This is nothing like a good analogy - a closer analogy would be "if you sell your 140hp engine, you cannot attach your new turbo to it" - becuase you aint got it any more!
....
If I swap my 98 license plus $100 or whatever the cost is for that shiny new XP license, do I still have the 98 license?
Such an argument applies to a real trade-in. It doesn't apply to upgrade software copies unless the original copy is traded in as part of the payment for the a newer copy. For example, when you trade in a car for a newer or better one, which some people might call an upgrade, you give the dealer the old car as part of the payment for the new one. But when you purchase a Windows 3000 upgrade CD at a store, you hand the cashier $100 and they hand you the CD. At no point do you surrender your copies of previous versions of Windows as payment for the new version.
You can make all the arguments in the world about licenses. But the fact stands: You don't need a license to use a copyrighted work. You only need to lawfully possess a copy. This isn't to say that licenses aren't required for some things. For example, large companies often obtain a license to make their own copies of programs instead of buying many copies one at a time.
Yup, that's a great system, too! I've bought at least 40-50 brand-new paperbacks for.50-$1 each from the local flea market (Sports Arena in San Diego). Gee, they all looked brand new and were only missing the front cover...
The original dealer has incurred liability by breeching their contract with the seller and can be held accountable. The system works exactly as it should.
"asthetic deterrance"? Sure, to some people. But to me, they're still perfectly readable. I don't keep them, and I save anywhere from $3-$6 per book. Plus, the original dealer gets credit back for not selling them!
If any of these books were to become collectors items, your coverless copy would certainly be worth a lot less than a complete one. There's a lot of other drawbacks too. Think of the lack of durability and the constant trouble with pages falling out and getting lost. Also, good luck getting a book in such shabby condition autographed by the author...
How long have you been supporting PC software in a corporate environment? No more than 3 years would be my guess. Since what you describe is exactly how software upgrades were handled until 1998 or so.
Yep. I remember when upgrades were actually trade-ins. Indeed, if software sellers want upgrades to be trade-ins again, they must require the old copies to be part of the payment for the new copies.
Even today, many packages require you to insert the original first floppy disk (many come with a floppy just for that purpose, which is serialized) or the original CD (also serialized) before they will install the upgrade.
The old copy was requested by the new copy's installer, but I won't say it was required to use the new copy. In most cases, no files are actually installed from the old copy and then used in operation of the software. As such, posession of the old copy is not really required in order to run the new copy. Most of these upgrade discs can be used by installing the software manually or by running the provided installer under a debugger and then skipping over the call to the old disk checking routine.
If the upgrade copy can be successfully used without the old version, then then copy of the old version can be sold. In such a case, what the software seller claims is an "upgrade" is actually an entirely seperate and new copy.
2. you take your fire truck back for an engine upgrade.
3. now you have a 500 hp truck.
I don't know what eeprom you are talking about. You didn't buy a program, or rights to a program, nor will you find specs for the program and...
On almost all modern engines, the fuel map and other tunable parameters are managed by an electronic controller of some sort. This controller device usually contains a small microprocessor or microcontroller, which loads its software from an eeprom, flash memory, or similar device. The software program controls the engine operation. Indeed, the software can be modified, and many people make a great deal of money selling replacement software, especially for small, lightweight imported automobiles. Of course, the quality of this replacement software varies widely, which is why many folks are glad they have the choice to go back to the old software and sell the replacement chip, keep the new software and sell the old part, or keep both parts and use one as a spare.
you will definitely void the waranty on your $150K truck by messing with your fuel map.
Void the warranty? Perhaps yes. Be liable for severe civil and criminal penalties under copyright law? Certainly no.
While the "sell the upgrade to anyone" marketing trick is now pretty prevalent, I for one remember ripping user manual title pages out of MS-DOS 5.0 books, and collecting "Disk 1's" from same, to send to the vendor when we ordered MS-DOS 6.x. And we were on a Select Agreement-type plan at the time.
Yep. If vendors want to predicate the purchase of a new copy on the return/destruction of an old one, this is one way to do it. Publishers use a similar scheme when refunding booksellers for unsellable books and magazines. To get a refund, the bookseller removes the cover and mails it back to the publisher along with a letter promising to destroy the remaining pages. Not only does this method provide proof that the reseller actually had the number of unsellable copies it claimed to, but it also avoids shipping around entire books that are just going to end up in an incinerator/shredder and provides a strong legal and asthetic deterrance to sale rather than destruction of the copies reported as junked.
