God you're a simpleton. You're the jingoistic motherfucker beating his chest about how wonderful the USA is. The fact that other legal system have problems doesn't make yours any better. It's obvious that you bringing up other legal systems is a an evasion because you can't defend your own.
US law is probably the worst of the first world countries. The DMCA, the UCITA, the never-ending copyright terms, the legalized bribery (oops, sorry, "donations"), the "property has no rights" crap. Take it like a man, your country of the free, isn't.
If they've got a US Marshall with them, as many stories indicate, then it's a government action, the BSA drone is there for technical support.
Misrepresentation of the law, especially by a lawyer, is a crime. If they tell you that you must do something, because it's required by law (ie submit to this search) they're breaking a law. If they do it for expected gain (they do) it's also fraud. If they do it by mail, it might be mail fraud.
But they know nobody who can afford to press this will risk the money. This is *the* problem with the US court system. You can't actually do much of what people threaten to do, but by failing very slowly and with a lot of lawyers you can make it cost your opponent more than they can pay. Until this hole is fixed the legal system isn't deserving of any respect.
What a pathetic cop-out. Your system sucks ass and you try to defend it instead of fixing the holes.
"Property [...] has no legal rights". Sure. But what dumbass system charges property? Oh yeah, the US system. Where your property can be charged with a drug offense and you have to prove your innocence to get it back. And where the police agencies that confiscate the property get to keep the funds from auctioning it off. That's really reasonable. How can you possibly claim this makes sense?
And this double jeapordy crap is hilarious. You say you can't try someone twice for the same crime. What happened to OJ? Oh yeah, two court cases. They couldn't prove he killed his wife, yet he was found liable for killing her. That's moronic, yet it's a "Feature" of your system. You don't actually have to prove someone committed a crime to put them in prison, you sue them into debt and have everything they own confiscated, because the burden of proof is much lower in a civil case.
There's a ton of double-talk bullshit in US law like this.
Wage slavery is when a company controls enough resources that it can prevent you buying a house, except from a company contractor, and when your food comes from the company store, etc. Usually this is best situated in a small mining town a hundred miles from anywhere, where the only vehicles on the private (company owned) road are their transports to keep people from picking up and leaving. The idea is that you sign up for this great high-paying job and get there, bringing your family, but then they spring the trap. To get home by company transport costs a month's wages, and to get there you go "into debt" with the company for a few months wages. Not an issue if you work the five year contract they advertised. But then you see that renting a house (from the company) will cost a goodly bit of your income, and food, and so on. You're lucky to be able to afford to leave after five years of work.
This doesn't happen as much now, in the US, but it was a real problem about a hundred years ago. Before instant communication and worker protection laws. It's still seen in poorer countries where you can get away with fairly blatant abuse by bribing the right people. (Well, you can do that here, but not if it involves much death...)
When people call someone a wage slave, today, they're using a watered down form of the term. Something that means that someone is being paid an ammount that won't let them better themselves, or save much.
But real wage slavery was a terrible reality, and still is for some.
If Carmack comes up with a rocket that'll do $1M to space, with a decent payload (satellite + launch equip) he'll get business. If the US government cracked down on him for imagined safety reasons (he can launch from the center of the desert, with unmanned payloads, as long as the rockets have a destruct switch, they're pretty safe) he could pick up and go to Brazil, or some other country that would *love* a supply a hard currency.
The conspiracy theory only works if they control the industry completely enough to cut him off 100%. That's the stuff of story books.
What would happen, I'm sure, is that the companies involved would bring a long, drawn out suit against him, trying to invalidate his patents (if any) or show how this was covered by their patents. Then they'd crank the price up to $10M per launch by "adding safety precautions" or something, pocket the $9M, and perform $1M launches. It's pretty well what happens in the software industry. If you can't buy them out, you sue them under, and offer a lower quality version of their service for more money.
