According to ARIA's line of reasoning, then I'd say that yes they could. Of course, this has yet to be established in the court room, and there are a lot of grey areas, even if you accept ARIA's argument. What is the webspace is provided for "free" as part of a standard package, or operating costs are funded through advertising like with some of the freebie hosting companies? That leads to another issue; either way, for the ISP to be found guilty, I would have thought that ARIA would have to show, beyond reasonable doubt, that the ISP was well aware of what was going on. In other words, to escape prosecution, all the ISP needs to do is establish reasonable doubt that it had no direct knowledge of what the site was hosting; "we provided a few servers of co-lo for web services, but had no idea what those services were".
Well, you might have received spam from Gandi, or you might have just received spam that *appeared* to be from Gandi at first glance. You might want to read this and see if it applies to you. I've certainly had no trouble with them, and I use multiple domain registrars.
Microsoft won't decrypt contect protected by the service unless a court order requires it.
And there you have it. There is a back door in this here DRM technology, "just in case" of course... So not only is this technology flawed, even by DRM standards, but the necessary tools to circumvent it will be hitting your local dodgy site in 5... 4...
Here's some anecdotal evidence for you. Many moons ago, when CD ROMs were still a rare beast, I had two models of the same dual speed drive on my desk, one IDE and one SCSI. These were state of the art drives at the time. I had a sample disc with a large Video for Windows file - must have been 10MB at least! On the IDE model playback was jerky and the CPU was maxed at 100%, while on the SCSI version the CPU never got above 50% and playback was smooth as silk.
The reason for this being that SCSI handles far more of the overhead of managing the disk on the controller than IDE, which left much of the work to the CPU. Of course, this technological gap has narrowed considerably with the evolution of IDE into EIDE and now ATA drives.
I have to confess, I'm a die hard SCSI fan when I can justify it (although I might be swayed by second generation SATA). While the real world performance gap of SCSI-vs-IDE is long gone, SCSI drives are still synonomous with servers, which usually translates into a more robust product. How much is *your* data worth compared to the SCSI price premium?
Since you've ruled out the GPL, and by inference Gnome as a development platform, what would you prefer? I'm guessing either a BSD style "no-holds barred as long as you include a copyright" or Microsoft EULA type license so you can avoid releasing your code, right? Please elaborate!
I'm serious by the way. I'm running into corporate fear of even deploying open source on an almost daily basis at the moment, so any insights on this from the "other side" are very useful for me.
The markings could have been used to differentiate the stones. Stone C (axe) on top of Stones B (dagger) and C (man), etc..
I now have an image of Stonehenge arriving in huge flatpacks with the ancient rune of "Ikea" stamped on them. Actually, given the typical Brit's bafflement at a set of instructions from Ikea, that probably explains it - Stonehenge was *supposed* to be a five piece table and chair set, but the druids read the plans wrong...;)
Its bad enough as it is, and we need to think of a way to solve the problem real fast.
Wasn't Aerogel used to gather up small bits of cometary debris or something? Maybe a sufficiently large quantity of the stuff could be used as an orbital vacuum cleaner (wait for the Spaceballs jokes) to clean up a chunk of LEO before being deorbited again. It's light, so the launch costs would be low, but the bulk might be a problem unless you can create the stuff in orbit. Of course, if we had our space elevator already launch costs wouldn't be an issue at all.
We had that too. We flashed the EEPROM to the latest firmware on the afflicted ones (four or five out of several dozen) and the couple that didn't stop crashing we RMA'd for replacements which worked fine - problem solved. Since there were similar firmware revisions on the problem kit we put it down to a coding issue in the firmware. We also noticed that not all the potentially susceptible kit was having problems when we went around and updated all the firmware as part of our Y2K effort, so you might want to investigate an upgrade, just in case it's a similar issue.
Apart from that batch, they've been rock-solid - the one I've got at home hasn't been rebooted since I installed my current UPS which was... 940 days ago according to the Netport.
