What are the odds that the warranty claims on these cards skyrocketed when they started getting used 24/7 in DC applications and caused this to get thrown in? They know miners won't buy cards that are inefficient for their purposes, and that money train is far too good to throw away, but wealthy corporations and universities? Pay up.
This trick is as old as it gets. BGP will accept a more specific route as superior to a more general route, and there is no authentication in the exchange. The flaw here is the upstream providers involved did not properly filter the routing announcements allowed from this attacker, and instead let them announce net blocks that were not their own, then intercept the traffic to those net blocks.
With respect to TBL, he seems to be suggesting censorship. Twitter is designed to allow users to spew whatever arises in their minds, and to retransmit the ideas of others that you believe others should see. Who decides what's "reasoned debate" when it comes down to it?
It's been shown that human nature gravitates towards sensationalism. The craziest of rumors always travel the fastest and the furthest. The free speech model of Twitter, for better or for worse, only amplifies this tendency by making so much easier for it to happen.
Give everyone a soap box, and you get a lot of noise pollution.
Relatedly, if they hate having Google do so, it's trivially easy to get off the page. Why don't they? Because for all their whining, they know that Google does drive traffic to them. "I don't have a business model, and you do," isn't a valid reason to ask for Google's money.
Google has drawn away direct traffic to these news sites into their own service. I don't believe its so much "hey, thanks for the traffic!" as "Well, a little bit is better than nothing..". Removing yourself from what has become your only option is not helpful when it just hurts you. Of course, we're both playing on opinions here since there is no evidence either way.
"Though Google is driving some traffic to newspapers, it's also taking a significant share away," Doctor said. "A full 44 percent of visitors to Google News scan headlines without accessing newspapers' individual sites."
Those two sentences have absolutely nothing to do with each other, despite Doctor's and the article's author's implication that they do. What really matters is, what portion of those 56% visitors would not have visited the news site in the absence of Google News. I'm guessing the answer is less. New result: Google is a net win for news sites.
The implication is that if the users were not skimming Google News' headlines, they would instead be skimming them on the content provider's site, and whether or not they actually found an article of interest, the provider would end up with the view and the ad dollar.
The article has shown nothing of the sort. It's entirely possible that in the absence of Google News that total news consumption would drop.
Not sure what your reasoning is on this statement. Is Google somehow forcing people to visit Google News? If not, why would people stop wanting the product if Google did not offer it? News is not a medium created by Google.
My take on Google News is this: Harmful to large organizations who have their own clout to draw viewers on brand recognition (Reuters, ABC, CBS, etc), but helpful to smaller news sites without that level of draw.
Which, if you look at who exactly is complaining, plays out as true.
And assuming you're American, would you want someone to be able to blatantly flaunt our laws and cause harm to Americans and American interests simply because they aren't on our soil? Extradition treaties exist for this very purpose.
(Please for the love of the FSM don't try to turn this into a "it's just Intellectual Property, not murder" argument).
"nor through inaction permit any human being to be harmed."
Wow, that basically excludes everyone on the planet. I'd say we're all guilty of this is one way or another. Didn't send all your money to Feed The Children? Your inaction allowed those children to be harmed.
Didn't drive to New Orleans during Katrina and pull people out of the water? Your inaction allowed people to be harmed.
Frankly, this is a lousy license. An attempt to be cutesy created an overly broad clause that excludes all use.
I don't think you understand the subject you're trying to speak to here...SSH keys are a public key system. The user generates his own key and sends the public portion to the server. The private key is never transmitted anywhere.
Remarkable. You're comparing a company that delivers to a very, very small area of the country to a multinational company that ships just about anywhere.
Most encryption can be broken, especially when it is something that has to be done quickly for time sensitive applications, like VoIP data (computation time is bad when you're talking in real time). If the government wants the information bad enough, they'll dissect it.
Even then, you might well be surprised at how many people just use Vonage to talk about committing a crime, just like they use normal phones today.
The smart ones will encrypt, of course. They may even use good encryption. But scrambled data is a lot better than data you don't have.
So, a bunch of senators were sitting around a table and said to themselves "Hey, how can we lose the tax revenue and jobs of a highly profitable industry and push it out of America to make us look better, while doing nothing to make it less prevalent? Oh yeah, let's go after porn!"
