Re:NITROGEN WARNING is similar to TCP/IP warning
on
Security Hole In TCP
·
· Score: 2
Some people may think its a joke, but the levels of DHMO in humans has been staggering the last few years. I hear it becomes most serious on the weekends. Please be careful of the consumption of beverages that may contain significant quantities.
Christ why are people modding this as funny! It should be +5 Insightful! Spread the word!
I wonder if a simple script that ripped unusual words from the article, Google searched for sites with those words, then posted an 'informative' link would work...
Heh... doesn't matter who owns the names of the songs. If you compile a database of pretty much anything, you can copyright it.
If I compile a database containing only content owned by other people, such as say, an O'Reilly Nutshell book, can I still copyright it? Where do you draw the line? Just because you re-type something doesn't make it your own.
You're not copyrighting the names, you're copyrighting your collection of information. CDDB did that with their database and they don't own the song and
album names any more than we do.
No, CDDB cut off free access to the database. The result is the same, but it wasn't done in the same manner.
So, if i create a list of all the tracks on an album, I have just as much right to protect that list as they do to protect their database.
But YOU did not create that list of all the tracks on an album! The company and artists that created the album did! Why do you think you now own the copyright to that list? Because you re-typed it?
Damn, I've gotta go now... time to re-type all these books I've collected over the years, and start selling them!
If they incorporate my list under false pretenses, then I should have some recourse against them.
They didn't collect the information under false pretenses -- you simply assumed what the pretenses were, and your assumptions were false.
With regard to your point about free services being unable to exist without revenue, gosh--I can't imagine that there could have been any internet at all before all that commericalization arrived. (That was
sarcasm, in case it wasn't readily apparent.)
Gee, wrong again! The internet wasn't free even before it was commercialized -- it was paid for by the government and education institutions.
Re:A worrying turn of phrase...
on
Paper Phones
·
· Score: 2
As the sole person responsible for bringing this product to society (and only that - it seems a team of engineers were responsible for design and implementation), she has a responsibility (as clearly society does) to make sure her invention is used in a proper manner.
So what you're saying is, you want someone else to control what you can and cannot do; what you can and cannot have?
Besides, as George Carlin once said:
"If it's true, that plastic does not break down, then the earth will just create a new paradigm: The Earth + Plastic."
They're charging a fee for our data. There was no 'data submitted automatically becomes the property of..' bullshit. They relicensed our intellectual property without notification or permission.
Boy you've got some gall!
You don't own the names of the songs you entered -- the artists that wrote the songs do, if anybody.
Why can't you people get this simple fact through your head: It was an exchange of services. You typed in the rare CD's that were missing, in exchange, you got most or all of the CD information from their database for NO CHARGE.
Only to freeloaders does this not sound like a great deal.
The problem is that they started out a community-based collection of title information that was painstakingly entered by thousands of users in the belief that they wouldn't pull something like this.
Funny, I don't remember ever being promised anything by gracenote. I got way more from them then they ever got from me. I input the CD's I found that were not there, but most of the time I downloaded from them. I received a service from them in exchange for helping them build up their database. That was the deal.
Where exactly did it say you get access to CDDB for free, forever, because you simply typed out the names of songs that someone else wrote?
What Gracenote did is essentially the same as the Red Cross declaring itself a for-profit agency and charging for its services, while keeping all the donations made for it while it was a non-profit.
A horrible analogy. What gracenote did was start charging for a useful service in the only way it can -- hitting the application builders that enhance their programs with its functionality.
I am looking forward to the day they go out of business and/or are made irrelevant by free alternatives.
Please study economics. These "free" alternatives are only free to YOU, not to the person running them. Do you think internet bandwidth and hardware resources grow on trees? Why don't you offer to pay a monthly service fee to FreeDB to help?
Nah, you just want something for nothing.
And I hope the executive scum responsible for the decision die a slow, painful death. But I'm not bitter.
It's real simple. It costs money to run an online service, and the more popular it becomes, the more it costs. Eventually the cost of running it will outweigh the gain for the person(s) doing it.