Sheesh, why don't we just rename "AskSlashdot" to "AskGoogle" and be done with it? These things are common as muck; single port D-Link's can be had from as little as #30 in the UK if you shop around, and they even do wireless models. Intel's Netport range is also very good (I even have one at home), they are more expensive than the D-Links, but have much broader protocol support. Since you need to talk to non-Windows systems, you'll need to ensure that your device supports a standard like LPD that you can actually talk too (unless you want to install Samba).
...what about including DVD-RAM in the comparisons?;)
DVD-RW
The original "standard". Major backers are Apple, NEC, Panasonic, Pioneer, Toshiba. Some incompatibilities exist with the emerging Mount Ranier standard, but there is a *huge* user base.
DVD+RW
Followed shortly after DVD-RW. Major backers are Dell, HP, Philips, Sony, Yamaha. Supposedly less error prone than DVD-RW and also more efficient, so faster drives are a more likely prospect and most pundits I've seen tend to favour this over DVD-RW. Used by Philips in their DVD set-top recorders.
DVD-RAM
The most recent standard. Major backers are Panasonic and, um... but Panasonic does use them in their set-top recorders and the format dominates this market in Japan. Much better support for random access recording (doesn't use a spiral track IIRC) so better for timeshifting, etc. Longest (hypothetical) lifespan of 100 years vs 70, and most supported rewritings (again hypothetical) of 100,000 vs 10,000 times. Most of the gains are due to the fact that a cartridge is often required, although this is starting to be phased out.
Ultimately though, if you want to use these disks in your DVD players, all the features don't matter a damn if your disks won't play, so check compatability first! I've also heard that different brands of media can cause issues with some players too. I'm waiting for now, but I think a DVD+RW/RAM drive would be the way to go at the moment. Finally LG does a drive compatible with all the standards, I'm not aware of any other drives that can do this as yet.
Naah, it's far simpler than that. It's the onset of extreme age you see; God's probably just deaf and incontinent by now... That also explains why there's so much bad shit going down at the moment...;)
Technically, no, but put yourself in the place of a big ISP with hundreds of thousands of customers like in example #2. Which would you rather have; one DNS wildcard and that's it, or the requirement that for each customer you have a dedicated hostname and A/MX records? the former is a "fire and forget" solution. The latter means that for additions/deletions you ammend a *huge* list of DNS hosts, increment a serial number and reload that information across all of your DNS servers. There could also be several hours delay while DNS caches expire too.
Wildcards do have their place, it's just not at the TLD level.
Is it me or 404 is for 'page not found'? And NOT DNS lookup error...
Nope, it's not just you; a lot of articles are obviously being written by people for whom Internet == WWW, and this mistake is occuring a lot. The error they actually mean is NXDOMAIN, short for "Non-existant Domain", and not a "404" which is, of course, a HTTP error to indicate that the specific object was not found.
BTW While I think about, can anyone give me an example of a valid use of the DNS wildcard - its not that I don't believe that its useful, its just I don't know enough to prove that it is.
Directing user homepages to a central web server cluster for ISPs that use things like "http://customer.isp.net" for their user's homepages (* IN A www.isp.net). I've also used this to provide a customer bandwidth graph to customers with leased lines at an ISP.
Similarly, redirecting mail to a central point for dropping into POP/IMAP boxes (* IN MX 10 mail.isp.net)
There are several others, but these are the ones that you are most likely to see in the wild. Only the first is applicable at the TLD level though, but I suppose if you were the sole ISP for a *really* tiny ccTLD (like The Vatican, say) then you might want to use wildcards in the ccTLD for mail etc.
How the hell it is anywhere near legal for the RIAA to send the equivalent of enforcers into an independent music and seize property? Just because the music is on a CD-R doesn't mean that it's a copyright infringment or anything like that. Imagine if Microsoft had tried to shutdown the early pioneers of the Shareware phenomenon using these kinds of tactics. I don't think I'd be drawing a parallel with Edison here, more like Al Capone.
