For the love of God, please stop using this argument. Disclosure is good. Full disclosure is better. Exploit code is imbicilic. Consider:
1) no code is given, but someone already has exploit code, and thus you are and have been at great risk for some time.
2) no code is given, and nobody has a working exploit yet. Someone writes a working exploit quickly and shares it. Your risk starts low but rises with time.
3) no code is given in the announcement and nobody writes a working exploit. You vulnerable but not at any immediate risk.
Compare these with the release of exploit code in the announcement:
*) code is given. You are screwed by every script kiddy who can read BUGTRAQ.
Blizzard developed Warcraft Adventures themselves. It was the graphics that were outsourced to a Russian animation house. Russian. As in, halfway across the world, different language, different time zone.
There was a requested scene that got mangled in the translation so badly that it ended up with a dragon smoking opium instead of billowing fire. (It was funny enough that they planned on using it anyway!)
Anyway, when Warcraft Adventures was canned, it was already "release-quality" by some companies' standards. If it had come out a year earlier, it would have been a great game. But Monkey Island 4 had just come out, and it had advanced the adventure genre to a new level. Blizzard's latest-and-greatest didn't look so great anymore with flat 2D graphics and linear playstyle. So they scrapped it rather than get a "That game is soooo last-year" reaction.
No current roller coaster in the state of New Jersey comes close to a prolonged force of 5.6+ Gs. Or in any other state, either.
The law also puts some limits on lateral motion, which is not mentioned in the article. Again, nothing that would impact any currently existing coasters.
The trend in roller coasters is taller, faster, steeper, and tighter - which is good but only to a point. Sitting in the front of Nitro (at Six Flags Great Adventure in NJ) will always black out my vision in the large corkscrew. I haven't yet found a person who didn't feel extremely light-headed after taking that turn in a front seat. And that turn still isn't close to 5.6 Gs.
As for the lateral motion restriction, I applaud that. I know people who have bruised the sides of their heads on their harnesses. (The suspended Batman ride is pretty bad in that regard.) If rides keep progressing towards the extreme, some poor guy with weak neck muscles is gonna lose consciousness or even have his skull cracked. Safety limits are a good thing.
Anyway, this whole "its my body let me abuse it" uprising is pointless. The limits set by this law do not affect your ability to black out or sprain your neck. However, they just might save your life in 5 years when someone tries to build a coaster thats bigger and badder than it ought to be.
Fair point. I suppose the real complaint is the manner in which they did this - first denying any accusations of code theft, then admitting to GPL violations and releasing a "pure" version 1.1, then admitting that the "pure" version was simply obfuscated and blaming it on a rogue employee.
Now that they have released the source, there might not be any legal recourse (unless someone wants to try to prove willful infringement). But from an ethical standpoint, the company is guilty as sin. I suppose the ultimate dilemma is that you can't sue for unethical conduct.
The issue is not just GPL violation but also copyright infringement. Check the code comparision PDF at XVid, then look through the source code on both sites. Sigma's entire MPEG-4 core, both encoder and decoder, is pretty much straight from XVid and then obfuscated by loop unrolling and variable renaming. There are no XVid copyright notices and only a few haphazard comments like "INSPIRED BY XVID VIDEO CODEC" scattered through the source.
Now that they've published the source under GPL, they are (mostly) complying with the license requirements. But they are still promoting this as their own code, claiming that they developed it, when in reality it is only a few diffs away from the XVid sources. So don't apologize for just them.
One of the battle sequences is 30 seconds longer, and those 30 seconds reportedly include another orc decapitation and a little blood. There were rumors that it would be just enough to push it over to an R rating, but in the end, the ratings board decided to let it go at PG-13.
No, he sends a message to the app to ensure that the edit control does not automatically truncate his exploit code when it is pasted in.
This "exploit" has nothing to do whatsoever with buffer controls or buffer overruns. He simply causes a Windows edit box to store a specific data string, and then issues a WM_TIMER call to cause Windows to jump to the address of that data string, which happens to be executable code that spawns a network-bound command prompt.
No no, the tag is a singleton that describes the relationship with the poster's intentions. For XHTML compliance, it would be properly closed as />.
In case you didn't know, the <whore> tag is related to the 'Content-Moderation' MIME header. There are plans to include it in CSS4, but because of implementation issues, it will probably be an optional component. Browsers will have the choice to skip past any items below a fixed value without displaying them.
It won't play smoothly on a P3 500 laptop (with 384 meg of RAM and an ATI Rage Mobility).
Get the very latest drivers and try modifying the program shortcut to add '-opengl' on the command line. ATI's drivers have some goddamn aweful performance bottlenecks, and their Direct3D support is disasterous in anything pre-Radeon. (Warcraft 3's OpenGL mode is not an officially supported option, but it works fine.)