Well, you were in the right. You didn't agree to their license agreement and federal law doesn't say much about how you type in registration codes. (Well, until the DMCA, ghost is probably illegal now.)
US Copyright law specifically allows you to make temporary copies of a copyrighted work, as necessary for the execution of said work. That was what the license agreement argument stood upon, the idea that you bought the CD but couldn't read it into memory without a license.
You only "agree" to their crap when you sign site licenses. Just buying a retail copy is license free, and ditto with buying a computer with software installed on it. Until the dell people fedex a contract to you, prior to sale, you're safe.
But, lawyers are scum. It's a fact of life, like gravity. They know they can extort the money out of you by making the court case to prove your innocence more expensive than the "fines". That's all the BSA is, thuggery with a legal guise.
Quite right. Unless a prisoner's behaviour is such that they're not capable of being trusted in general population, it's generally seen as cruel to to keep them in solitary. (Well, it's seen as cruel either way, but if you don't have a choice...)
Kevin was never that kind of threat.
I'm not running around saying "Free Kevin". He deserved jail time for what he did, but he deserved fair, after-trial jail time, under the same conditions as everyone else, like all other criminals. This special treatment for "terrorists" (defined as doing something terrifying someone) is silly.
That's a lame excuse. You're saying that you assumed everything was all right before you saw an attack, but after that attack you had to go over everything with a fine-toothed comb to "make sure it was safe". As safe as it had been before being hacked, you mean.
If you're designed a "secure" system you need to follow secure practices from the beginning. Boot-strap a system from known-safe code, do an audit first. Then assemble a system for checking this code doesn't change. Put copies on write-once media so they can't be corrupted. Occasionally make sure that you can take your latest source code and build an identical executable on a system which has never (and will never) be connected to a network, or left outside of a locked room. If you can't build an identical executable, it's probably not a hack, "just" a bug, but you need to find bugs, so hunt it out. It may have been benign, or it may be a hack.
If you do anything less you're not at all secure, you just haven't been hacked yet. Real security involves monitoring enough to be able to tell what has been tampered with.
Tell me, did you throw out the hardware? Why not? Many machines have bios or microcode that can be written to from executing software. It's how updates are done. You probably reject that (rightly) yet are unable to point at why it's actually impossible. How do you know he hadn't arranged for you install CDs (probably tapes in that era actually) to be trojaned? Just admit that you don't have a clue as to what they could have done and that your paniced reinstall was just voodoo system administration.
Adding unreasonable security expenses to the cost of an intrusion is like demolishing a house (and blaming the thief) after a break-in.
Re:Please don't give 'Funny' comments to interview
on
Kevin Mitnick Answers
·
· Score: 1
As can "ten questions". My point though is that if our current arbitrary limit hinders our ability to ask quick funny questions, we should pick a new arbitrary limit. If doesn't need to be perfect, only better.
If we had more granular voting we could just send the whole list of posts over 4.5 and ask people to answer for a reasonable period of time.
On the subject of game theory and such... I've got a fun party game I mean to try. You get a small group of people and auction off a dollar. The catch is that you get the winning bid (of course) *and* the second bid. You start the bidding at a penny. As long as two bids are made before someone says the obvious "there's no way to win except not to play," the game continues. Nobody wants to be the second bidder because you pay out and get nothing, so you bid again, and so on.
There's a chance of a consortium bidding early on, agreeing to stop bidding and split the dollar after paying the two bids. But there's an opportunity for a wrecker here to push the bid up past fifty cents at which point it's a guaranteed failure for someone. And then as it approaches a dollar and people realize that even the winner is going to lose in the end. Will someone be mature enough to take a small loss to keep it from going out of control?
Quite right. And this should come up at a bail hearing, denying him any hope of bail. It should also come up at sentencing, keeping him in jail longer because wrist-slaps didn't work. It shouldn't influence how long it takes to get a bail trail, or your being kept in solitary despite lesser measures being just as effective.