Actually engine upgrades can be just software changes. Engines in trucks are often upgraded just by changing the fuel map. It cost more for the higher hp, and you can no longer use the old engine.
There's no reason why the old software eeprom can't be saved and used for example in another truck which has had its software inadvertantly erased or damaged. After all, you paid to lawfully aquire a copy of the first version, and then paid again to lawfully aquire a copy of the second version.
(If the truck vendor was offering a rebate for folks who returned or destroyed their old software, or were doing a "trade-in" program, your point would be more valid. But according to your description they aren't, and so it isn't.)
When you go to a speed shop and "trade in" your 140 hp engine, you physically give them the old engine, which they either remanufacture (to earn extra $$) or scrap (to get it off the market).
Similarly, when you take part in a refrigerator trade-in sponsered by an electric utility, you must provide proof that the original refrigerator was scrapped, otherwise the point of the program (to increase energy efficiency) would be nullified.
Both are better analogies to software upgrades.
No, neither are good analogies because when you aquire the upgrade copy for a bit of software the only term of sale is that you pay the amount money listed on the pricetag. It's entirely different from a purchase with trade-in, like the engine trade-in scenario you describe where the trade-in is part of the price of the new item. And it's different from the refrigerator rebate/discount where the electric company usually comes to collect your old fridge before any discount or rebate is consummated.
If Microsoft were offering a rebate for folks who returned their old software, or were doing a "trade-in" program, your point would be more valid. But they aren't, and so it isn't.
You're rather disingenuously ignoring the fact that an upgrade for software is generally understood to be a license to a new version of the software given at a discount because you already hold and have paid for a previous license; whereas all of the upgrades in your post are actually new things purchased and intended to replace old, different things. It is not the same thing at all.
That's pure fiction. If it was truth, you'd have to trade in the previous version (or at least prove that you owned it) at the time you purchased the upgrade. In reality, these "upgrade" copies of the software are sold on retail shelves to anyone who wants to buy them.
An upgrade is a change or refresh of a product you already own. If you sell the original product, you no longer have the right to install the upgrade.
In any industry but proprietary software, this argument would be laughed at. Indeed, similar aruments are quite laughable:
If you sell your old 140hp internal combustion engine, you no longer have the right to install the 280hp internal combustion engine you've purchased as an upgrade.
If you sell your Matrox G200 video card, you no longer have the right to install the upgraded SooperGL 3000 card you've purchased as an upgrade
If you sell your old copy of Windows 95, you no longer have the right to install Debian GNU/Linux, which you've acquired as an upgrade.
Software publishers have been pushing fiction as fact in the hopes that it will become fact. Indeed, many people now believe that software publishers can add and enforce additional restrictions above and beyond copyright restrictions after the sale has taken place. In reality, after buying a copy of any copyrighted work, you're free to dispose of it as you see fit. Tear the pages out of a book you no longer read and use them as kindling or emergency toilet paper. Use your old Windows 95 and Office CDROM's as coasters or frisbees. Shim up that wobbly table with those useless copies of Microsoft Bob. Sell your old, useless, buggy software to suckers on eBay or at the local geek flea market. But don't be a sucker yourself. Don't be fooled into taking a total loss on software you no longer use by the proprietary software industry's propaganda.
The lemmings can be made to explode after a 5-10 second countdown. Also, they get killed by falling into flames, hot acid, on hard/sharp surfaces, etc.
It's probably just the laptop-- the mobile PIII chips have that SpeedStep shit where the chip automatically scales its speed up and down as needed in order to save on battery power.
And to keep itself from having a meltdown due to poor cooling...
The WAP11 comes with a USB connection for configuration using a Windows-only application.
Is an official Linux version planned? Or will it be left to the OSS community to write one for themselves?
The WAP11 can also be configured via its Ethernet port with SNMP. See ftp://ftp.linksys.com/pdf/wap11ug.pdf :
Linux/Unix Users: Though these operating systems are not supported by Linksys, the Wireless Access Point should work under these operating systems using SNMP. A configurable Management Information Base file (MIB) named AT7C510.MIB can be found on the Setup Utility CD.