That was pretty stupid to post a spoiler, but once you play even one or two missions, you'll see it coming a mile away. Blizzard went really heavyhanded with the foreshadowing, which is a little sad because their storytelling is always head-and-shoulders above other games.
Many high-performance heatsinks have incredibly powerful, incredibly noisy 60mm high-RPM fans. The best and the loudest are made by Delta. 54 dBa is not unheard of for their top-of-the-line models. That's way above anything I can stand, however.
Ducts and passive cooling are options, but they are not exactly optimal. A better solution is to use a larger-but-slower fan with equivalent airflow. To push the exact same airflow as a 60mm fan, an 80mm fan can spin *much* slower, thus producing lower noise. And with more space to work with, the fanblade tips can be shielded a little better on the outside rim, lowering noise dramatically. (It's the tips that make the most noise.)
But please don't use a fan adaptor on a 60mm heatsink. You need something designed to accomodate 80mm fans. For AMD socket chips, the Alpha PAL8492 is *wonderful*. Put some Arctic Silver and a lowspeed fan on that baby, and get better cooling than almost any noisemaker I've ever come across. I'm sure there are similar alternatives for Intel CPUs.
Actually, Windows 9x/ME does not use HALTs. It literally NOOPs but leaves the processor on. This is why 'software cooling solutions' exist - they simply correct this flaw, running just one notch above the idle task and issuing nonstop HALTs.
Slashdot conveniently forgot this, but Sam works for Blizzard Entertainment now. Yes, the evil DCMA people who sued bnetd.
But Blizzard gave the goahead for Sam to work on the Tribes 2 Linux patch during work hours. So Blizzard supports the Linux community! But they're Evil! But they're Good! *smoke*
Yeah, but they were starting to get really sloppy. I mean, Tribes 2 was in devlopment for how long? And it couldn't even install on how many computers? They had some great games, and some awesome talent, but they were going stale real fast. They forked off their engine to start a new company with a separate staff, and now that engine got ported back with all the fixes that Dynamix couldn't do themselves. And they wrote the damn thing. If I were in charge of a development team that couldn't produce a stable engine after all that time, I'd fire every last one of them too. It didn't help that sales weren't so hot. And that's the sad truth.
But the point is, all major browsers do, and there's no option (or reason) to turn it off. It's certainly a much better idea than relying on popunders for advertising income.
If they lose money by 'deep linking', then they should just filter by HTTP Referer: and redirect people to the front page, or maybe an interstitial advertisement or something.
Legal policies and lawsuits are exactly the wrong approach to take. The whole point of web advertising is that you want as many people as possible to see the ads. If you forbid people to link to your site, even the front page (as NPR's policy seems to do), then you lose traffic and revenue. Not to mention the negative publicity that you'll get from web community sites (like/. or Fark)...
The marketing didn't make it clear, and calling it a trilogy doesn't help, but LotR is not a movie. It's Part 1 of a three-part movie. You might say 'Well why is it so farking long, and why did I pay full price?' Well, basically you got the shaft because they played it up like it was a standalone movie. Blame the marketing department.
The end justifies the means. Do you honestly think bnetd will get a fair hearing anyway?
That, sir, is a very dangerous statement.
Regardless of if they would get a fair hearing or not, you would sabatoge their case in exchange for (legally reprehensible) vengeance against Blizzard/Vivendi.
This neither sets a legal precedent, nor brings a satisfactory conclusion to the case, nor does it actually work. If you think your anti-Blizzard will work, you're mistaken - even if only the technologically and legally clueless purchase Blizzard games, there will be millions of sales.
So in the end, you lose, and you damage the actual legal case as well. The ends do not justify the means if you cannot guarantee the ends beyond any doubt.
I don't know what kind of world you program in, but where I code, componentisation and coupling are not even close to the same thing. For example:
Mozilla encourages use of its components. Anyone can use the rendering engine and distribute it with his own product, saving on development time while still providing a product to the widest possible market.
Internet Explorer promotes coupling. Anyone can use its rendering engine, except that nobody is allowed to distribute its rendering engine except as part of the full Internet Explorer package. This cuts down on development time at the cost of forcing all your users to run Internet Explorer.
Slashdot Mirror
I suck again.
International prices are way higher.
Clue alert: CAN prices are not higher, they are in Canadian dollars. Hello? Are you there?
For the love of God, please stop using this argument. Disclosure is good. Full disclosure is better. Exploit code is imbicilic. Consider:
1) no code is given, but someone already has exploit code, and thus you are and have been at great risk for some time.