And not we have this bill.
Seriously, do these pompous old men believe that they can actually control the internet in this fashion?
Somehow, I don't see myself entering all my personal information into a website supposedly run by an organization I never heard of that has it's whois set up with a proxy service to boot. Anyone else rushing out to do this?
Have to disagree with this one. KEEPING the 30 second skip as even a hidden feature shows that TiVo wants to do right by their customers. The unfortunate problem here is survival. If the large and powerful content companies see this relatively small company eating into their revenue stream too much, they'll act. And act forcefully.
TiVo has a delicate balancing act between keeping their customers happy and appeasing companies with deep pockets and powerful lobbyists in Washington. Those who may just be convinced (with a well placed "campaign donation") that content needs to be protected in such a proprietary way that TiVo would be cut out of the loop.
At the same time, TiVo is trying to form alliances with these companies to have their software based devices offered to their customers, which requires making them happy.
So bravo TiVo! You kept a nice feature in your machines without pissing off the big guys. My hat's off to you.
Quite simple really, money. These jackasses rush a lawsuit out the door as fast as possible on a newly released product that exhibits any kind of fault. Good luck to him though. It's a gaming machine that crashed because of a defect, not a car. He can return the machine for a full refund from the store he bought it from, or RMA it to MS for replacement. The lawyer will make a lot of noise and hope for a settlement instead of MS winning in court.
Slashdot Mirror
What are the odds that the warranty claims on these cards skyrocketed when they started getting used 24/7 in DC applications and caused this to get thrown in? They know miners won't buy cards that are inefficient for their purposes, and that money train is far too good to throw away, but wealthy corporations and universities? Pay up.
..of course, it won't extend to protecting citizens who criticize the government (watch lists, nofly lists, harassment).
That law went into effect on December 15, 1791, along with 9 other good ones. You should read up on it sometime.
This trick is as old as it gets. BGP will accept a more specific route as superior to a more general route, and there is no authentication in the exchange. The flaw here is the upstream providers involved did not properly filter the routing announcements allowed from this attacker, and instead let them announce net blocks that were not their own, then intercept the traffic to those net blocks.
In other words, nothing to see here, move along.
With respect to TBL, he seems to be suggesting censorship. Twitter is designed to allow users to spew whatever arises in their minds, and to retransmit the ideas of others that you believe others should see. Who decides what's "reasoned debate" when it comes down to it?
It's been shown that human nature gravitates towards sensationalism. The craziest of rumors always travel the fastest and the furthest. The free speech model of Twitter, for better or for worse, only amplifies this tendency by making so much easier for it to happen.
Give everyone a soap box, and you get a lot of noise pollution.
Relatedly, if they hate having Google do so, it's trivially easy to get off the page. Why don't they? Because for all their whining, they know that Google does drive traffic to them. "I don't have a business model, and you do," isn't a valid reason to ask for Google's money.
Google has drawn away direct traffic to these news sites into their own service. I don't believe its so much "hey, thanks for the traffic!" as "Well, a little bit is better than nothing..". Removing yourself from what has become your only option is not helpful when it just hurts you. Of course, we're both playing on opinions here since there is no evidence either way.
Those two sentences have absolutely nothing to do with each other, despite Doctor's and the article's author's implication that they do. What really matters is, what portion of those 56% visitors would not have visited the news site in the absence of Google News. I'm guessing the answer is less. New result: Google is a net win for news sites.
The implication is that if the users were not skimming Google News' headlines, they would instead be skimming them on the content provider's site, and whether or not they actually found an article of interest, the provider would end up with the view and the ad dollar.
The article has shown nothing of the sort. It's entirely possible that in the absence of Google News that total news consumption would drop.
Not sure what your reasoning is on this statement. Is Google somehow forcing people to visit Google News? If not, why would people stop wanting the product if Google did not offer it? News is not a medium created by Google.
My take on Google News is this: Harmful to large organizations who have their own clout to draw viewers on brand recognition (Reuters, ABC, CBS, etc), but helpful to smaller news sites without that level of draw.
Which, if you look at who exactly is complaining, plays out as true.
