdb" in the subject, because the mailserver doesn't know if bob's mail is "legit"
4. bob has to resend the same mail
See? Bob has to send the same mail *twice*, he has to take part on the work to make alice's mail spam-free.
Can you imagine the burden for helpful people on a mailinglist if everybody did that?
More likely we'd actually build the entire functional fuel cell as a single encapsulated unit, complete with fuel *and* nasty chemistry for the catalyst; ship them across country both ways in a hideously polluting diesel 18-wheeler; and we'd make them out of a plastic that for reasons no one understands, we can't reuse, so they go to the landfill and we waste even *more* petroleum making more plastic.
You forgot to mention that the fuel cells (or cartridges - this name shows where I am heading) from different manufacturers of i.e. notebooks, will not be compatible. Notebook producers will build small chips into these cartridges, which are protected by patents, locking out potential third party cartridge manufacturers. The prices of notebooks will dramatically go down, while the cartridges will get suspiciously expensive
The best anti-spam method I've seen, bar none, is a friend of mine's opt-in method. His filters indicate the email addresses of people whose mail he's willing to accept, and dumps the rest in his spam folder.
I hope your friend isn't on a mailing list and ever wants help. If people reply directly to him, they may directly land in his spam folder. Ok, I'm exaggeriting, this can be solved with filters also.
A very annoying method people use is filters which auto-reply if your email is not in a positive list, giving you instructions how you should resend your mail.
You sometimes get these messages when replying to list-messages and cc'ing the original sender. Since I'm not on this world to accomodate these people's mail-filters, I just killfile them.
I think they'll find this gag runs out of steam as soon as P2P clients start using checksum techniques.
;) - but nonetheless there seem to be enough people trying to get "free porn" so that making such sites seems to bring in money.
;).
I think some do. But I thought about it, while the anti-measures you mention might really help, probably this RIAA guys have no chance to poison P2P networks for some reasons:
1. there's a very fast paced evolution going on: The chance of "poisoned" files to propagate is doubtlessly smaller than the chance of non-poisoned files. Since this propagating is roughly exponential, the gap in "population" numbers between the clean version of a, say, mp3 and a "poisoned" version will grow fast. The poisoned version is always in danger of dying out and has to be artifically kept alive, i.e. constantly refed.
2. Sheer size of p2p space. AFAIK, this kazaa thingy has around millions of users offering also millions of gb of files. It's impossible to get a big enough percentage of "poision" feeders, in order to really affect the network. As long as approx. 80% of all files are clean, nobody will even think about stopping p2p usage.
Anybody who has the slightest doubt, go to google and enter "free porn". You'll get 3,120,000 hits, from which probably 3,199,999 are scam - I assume, didn't check it
But the RIAA/IFPI will never reach a poisoning rate of 80%, as that would mean feeding an enormous amount of poision into the network, and they'd have to do that permanently, and with a relativly high bandwidth, because, as I said in the first point, their poison has to fight evolutionary disadvantages.
Maybe they also need a Office of Arithmetics
The fact of the matter is that real, professional businesspeople don't have a violent (and childish) aversion to lawyers.
Yep. Do you know why?
Because they have their own lawyers, which will then deal with the lawyers of the other side.
No problem here.
Oh, wait, something comes to my mind
This guy isn't a "professional businessman" in the context of his website/database, he doesn't get any fscking money for the work he did on this list. His website won't pay any lawyer.
Get it? When they resorted to lawyers, it was clear that they at least potentially dragged him into a mud he never liked to be in, and never deserved to be in. OTOH they would have lost _nothing_ had they tried to resolve the manner in a less professional bussinesspeopleish way, by just uhm, calling him, perhaps?
Do I think they deserve be rot in hell for that action? Clearly not
Do I think he could perhaps have reacted slightly calmer? Hell, yes!
But to look at this only from the business angle is very distorted, IMO.
You know what, I wish some guys from the python community would work on get rid of the GIL (global interpreter lock). I develop in zope myself and am a _huge_ fan, but I see clouds on the horizon.