Laws are there for a reason, outside of a valid state of emergency (rioting in the streets) there's no reason why someone shouldn't get their lawful rights, even an accused criminal. Even repeat criminals that everyone knows are going to rot in prison - AFTER the trial.
Re:Please don't give 'Funny' comments to interview
on
Kevin Mitnick Answers
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Actually it is interesting. Kevin's response to a funny question tells us a lot about him, he's got a sense of humor and it's much like ours. Contrast that to Shatner, or some of the other interview subjects.
Slashdot doesn't really send ten questions, just the questions of ten people. They should either send about 2500 words (of the top of my head) and let it be any number of actual questions so the short funny ones don't "waste" anything, ditto with the other (serious) short obvious ones that will be answered with essentially a form letter. Or, get serious about the limit of ten questions, one per comment, and start ignoring multi-question comments.
His treatment was far beyond what was reasonable for a non-violent, repeat criminal suspected of theft.
The calculation of the value stolen is silly. We laugh when software companies these days equate a copied program to a direct monetary loss. Can you imagine if someone copied NFL-2003 and was charged with the full development costs, plus the yearly publicity costs of the NFL, etc... It's ridiculous, and yet this is the math that contributed to him being considered a terrorist. Nobody panics when someone "steals" access to files that would have cost $2000 in total to have printed and delivered. They knew this and inflated the figures, thinking that $300 million would be much more impressive.
Also, eight months in solitary confinement!? For what? Did he attack the other prisoners? Getting eight months in solitary is fairly difficult for even violent criminals, yet they did this based on the ridiculous idea that he could call in a nuclear strike? What do they do to any other criminal who has potential connections on the outside? Why treat him differently than a Mafia Don who might still be in charge? If they can manage to keep phone access away from some people without putting them in solitary, why can't they manage it with Kevin?
They called him a terrorist and it justified doing pretty much anything they could want to do. He was one of the first to be persecuted this way, beyond any rational comparison to his crimes, but he won't be last.
The problem is that Microsoft's bundling of patches (and unavailability of source code and exploit examples) means that companies running servers with complex configurations often can't just install a service pack, something breaks. If they had source code and/or exploit examples they could probably pull out just the code to the patch they need, or code up a stateful firewall filter to watch for the exploit.
An ISP I worked at did this for Code Red. Many of the co-location machines were running Windows (and they couldn't patch them) so they threw up a cheap linux box as a router and programmed the firewall at dump all packets with a "request.ida" (or whatever that string was) in them and add them to a 60-minute block list. It was a quick hack, but it let them contact their customers can get them to patch, before they were infected, rather than having to clean (fresh install?) the machines. They also didn't get slammed anywhere near as hard in a bandwidth sense.
The server can obviously write to the data, regardless of what user you run the server as. If you exploit a vulnerability in the server, you make it do things, as the user running it.
You can sometimes get around this by having split servers, the network half running as "nobody" and the server running as a trusted user (and able to write to the data). This is theoretically possible but is a pain to implement, I doubt MS could handle it, even if their OS were secure enough to reward this kind of programming.
There's a reason companies buy mainframes, and why mainframes don't run windows.
Something available at retail isn't being licensed, it's being sold. Moreover, the fact that it's being sold makes it, under standard contract law, illegal to attach conditions to it after sale, by the use of EULAs or otherwise.
Movies are for sale, and thus if I buy them, I *own* them and can do anything I could with a book. Being that I could buy page templates, which I held over the page and blocked out certain words and passages with, I can also do the same thing with a movie. Even if it requries slightly different technology, it's still the the same basic action in the end.
Heh, I searched for something almost exactly like that (don't remember the specifics) and found a lot of talk about using it to install a game they made, or such, but no actual talk about it.
Actually, if I could add everyone to the DNC list, I would. Put the bastards out of business. After all, nobody on the list could prove they didn't add themselves... Telemarketers would quickly go out of business, or be sued out of business for violating the DNC.
