Secondly they are complaining now that it's easy to swap mp3's around. Even in this day and age of huge hard drive and big bandwidth, your average techno pirate isn't going to keep 40-100 MB.wavs around to play their music. Without mp3 there would be a lot less piracy. And the RIAA is complaining about that. Duh.
Thirdly a movie can cost several orders of magnitude to produce than a musical album. The MPAA has a lot more to lose.
Right now I can go out rent a DVD download the *encrypted* image to my harddrive.
No you can't. Not unless you have a tool that does half the job of DeCSS (and contrary to popular Slashdot delusion DeCSS is not a program written to allow you to view DVDs on Linux, it's a windows program to rip VOB files to your hard drive). There's not a consumer level drive available that will read the VOB files without running through the authorization process.
You don't just "burn" DVDs. They are manufactered in pieces. A typical home DVD player will "look" right through burnable media.
Twisting the facts with misinformation does nothing to help the cause. FUD by any other name is still FUD.
It is nice to know that an underdog OS can be used to save lives.
This is getting seriously tiring. It seems like everytime anyone mentions that they made a product based on Linux it has to be announced on slashdot like some massive personal hurdle has been overcome. Next thing we're gonna hear is that Linux was the youngest OS in a family of 13 living in a mud floored one-third bedroom home with only a bucket in the corner to piss in. Father died in a coal mining accident when Linux was only six days old and the mother had to turn tricks to support the family. And all Linux ever dreamed of was to be able to take care of the family like pa would have wanted it to. It's just such a touching story I'm going to have to cry now.
Can't we just realize that the shit is there. Linux has "made it." There's no need to act like every little product is an accomplishment in the face of worldwide adversity.
A worm is a standalone program that does worm stuff. A virus adds itself to other programs but can still have significant functionality. A trojan is a standalone program that pretends to be something other than what it is and typically will provide the functionality of what it purports to be.
I doubt there is a university out there that doesn't have being a lawful citizen as part of their student code. So you're basically in the wrong if you use napster. When your network admins decide to block off particular domains and such, it's basically a technical solution to an administrative problem. They are giving everybody a chance to back down from their poor behavior without repercussions. Once you start showing your l33t h4ck3r 5ki11z and attempt to circumvent their basic measures is when they come down on you like a ton of bricks. And your little demonstration that you are going to violate the technical policies is going to look real good before a university judicial council.
It's bullshit to expect the administration to teach ethics one on one with every asshole who thinks they get three personal strikes before they get chucked in the clink.
They can easily prove they wrote it, since they claim to have done so. To collect damages they need to prove it was to promote piracy. To shut them down all they need to do is prove it is used for piracy as a primary purpose.
Now, the RIAA lawsuits are another matter entirely. I hold that the RIAA has no legal grounds for suing Napster, since the software does not itself infringe on any copyrights, and even states that it's not meant to be used to infringe on them (OK, so everyone knows that it is meant precisely to infringe on copyrights, but thanks to our wonderful legal system only that which is written down has any legal bearing at all). Frankly, I think the RIAA's going to spend millions of dollars on a suit which they'll lose out of technicalities.
The Digital Millenium Copyright Act has provisions to prevent the possesion, use, creation, etc. of software and tools that have primary usage of copyright violation. So it is legal. And regardless of what the stated intent of Napster Co., an simple observation is enough to indicate that the primary use of the napster software and servers is the illegal distribution of mp3s.
Now a lot of people think this particular aspect of the DMCA is bogus, not fair, not constitutional, etc. But it is legal and until someone with deep pockets is willing to step up and fight it to a win in the Supreme Court it's going to remain so (in the US at least.)
Ever hear of singles? Pretty much all of the popular songs are available on singles that cost a lot less than the full album and you often will get two or three songs and several variations and remixes.
Isn't there some well known quote about the simple answer being the wrong answer? The port that the napster client allows you to change is the data port used to transfer files between you and other napster users. There is still a port that your machine connects to at the napster site that is well known and relatively fixed. This is the port that is blocked and it prevents you from getting access to the napster search engine, database and file transfer initiation processes.
Every process takes resources. It may not necessarily be a huge amount of CPU or memory, but it does take something. On a machine that has an intended purpose, such things are inappropriate.
Doesn't matter if they are connected and it doesn't matter if you change the data port (which is what that option provides for.) All the network admins must do is block access to the napster.com domain. Or if they want to allow mail and such to napster but not the client, just block the ports which go to the central servers which are a well known list (otherwise you couldn't connect to them.)
This is a good thing. I've seen one of my friends slurp down 30% of our outgoing 20 mbps line. If the napster software and their users can't learn to be good network neighbors, then they don't really deserve to be on the network.
First, it's important to note that iCraveTV is adding advertisements to the signal they send to your computer screen. The whole point is that you get something you want (the TV picture) and they sell add space to go along with their rebroadcasting. In conventional TV, this would be analogous to taking a signal, reducing the size by 50% and using the remaining 50% of the picture to put up your own advertising.