..is that anything that doesn't fit your theory can be explained away as part of the conspiracy. The nutters will continue to be nutty.
And assuming you're American, would you want someone to be able to blatantly flaunt our laws and cause harm to Americans and American interests simply because they aren't on our soil? Extradition treaties exist for this very purpose.
(Please for the love of the FSM don't try to turn this into a "it's just Intellectual Property, not murder" argument).
I made maps of my high school for Marathon during my Sophomore year.
:)
The teachers loved playing them too.
Wow. How times have changed.
"nor through inaction permit any human being to be harmed."
Wow, that basically excludes everyone on the planet. I'd say we're all guilty of this is one way or another. Didn't send all your money to Feed The Children? Your inaction allowed those children to be harmed.
Didn't drive to New Orleans during Katrina and pull people out of the water? Your inaction allowed people to be harmed.
Frankly, this is a lousy license. An attempt to be cutesy created an overly broad clause that excludes all use.
I don't think you understand the subject you're trying to speak to here...SSH keys are a public key system. The user generates his own key and sends the public portion to the server. The private key is never transmitted anywhere.
Remarkable. You're comparing a company that delivers to a very, very small area of the country to a multinational company that ships just about anywhere.
What precisely was the point to your post?
And if anyone had broken AES, you'd surely know about it.
Yes, I'm sure you're right. After all, who would have a vested interest in not releasing that fact?
Most encryption can be broken, especially when it is something that has to be done quickly for time sensitive applications, like VoIP data (computation time is bad when you're talking in real time). If the government wants the information bad enough, they'll dissect it.
Even then, you might well be surprised at how many people just use Vonage to talk about committing a crime, just like they use normal phones today.
The smart ones will encrypt, of course. They may even use good encryption. But scrambled data is a lot better than data you don't have.
The big scary guy with the beard always watching you.
Now we can be watched by a smiling woman.
I know, let's call her Big Sister!
Doesn't quite have the same ring to it though..
So, a bunch of senators were sitting around a table and said to themselves "Hey, how can we lose the tax revenue and jobs of a highly profitable industry and push it out of America to make us look better, while doing nothing to make it less prevalent? Oh yeah, let's go after porn!"
And not we have this bill.
Seriously, do these pompous old men believe that they can actually control the internet in this fashion?
Somehow, I don't see myself entering all my personal information into a website supposedly run by an organization I never heard of that has it's whois set up with a proxy service to boot. Anyone else rushing out to do this?
That getting drunk is fun and makes you do silly stuff, but doesn't really have any bad consequences. Good lesson for the kids. :)
So essentially, you're saying the onus is on copyright holder to tell someone not to steal their product?
Last time I checked, the law didn't work like that.
Kind of like saying "If I don't lock my door, it's ok to steal from me."
Sorry, that doesn't fly in real life.
An image search takes a copyrighted photograph, manipulates it, and then stores it on it's server for display to a user of it's site.
Sorry to say, seems like a pretty cut and dry case to me.
Page views are king. If they can make you click, they can make a buck.
Company that offers help with filing patents finds that 98% of people filing patents really should hire them. More at 11.
Have to disagree with this one. KEEPING the 30 second skip as even a hidden feature shows that TiVo wants to do right by their customers. The unfortunate problem here is survival. If the large and powerful content companies see this relatively small company eating into their revenue stream too much, they'll act. And act forcefully.
TiVo has a delicate balancing act between keeping their customers happy and appeasing companies with deep pockets and powerful lobbyists in Washington. Those who may just be convinced (with a well placed "campaign donation") that content needs to be protected in such a proprietary way that TiVo would be cut out of the loop.
At the same time, TiVo is trying to form alliances with these companies to have their software based devices offered to their customers, which requires making them happy.
So bravo TiVo! You kept a nice feature in your machines without pissing off the big guys. My hat's off to you.
Late night? Cable?
Don't you mean Pokemon?
Quite simple really, money. These jackasses rush a lawsuit out the door as fast as possible on a newly released product that exhibits any kind of fault. Good luck to him though. It's a gaming machine that crashed because of a defect, not a car. He can return the machine for a full refund from the store he bought it from, or RMA it to MS for replacement. The lawyer will make a lot of noise and hope for a settlement instead of MS winning in court.