Would it be a derivative work for you to say to your friend that to get to the best scene in a book, you skip to page 120?
The answer is, no. It's not a derivative work. You're just making a list or certain sections. None of the creativity of the movie is captured in your lists, so it's hard to see how it could be a derivative work. Though, I'm sure Hollywood will argue that it is. I've heard Judge Kaplan needs a new car, maybe they should see if they can get his court again...
Actually, even in North America we have laws preventing the destruction of "works of art or historical significance". It's not copyright, it's basically as if you knocked down a historical building or something.
But, it's safe to say that if someone just made something and put it up for sale, you'd be able to burn it, because your expression is just as valid as the authors, and neither one of you is "history" in this context yet.
Moral rights are usually more concerned with preventing mis-representation, such as selling a picture of a panda to the WWF and finding out it wasn't the World Wildlife Fund, but the Wrestling Federation, and they were advertising panda-wrestling, which you are morally opposed to, with your picture. (Or some other silly, contrived analogy.)
If you made a movie that I didn't want to fast-forward through, maybe I wouldn't fast-forward through it... Until then, keep your opinions to yourself chuckles.
When you put something up for sale you give up all rights on it, except for copyright. I can fold, spindle, mutilate, and fast-forward through whatever I buy, I merely can't make a lasting copy, or publicly perform it.
The law is so completely against the Hollywood, fascist, view that it's a non-issue. You always have been able to edit your content, and you always will.
Wah. Imagine making a shitty movie and having someone hit 'Stop' and watching something better. Would your perfect world allow directors to disable that button too, for fear that someone might not respect their artistic integrity?
You have no idea if it's my first, or fifteenth time watching a movie. Maybe I want to skip to a certain scene to see a specific actor, or show a friend something. Maybe I want to come in where I left off the week before. Maybe I'm simply smarter than you and your hideous mangling of a movie makes it painful for me to watch some parts that you think are high art. Or, maybe, like the people developing the player, I have decided for my own reasons that I don't like some parts of the movie and I want to watch *my* movie in the way that I want.
Once you sell something it becomes the property of the purchaser. The only thing copyright prevents is their making copies. You sell all control over everything else when you sell the work. If you insist people watch it your way, don't sell it, play it in carefully controlled environments.
Better, or worse, I don't care. If they lie, cheat, and steal, which it is obvious that they did, I will do my best to avoid and/or kill the technology. By promoting Rambus's "technology" you're promoting a company that exists by litigation alone.
They intentionally sabotaged SDRAM by applying for patents which covered components of it, but which they didn't invent, and were trivially obvious even if they had. They are attempting to kill all competition, thereby forcing people to use the only remaining alternative, theirs.
I think the management of Rambus and any lawyers privy to the details (hopefully all) should get jail time.
Presumably you want a master key that you aren't supposed to have. Why? Likely if you're looking for this key and have a use in mind, stealing would be nothing.
Did you miss the part about this being a security problem? What is important is not if I, presumably a researcher like yourself, would do what I could do, but merely that I could do it and that you have to assume someone else could do it as well.
Not only does this make it easier to find a key that works for any individual door (may or may not be much of a problem) but it doesn't really help that much.
Obviously, for a master key system, all doors must open at the same levels. If you start with a door that has three possible positions for each pin (one from the key you started with and two others) you'd think that it gives you 3^5 possible master keys. And it would, if you just cut all the ones you have discovered from the first door.
But try this on even one more door and you'll have eliminated almost all of the common heights, except the master key. (You can't really have common non-master heights, because then it's another master key.)
So take your 243 starting possibilities and maybe you have 20 after the second door (and that's probably high). You could either just get all 20 cut, or find a third door and perform the test again.
This method still lets you perform a linear attack, it simply gives multiple answers (one of which is *the* answer) so you can't figure it out in a single try. To get back to exponential attacks you need a way that you can't figure out one pin without having guessed right for another, the way a non-master lock system works.