That's a good question. Microsoft has even gone so far with Windows 2000 as to include Windows Update RIGHT ON THE START MENU! Heck, you can even download a little daemon that tells you ever time there's a security patch. Click on it, and it installs. Voila! Stupid admins.
The cracks were done on Windows NT, not Windows 2000.
As a researcher working closely with the Compaq people I know there is even more to come. We are working on stuff that will be superior to the longrun technology of TransMeta and the SpeedStep technology of Intel.
I love it when people say stuff like this. First come out with the product, THEN compare it to existing technology.
How do you know that Transmeta is not already coming out with improvements that are "superior" to their own technology?
My favorite cover is for the Managing the Windows NT Registry book. It features a monkey. I couldn't resist appending "- The Author" underneath the picture on my copy...
Actually what I wrote was "The Author of the NT Registry." Which, I think you'll agree, is much more amusing.
I don't see how those books "rapidly lose relevance" any more than any other book they wrote about a specific version of software. Even Perl (version 4) books ended up in the bargain bins.
I guess O'Reilly makes money by writing about Windows. That's fine - I just wish they'd choose a different image and branding for that series of books.
I imagine you'd like the covers to have a guy standing there with his hand against his head, in the classic "L" ("Loser") position?
My favorite cover is for the Managing the Windows NT Registry book. It features a monkey. I couldn't resist appending "- The Author" underneath the picture on my copy...
It is not described! Nowhere on this page is the algorithm actually described! There are only examples of "clear text" and "crypted text" given. You can get that with any other encryption algorithm that may not be reverse-engineered.
If something is obvious, it does not need to be reverse-engineered, and I would seriously doubt it will fall under the DMCA.
If they don't like the test results, they say the test was illegal and it doesn't count(They did this a while back with a few Linux vs. NT tests too).
Wow what a horrible bit of "evidence" to drudge up, since the same thing happened in reverse when some Linux benchmarks showed it performing worse than NT. The Linux crowd went berserk...
One thing I've learned over the years -- the only benchmarks that matter are ones you do yourself with real-world situations!
If you can't do them yourself, then you just have to take third party benchmarks with a mill of salt.
They decided to kill Napster. This suggests to me that they have some plan to attack OpenNap/Gnutella. I have to admit, I can't see how they can pull off a successful attempt, for the reasons I stated above, but unless the RIAA are idiots, they have a plan. Maybe new laws going into effect (but how would they be inforced), new monitoring devices built into new hard drives, or maybe a new cd encryption scheme...
What more proof do you (and the RIAA) need to see that encryption and its ilk will never work? If access to content is made difficult, a black market will naturally form where access to said content is much easier. It always happens. ALWAYS.
Obviously the RIAA is dumb enough not to understand this point, which is why they attacked Napster, MP3.com, and insist on trying to push encryption formats.
Of course, maybe I'm wrong and the RIAA is filled with idiots.
No they are not idiots, they are just technically ignorant.
How much do you want to bet that the RIAA will outlast Napster by several quadrillion dollars yet?
Excuse me? When exactly did I say Napster would beat the RIAA? I *never* thought Napster would succeed in the long run.
The RIAA is defending the interests of the majority of it's representatives - people who create music. It won.
Wrong. The RIAA won the battle and lost the war. They are now going to cause everyone that uses Napster to move to a P2P technology that they can't shutdown through lawsuits.
Congress should immediately move to reduce the cost of LCDs and other energy efficient display systems.
Gee, you seem to be aware of California's electricity problems, and yet you don't know enough about the situation to avoid doing the same thing with monitors!
The problem was that California government told the California companies how much they could charge for power, but de-regulated their suppliers, meaning their costs could go up, but their profits would go down because they couldn't charge consumers more when the prices went up. End result? The two biggest power companies in California filed for bankruptcy.
And now you want to do the same thing with monitor manufacturers. When will you liberals learn? Keep the frigging government OUT of commerce! Let the market decide.
Manufacturers cannot be allowed to enjoy the luxury of high prices when archaic cathode ray tubes are wasting incredible amounts of energy.
Ummm... so your solution is put these companies out of business?
Although drastic, perhaps the only real option the government has is an outright ban on CRTs, accompanied with a system to confiscate existing units. Only then will superior display technologies such as Samsung's unit be able to gain wide usage.