2) no code is given, and nobody has a working exploit yet. Someone writes a working exploit quickly and shares it. Your risk starts low but rises with time.
3) no code is given in the announcement and nobody writes a working exploit. You vulnerable but not at any immediate risk.
Compare these with the release of exploit code in the announcement:
*) code is given. You are screwed by every script kiddy who can read BUGTRAQ.
You're totally wrong.
Blizzard developed Warcraft Adventures themselves. It was the graphics that were outsourced to a Russian animation house. Russian. As in, halfway across the world, different language, different time zone.
There was a requested scene that got mangled in the translation so badly that it ended up with a dragon smoking opium instead of billowing fire. (It was funny enough that they planned on using it anyway!)
Anyway, when Warcraft Adventures was canned, it was already "release-quality" by some companies' standards. If it had come out a year earlier, it would have been a great game. But Monkey Island 4 had just come out, and it had advanced the adventure genre to a new level. Blizzard's latest-and-greatest didn't look so great anymore with flat 2D graphics and linear playstyle. So they scrapped it rather than get a "That game is soooo last-year" reaction.
Well, that's two counter-examples then, and it only takes one :)
:)
My friends and I all went on the front row multiple times, and over two weekends, more than half of the 12 of us lost vision on that turn.
But perhaps it was also due to a combination of the lines, the sun, and lack of fluids
No current roller coaster in the state of New Jersey comes close to a prolonged force of 5.6+ Gs. Or in any other state, either.
The law also puts some limits on lateral motion, which is not mentioned in the article. Again, nothing that would impact any currently existing coasters.
The trend in roller coasters is taller, faster, steeper, and tighter - which is good but only to a point. Sitting in the front of Nitro (at Six Flags Great Adventure in NJ) will always black out my vision in the large corkscrew. I haven't yet found a person who didn't feel extremely light-headed after taking that turn in a front seat. And that turn still isn't close to 5.6 Gs.
As for the lateral motion restriction, I applaud that. I know people who have bruised the sides of their heads on their harnesses. (The suspended Batman ride is pretty bad in that regard.) If rides keep progressing towards the extreme, some poor guy with weak neck muscles is gonna lose consciousness or even have his skull cracked. Safety limits are a good thing.
Anyway, this whole "its my body let me abuse it" uprising is pointless. The limits set by this law do not affect your ability to black out or sprain your neck. However, they just might save your life in 5 years when someone tries to build a coaster thats bigger and badder than it ought to be.
Fair point. I suppose the real complaint is the manner in which they did this - first denying any accusations of code theft, then admitting to GPL violations and releasing a "pure" version 1.1, then admitting that the "pure" version was simply obfuscated and blaming it on a rogue employee.
Now that they have released the source, there might not be any legal recourse (unless someone wants to try to prove willful infringement). But from an ethical standpoint, the company is guilty as sin. I suppose the ultimate dilemma is that you can't sue for unethical conduct.
The issue is not just GPL violation but also copyright infringement. Check the code comparision PDF at XVid, then look through the source code on both sites. Sigma's entire MPEG-4 core, both encoder and decoder, is pretty much straight from XVid and then obfuscated by loop unrolling and variable renaming. There are no XVid copyright notices and only a few haphazard comments like "INSPIRED BY XVID VIDEO CODEC" scattered through the source.
Now that they've published the source under GPL, they are (mostly) complying with the license requirements. But they are still promoting this as their own code, claiming that they developed it, when in reality it is only a few diffs away from the XVid sources. So don't apologize for just them.
The extended release also has a PG-13 rating.
One of the battle sequences is 30 seconds longer, and those 30 seconds reportedly include another orc decapitation and a little blood. There were rumors that it would be just enough to push it over to an R rating, but in the end, the ratings board decided to let it go at PG-13.
No, he sends a message to the app to ensure that the edit control does not automatically truncate his exploit code when it is pasted in.
This "exploit" has nothing to do whatsoever with buffer controls or buffer overruns. He simply causes a Windows edit box to store a specific data string, and then issues a WM_TIMER call to cause Windows to jump to the address of that data string, which happens to be executable code that spawns a network-bound command prompt.
In case you didn't know, the <whore> tag is related to the 'Content-Moderation' MIME header. There are plans to include it in CSS4, but because of implementation issues, it will probably be an optional component. Browsers will have the choice to skip past any items below a fixed value without displaying them.
It won't play smoothly on a P3 500 laptop (with 384 meg of RAM and an ATI Rage Mobility).
Get the very latest drivers and try modifying the program shortcut to add '-opengl' on the command line. ATI's drivers have some goddamn aweful performance bottlenecks, and their Direct3D support is disasterous in anything pre-Radeon.