I fear that products like zope will suffer in the long run, because python server apps just don't scale as well as java apps. Hacks like binding the server process to one cpu and instead spawn multiple processes (each bound to their own cpu) are not the be all and end all of server programming, thei are - well - hacks. And without that binding, the interpreter process will bounce around between cpus and thrash the cache.
Yes, it's not much of a real concern today, and won't be for the majority of users for a long time, but saying the GIL doesn't matter at all is self-delusion - and that assessement is heard everytime someone asks about the GIL.
Lets say I'm just your typical Information Wants to Be Free zealot, and I don't patent it but I then release it to a news group. Then, a big corporation takes the concept (not the source or anything) and files their own patents slightly different to show their innovation that's piggy backed [...]
Patent bad.
You forgot to mention that "big corporation" could do exactly the same even if you had patented Flubberlitzen beforehand. This is a known strategy in patent land, called "surrounding patents", see for instance this article (found on a random google search):
Conversely, patenting can also serve as your sword. If you are competing against a rival technology, you might review your competitor's patents for ways to improve the basic technology. If this can be done, then you might be able to file supplementary patents surrounding your competitor's basic invention. Such surrounding patents would require the competitor to come to you for a license to practice improvements to his or her own invention. Your tactical advantage can then be traded for a reciprocal right to practice the competitor's invention, thus providing you access to a market that you might otherwise not be able to serve.
Not that I'm against the idea of patents, but I don't think patents do serve very well in protecting the small guy - at least not in their current state - and yes, I know "small guys" owning a patent, and they openly admit that they mostly are good for marketing reasons, not for collecting royalties.
I can't remember the last time I saw a gif, except maybe in a PDF document.
LOL, then you must have images turned off while browsing slashdot.
Hint, begin at the top at look at all images you encounter.
hmm.. I think there are simila rules for patents, about alowing a product that you know violates you patent to gain a high market share and then taking them down with you patent.
Three words and an url
unisys gif patent
http://www.google.com
Combine in a sensible way, and you see you might be wrong.
Yes, I painted them very idealistic, you're right.
But I still concede that the argument "if it doesn't make a company money, it won't be invented" is complete bullshit. Btw., universities (much to my anger) also try to cash in on patents or 3rd party funded research which leads to patents for companies, and there's more than one case of researchers trying to make money outside universities, with knowledge they wouldn't have acquired without being employed in universities in the first place.
Him: "What about them? It's easy for people to recreate technologies once the expensive research has been done, Vorbis is based on similar ideas to MP3 for instance. Creating them in the first place takes money though, who's going to do that if all the codecs have to be free of charge?"
At that point I usually shut up, because I don't have a good answer.
I'll help you. The answer is science. This old fashioned thing they do on universities. There are these people called scientists, who gave and many still give a flying shit about "patent license fees". Without them, all these "lots of smart people" working on compression schemes would still live in a cage and go in the woods to berry for their daily food.
The idea that mp3 was so original that ogg wouldn't exist without it is blatantly wrong. At best, it showed that there is a market for that which motivated the creator, but nothing more.
All the foundations were well known long before mp3 emerged.
You haven't read much of the article, have you? /. afterall.
You should do it, it helps in these discussion, although it is not required, this is
I'll help you, right there, the second paragraph, on the top, we read:
In a first-ever move for Microsoft, it set pricing this week for licensing of its audio and video compression technology, or codecs, for use on non-Windows operating systems. The company says it will charge 10 cents per decoder, 20 cents per encoder, and 25 cents for both.
I think it's more likely that cybercafes of the future mostly have many WLAN access points.
Or that nearly any public place has WLAN, and cybercafes will cease to exist. No Palladium needed, encrypted communcation is enough.
Fast forward to 2010 when CDs are about as common as 8-track tapes.
Rewind to 2006, in an effort to give consumers an incencitive to buy the new DRM Hifis, CDs are getting rarer everyday, but not many consumers do have a DRMed DVD-audio player.
Suddenly someone figures that it's possible to capture the analog sound, reconvert it to digital data and that this makes it possible to again use the old non-DRM equipment. This recoded files pop up all over the 'net because people don't want to throw away their portable mp3 players, HiFis, car cd players and whatnot.