AT&T Port 80 Blocking Ineffective, Irresponsible
on
Broadband Crackdown
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The version of AT&T's Broadband Subscriber Agreement that subscribers in my area (Formerly MediaOne Express) have agreed to could only be vaguely construed to prohibit web servers via the following clause:
(g) restrict, inhibit or otherwise interfere with the ability of any other person to use or enjoy the AT&T Equipment or the Service, including, without limitation, posting or transmitting any information or software which contains a virus or other harmful feature; or generating levels of traffic sufficient to impede others' ability to send or retrieve information.
Indeed, the service agreement even mentions things users should consider should they decide to run a personal HTTP/FTP server:
(b) FTP/HTTP Service Setup. Customer should be aware that when using the Service to access the Internet or any other online network or service, there are certain applications, such as FTP (File Transfer Protocol) server or HTTP (Hyper Text Transfer Protocol) server, which may be used to allow other Service users and Internet users to gain access to Customer's computer. If Customer chooses to run such applications, Customer should take the appropriate security measures. Neither AT&T nor @Home Network shall have any liability whatsoever for any claims, losses, actions, damages, suits or proceedings resulting from, arising out of or otherwise relating to the use of such applications by Customer, including without limitation, damages resulting from others accessing Customer's computer.
AT&T is trying to use the subscriber agreement as a shield against criticism
about how they've failed to properly deal with their network's accute
inability to handle widespread use of the codered software by subscribers
and also their inability to selectively track and remove or restrict users
of codered. Running a webserver like IIS+codered that by design, defect, or
configuration tries repeatedly to install a software package on every other
webserver on the network is surely a prohibited use of the service under the
subscriber agreement. Running a web server that only implements RFC2068 and
has none of these annoying codered misfeatures probably isn't.
The most effective thing AT&T could do to stop the autoinstallation of
codered on customer machines is to block port 80 right at the cable modem on
hosts running versions of IIS that support codered. It's certainly within their technical reach, since AT&T does selective layer-3 filtering of ports 137-139 right at the cable per customer request. For hosts that both support and run codered,
AT&T should treat the host like they would treat any other compromised host:
disconnect it from the network until the owner has recovered control.
Instead of using any of the more effective methods, they're just having
routers discard packets bound for port 80. Not only does this solution fail
to prevent autoinstallation within AT&T subnets (because that traffic never crosses a router) and from hosts inside AT&T's
network to those hosts outside of AT&T's network, but it also inconveniences
legitimate users of port 80.
I share my recently created or downloaded packages for Debian GNU/Linux on gnutellanet. Redistribution is always authorized by the copyright proprietor. I'm also working on an enhancement for apt that will enable it to download packages from gnutellanet and share recently downloaded packages. (I'm also carefully following developments in Debian that will eventually lead to cryptographic signatures on packages in order to reduce the risk of a rogue package being inadvertantly installed).
I would never buy a cellphone, for the mere fact that I wouldn't want to be that accessible.
Um... they have power switches. How do you think I get the thing to shut up when I'm at the movies?
And I'll bet you'll be sitting smugly in your car the next time you run out of gas in the middle of the desert, happy not to have a cell...
Wireless phones aren't much use in rural and uninhabited areas. Not only would you be pissed at yourself for forgetting to buy gas before attempting to drive across a desert, but also for blowing some $30-$40/mo a phone that keeps telling you "no service" instead of completing your call for help. There's also not much of an argument for having an emergency use only wireless phone in populated areas since there's always a payphone or a business within walking distance that you can visit and call for a tow.
Unless you want to make and receive calls when you're travelling, there's no good reason to have a wireless phone. I don't have one precicely because I don't like to be bothered when I'm driving and any calls I might want to make can wait until I reach my destination.
This situation was most likely not the fault of the US, and we would NEVER apologise for something that was not our fault.
The US owned plane involved in this collision was a spy plane. At the time of the collision, it was at best a military vehicle trespassing in foriegn airspace. Likely, it was invading the privacy of the chinese citizens it was spying on. Had this incident occured over international waters, one could argue that the usual rule of "larger vessels have the right of way" applied and that the operator of the smaller jet operated improperly. Such an argument doesn't apply here because the larger jet should not have been present at all.