The land of the free? Not anymore it would seem. The American Dream: July 4th 1776 - September 11th 2001, RIP.
*What* bugs are there in BIND due to the anti-wildcarding of DNS patches? ISC's patch provides two ways of approaching the problem; either prevent wildcarding of specific TLDs or globally ban wildcarding of TLDs and provide an exception list. Both approaches work fine, provided that the DNS admins that implement them take the time to understand the implications and approach the patch with caution instead of a jerking knee. It also clearly stated in the release notes with the patches what the issues were and that there were exceptions such as.de,.museum and several others.
If anything, the rest of the blame for this part of the fiasco lies with the DNS admins at the TLDs concerned that took so long to realise that they were doing wildcarding and raise this issue with ISC. Or any of the other DNS vendors that provided a similar workaround for that matter. Still, at least I know some more TLD operators to avoid registering domains with now...
Holy tracking numbers "devnullkac" [SlashdotID=223246]! It looks like Slashdot is assigning you a number as well; who knows what invasions of privacy they are using it for!
Or maybe it just has something to do with it being easier to cross-reference records stored in a database with a unique key, huh?;)
Re:Am I the only one...
on
Longhorn in 2006
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I'm not too sure about that. For all their ethical faults Microsoft does employ some very savvy people, and they have to realise that DRM simply isn't going to survive the attentions of the crackers. I've suspected for a long while the Microsoft's support for DRM is merely playing lip service to the media corporations who seem to be getting an awful lot of political pull in corporate America at present. Having that kind of ally could be very useful the next time an anti-trust suit comes along, and it's a lot of license revenue too...
My own pet theory about the tardiness of Longhorn is that Microsoft has simply decided to do a re-write of a huge chunk of the code. There are two possible candidates for why that I can see; firstly they really are trying to take their new stance on security seriously and are redoing some of the cruftier bits of code. Far more likely though is that they simply got too ambitious (again) over their Cairo-esque multimedia filesystem, decided the hardware and market still isn't ready for it and went back to the drawing board.
With Microsoft now admitting that Longhorn isn't due until 2006, if Apple is going to release a x86 port of OSX, then now is surely the time to do it. Actually, given that Intel is in the process of a sea change to 64 bit and AMD is all but there; a better bet might be to take a stab at the burgeoning 64 bit market and ignore legacy 32 bit. That way Apple can dabble it's toes in the Intel world without getting seriously burnt by the mass market 32 bit box shifters.
Whatever they decide, with the Windows world stalled until 2006, now's the time for the *NIX based solutions to make hay, whatever their CPU architecture of choice...
Firstly, this is supposedly taken from SGI's license, and does not cover any ammendments or addendums. At this level of license negotiations both parties lawyers will have a lengthy negotiation to get various terms altered and struck out before either party signs. I doubt very much that IBM's license is going to be the same somehow, and quite possibly (probably) both IBM and SGI's licenses *do* have non-revokable clauses.
Secondly, if Blake Stowell had actually read his own contract properly he would found this bit: "...in addition to any other remedies that it may have, at any time terminate all the rights granted by it hereunder by not less than two(2) months' written notice to LICENSEE specifying any such breach, unless within the period of such notice all breaches specified therein shall have been remedied.". I particularly find the bits about "other remedies" and "breaches specified" of note. IANAL, but that implies to me that SCO is obliged to to both disclose details of what is in breach (not necessarily publically), which it hasn't done as far as I am aware, then give IBM/SGI two months to correct that breach.
I suspect SCO's refusal to disclose any information prior to an actual trial is going to bite them in the ass somehow.
Well, there does appear to be a sequence of at least six novels as well, starting with "Shatterpoint", and there will no doubt be a lot of comics too. I have to agree that it's no substitute for a movie set in the midst of the wars though.