Slashdot Mirror
God you're a simpleton. You're the jingoistic motherfucker beating his chest about how wonderful the USA is. The fact that other legal system have problems doesn't make yours any better. It's obvious that you bringing up other legal systems is a an evasion because you can't defend your own.
US law is probably the worst of the first world countries. The DMCA, the UCITA, the never-ending copyright terms, the legalized bribery (oops, sorry, "donations"), the "property has no rights" crap. Take it like a man, your country of the free, isn't.
If they've got a US Marshall with them, as many stories indicate, then it's a government action, the BSA drone is there for technical support.
Misrepresentation of the law, especially by a lawyer, is a crime. If they tell you that you must do something, because it's required by law (ie submit to this search) they're breaking a law. If they do it for expected gain (they do) it's also fraud. If they do it by mail, it might be mail fraud.
But they know nobody who can afford to press this will risk the money. This is *the* problem with the US court system. You can't actually do much of what people threaten to do, but by failing very slowly and with a lot of lawyers you can make it cost your opponent more than they can pay. Until this hole is fixed the legal system isn't deserving of any respect.
What a pathetic cop-out. Your system sucks ass and you try to defend it instead of fixing the holes.
"Property [...] has no legal rights". Sure. But what dumbass system charges property? Oh yeah, the US system. Where your property can be charged with a drug offense and you have to prove your innocence to get it back. And where the police agencies that confiscate the property get to keep the funds from auctioning it off. That's really reasonable. How can you possibly claim this makes sense?
And this double jeapordy crap is hilarious. You say you can't try someone twice for the same crime. What happened to OJ? Oh yeah, two court cases. They couldn't prove he killed his wife, yet he was found liable for killing her. That's moronic, yet it's a "Feature" of your system. You don't actually have to prove someone committed a crime to put them in prison, you sue them into debt and have everything they own confiscated, because the burden of proof is much lower in a civil case.
There's a ton of double-talk bullshit in US law like this.
Wage slavery is when a company controls enough resources that it can prevent you buying a house, except from a company contractor, and when your food comes from the company store, etc. Usually this is best situated in a small mining town a hundred miles from anywhere, where the only vehicles on the private (company owned) road are their transports to keep people from picking up and leaving. The idea is that you sign up for this great high-paying job and get there, bringing your family, but then they spring the trap. To get home by company transport costs a month's wages, and to get there you go "into debt" with the company for a few months wages. Not an issue if you work the five year contract they advertised. But then you see that renting a house (from the company) will cost a goodly bit of your income, and food, and so on. You're lucky to be able to afford to leave after five years of work.
This doesn't happen as much now, in the US, but it was a real problem about a hundred years ago. Before instant communication and worker protection laws. It's still seen in poorer countries where you can get away with fairly blatant abuse by bribing the right people. (Well, you can do that here, but not if it involves much death...)
When people call someone a wage slave, today, they're using a watered down form of the term. Something that means that someone is being paid an ammount that won't let them better themselves, or save much.
But real wage slavery was a terrible reality, and still is for some.
If Carmack comes up with a rocket that'll do $1M to space, with a decent payload (satellite + launch equip) he'll get business. If the US government cracked down on him for imagined safety reasons (he can launch from the center of the desert, with unmanned payloads, as long as the rockets have a destruct switch, they're pretty safe) he could pick up and go to Brazil, or some other country that would *love* a supply a hard currency.
The conspiracy theory only works if they control the industry completely enough to cut him off 100%. That's the stuff of story books.
What would happen, I'm sure, is that the companies involved would bring a long, drawn out suit against him, trying to invalidate his patents (if any) or show how this was covered by their patents. Then they'd crank the price up to $10M per launch by "adding safety precautions" or something, pocket the $9M, and perform $1M launches. It's pretty well what happens in the software industry. If you can't buy them out, you sue them under, and offer a lower quality version of their service for more money.