If the United States were allowed to place the blame for this crash with China, it would be just like a peeping tom blaming a bad fall on unsafe tree conditions in the yard of the person whom they were peering in on. We don't allow such an argument in civilian space, and we certainly shouldn't allow it in military space. Sure, it is prudent to keep dead branches pruned, but the weak branches would not be an issue if a trespasser were not illegally climbing the tree to perform an illegal invasion of privacy in the first place.
Guerilla sounds sorta like what you were talking about, i managed to get it running but i don't have another ip address to connect to, anyone?
Yes, guerilla seems to perform downloads in a manner similar to the extensions I'm proposing for the gnutella network. The only problem is that there aren't very many people using it. My proposed extension to gnutella would be usable immediately, even if only a few people adopted it.
I've been thinking about this for a while now.. gnutella search results
currently contain the IP of the person with a match for the search request.
But wouldn't it be great if there was a way to get the file back to the end
user without revealing the posessor's IP address?
If one or more hosts between the file posessor and the requester
supported a special extension whereby the search results were rewritten to
traverse a HTTP proxy chain created on the fly, privacy would be improved.
Furthermore, if those HTTP proxy chains supported caching, performance might
be improved too.
Here's how it works:
Host X joins the network, connecting to host Y, which is connected to host
Z. Host Y supports the new anonymous downloading feature. Host Z does not
support the anonymous downloading feature.
Host A, which may or may not support anonymous downloading, connects to the
gnutella network and searches for a document. The search request is
broadcast to attached hosts B and C. Host C happens to be connected to host
Z, which is connected to Y, and thus Z. Host X sees that it has received a
search request for a document it has from host Y, and sends a routed message
back through Y to the gnutellanet network. Host Y rewrites the search result
to include its own IP address. It also makes an entry in a time-expired
table and agrees to proxy the request to host X for anyone that asks. If for
some reason Y can not agree to proxy the request (perhaps it is over its
bandwidth cap) it will pass the search result unmodified to Z. When a
request comes for that document, Y it will fetch it from X. Host Y hands off
the rewritten packet to Z, which goes to C, B, and A. From host A's
perspective, Y had the file, not Z. At Y's discression, Y will enter the
file it got from X in its cache and also answer search requests matching it
affirmatively.
Now the response is passed up the chain, eventually to host A. Host A
requests the document from host Y, which proxies it to host X, which has the
document. Who did the user get the document from? They think they got it
from Y, but did they? No. They got it from X. Even if host Y leaves host X's
IP in the response, how can we be sure host Y isn't just forwarding the
request for someone else? Even when responding to requests that can be
fulfilled locally, servers should insert a random delay. In fact, if such a
system is in use, there is no reliable way to prove who you got a document
from unless you can monitor the Internet connections between every site
involved in the transaction.
Further complicating the matter might be the use of encryption and
connection multiplexing between involved hosts. Hosts X and Y, for example,
might communicate all information including proxied requests over a single
encrypted channel. They might pass fodder on that channel when no
transactions were in progress to reduce the effectiveness of traffic
analysis.
One other great advantage is that caching could be employed to much improve
download rates for popular files. Host Y, for example, could agree to keep
around a few hundred megs of recently downloaded files. It then could
respond to search requests for those files.
The 16-digit limit is indeed artificial. But it's going to be hard to overcome. Sure, 17, 18, and 19 digit cards are going to work just fine at POS terminals that have been implemented carefully with the specification in mind. But it's likely many of them will fail in other places due to artificial limitations added by people who didn't quite understand the big picture.
Many online ordering forms have a text box for the credit card number that's capped at 16 digits. Worse still, some won't even accept older style 15 digit and shorter AMEX and VISA cards. People who have been cardmembers for a long time (and thus have these lower numbers) have been experiencing this problem for some time and many have requested new cards be issued with 16 digit numbers. New cardmembers that get 17, 18, and 19 digit cards are going to be unable to use them at similarly ill-designed sites and will probably try to gripe at the card issuer for a shorter number.
As well, when we had been sued, all of the server logs would have been taken. The anonymous coward would have been identified and taken.
