In current ZIP encryption, directory information is already accessible, and random access is possible. Individual files are encrypted, not the entire envelope.
And the more people that post about the Webcertificate loophole, the more places are going to start blocking it by bank number (the first four digits are the same for all WC's).
Good point--Windows XP's inevitable market penetration among buyers of new PCs who don't have a choice (as opposed to almost everyone else, who stayed with Win2K rather than opt for the eye candy, spyware, and DRM) will strangle WinZip's market--I hadn't thought about that.
It's been awhile, but IIRC, the settlement agreement is under seal, and that's a he-said, she-said affair. Of course, back then, shareware was just about the same as public domain in most people's minds, before the rampant greed associated with it started.
So that's the strategy. They can't sell their POS crippleware Windows product, so they'll file a patent to go after the good Windows product that kicked their butts in the marketplace.
If I were the author of WinZip, I'd tell them to go fsck themselves, remain incompatible with them, and watch while the "original" PKware is marginalized. Hardly anyone uses it, anyway.
The de facto standard for ZIP files today for the dominant platform, which, whether we like it or not, is Windows, is WinZip, anyway.
This attempt to "embrace and extend" what was previously an open format is pretty sad. I'm sure Phil Katz is spinning in his grave, since he created PKware to market his alternative to System Enhancement Associates'.ARC format. The.ARC extension had been in use since just about the dawn of time, but SEA sued Phil Katz for using it. Thus,.ZIP was born. Now it looks like the company he created is going down the same ugly road as SEA did. And will end up in the same place--penury and obscurity.
WinZip will implement an incompatible encryption, utilities on other platforms will copy it, and WinZip will win the day.
The problem is that their effort is too little, too late, and is accompanied by fan-antagonizing threats and lawsuits. They've literally had decades to work on this, and have just started. And what they've come up with is terribly limited compared to what it will take to stop the widespred infringement that, thanks to ease of use and their projected attitude, has become socially acceptable.
Lawyers working for the DoJ often choose to take an enormous hit in their salary for the opportunity to work on the other side of the federal fence.
Providing them useful experience in the law enforcement side for when the go to the private sector. There is precious little altruism among lawyers, and certainly none among intellectual "property" lawyers.
If one is typing, one isn't paying complete attention. Aside from being plain rude, it can cause requests to repeat unheard information from the instructor, thus disrupting class. If the student doesn't want to attend the lecture, fine--don't attend. But don't show up and converse with others in a "backchannel."
If one student has the question, chances are, others do, too. And if it really is an elementary (or excessively involved) question, the prof can defer answering it until after lecture.
They can enlighten the whole class with their discussions on the topic. That way, everyone benefits. If they want to have a conversation amongst a few of themselves, they can do it after class, avoiding disruption of the learning of all.
That, and the liberties taken in some of those "translations" (cough--NIV--cough) are enough IMO to run afoul of the warning at the end of Revelation:
Revelation 22:18-19 "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, G-d shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, G-d shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
If they blow you off, or send some canned answer, send a similar letter to your state legislators--the folks that control a goodly portion of UT's funding.
Concur. As if the CTEA and the corrupt Supreme Court that upheld it wasn't bad enough, now we've got the mavens of wealth and power hoarding an over-500 year old book, doling out low resolution images for the little taxpayers that fund the University of Texas, only so that their names might be glorified in the press.
Cute idea, but would require a change to existing law if it is to be legal tender in the U.S. The Bureau of Engraving and Printing says (emphasis mine):
The design features on our currency have historical and idealistic significance, but
may not include the likeness of a living person, and do not have sectarian significance. The design of paper currency, as well as the material used in its production, is determined by the Secretary of the Treasury.
Slashdot Mirror
In current ZIP encryption, directory information is already accessible, and random access is possible. Individual files are encrypted, not the entire envelope.
IOW, Shhhhhh! :)
Good point--Windows XP's inevitable market penetration among buyers of new PCs who don't have a choice (as opposed to almost everyone else, who stayed with Win2K rather than opt for the eye candy, spyware, and DRM) will strangle WinZip's market--I hadn't thought about that.
It's been awhile, but IIRC, the settlement agreement is under seal, and that's a he-said, she-said affair. Of course, back then, shareware was just about the same as public domain in most people's minds, before the rampant greed associated with it started.
And when you "force an answer," the answer is generally "no."
If I were the author of WinZip, I'd tell them to go fsck themselves, remain incompatible with them, and watch while the "original" PKware is marginalized. Hardly anyone uses it, anyway.
This attempt to "embrace and extend" what was previously an open format is pretty sad. I'm sure Phil Katz is spinning in his grave, since he created PKware to market his alternative to System Enhancement Associates' .ARC format. The .ARC extension had been in use since just about the dawn of time, but SEA sued Phil Katz for using it. Thus, .ZIP was born. Now it looks like the company he created is going down the same ugly road as SEA did. And will end up in the same place--penury and obscurity.
WinZip will implement an incompatible encryption, utilities on other platforms will copy it, and WinZip will win the day.
Ah, but to Microsoft, DRM is a "security upgrade." And if you're running Win2K SP3 or later, or WMP9, it's a mandatory one.
Ah. I skimmed quickly enough that I thought it prohibited all "non-residential use."
The problem is that their effort is too little, too late, and is accompanied by fan-antagonizing threats and lawsuits. They've literally had decades to work on this, and have just started. And what they've come up with is terribly limited compared to what it will take to stop the widespred infringement that, thanks to ease of use and their projected attitude, has become socially acceptable.
Mod parent up!
Wow! Way to treat our troops. Viewing of their "premium content" in a barracks is prohibited.
Are you in Europe?
If they have the balls to make Song of the South, a movie they practically deny exists, available on this service.
Providing them useful experience in the law enforcement side for when the go to the private sector. There is precious little altruism among lawyers, and certainly none among intellectual "property" lawyers.
Follow the money.
If one student has the question, chances are, others do, too. And if it really is an elementary (or excessively involved) question, the prof can defer answering it until after lecture.
They can enlighten the whole class with their discussions on the topic. That way, everyone benefits. If they want to have a conversation amongst a few of themselves, they can do it after class, avoiding disruption of the learning of all.
If they blow you off, or send some canned answer, send a similar letter to your state legislators--the folks that control a goodly portion of UT's funding.
Hear, hear! If I ever find myself teaching again, anyone doing that in my classroom will leave.
Concur. As if the CTEA and the corrupt Supreme Court that upheld it wasn't bad enough, now we've got the mavens of wealth and power hoarding an over-500 year old book, doling out low resolution images for the little taxpayers that fund the University of Texas, only so that their names might be glorified in the press.
spamcop.net was pretty cool, before Julian got in bed with Cyveillance. Now I wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole.
They're going for the people whose ISPs filter for them, I guess. Either that, or the spammers are totally irrational.