You seem to think that if Napster is shutdown, suddenly P2P clients suddenly stop working.
He didnt say any such thing.
"You seem to think..." is another way of saying, "you implied." Implications are ways of saying things without actually saying them (since you seem to need the dots connected for you).
He said you're a lying, stealing sack of shit and nothing in your reply indicated otherwise.
Now that he clearly did not say, since *I* don't even use Napster or any other P2P client. I have hundreds of legally purchased CD's already converted to MP3, and no time or inclination to waste using Napster to download any more.
Sure, I occasionally download a song from the net that I didn't pay for. I've also recorded songs of the radio in the past, and borrowed CD's from friends to make recordings.
But YOU are missing the point. The RIAA signed their own death warrant today, whether you believe it's right or wrong to download music that you haven't paid for...
We've all known that the end of Napster was coming since it started. The whole Napster movement is based on people not having any respect for the wishes of the artists and copyright holders.
You seem to think that if Napster is shutdown, suddenly P2P clients suddenly stop working. There are tons of alternatives, not the least of which is OpenNap (just like Napster, except not controlled by anyone in particular).
All the RIAA did by shutting down Napster is guarantee their doom, because now they are provoking everyone using Napster to go to an alternative that cannot be sued into closing down (e.g. OpenNap, Gnutella, or something even better).
If the RIAA was smart, they would have already started supplying unencrypted, unrestricted digital music bundles for a fraction of the price of CD albums.
If you make it EASY to download and UNRESTRICTED in usage (i.e. not encrypted), people will buy it. If either of those two things fails to exist, people will steal it. It's that simple.
RIAA -- kiss your ass goodbye, and the beauty is, it's your own fault! Ha!
Slashdot Mirror
Some people may think its a joke, but the levels of DHMO in humans has been staggering the last few years. I hear it becomes most serious on the weekends. Please be careful of the consumption of beverages that may contain significant quantities.
Christ why are people modding this as funny! It should be +5 Insightful! Spread the word!
I suppose you drive a SUV and think it's safer, too. (Sorry, couldn't resist. That was uncalled for :).
As long as your chastising people for not referencing any proof -- why not provide some proof that SUV's are not safer?
I wonder if a simple script that ripped unusual words from the article, Google searched for sites with those words, then posted an 'informative' link would work...
Wonderful! Karma Whorebots!
that is sent to the remote office... automatically, thanks to VPN.
Heh... doesn't matter who owns the names of the songs. If you compile a database of pretty much anything, you can copyright it.
... time to re-type all these books I've collected over the years, and start selling them!
If I compile a database containing only content owned by other people, such as say, an O'Reilly Nutshell book, can I still copyright it? Where do you draw the line? Just because you re-type something doesn't make it your own.
You're not copyrighting the names, you're copyrighting your collection of information. CDDB did that with their database and they don't own the song and
album names any more than we do.
No, CDDB cut off free access to the database. The result is the same, but it wasn't done in the same manner.
So, if i create a list of all the tracks on an album, I have just as much right to protect that list as they do to protect their database.
But YOU did not create that list of all the tracks on an album! The company and artists that created the album did! Why do you think you now own the copyright to that list? Because you re-typed it?
Damn, I've gotta go now
If they incorporate my list under false pretenses, then I should have some recourse against them.
They didn't collect the information under false pretenses -- you simply assumed what the pretenses were, and your assumptions were false.
With regard to your point about free services being unable to exist without revenue, gosh--I can't imagine that there could have been any internet at all before all that commericalization arrived. (That was
sarcasm, in case it wasn't readily apparent.)
Gee, wrong again! The internet wasn't free even before it was commercialized -- it was paid for by the government and education institutions.
As the sole person responsible for bringing this product to society (and only that - it seems a team of engineers were responsible for design and implementation), she has a responsibility (as clearly society does) to make sure her invention is used in a proper manner.
So what you're saying is, you want someone else to control what you can and cannot do; what you can and cannot have?
Besides, as George Carlin once said:
"If it's true, that plastic does not break down, then the earth will just create a new paradigm: The Earth + Plastic."