The only failsafe protection against having a given record subpoena'd or discovered during a search is not creating that record in the first place. Protecting the anonymity of Anonymous Cowards requires that you not create any log entires about them, or at minimum, irretrivably delete those logs as soon as possible after they are created. If you fail to do these things, then Anonymous Cowards aren't really anonymous - they're actually rather reliably traceable.
In our case in Canada, the DirecPC service is encrypted so that only the card with hardware serial number on it can decrypt the digital signal. I don't think
they invented this just for little 'ol us.
DirecTV also uses a crypto scheme to prevent their video service from being viewed by folks who don't pay for an access card. If the DirecPC cryptosystem is as well designed as the DirecTV crypto, then there's probabably little to no chance of it providing any real privacy.
So, the only danger is actually using up all the numbers. No problem there either . . . if we say there are 6 billion people in the world, the current 16-digit system still gives each of them somewhere on the order of 2 million numbers to use.
Don't forget that not all 16 digit numbers are valid for use as credit card numbers. In order to be valid, a number must first pass a rudimentary checksum test called LUHN-10. This checksum is intended to prevent unnecessary online verification of numbers that were entered in error. In short, the sum of odd numbered digits (numbering starts at the right, not the left) must be evenly divisible by 10, and the totals of the other digits each individually multiplied by two must also be evenly divisible by 10. As a result, there's far fewer than 10000000000000000 sixteen digit credit card numbers available.
I misspelled Diablo by adding an 'o'. However, misspelled use of a trademark can still be infringing. Misspelled use, if not defended against by the trademark holder, can still dilute the trademark. One can not have a Appel Computers without infringing Apple Computer's trademark, nor could an Adoobie Systems exist without infringing on Adobe Systems' trademark. Indeed, if an Appel Computers existed both before and after the establishment of Apple Computer's trademark or existed without contest by Apple for an extended period of time, it would still serve to dilute Apple's trademark, despite the different spelling.
As other posters have pointed out, Diablo spelled the same way Blizzard spells it is still a dictionary word in the Spanish language.
Blizzard has already applied for and been given the rights to a movie name 'Diablo' and 'Diablo II'
Just because a trademark is granted does not mean it is valid, nor does it mean the trademark is immune from dilution.
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913):
Diabolo \Di*ab"o*lo\ (d*b"*l), n.
An old game or sport (revived under this name) consisting in
whirling on a string, fastened to two sticks, a small
somewhat spool-shaped object (called the diabolo) so as to
balance it on a string, toss it in the air and catch it, etc.
Diabolo was a dictionary word and the name of a game long before Blizzard started using it. If Blizzard wanted a strong trademark, they should have picked something a bit more unique.
Doesn't Vorbis come with a virus-infected license that scares a lot of hardware/software vendors from touching it?
No. Vorbis is distributed under the GNU LGPL, a Free Software license. The maintainers of xmms, freeamp, and winamp all have had no problem with the license. I'm even working on a hardware implementation for my CS project course and there has been discussion about pending hardware implementations by others on the development list as well. The license that applies to Ogg Vorbis has not been an issue for any of us.
Slashdot Mirror
Such an argument applies to a real trade-in. It doesn't apply to upgrade software copies unless the original copy is traded in as part of the payment for the a newer copy. For example, when you trade in a car for a newer or better one, which some people might call an upgrade, you give the dealer the old car as part of the payment for the new one. But when you purchase a Windows 3000 upgrade CD at a store, you hand the cashier $100 and they hand you the CD. At no point do you surrender your copies of previous versions of Windows as payment for the new version.
You can make all the arguments in the world about licenses. But the fact stands: You don't need a license to use a copyrighted work. You only need to lawfully possess a copy. This isn't to say that licenses aren't required for some things. For example, large companies often obtain a license to make their own copies of programs instead of buying many copies one at a time.
The original dealer has incurred liability by breeching their contract with the seller and can be held accountable. The system works exactly as it should.
If any of these books were to become collectors items, your coverless copy would certainly be worth a lot less than a complete one. There's a lot of other drawbacks too. Think of the lack of durability and the constant trouble with pages falling out and getting lost. Also, good luck getting a book in such shabby condition autographed by the author...
Yep. I remember when upgrades were actually trade-ins. Indeed, if software sellers want upgrades to be trade-ins again, they must require the old copies to be part of the payment for the new copies.