SUSE has already successfully filed a suit against SCO Germany a long time ago
Indeed, and unlike Red Hat, SUSE didn't wait for a lawsuit to arrive before sucessfully going to court for their injunction. I guess that lends further credence to the maxim that the best defense is a good offense, so let's hope that the strategy pays off for the ACCC down in Oz too.;)
Still, every little bit helps with bleeding them dry. The more court cases SCO has to deal with the less chance that Darl will get his Golden Parachute for four profitable quarters in succession.
They're just mad they were found out to be dummies with a broken product, and that their share price dropped 20% when Wall Streeties discovered they were dummies. Solution: sue the guy who said, "the Emperor has no clothes!"
Good analogy. I'm not sure if your Emperor and tailor are the same as mine though. My Emperor is all of the music studios, and the tailor is all the companies peddling this useless DRM crap to them. What amazes me is that the studios don't (or won't) see the way that they are being duped in the same way as the Emperor of the fable.
Let's face it, a CD with DRM must still work on an audio CD player, no matter what, or there point is no point in producing the CD in the first place, although for some of the pap being pushed at present that would not be a bad thing, but I digress... That means that the raw CD audio data must be accessible to a CD audio drive. If it's accessible to a CD audio drive, then it must *also* be readable as raw data by a CD ROM drive (which is often the same thing anyway), even if you have to resort to a raw sector read. If you can read the CD audio data, then you can create a copy, and guess what? It's just raw audio data! Open it your favorite audio editor as 16bit, 44.1KHz stereo raw audio and you can MP3/OGG it, save it as WAV and burn to CDR, whatever.
Then again, this is the same industry that's allowing its trade association to sue its own customers. As was pointed out earlier today, this tactic didn't work too well against Henry Ford either. Hopefully this latest debacle might encourage them to see the light, but somehow I doubt it very much indeed.
Following up on this, start with an overview an build up the detail approach (a good one by the way), I'd suggest using a WIKI to do your outline. That way, you can allow the specialists in areas you might not have the expertise in review, annotate and correct your notes for you. Once you've got all the data, you can either leave it in the WIKI and/or extract the data and publish it as static HTML, PDF, dead trees, or whatever.
Slashdot Mirror
According to ARIA's line of reasoning, then I'd say that yes they could. Of course, this has yet to be established in the court room, and there are a lot of grey areas, even if you accept ARIA's argument. What is the webspace is provided for "free" as part of a standard package, or operating costs are funded through advertising like with some of the freebie hosting companies? That leads to another issue; either way, for the ISP to be found guilty, I would have thought that ARIA would have to show, beyond reasonable doubt, that the ISP was well aware of what was going on. In other words, to escape prosecution, all the ISP needs to do is establish reasonable doubt that it had no direct knowledge of what the site was hosting; "we provided a few servers of co-lo for web services, but had no idea what those services were".
Well, you might have received spam from Gandi, or you might have just received spam that *appeared* to be from Gandi at first glance. You might want to read this and see if it applies to you. I've certainly had no trouble with them, and I use multiple domain registrars.
And there you have it. There is a back door in this here DRM technology, "just in case" of course... So not only is this technology flawed, even by DRM standards, but the necessary tools to circumvent it will be hitting your local dodgy site in 5... 4...
The reason for this being that SCSI handles far more of the overhead of managing the disk on the controller than IDE, which left much of the work to the CPU. Of course, this technological gap has narrowed considerably with the evolution of IDE into EIDE and now ATA drives.
I have to confess, I'm a die hard SCSI fan when I can justify it (although I might be swayed by second generation SATA). While the real world performance gap of SCSI-vs-IDE is long gone, SCSI drives are still synonomous with servers, which usually translates into a more robust product. How much is *your* data worth compared to the SCSI price premium?
I'm serious by the way. I'm running into corporate fear of even deploying open source on an almost daily basis at the moment, so any insights on this from the "other side" are very useful for me.