Well, you were in the right. You didn't agree to their license agreement and federal law doesn't say much about how you type in registration codes. (Well, until the DMCA, ghost is probably illegal now.)
US Copyright law specifically allows you to make temporary copies of a copyrighted work, as necessary for the execution of said work. That was what the license agreement argument stood upon, the idea that you bought the CD but couldn't read it into memory without a license.
You only "agree" to their crap when you sign site licenses. Just buying a retail copy is license free, and ditto with buying a computer with software installed on it. Until the dell people fedex a contract to you, prior to sale, you're safe.
But, lawyers are scum. It's a fact of life, like gravity. They know they can extort the money out of you by making the court case to prove your innocence more expensive than the "fines". That's all the BSA is, thuggery with a legal guise.
Quite right. Unless a prisoner's behaviour is such that they're not capable of being trusted in general population, it's generally seen as cruel to to keep them in solitary. (Well, it's seen as cruel either way, but if you don't have a choice...)
Kevin was never that kind of threat.
I'm not running around saying "Free Kevin". He deserved jail time for what he did, but he deserved fair, after-trial jail time, under the same conditions as everyone else, like all other criminals. This special treatment for "terrorists" (defined as doing something terrifying someone) is silly.
That's a lame excuse. You're saying that you assumed everything was all right before you saw an attack, but after that attack you had to go over everything with a fine-toothed comb to "make sure it was safe". As safe as it had been before being hacked, you mean.
If you're designed a "secure" system you need to follow secure practices from the beginning. Boot-strap a system from known-safe code, do an audit first. Then assemble a system for checking this code doesn't change. Put copies on write-once media so they can't be corrupted. Occasionally make sure that you can take your latest source code and build an identical executable on a system which has never (and will never) be connected to a network, or left outside of a locked room. If you can't build an identical executable, it's probably not a hack, "just" a bug, but you need to find bugs, so hunt it out. It may have been benign, or it may be a hack.
If you do anything less you're not at all secure, you just haven't been hacked yet. Real security involves monitoring enough to be able to tell what has been tampered with.
Tell me, did you throw out the hardware? Why not? Many machines have bios or microcode that can be written to from executing software. It's how updates are done. You probably reject that (rightly) yet are unable to point at why it's actually impossible. How do you know he hadn't arranged for you install CDs (probably tapes in that era actually) to be trojaned? Just admit that you don't have a clue as to what they could have done and that your paniced reinstall was just voodoo system administration.
Adding unreasonable security expenses to the cost of an intrusion is like demolishing a house (and blaming the thief) after a break-in.
As can "ten questions". My point though is that if our current arbitrary limit hinders our ability to ask quick funny questions, we should pick a new arbitrary limit. If doesn't need to be perfect, only better.
If we had more granular voting we could just send the whole list of posts over 4.5 and ask people to answer for a reasonable period of time.
On the subject of game theory and such... I've got a fun party game I mean to try. You get a small group of people and auction off a dollar. The catch is that you get the winning bid (of course) *and* the second bid. You start the bidding at a penny. As long as two bids are made before someone says the obvious "there's no way to win except not to play," the game continues. Nobody wants to be the second bidder because you pay out and get nothing, so you bid again, and so on.
There's a chance of a consortium bidding early on, agreeing to stop bidding and split the dollar after paying the two bids. But there's an opportunity for a wrecker here to push the bid up past fifty cents at which point it's a guaranteed failure for someone. And then as it approaches a dollar and people realize that even the winner is going to lose in the end. Will someone be mature enough to take a small loss to keep it from going out of control?
Quite right. And this should come up at a bail hearing, denying him any hope of bail. It should also come up at sentencing, keeping him in jail longer because wrist-slaps didn't work. It shouldn't influence how long it takes to get a bail trail, or your being kept in solitary despite lesser measures being just as effective.