The old copy was requested by the new copy's installer, but I won't say it was required to use the new copy. In most cases, no files are actually installed from the old copy and then used in operation of the software. As such, posession of the old copy is not really required in order to run the new copy. Most of these upgrade discs can be used by installing the software manually or by running the provided installer under a debugger and then skipping over the call to the old disk checking routine.
If the upgrade copy can be successfully used without the old version, then then copy of the old version can be sold. In such a case, what the software seller claims is an "upgrade" is actually an entirely seperate and new copy.
On almost all modern engines, the fuel map and other tunable parameters are managed by an electronic controller of some sort. This controller device usually contains a small microprocessor or microcontroller, which loads its software from an eeprom, flash memory, or similar device. The software program controls the engine operation. Indeed, the software can be modified, and many people make a great deal of money selling replacement software, especially for small, lightweight imported automobiles. Of course, the quality of this replacement software varies widely, which is why many folks are glad they have the choice to go back to the old software and sell the replacement chip, keep the new software and sell the old part, or keep both parts and use one as a spare.
Void the warranty? Perhaps yes. Be liable for severe civil and criminal penalties under copyright law? Certainly no.
Yep. If vendors want to predicate the purchase of a new copy on the return/destruction of an old one, this is one way to do it. Publishers use a similar scheme when refunding booksellers for unsellable books and magazines. To get a refund, the bookseller removes the cover and mails it back to the publisher along with a letter promising to destroy the remaining pages. Not only does this method provide proof that the reseller actually had the number of unsellable copies it claimed to, but it also avoids shipping around entire books that are just going to end up in an incinerator/shredder and provides a strong legal and asthetic deterrance to sale rather than destruction of the copies reported as junked.
There's no reason why the old software eeprom can't be saved and used for example in another truck which has had its software inadvertantly erased or damaged. After all, you paid to lawfully aquire a copy of the first version, and then paid again to lawfully aquire a copy of the second version.
(If the truck vendor was offering a rebate for folks who returned or destroyed their old software, or were doing a "trade-in" program, your point would be more valid. But according to your description they aren't, and so it isn't.)
No, neither are good analogies because when you aquire the upgrade copy for a bit of software the only term of sale is that you pay the amount money listed on the pricetag. It's entirely different from a purchase with trade-in, like the engine trade-in scenario you describe where the trade-in is part of the price of the new item. And it's different from the refrigerator rebate/discount where the electric company usually comes to collect your old fridge before any discount or rebate is consummated.
If Microsoft were offering a rebate for folks who returned their old software, or were doing a "trade-in" program, your point would be more valid. But they aren't, and so it isn't.
That's pure fiction. If it was truth, you'd have to trade in the previous version (or at least prove that you owned it) at the time you purchased the upgrade. In reality, these "upgrade" copies of the software are sold on retail shelves to anyone who wants to buy them.
Software publishers have been pushing fiction as fact in the hopes that it will become fact. Indeed, many people now believe that software publishers can add and enforce additional restrictions above and beyond copyright restrictions after the sale has taken place. In reality, after buying a copy of any copyrighted work, you're free to dispose of it as you see fit. Tear the pages out of a book you no longer read and use them as kindling or emergency toilet paper. Use your old Windows 95 and Office CDROM's as coasters or frisbees. Shim up that wobbly table with those useless copies of Microsoft Bob. Sell your old, useless, buggy software to suckers on eBay or at the local geek flea market. But don't be a sucker yourself. Don't be fooled into taking a total loss on software you no longer use by the proprietary software industry's propaganda.
The lemmings can be made to explode after a 5-10 second countdown. Also, they get killed by falling into flames, hot acid, on hard/sharp surfaces, etc.
And to keep itself from having a meltdown due to poor cooling...
The WAP11 can also be configured via its Ethernet port with SNMP. See ftp://ftp.linksys.com/pdf/wap11ug.pdf :
The version of AT&T's Broadband Subscriber Agreement that subscribers in my area (Formerly MediaOne Express) have agreed to could only be vaguely construed to prohibit web servers via the following clause:
Indeed, the service agreement even mentions things users should consider should they decide to run a personal HTTP/FTP server:
See http://help.broadband.att.com/subagreelease.jsp for the full text of the subscriber agreement.
