You can buy 19" rack equipment that was designed for musicians... Something like this might work, if you cooled it properly. 6U of space will hold 6 1U servers. And they're made to be shipped around, so when you move you won't have to do too much to pack them up.
According to Symantec spokesman Yunsun Wee, Symantec issued an alert about Slammer to DeepSight Threat Management System subscribers "at approximately 9 p.m. PST on Friday, Jan. 24."
Most of the rest of the Internet didn't spot Slammer until shortly after midnight EST on Saturday, Jan. 25th.
So explain to me again how they knew about it before anyone else?
-kaos
I worked at MSFT just as Win2k was coming out. The phrase 'eat our own dogfood' was (is?) definately in use there.
I worked at bCentral (formerly LinkExchange)... I was proud of the fact that of the 3 systems I had on my desk, one was FreeBSD, one was RedHat, and one (the incredibly cheap Gateway laptop that they supplied) ran Windows98 on corpnet so that I could read e-mail and file expense reports. I was told several times that I would have to 'upgrade' at least one of my systems to Windows 2000 because we were supposed to 'eat our own dogfood'... I managed to avoid that, though, and quit shortly afterward.
Thanks. I checked out livegate, looks like a nice solution. Now, if I can just find a well connected site with an MBone connection that wouldn't mind me tunneling through them... heh.
I am curious about one point: you say that DSL providers have no incentive to enable Multicast on their routing infrastructure. Even if there is no benefit to them on the customer side, surely they'd see a benefit on their inbound side if enough users were using a given service (i.e. it's cheaper to pull in one stream of Linus's keynote than 400)? Or am I missing something?
Perhaps before trolling yourself you might do the same search. I have been looking for this information online; unfortunately, not many people use or even know about Multicast so most Internet providers don't advertise it and most of the "technical support" people don't know what it is. When I called up DSL.net to ask if they supported Multicast, they thought I was asking for more IP addresses(!). It took over 4 hours to find out that they don't support it or plan to support it in the near future.
We're not opposed to copy protection; we're opposed to big business trying to remove our rights through copy protection.
When you buy a CD you are buying the right to listen to the music on the CD. The law gives you the right to copy the music for your own use, i.e. it's legal to make a copy to keep in the car and a copy to keep at work. You can also rip the data off of the CD and make an MP3 from it, then write the data out and listen to it somewhere else. These are your rights as provided for by the 'fair use' provisions of the copyright act.
The RIAA (and the MPAA when it comes to movies) doesn't particularly like that. They'd rather have you buy a copy for home and another copy for work and another copy for the car. In fact, if they could tie a CD to a given player and make you buy a seperate copy for each one you own, they probably would. But they can't. Copyright law protects the consumer as well as the producer. So the only answer is to make it technically difficult to make a copy.
Seems awfully convenient, doesn't it? Coupled with the DMCA, it becomes illegal (since you've got to circumvent copy protection) to make a legal, fair-use copy of something you've got the rights to. But then, I'm just a greedy music pirate that cares nothing for the poor starving record companies.
-kaosmunkee
"Keep your rights out of the way of my profits!" -- R. Iaa, Record Company Executive
"The Reimerdes case dealt with somebody who didn't have a right to the DVD but was
cracking through it to get the code, whereas the Connectix case dealt with a situation
where a company was legally entitled to be using the code and reverse-engineering it
for purposes of interoperability."
Keith Kupferschmid, intellectual property counsel at the Software and Information
Industry Association
I may be missing something here, but I don't see the distinction. PlayStation is a proprietary platform. PlayStation games were built to run on that platform. bleem! was written to allow people who had purchased a license to a PlayStation game to play it on some platform other than PlayStation.
DVD players are a proprietary platform (because of the "decryption" code they contain). DVD's are built (encoded) to be played on that platform. DeCSS was written to allow people who had purchased a license to a DVD movie to play it on some platform other than a commercial DVD player.
A lot of posters don't seem to understand that the reason people are upset by this is not because they are using Deja and don't want to see the links, but because they do NOT use Deja and their messages which originate externally are being changed when viewed by Deja users in a way that could very easily suggest an endorsement on the part of the poster.