Laws are there for a reason, outside of a valid state of emergency (rioting in the streets) there's no reason why someone shouldn't get their lawful rights, even an accused criminal. Even repeat criminals that everyone knows are going to rot in prison - AFTER the trial.
Actually it is interesting. Kevin's response to a funny question tells us a lot about him, he's got a sense of humor and it's much like ours. Contrast that to Shatner, or some of the other interview subjects.
Slashdot doesn't really send ten questions, just the questions of ten people. They should either send about 2500 words (of the top of my head) and let it be any number of actual questions so the short funny ones don't "waste" anything, ditto with the other (serious) short obvious ones that will be answered with essentially a form letter. Or, get serious about the limit of ten questions, one per comment, and start ignoring multi-question comments.
His treatment was far beyond what was reasonable for a non-violent, repeat criminal suspected of theft.
The calculation of the value stolen is silly. We laugh when software companies these days equate a copied program to a direct monetary loss. Can you imagine if someone copied NFL-2003 and was charged with the full development costs, plus the yearly publicity costs of the NFL, etc... It's ridiculous, and yet this is the math that contributed to him being considered a terrorist. Nobody panics when someone "steals" access to files that would have cost $2000 in total to have printed and delivered. They knew this and inflated the figures, thinking that $300 million would be much more impressive.
Also, eight months in solitary confinement!? For what? Did he attack the other prisoners? Getting eight months in solitary is fairly difficult for even violent criminals, yet they did this based on the ridiculous idea that he could call in a nuclear strike? What do they do to any other criminal who has potential connections on the outside? Why treat him differently than a Mafia Don who might still be in charge? If they can manage to keep phone access away from some people without putting them in solitary, why can't they manage it with Kevin?
They called him a terrorist and it justified doing pretty much anything they could want to do. He was one of the first to be persecuted this way, beyond any rational comparison to his crimes, but he won't be last.
The problem is that Microsoft's bundling of patches (and unavailability of source code and exploit examples) means that companies running servers with complex configurations often can't just install a service pack, something breaks. If they had source code and/or exploit examples they could probably pull out just the code to the patch they need, or code up a stateful firewall filter to watch for the exploit.
An ISP I worked at did this for Code Red. Many of the co-location machines were running Windows (and they couldn't patch them) so they threw up a cheap linux box as a router and programmed the firewall at dump all packets with a "request.ida" (or whatever that string was) in them and add them to a 60-minute block list. It was a quick hack, but it let them contact their customers can get them to patch, before they were infected, rather than having to clean (fresh install?) the machines. They also didn't get slammed anywhere near as hard in a bandwidth sense.
The server can obviously write to the data, regardless of what user you run the server as. If you exploit a vulnerability in the server, you make it do things, as the user running it.
You can sometimes get around this by having split servers, the network half running as "nobody" and the server running as a trusted user (and able to write to the data). This is theoretically possible but is a pain to implement, I doubt MS could handle it, even if their OS were secure enough to reward this kind of programming.
There's a reason companies buy mainframes, and why mainframes don't run windows.
Something available at retail isn't being licensed, it's being sold. Moreover, the fact that it's being sold makes it, under standard contract law, illegal to attach conditions to it after sale, by the use of EULAs or otherwise.
Movies are for sale, and thus if I buy them, I *own* them and can do anything I could with a book. Being that I could buy page templates, which I held over the page and blocked out certain words and passages with, I can also do the same thing with a movie. Even if it requries slightly different technology, it's still the the same basic action in the end.
Heh, I searched for something almost exactly like that (don't remember the specifics) and found a lot of talk about using it to install a game they made, or such, but no actual talk about it.
Thanks.
Actually, if I could add everyone to the DNC list, I would. Put the bastards out of business. After all, nobody on the list could prove they didn't add themselves... Telemarketers would quickly go out of business, or be sued out of business for violating the DNC.
Would it be a derivative work for you to say to your friend that to get to the best scene in a book, you skip to page 120?