AT&T is trying to use the subscriber agreement as a shield against criticism about how they've failed to properly deal with their network's accute inability to handle widespread use of the codered software by subscribers and also their inability to selectively track and remove or restrict users of codered. Running a webserver like IIS+codered that by design, defect, or configuration tries repeatedly to install a software package on every other webserver on the network is surely a prohibited use of the service under the subscriber agreement. Running a web server that only implements RFC2068 and has none of these annoying codered misfeatures probably isn't.
The most effective thing AT&T could do to stop the autoinstallation of codered on customer machines is to block port 80 right at the cable modem on hosts running versions of IIS that support codered. It's certainly within their technical reach, since AT&T does selective layer-3 filtering of ports 137-139 right at the cable per customer request. For hosts that both support and run codered, AT&T should treat the host like they would treat any other compromised host: disconnect it from the network until the owner has recovered control.
Instead of using any of the more effective methods, they're just having routers discard packets bound for port 80. Not only does this solution fail to prevent autoinstallation within AT&T subnets (because that traffic never crosses a router) and from hosts inside AT&T's network to those hosts outside of AT&T's network, but it also inconveniences legitimate users of port 80.
I share my recently created or downloaded packages for Debian GNU/Linux on gnutellanet. Redistribution is always authorized by the copyright proprietor. I'm also working on an enhancement for apt that will enable it to download packages from gnutellanet and share recently downloaded packages. (I'm also carefully following developments in Debian that will eventually lead to cryptographic signatures on packages in order to reduce the risk of a rogue package being inadvertantly installed).
Wireless phones aren't much use in rural and uninhabited areas. Not only would you be pissed at yourself for forgetting to buy gas before attempting to drive across a desert, but also for blowing some $30-$40/mo a phone that keeps telling you "no service" instead of completing your call for help. There's also not much of an argument for having an emergency use only wireless phone in populated areas since there's always a payphone or a business within walking distance that you can visit and call for a tow.
Unless you want to make and receive calls when you're travelling, there's no good reason to have a wireless phone. I don't have one precicely because I don't like to be bothered when I'm driving and any calls I might want to make can wait until I reach my destination.
The US owned plane involved in this collision was a spy plane. At the time of the collision, it was at best a military vehicle trespassing in foriegn airspace. Likely, it was invading the privacy of the chinese citizens it was spying on. Had this incident occured over international waters, one could argue that the usual rule of "larger vessels have the right of way" applied and that the operator of the smaller jet operated improperly. Such an argument doesn't apply here because the larger jet should not have been present at all.
If the United States were allowed to place the blame for this crash with China, it would be just like a peeping tom blaming a bad fall on unsafe tree conditions in the yard of the person whom they were peering in on. We don't allow such an argument in civilian space, and we certainly shouldn't allow it in military space. Sure, it is prudent to keep dead branches pruned, but the weak branches would not be an issue if a trespasser were not illegally climbing the tree to perform an illegal invasion of privacy in the first place.
Yes, guerilla seems to perform downloads in a manner similar to the extensions I'm proposing for the gnutella network. The only problem is that there aren't very many people using it. My proposed extension to gnutella would be usable immediately, even if only a few people adopted it.
I've been thinking about this for a while now.. gnutella search results currently contain the IP of the person with a match for the search request. But wouldn't it be great if there was a way to get the file back to the end user without revealing the posessor's IP address?
If one or more hosts between the file posessor and the requester supported a special extension whereby the search results were rewritten to traverse a HTTP proxy chain created on the fly, privacy would be improved. Furthermore, if those HTTP proxy chains supported caching, performance might be improved too.
Here's how it works:
Host X joins the network, connecting to host Y, which is connected to host Z. Host Y supports the new anonymous downloading feature. Host Z does not support the anonymous downloading feature.
Host A, which may or may not support anonymous downloading, connects to the gnutella network and searches for a document. The search request is broadcast to attached hosts B and C. Host C happens to be connected to host Z, which is connected to Y, and thus Z. Host X sees that it has received a search request for a document it has from host Y, and sends a routed message back through Y to the gnutellanet network. Host Y rewrites the search result to include its own IP address. It also makes an entry in a time-expired table and agrees to proxy the request to host X for anyone that asks. If for some reason Y can not agree to proxy the request (perhaps it is over its bandwidth cap) it will pass the search result unmodified to Z. When a request comes for that document, Y it will fetch it from X. Host Y hands off the rewritten packet to Z, which goes to C, B, and A. From host A's perspective, Y had the file, not Z. At Y's discression, Y will enter the file it got from X in its cache and also answer search requests matching it affirmatively.