The rest is history (in 2010).
They could always arrive at a compromise which allowed them to run their servers on linux, but which denied you the ability to playback mp3s and divx's.
Hmm, if they got that through, this would be a really impressing political hack. What if I want to record my own compositions to an mp3?
I'm with you that this is the wet dream of RIAA/MPAA dudes, but I think the possibility of that dream come true is the same as with some of my dreams concerning Mrs. Jennifer Lopez and her three twin sisters.
One easy first step would be to legally mandate that sound cards would only work with palladium-enabled operating systems.
It's simple to build a quite advance soundcard with a DAC, so there we are back to your second point (semiconductor industry). Or write an audio-CDROM which plays in any player - no soundcard involved. As soon as they try to get the consumers to buy DRM-enabled HiFi-equipment their it's-all-for-the-security bubble will burst (look how trivial it is to disable macrovision on nearly all el-cheapo DVD-players).
All in all, DRM is a step in the right direction for "them", but I think they will never really reach their goal, just make some things more inconvinient. It's quite scary that they still try.
Palladium will go through. Trusted Computing will happen. It doesn't matter whether its used for DRM or not. It will happen because it provides an increased level of security and accountability for business computing.
For example, biometric authentication is basically worthless at the moment. It's all too easy to spoof, vulnerable to replay attacks, vulnerable to hardware modifications, etc. If you set up a trusted system that only accepts known hardware and software, biometrics gets a lot closer to being a reality.
Note: The following is not meant anti-USA, just a statement of facts!
I hope you live in the US of A. Because everyone else in the world will gain a shit by a trusted computed which will only run software which is signed by a key which the american three letter agencies surely have.
If echelon has told the non-US of A states anything, it is that industrial espionage happens even between so-called allies. Since a lot of the IT-infrastructure is from US companies, the effect is that this all gives just a false impression of security, in effect weakening the systems if there has been put any trust in this palladium thingy.
Oh, and if terrorists can acquire weapons of mass destruction, they also might be able to get the their software signed. It's just a matter of financial resources and ruthlessness.
This point I forgot
Well certainly it could still be using some sort of encryption regardless of what port it using.
Since this device also works with proxies (as per their FAQ), the only thing I could imagine is signing the list of music providers, since they have to use valid http. If they really do that, you have two options: Cracking that, or just redirecting the requests which go to the services they offer to other services. I doubt that mp3.com and others all deliver encrypted streams just for this device, the computing power needed for that would be quite a hurdle.
I bet there's no encryption/cryptography anywhere, because if philips is clever they know that at least 95% of their customers won't go through that hassle, and that any security system is quite sure to be cracked anyway.
The point I wanted to make was for streaming mp3 station from the internet which are not listed in philips' "premium" thingy. "Just" watch the reply from their server and add your own stations - this certainly works only if their reply is unencrypted.
Certainly you could also use this hack to also add your own intranet streaming servers.
Shouldn't it be relativly easy set up a fake server/transparent proxy and/or doing a kind of man-in-the-middle attack to make your own "premium" service? I mean, it doesn't sound like it's encrypted on the transport layer?
Funny how easy this works without "assistants" popping out of the areola, heh?
Seriously, if there wouldn't be some intuition to it, a child would never be able to learn this stuff, so you both are right, I think.
Does anybody know what happened to the browser stats on google?
[wild conspiracy theory]
Did MS pay them to leave this stats out because they could unveil some increase in mozilla usage?
[/wild conspiracy theory]
You are very right, but if I'd do storage solutions, I could see a certain advantage of an os supporting 30 different filesystems out of the box, including some very proofen ones, and a shitload of ways serving files, compared to anything MS has to offer.
Therefore I'd say that indeed linux is better for quantum's applications.
Cookies are a valid method of transferring state from one page to the next, although admittedly server-side session tracking is usually a better alternative.
Uhm, and how does the server know which session he stores belongs to which request?
Yes, right, either cookies hold this information, or the URI, via mangling the displayed links.
If you use session cookies, the two are equivalent privacy wise, it's just that cookies are is far more robust than link rewriting, because the latter can break in a plenty of ways.