The answer is, no. It's not a derivative work. You're just making a list or certain sections. None of the creativity of the movie is captured in your lists, so it's hard to see how it could be a derivative work. Though, I'm sure Hollywood will argue that it is. I've heard Judge Kaplan needs a new car, maybe they should see if they can get his court again...
Actually, even in North America we have laws preventing the destruction of "works of art or historical significance". It's not copyright, it's basically as if you knocked down a historical building or something.
But, it's safe to say that if someone just made something and put it up for sale, you'd be able to burn it, because your expression is just as valid as the authors, and neither one of you is "history" in this context yet.
Moral rights are usually more concerned with preventing mis-representation, such as selling a picture of a panda to the WWF and finding out it wasn't the World Wildlife Fund, but the Wrestling Federation, and they were advertising panda-wrestling, which you are morally opposed to, with your picture. (Or some other silly, contrived analogy.)
If you made a movie that I didn't want to fast-forward through, maybe I wouldn't fast-forward through it... Until then, keep your opinions to yourself chuckles.
When you put something up for sale you give up all rights on it, except for copyright. I can fold, spindle, mutilate, and fast-forward through whatever I buy, I merely can't make a lasting copy, or publicly perform it.
The law is so completely against the Hollywood, fascist, view that it's a non-issue. You always have been able to edit your content, and you always will.
Wah. Imagine making a shitty movie and having someone hit 'Stop' and watching something better. Would your perfect world allow directors to disable that button too, for fear that someone might not respect their artistic integrity?
You have no idea if it's my first, or fifteenth time watching a movie. Maybe I want to skip to a certain scene to see a specific actor, or show a friend something. Maybe I want to come in where I left off the week before. Maybe I'm simply smarter than you and your hideous mangling of a movie makes it painful for me to watch some parts that you think are high art. Or, maybe, like the people developing the player, I have decided for my own reasons that I don't like some parts of the movie and I want to watch *my* movie in the way that I want.
Once you sell something it becomes the property of the purchaser. The only thing copyright prevents is their making copies. You sell all control over everything else when you sell the work. If you insist people watch it your way, don't sell it, play it in carefully controlled environments.
Better, or worse, I don't care. If they lie, cheat, and steal, which it is obvious that they did, I will do my best to avoid and/or kill the technology. By promoting Rambus's "technology" you're promoting a company that exists by litigation alone.
They intentionally sabotaged SDRAM by applying for patents which covered components of it, but which they didn't invent, and were trivially obvious even if they had. They are attempting to kill all competition, thereby forcing people to use the only remaining alternative, theirs.
I think the management of Rambus and any lawyers privy to the details (hopefully all) should get jail time.
Can you point me to this? It sounds interesting.
Presumably you want a master key that you aren't supposed to have. Why? Likely if you're looking for this key and have a use in mind, stealing would be nothing.
Did you miss the part about this being a security problem? What is important is not if I, presumably a researcher like yourself, would do what I could do, but merely that I could do it and that you have to assume someone else could do it as well.
Not only does this make it easier to find a key that works for any individual door (may or may not be much of a problem) but it doesn't really help that much.
Obviously, for a master key system, all doors must open at the same levels. If you start with a door that has three possible positions for each pin (one from the key you started with and two others) you'd think that it gives you 3^5 possible master keys. And it would, if you just cut all the ones you have discovered from the first door.
But try this on even one more door and you'll have eliminated almost all of the common heights, except the master key. (You can't really have common non-master heights, because then it's another master key.)
So take your 243 starting possibilities and maybe you have 20 after the second door (and that's probably high). You could either just get all 20 cut, or find a third door and perform the test again.
This method still lets you perform a linear attack, it simply gives multiple answers (one of which is *the* answer) so you can't figure it out in a single try. To get back to exponential attacks you need a way that you can't figure out one pin without having guessed right for another, the way a non-master lock system works.