Now the response is passed up the chain, eventually to host A. Host A requests the document from host Y, which proxies it to host X, which has the document. Who did the user get the document from? They think they got it from Y, but did they? No. They got it from X. Even if host Y leaves host X's IP in the response, how can we be sure host Y isn't just forwarding the request for someone else? Even when responding to requests that can be fulfilled locally, servers should insert a random delay. In fact, if such a system is in use, there is no reliable way to prove who you got a document from unless you can monitor the Internet connections between every site involved in the transaction.
Further complicating the matter might be the use of encryption and connection multiplexing between involved hosts. Hosts X and Y, for example, might communicate all information including proxied requests over a single encrypted channel. They might pass fodder on that channel when no transactions were in progress to reduce the effectiveness of traffic analysis.
One other great advantage is that caching could be employed to much improve download rates for popular files. Host Y, for example, could agree to keep around a few hundred megs of recently downloaded files. It then could respond to search requests for those files.
The 16-digit limit is indeed artificial. But it's going to be hard to overcome. Sure, 17, 18, and 19 digit cards are going to work just fine at POS terminals that have been implemented carefully with the specification in mind. But it's likely many of them will fail in other places due to artificial limitations added by people who didn't quite understand the big picture.
Many online ordering forms have a text box for the credit card number that's capped at 16 digits. Worse still, some won't even accept older style 15 digit and shorter AMEX and VISA cards. People who have been cardmembers for a long time (and thus have these lower numbers) have been experiencing this problem for some time and many have requested new cards be issued with 16 digit numbers. New cardmembers that get 17, 18, and 19 digit cards are going to be unable to use them at similarly ill-designed sites and will probably try to gripe at the card issuer for a shorter number.
The only failsafe protection against having a given record subpoena'd or discovered during a search is not creating that record in the first place. Protecting the anonymity of Anonymous Cowards requires that you not create any log entires about them, or at minimum, irretrivably delete those logs as soon as possible after they are created. If you fail to do these things, then Anonymous Cowards aren't really anonymous - they're actually rather reliably traceable.
DirecTV also uses a crypto scheme to prevent their video service from being viewed by folks who don't pay for an access card. If the DirecPC cryptosystem is as well designed as the DirecTV crypto, then there's probabably little to no chance of it providing any real privacy.
Don't forget that not all 16 digit numbers are valid for use as credit card numbers. In order to be valid, a number must first pass a rudimentary checksum test called LUHN-10. This checksum is intended to prevent unnecessary online verification of numbers that were entered in error. In short, the sum of odd numbered digits (numbering starts at the right, not the left) must be evenly divisible by 10, and the totals of the other digits each individually multiplied by two must also be evenly divisible by 10. As a result, there's far fewer than 10000000000000000 sixteen digit credit card numbers available.
I misspelled Diablo by adding an 'o'. However, misspelled use of a trademark can still be infringing. Misspelled use, if not defended against by the trademark holder, can still dilute the trademark. One can not have a Appel Computers without infringing Apple Computer's trademark, nor could an Adoobie Systems exist without infringing on Adobe Systems' trademark. Indeed, if an Appel Computers existed both before and after the establishment of Apple Computer's trademark or existed without contest by Apple for an extended period of time, it would still serve to dilute Apple's trademark, despite the different spelling.
As other posters have pointed out, Diablo spelled the same way Blizzard spells it is still a dictionary word in the Spanish language.
Just because a trademark is granted does not mean it is valid, nor does it mean the trademark is immune from dilution.
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913):
Diabolo was a dictionary word and the name of a game long before Blizzard started using it. If Blizzard wanted a strong trademark, they should have picked something a bit more unique.
No. Vorbis is distributed under the GNU LGPL, a Free Software license. The maintainers of xmms, freeamp, and winamp all have had no problem with the license. I'm even working on a hardware implementation for my CS project course and there has been discussion about pending hardware implementations by others on the development list as well. The license that applies to Ogg Vorbis has not been an issue for any of us.