Surely you mean a gnomon?
I now have an image of Stonehenge arriving in huge flatpacks with the ancient rune of "Ikea" stamped on them. Actually, given the typical Brit's bafflement at a set of instructions from Ikea, that probably explains it - Stonehenge was *supposed* to be a five piece table and chair set, but the druids read the plans wrong... ;)
Wasn't Aerogel used to gather up small bits of cometary debris or something? Maybe a sufficiently large quantity of the stuff could be used as an orbital vacuum cleaner (wait for the Spaceballs jokes) to clean up a chunk of LEO before being deorbited again. It's light, so the launch costs would be low, but the bulk might be a problem unless you can create the stuff in orbit. Of course, if we had our space elevator already launch costs wouldn't be an issue at all.
Apart from that batch, they've been rock-solid - the one I've got at home hasn't been rebooted since I installed my current UPS which was... 940 days ago according to the Netport.
Sheesh, why don't we just rename "AskSlashdot" to "AskGoogle" and be done with it? These things are common as muck; single port D-Link's can be had from as little as #30 in the UK if you shop around, and they even do wireless models. Intel's Netport range is also very good (I even have one at home), they are more expensive than the D-Links, but have much broader protocol support. Since you need to talk to non-Windows systems, you'll need to ensure that your device supports a standard like LPD that you can actually talk too (unless you want to install Samba).
DVD-RW
The original "standard". Major backers are Apple, NEC, Panasonic, Pioneer, Toshiba. Some incompatibilities exist with the emerging Mount Ranier standard, but there is a *huge* user base.
DVD+RW
Followed shortly after DVD-RW. Major backers are Dell, HP, Philips, Sony, Yamaha. Supposedly less error prone than DVD-RW and also more efficient, so faster drives are a more likely prospect and most pundits I've seen tend to favour this over DVD-RW. Used by Philips in their DVD set-top recorders.
DVD-RAM
The most recent standard. Major backers are Panasonic and, um... but Panasonic does use them in their set-top recorders and the format dominates this market in Japan. Much better support for random access recording (doesn't use a spiral track IIRC) so better for timeshifting, etc. Longest (hypothetical) lifespan of 100 years vs 70, and most supported rewritings (again hypothetical) of 100,000 vs 10,000 times. Most of the gains are due to the fact that a cartridge is often required, although this is starting to be phased out.
Ultimately though, if you want to use these disks in your DVD players, all the features don't matter a damn if your disks won't play, so check compatability first! I've also heard that different brands of media can cause issues with some players too. I'm waiting for now, but I think a DVD+RW/RAM drive would be the way to go at the moment. Finally LG does a drive compatible with all the standards, I'm not aware of any other drives that can do this as yet.
Naah, it's far simpler than that. It's the onset of extreme age you see; God's probably just deaf and incontinent by now... That also explains why there's so much bad shit going down at the moment... ;)
Wildcards do have their place, it's just not at the TLD level.
Nope, it's not just you; a lot of articles are obviously being written by people for whom Internet == WWW, and this mistake is occuring a lot. The error they actually mean is NXDOMAIN, short for "Non-existant Domain", and not a "404" which is, of course, a HTTP error to indicate that the specific object was not found.
Here's a few:
- Musadoma's (approved) use of wildcarding to provide an Index of the
.musuem domain
- Directing user homepages to a central web server cluster for ISPs that use things like "http://customer.isp.net" for their user's homepages (* IN A www.isp.net). I've also used this to provide a customer bandwidth graph to customers with leased lines at an ISP.
- Similarly, redirecting mail to a central point for dropping into POP/IMAP boxes (* IN MX 10 mail.isp.net)
There are several others, but these are the ones that you are most likely to see in the wild. Only the first is applicable at the TLD level though, but I suppose if you were the sole ISP for a *really* tiny ccTLD (like The Vatican, say) then you might want to use wildcards in the ccTLD for mail etc.The land of the free? Not anymore it would seem. The American Dream: July 4th 1776 - September 11th 2001, RIP.