Second, as has been pointed out, the billboard is not sold as an item that will be broadcast over television. It is sold to display an image to the people who are physically at times square. Additionally there is no obligation to broadcast every image that could possibly be presented to your cameras. Many TV networks routinely blur out logos and such that are not paid for.
Look through these. There are several documents that indicate which processors have had updates released. Additionally there links that point to additional information re. what's changed, etc.
From the looks of things, it's a PII, Celeron, PIII feature and not in the PPro.
That's what I understand as well. Funny you should mention flashing your BIOS, since that is what you have to do to get the updated microcode. But the lack of persistence in the CPU doesn't really change the fact that it is possible to change the microcode that the CPU uses.
Of course it's not like upgrading your "code morpher" (did they just make that up so they could patent it?) is going to change the TMxxxx at all, just change the firmware that is used to translate foreign code.
The Pentium II and above series processors have the ability to upgrade their microcode at boot time. It requires a signed hunk of code and is only possible during a short period before the rest of the chip is initialized, but it is there and available.
I think the PPro might also have it but I'm not sure.
This isn't as exciting as they've made it out to be. The "code morhping" is nothing more than a specialized dynamic translation engine. The power management stuff is interesting, but a creative hacker could probably do (to a limited extent) the same thing on many modern PCs. Look at programs like SoftFSB and look at the power saving features of the current boards. It would be very interesting to see a kernel module that would look at the run queue and step down the CPU clock rate until it crept up again.
What I found interesting is that Microsoft has more bugs to be fixed.
Microsoft has more features. More features equals more code. More code equals more bugs. Fact of life. When MS's competition has the same feature set, they will most likely have a similar number and severity of bugs.
Interesting take on the whole situation. But if they have the ability to kill you they have the ability to grab you. After hundreds of years of experience in hurting people, traditional intelligence agents have developed techniques to break anybody. They don't have to kill you in the end, just hurt you bad enough that you can't even see mention of the company's name in the papers without breaking into a cold sweat knowing that the wrong actions on your part will return you to the intimate embraces of some sadistic bastard.
I'd bet that given a future of six months (or more) of daily torture any would-be cyber-protectionist will rat out his compatriots with rapid alacrity.
Usenet is not an acronym. It's an abbreviation for User Network or something similar. The caps are probably people who just don't know. Look in news.answers or it's ilk.
The fact that some of these projects are able to run on zero money doesn't preclude the possiblity that a donation would be appreciated and put to good use.
Slashdot Mirror
Because they didn't think to encrypt it.
.wavs around to play their music. Without mp3 there would be a lot less piracy. And the RIAA is complaining about that. Duh.
Secondly they are complaining now that it's easy to swap mp3's around. Even in this day and age of huge hard drive and big bandwidth, your average techno pirate isn't going to keep 40-100 MB
Thirdly a movie can cost several orders of magnitude to produce than a musical album. The MPAA has a lot more to lose.
No you can't. Not unless you have a tool that does half the job of DeCSS (and contrary to popular Slashdot delusion DeCSS is not a program written to allow you to view DVDs on Linux, it's a windows program to rip VOB files to your hard drive). There's not a consumer level drive available that will read the VOB files without running through the authorization process.
You don't just "burn" DVDs. They are manufactered in pieces. A typical home DVD player will "look" right through burnable media.
Twisting the facts with misinformation does nothing to help the cause. FUD by any other name is still FUD.
This is getting seriously tiring. It seems like everytime anyone mentions that they made a product based on Linux it has to be announced on slashdot like some massive personal hurdle has been overcome. Next thing we're gonna hear is that Linux was the youngest OS in a family of 13 living in a mud floored one-third bedroom home with only a bucket in the corner to piss in. Father died in a coal mining accident when Linux was only six days old and the mother had to turn tricks to support the family. And all Linux ever dreamed of was to be able to take care of the family like pa would have wanted it to. It's just such a touching story I'm going to have to cry now.
Can't we just realize that the shit is there. Linux has "made it." There's no need to act like every little product is an accomplishment in the face of worldwide adversity.
A worm is a standalone program that does worm stuff. A virus adds itself to other programs but can still have significant functionality. A trojan is a standalone program that pretends to be something other than what it is and typically will provide the functionality of what it purports to be.
One very critical thing that people need to remember: any and every system can be rooted if you can run code on it. Fact of life.
I doubt there is a university out there that doesn't have being a lawful citizen as part of their student code. So you're basically in the wrong if you use napster. When your network admins decide to block off particular domains and such, it's basically a technical solution to an administrative problem. They are giving everybody a chance to back down from their poor behavior without repercussions. Once you start showing your l33t h4ck3r 5ki11z and attempt to circumvent their basic measures is when they come down on you like a ton of bricks. And your little demonstration that you are going to violate the technical policies is going to look real good before a university judicial council.
It's bullshit to expect the administration to teach ethics one on one with every asshole who thinks they get three personal strikes before they get chucked in the clink.