(paraphrased)
They're charging a fee for our data. There was no 'data submitted automatically becomes the property of..' bullshit. They relicensed our intellectual property without notification or permission.
Boy you've got some gall!
You don't own the names of the songs you entered -- the artists that wrote the songs do, if anybody.
Why can't you people get this simple fact through your head: It was an exchange of services. You typed in the rare CD's that were missing, in exchange, you got most or all of the CD information from their database for NO CHARGE.
Only to freeloaders does this not sound like a great deal.
The problem is that they started out a community-based collection of title information that was painstakingly entered by thousands of users in the belief that they wouldn't pull something like this.
Funny, I don't remember ever being promised anything by gracenote. I got way more from them then they ever got from me. I input the CD's I found that were not there, but most of the time I downloaded from them. I received a service from them in exchange for helping them build up their database. That was the deal.
Where exactly did it say you get access to CDDB for free, forever, because you simply typed out the names of songs that someone else wrote?
What Gracenote did is essentially the same as the Red Cross declaring itself a for-profit agency and charging for its services, while keeping all the donations made for it while it was a non-profit.
A horrible analogy. What gracenote did was start charging for a useful service in the only way it can -- hitting the application builders that enhance their programs with its functionality.
I am looking forward to the day they go out of business and/or are made irrelevant by free alternatives.
Please study economics. These "free" alternatives are only free to YOU, not to the person running them. Do you think internet bandwidth and hardware resources grow on trees? Why don't you offer to pay a monthly service fee to FreeDB to help?
Nah, you just want something for nothing.
And I hope the executive scum responsible for the decision die a slow, painful death. But I'm not bitter.
Nope, you're just SELFISH.
-thomas
It's real simple. It costs money to run an online service, and the more popular it becomes, the more it costs. Eventually the cost of running it will outweigh the gain for the person(s) doing it.
Werd to free music. Werd to free information. Werd to the people.
Werd to the fact that running an internet resource costs money.
That's a good question. Microsoft has even gone so far with Windows 2000 as to include Windows Update RIGHT ON THE START MENU! Heck, you can even download a little daemon that tells you ever time there's a security patch. Click on it, and it installs. Voila! Stupid admins.
The cracks were done on Windows NT, not Windows 2000.
My only real complaint about CE is that it slows/locks at random times...
I think this sums things up quite nicely.
As a researcher working closely with the Compaq people I know there is even more to come. We are working on stuff that will be superior to the longrun technology of TransMeta and the SpeedStep technology of Intel.
I love it when people say stuff like this. First come out with the product, THEN compare it to existing technology.
How do you know that Transmeta is not already coming out with improvements that are "superior" to their own technology?
With the 1G microdrive I carry my entire CD collection around with my IPAQ
Which means you either have about thirty CD's in your entire "collection," or you've encoded a rather large collection at approximately 17kbps.
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
My favorite cover is for the Managing the Windows NT Registry book. It features a monkey. I couldn't resist appending "- The Author" underneath the picture on my copy...
Actually what I wrote was "The Author of the NT Registry." Which, I think you'll agree, is much more amusing.
Doh!
I don't see how those books "rapidly lose relevance" any more than any other book they wrote about a specific version of software. Even Perl (version 4) books ended up in the bargain bins.
I guess O'Reilly makes money by writing about Windows. That's fine - I just wish they'd choose a different image and branding for that series of books.
I imagine you'd like the covers to have a guy standing there with his hand against his head, in the classic "L" ("Loser") position?
My favorite cover is for the Managing the Windows NT Registry book. It features a monkey. I couldn't resist appending "- The Author" underneath the picture on my copy...
It is not described! Nowhere on this page is the algorithm actually described! There are only examples of "clear text" and "crypted text" given. You can get that with any other encryption algorithm that may not be reverse-engineered.
If something is obvious, it does not need to be reverse-engineered, and I would seriously doubt it will fall under the DMCA.
If they don't like the test results, they say the test was illegal and it doesn't count(They did this a while back with a few Linux vs. NT tests too).
Wow what a horrible bit of "evidence" to drudge up, since the same thing happened in reverse when some Linux benchmarks showed it performing worse than NT. The Linux crowd went berserk...