If anything, the rest of the blame for this part of the fiasco lies with the DNS admins at the TLDs concerned that took so long to realise that they were doing wildcarding and raise this issue with ISC. Or any of the other DNS vendors that provided a similar workaround for that matter. Still, at least I know some more TLD operators to avoid registering domains with now...
Or maybe it just has something to do with it being easier to cross-reference records stored in a database with a unique key, huh? ;)
My own pet theory about the tardiness of Longhorn is that Microsoft has simply decided to do a re-write of a huge chunk of the code. There are two possible candidates for why that I can see; firstly they really are trying to take their new stance on security seriously and are redoing some of the cruftier bits of code. Far more likely though is that they simply got too ambitious (again) over their Cairo-esque multimedia filesystem, decided the hardware and market still isn't ready for it and went back to the drawing board.
Whatever they decide, with the Windows world stalled until 2006, now's the time for the *NIX based solutions to make hay, whatever their CPU architecture of choice...
Secondly, if Blake Stowell had actually read his own contract properly he would found this bit: "...in addition to any other remedies that it may have, at any time terminate all the rights granted by it hereunder by not less than two(2) months' written notice to LICENSEE specifying any such breach, unless within the period of such notice all breaches specified therein shall have been remedied.". I particularly find the bits about "other remedies" and "breaches specified" of note. IANAL, but that implies to me that SCO is obliged to to both disclose details of what is in breach (not necessarily publically), which it hasn't done as far as I am aware, then give IBM/SGI two months to correct that breach.
I suspect SCO's refusal to disclose any information prior to an actual trial is going to bite them in the ass somehow.
Well, there does appear to be a sequence of at least six novels as well, starting with "Shatterpoint", and there will no doubt be a lot of comics too. I have to agree that it's no substitute for a movie set in the midst of the wars though.
Indeed, and unlike Red Hat, SUSE didn't wait for a lawsuit to arrive before sucessfully going to court for their injunction. I guess that lends further credence to the maxim that the best defense is a good offense, so let's hope that the strategy pays off for the ACCC down in Oz too. ;)
Still, every little bit helps with bleeding them dry. The more court cases SCO has to deal with the less chance that Darl will get his Golden Parachute for four profitable quarters in succession.
Good analogy. I'm not sure if your Emperor and tailor are the same as mine though. My Emperor is all of the music studios, and the tailor is all the companies peddling this useless DRM crap to them. What amazes me is that the studios don't (or won't) see the way that they are being duped in the same way as the Emperor of the fable.
Let's face it, a CD with DRM must still work on an audio CD player, no matter what, or there point is no point in producing the CD in the first place, although for some of the pap being pushed at present that would not be a bad thing, but I digress... That means that the raw CD audio data must be accessible to a CD audio drive. If it's accessible to a CD audio drive, then it must *also* be readable as raw data by a CD ROM drive (which is often the same thing anyway), even if you have to resort to a raw sector read. If you can read the CD audio data, then you can create a copy, and guess what? It's just raw audio data! Open it your favorite audio editor as 16bit, 44.1KHz stereo raw audio and you can MP3/OGG it, save it as WAV and burn to CDR, whatever.
Then again, this is the same industry that's allowing its trade association to sue its own customers. As was pointed out earlier today, this tactic didn't work too well against Henry Ford either. Hopefully this latest debacle might encourage them to see the light, but somehow I doubt it very much indeed.
Following up on this, start with an overview an build up the detail approach (a good one by the way), I'd suggest using a WIKI to do your outline. That way, you can allow the specialists in areas you might not have the expertise in review, annotate and correct your notes for you. Once you've got all the data, you can either leave it in the WIKI and/or extract the data and publish it as static HTML, PDF, dead trees, or whatever.