(Warcraft 3's OpenGL mode is not an officially supported option, but it works fine.)
That was pretty stupid to post a spoiler, but once you play even one or two missions, you'll see it coming a mile away. Blizzard went really heavyhanded with the foreshadowing, which is a little sad because their storytelling is always head-and-shoulders above other games.
Well crap. I gave the wrong model number, that's a P4 fan. Look up the PAL8045, that's what I'm using.
Many high-performance heatsinks have incredibly powerful, incredibly noisy 60mm high-RPM fans. The best and the loudest are made by Delta. 54 dBa is not unheard of for their top-of-the-line models. That's way above anything I can stand, however.
Ducts and passive cooling are options, but they are not exactly optimal. A better solution is to use a larger-but-slower fan with equivalent airflow. To push the exact same airflow as a 60mm fan, an 80mm fan can spin *much* slower, thus producing lower noise. And with more space to work with, the fanblade tips can be shielded a little better on the outside rim, lowering noise dramatically. (It's the tips that make the most noise.)
But please don't use a fan adaptor on a 60mm heatsink. You need something designed to accomodate 80mm fans. For AMD socket chips, the Alpha PAL8492 is *wonderful*. Put some Arctic Silver and a lowspeed fan on that baby, and get better cooling than almost any noisemaker I've ever come across. I'm sure there are similar alternatives for Intel CPUs.
Actually, Windows 9x/ME does not use HALTs. It literally NOOPs but leaves the processor on. This is why 'software cooling solutions' exist - they simply correct this flaw, running just one notch above the idle task and issuing nonstop HALTs.
Windows NT/2k/XP is, thankfully, not so stupid.
Slashdot conveniently forgot this, but Sam works for Blizzard Entertainment now. Yes, the evil DCMA people who sued bnetd.
But Blizzard gave the goahead for Sam to work on the Tribes 2 Linux patch during work hours. So Blizzard supports the Linux community! But they're Evil! But they're Good! *smoke*
Yeah, but they were starting to get really sloppy. I mean, Tribes 2 was in devlopment for how long? And it couldn't even install on how many computers? They had some great games, and some awesome talent, but they were going stale real fast. They forked off their engine to start a new company with a separate staff, and now that engine got ported back with all the fixes that Dynamix couldn't do themselves. And they wrote the damn thing. If I were in charge of a development team that couldn't produce a stable engine after all that time, I'd fire every last one of them too. It didn't help that sales weren't so hot. And that's the sad truth.
But the point is, all major browsers do, and there's no option (or reason) to turn it off. It's certainly a much better idea than relying on popunders for advertising income.
If they lose money by 'deep linking', then they should just filter by HTTP Referer: and redirect people to the front page, or maybe an interstitial advertisement or something.
/. or Fark)...
Legal policies and lawsuits are exactly the wrong approach to take. The whole point of web advertising is that you want as many people as possible to see the ads. If you forbid people to link to your site, even the front page (as NPR's policy seems to do), then you lose traffic and revenue. Not to mention the negative publicity that you'll get from web community sites (like
The marketing didn't make it clear, and calling it a trilogy doesn't help, but LotR is not a movie. It's Part 1 of a three-part movie. You might say 'Well why is it so farking long, and why did I pay full price?' Well, basically you got the shaft because they played it up like it was a standalone movie. Blame the marketing department.
Yeah, they both blatently stole from the automatic template generated by their Blogger software.
The end justifies the means. Do you honestly think bnetd will get a fair hearing anyway?
That, sir, is a very dangerous statement.
Regardless of if they would get a fair hearing or not, you would sabatoge their case in exchange for (legally reprehensible) vengeance against Blizzard/Vivendi.
This neither sets a legal precedent, nor brings a satisfactory conclusion to the case, nor does it actually work. If you think your anti-Blizzard will work, you're mistaken - even if only the technologically and legally clueless purchase Blizzard games, there will be millions of sales.
So in the end, you lose, and you damage the actual legal case as well. The ends do not justify the means if you cannot guarantee the ends beyond any doubt.
...
So, what three-letter agency do you work for?
I don't know what kind of world you program in, but where I code, componentisation and coupling are not even close to the same thing. For example:
Mozilla encourages use of its components. Anyone can use the rendering engine and distribute it with his own product, saving on development time while still providing a product to the widest possible market.
Internet Explorer promotes coupling. Anyone can use its rendering engine, except that nobody is allowed to distribute its rendering engine except as part of the full Internet Explorer package. This cuts down on development time at the cost of forcing all your users to run Internet Explorer.
See the difference?