One thing I've learned over the years -- the only benchmarks that matter are ones you do yourself with real-world situations!
If you can't do them yourself, then you just have to take third party benchmarks with a mill of salt.
Perhaps he meant that as flamebait.
Not that there's anything wrong with that!
They decided to kill Napster. This suggests to me that they have some plan to attack OpenNap/Gnutella. I have to admit, I can't see how they can pull off a successful attempt, for the reasons I stated above, but unless the RIAA are idiots, they have a plan. Maybe new laws going into effect (but how would they be inforced), new monitoring devices built into new hard drives, or maybe a new cd encryption scheme...
What more proof do you (and the RIAA) need to see that encryption and its ilk will never work? If access to content is made difficult, a black market will naturally form where access to said content is much easier. It always happens. ALWAYS.
Obviously the RIAA is dumb enough not to understand this point, which is why they attacked Napster, MP3.com, and insist on trying to push encryption formats.
Of course, maybe I'm wrong and the RIAA is filled with idiots.
No they are not idiots, they are just technically ignorant.
How much do you want to bet that the RIAA will outlast Napster by several quadrillion dollars yet?
Excuse me? When exactly did I say Napster would beat the RIAA? I *never* thought Napster would succeed in the long run.
The RIAA is defending the interests of the majority of it's representatives - people who create music. It won.
Wrong. The RIAA won the battle and lost the war. They are now going to cause everyone that uses Napster to move to a P2P technology that they can't shutdown through lawsuits.
Watch and see; it's already happening.
Congress should immediately move to reduce the cost of LCDs and other energy efficient display systems.
Gee, you seem to be aware of California's electricity problems, and yet you don't know enough about the situation to avoid doing the same thing with monitors!
The problem was that California government told the California companies how much they could charge for power, but de-regulated their suppliers, meaning their costs could go up, but their profits would go down because they couldn't charge consumers more when the prices went up. End result? The two biggest power companies in California filed for bankruptcy.
And now you want to do the same thing with monitor manufacturers. When will you liberals learn? Keep the frigging government OUT of commerce! Let the market decide.
Manufacturers cannot be allowed to enjoy the luxury of high prices when archaic cathode ray tubes are wasting incredible amounts of energy.
Ummm... so your solution is put these companies out of business?
Although drastic, perhaps the only real option the government has is an outright ban on CRTs, accompanied with a system to confiscate existing units. Only then will superior display technologies such as Samsung's unit be able to gain wide usage.
Oh Christ I wasted all this time on a TROLL!!
You seem to think that if Napster is shutdown, suddenly P2P clients suddenly stop working.
He didnt say any such thing.
"You seem to think..." is another way of saying, "you implied." Implications are ways of saying things without actually saying them (since you seem to need the dots connected for you).
He said you're a lying, stealing sack of shit and nothing in your reply indicated otherwise.
Now that he clearly did not say, since *I* don't even use Napster or any other P2P client. I have hundreds of legally purchased CD's already converted to MP3, and no time or inclination to waste using Napster to download any more.
Sure, I occasionally download a song from the net that I didn't pay for. I've also recorded songs of the radio in the past, and borrowed CD's from friends to make recordings.
But YOU are missing the point. The RIAA signed their own death warrant today, whether you believe it's right or wrong to download music that you haven't paid for...
-thomas
We've all known that the end of Napster was coming since it started. The whole Napster movement is based on people not having any respect for the wishes of the artists and copyright holders.
You seem to think that if Napster is shutdown, suddenly P2P clients suddenly stop working. There are tons of alternatives, not the least of which is OpenNap (just like Napster, except not controlled by anyone in particular).
All the RIAA did by shutting down Napster is guarantee their doom, because now they are provoking everyone using Napster to go to an alternative that cannot be sued into closing down (e.g. OpenNap, Gnutella, or something even better).
If the RIAA was smart, they would have already started supplying unencrypted, unrestricted digital music bundles for a fraction of the price of CD albums.
If you make it EASY to download and UNRESTRICTED in usage (i.e. not encrypted), people will buy it. If either of those two things fails to exist, people will steal it. It's that simple.
RIAA -- kiss your ass goodbye, and the beauty is, it's your own fault! Ha!