A few other people have made comments along the lines of 'if a user is too (stupid, lame, pathetic, etc..) to understand that the link is added they deserve what they get.' The problem with this line of thinking is two-fold. Deja does not appear to explain anywhere on the article page that links marked with an orange triangle are added by Deja, so why would someone make that connection? Second, it's not the Deja user that is harmed by this, it's the Usenet users at large. Why do they 'deserve' to have their posts changed?
Deja defends their action by stating that
Deja.com also currently observes the "x-no-archive: yes" header, which prevents postings from being available on Deja.com.
and
Deja.com has a form for users that allows you to remove (nuke) articles that you authored from a verifiable account.
Why should I have to pro-actively protect my postings? I've never had to before? Does the 'x-no-archive: yes' header prevent my message from being archived at sites other than Deja? If so, that's not really a solution. Also, most people that post to Usenet don't know that Deja is doing this, so they won't have any idea that to protect their posts they have to add headers to their messages.
It seems to me that Deja should have addressed some of these issues before going live with this. Maybe they'll re-consider now that the issues have been brought up.
Interestingly enough, there's an article on ABCNews.com here that talks about just that. It seems that even at 7 passes there's enough data left to get a good picture of what was there. The government aparently thinks that 7 times is enough to make it difficult but not impossible for matters of national security (i.e. when some random nuclear greasemonkey decides to copy the plans for the latest blow-up-the-solar-system goodies to his home PC and has second thoughts afterwards, Big Brother(tm) can still find out about it.)
Just my 0x2a yen.
Re:I wrote that code - I'll tell you what it does
on
Mattel Spyware
·
· Score: 1
Quoting Mr. Coward:
(of course, we still aren't exactly sure what NSA Key is really used for)
This is just silly. If you want to know what the RSA key is used for, read the following, which I quote from the original post:
The PGP signing is to make sure nobody can hijack the URL and send bogus images. There is no encryption. Try this: take the XML page, remove the signature (between SIG and/SIG) , run the rest of the page through PGP with the key that a previous poster pulled out of dssagent.exe, and they *should* match. Nothing really secret here.
The whole point of the RSA key is to protect you from some cracker deciding that it'd be funny to show a porno splashscreen on your kids copy of Math Workshop. Every block of image data that is transfered is signed by the company so that the client knows it's legitimate.
Here's a thought: If you want to see what gets transfered back and forth, do the following:
Edit the INI file to set the interval to something like 60 seconds
You now get to see what's transferred to and from Mattel. Pretty simple to prove or disprove that your private data is not being sent off to some evil database for questionable purposes.
Off the immediate topic, I'd like to mention that a large number of posters here seem to read a headline and post a response to the article before reading the article or at the very least before reading the whole article. I also think that a lot of people forget that humans tend to believe a lot of what they read without external verification -- a trend that needs to change in this "age" of information overload.
Your mileage may vary -- don't forget to change your oil every 3000 clicks.
Slashdot Mirror
Er, you do realize that ClearChannel owns XM already, right?
You can buy 19" rack equipment that was designed for musicians... Something like this might work, if you cooled it properly. 6U of space will hold 6 1U servers. And they're made to be shipped around, so when you move you won't have to do too much to pack them up.
So explain to me again how they knew about it before anyone else? -kaos
I worked at MSFT just as Win2k was coming out. The phrase 'eat our own dogfood' was (is?) definately in use there.
I worked at bCentral (formerly LinkExchange)... I was proud of the fact that of the 3 systems I had on my desk, one was FreeBSD, one was RedHat, and one (the incredibly cheap Gateway laptop that they supplied) ran Windows98 on corpnet so that I could read e-mail and file expense reports. I was told several times that I would have to 'upgrade' at least one of my systems to Windows 2000 because we were supposed to 'eat our own dogfood'... I managed to avoid that, though, and quit shortly afterward.
-Kaos
Thanks. I checked out livegate, looks like a nice solution. Now, if I can just find a well connected site with an MBone connection that wouldn't mind me tunneling through them... heh.
I am curious about one point: you say that DSL providers have no incentive to enable Multicast on their routing infrastructure. Even if there is no benefit to them on the customer side, surely they'd see a benefit on their inbound side if enough users were using a given service (i.e. it's cheaper to pull in one stream of Linus's keynote than 400)? Or am I missing something?
Thanks again for your response.
-kaosmunkee
Hmm.