From a superficial reading you can send more than one update to the processor, just 2k at a time.
They can easily prove they wrote it, since they claim to have done so. To collect damages they need to prove it was to promote piracy. To shut them down all they need to do is prove it is used for piracy as a primary purpose.
Odd. I remember having a home computer before IBM ever released a PC model that had a BIOS to be reverse engineered.
The Digital Millenium Copyright Act has provisions to prevent the possesion, use, creation, etc. of software and tools that have primary usage of copyright violation. So it is legal. And regardless of what the stated intent of Napster Co., an simple observation is enough to indicate that the primary use of the napster software and servers is the illegal distribution of mp3s.
Now a lot of people think this particular aspect of the DMCA is bogus, not fair, not constitutional, etc. But it is legal and until someone with deep pockets is willing to step up and fight it to a win in the Supreme Court it's going to remain so (in the US at least.)
Ever hear of singles? Pretty much all of the popular songs are available on singles that cost a lot less than the full album and you often will get two or three songs and several variations and remixes.
Isn't there some well known quote about the simple answer being the wrong answer? The port that the napster client allows you to change is the data port used to transfer files between you and other napster users. There is still a port that your machine connects to at the napster site that is well known and relatively fixed. This is the port that is blocked and it prevents you from getting access to the napster search engine, database and file transfer initiation processes.
Every process takes resources. It may not necessarily be a huge amount of CPU or memory, but it does take something. On a machine that has an intended purpose, such things are inappropriate.
Doesn't matter if they are connected and it doesn't matter if you change the data port (which is what that option provides for.) All the network admins must do is block access to the napster.com domain. Or if they want to allow mail and such to napster but not the client, just block the ports which go to the central servers which are a well known list (otherwise you couldn't connect to them.)
This is a good thing. I've seen one of my friends slurp down 30% of our outgoing 20 mbps line. If the napster software and their users can't learn to be good network neighbors, then they don't really deserve to be on the network.
First, it's important to note that iCraveTV is adding advertisements to the signal they send to your computer screen. The whole point is that you get something you want (the TV picture) and they sell add space to go along with their rebroadcasting. In conventional TV, this would be analogous to taking a signal, reducing the size by 50% and using the remaining 50% of the picture to put up your own advertising.
Second, as has been pointed out, the billboard is not sold as an item that will be broadcast over television. It is sold to display an image to the people who are physically at times square. Additionally there is no obligation to broadcast every image that could possibly be presented to your cameras. Many TV networks routinely blur out logos and such that are not paid for.
Also, see pages 8-31 through 8-50 (pages 303-332 in the pdf) of Intel Architecture Software Developers Manual, Volume 3: System Programming. It provides some details about the process of updating the microcode.
Look through these. There are several documents that indicate which processors have had updates released. Additionally there links that point to additional information re. what's changed, etc.
From the looks of things, it's a PII, Celeron, PIII feature and not in the PPro.
That's what I understand as well. Funny you should mention flashing your BIOS, since that is what you have to do to get the updated microcode. But the lack of persistence in the CPU doesn't really change the fact that it is possible to change the microcode that the CPU uses.
Of course it's not like upgrading your "code morpher" (did they just make that up so they could patent it?) is going to change the TMxxxx at all, just change the firmware that is used to translate foreign code.
The Pentium II and above series processors have the ability to upgrade their microcode at boot time. It requires a signed hunk of code and is only possible during a short period before the rest of the chip is initialized, but it is there and available.
I think the PPro might also have it but I'm not sure.
This isn't as exciting as they've made it out to be. The "code morhping" is nothing more than a specialized dynamic translation engine. The power management stuff is interesting, but a creative hacker could probably do (to a limited extent) the same thing on many modern PCs. Look at programs like SoftFSB and look at the power saving features of the current boards. It would be very interesting to see a kernel module that would look at the run queue and step down the CPU clock rate until it crept up again.
...but the mozilla team doesn't need another reason to miss a date.
What I found interesting is that Microsoft has more bugs to be fixed.
Microsoft has more features. More features equals more code. More code equals more bugs. Fact of life. When MS's competition has the same feature set, they will most likely have a similar number and severity of bugs.
Interesting take on the whole situation. But if they have the ability to kill you they have the ability to grab you. After hundreds of years of experience in hurting people, traditional intelligence agents have developed techniques to break anybody. They don't have to kill you in the end, just hurt you bad enough that you can't even see mention of the company's name in the papers without breaking into a cold sweat knowing that the wrong actions on your part will return you to the intimate embraces of some sadistic bastard.
I'd bet that given a future of six months (or more) of daily torture any would-be cyber-protectionist will rat out his compatriots with rapid alacrity.
Usenet is not an acronym. It's an abbreviation for User Network or something similar. The caps are probably people who just don't know. Look in news.answers or it's ilk.
The fact that some of these projects are able to run on zero money doesn't preclude the possiblity that a donation would be appreciated and put to good use.