Perhaps before trolling yourself you might do the same search. I have been looking for this information online; unfortunately, not many people use or even know about Multicast so most Internet providers don't advertise it and most of the "technical support" people don't know what it is. When I called up DSL.net to ask if they supported Multicast, they thought I was asking for more IP addresses(!). It took over 4 hours to find out that they don't support it or plan to support it in the near future.
Thanks for playing, please try again.
-kaosmunkee
We're not opposed to copy protection; we're opposed to big business trying to remove our rights through copy protection.
When you buy a CD you are buying the right to listen to the music on the CD. The law gives you the right to copy the music for your own use, i.e. it's legal to make a copy to keep in the car and a copy to keep at work. You can also rip the data off of the CD and make an MP3 from it, then write the data out and listen to it somewhere else. These are your rights as provided for by the 'fair use' provisions of the copyright act.
The RIAA (and the MPAA when it comes to movies) doesn't particularly like that. They'd rather have you buy a copy for home and another copy for work and another copy for the car. In fact, if they could tie a CD to a given player and make you buy a seperate copy for each one you own, they probably would. But they can't. Copyright law protects the consumer as well as the producer. So the only answer is to make it technically difficult to make a copy.
Seems awfully convenient, doesn't it? Coupled with the DMCA, it becomes illegal (since you've got to circumvent copy protection) to make a legal, fair-use copy of something you've got the rights to. But then, I'm just a greedy music pirate that cares nothing for the poor starving record companies.
-kaosmunkee
"Keep your rights out of the way of my profits!" -- R. Iaa, Record Company Executive
From PlanetIT article:
"The Reimerdes case dealt with somebody who didn't have a right to the DVD but was cracking through it to get the code, whereas the Connectix case dealt with a situation where a company was legally entitled to be using the code and reverse-engineering it for purposes of interoperability."
Keith Kupferschmid, intellectual property counsel at the Software and Information Industry Association
I may be missing something here, but I don't see the distinction. PlayStation is a proprietary platform. PlayStation games were built to run on that platform. bleem! was written to allow people who had purchased a license to a PlayStation game to play it on some platform other than PlayStation.
DVD players are a proprietary platform (because of the "decryption" code they contain). DVD's are built (encoded) to be played on that platform. DeCSS was written to allow people who had purchased a license to a DVD movie to play it on some platform other than a commercial DVD player.
Am I missing something here?
--Kaos
A few other people have made comments along the lines of 'if a user is too (stupid, lame, pathetic, etc..) to understand that the link is added they deserve what they get.' The problem with this line of thinking is two-fold. Deja does not appear to explain anywhere on the article page that links marked with an orange triangle are added by Deja, so why would someone make that connection? Second, it's not the Deja user that is harmed by this, it's the Usenet users at large. Why do they 'deserve' to have their posts changed?
Deja defends their action by stating that and Why should I have to pro-actively protect my postings? I've never had to before? Does the 'x-no-archive: yes' header prevent my message from being archived at sites other than Deja? If so, that's not really a solution. Also, most people that post to Usenet don't know that Deja is doing this, so they won't have any idea that to protect their posts they have to add headers to their messages.
It seems to me that Deja should have addressed some of these issues before going live with this. Maybe they'll re-consider now that the issues have been brought up.
Ok, I didn't really think so either.
-km
Interestingly enough, there's an article on ABCNews.com here that talks about just that. It seems that even at 7 passes there's enough data left to get a good picture of what was there. The government aparently thinks that 7 times is enough to make it difficult but not impossible for matters of national security (i.e. when some random nuclear greasemonkey decides to copy the plans for the latest blow-up-the-solar-system goodies to his home PC and has second thoughts afterwards, Big Brother(tm) can still find out about it.)
Just my 0x2a yen.
Here's a thought: If you want to see what gets transfered back and forth, do the following:
- Edit the INI file to set the interval to something like 60 seconds
- Fire up a packet sniffer like Ethereal
- Launch the DSSAgent
You now get to see what's transferred to and from Mattel. Pretty simple to prove or disprove that your private data is not being sent off to some evil database for questionable purposes.Off the immediate topic, I'd like to mention that a large number of posters here seem to read a headline and post a response to the article before reading the article or at the very least before reading the whole article. I also think that a lot of people forget that humans tend to believe a lot of what they read without external verification -- a trend that needs to change in this "age" of information overload.
Your mileage may vary -- don't forget to change your oil every 3000 clicks.