Should be rather easy with a smidgeon of WORM Flash memory to set this at the time of imprinting. In other words, the machine that stamps the password is simultaneously burning the password into WORM memory electronically.
Would that be before or after the mousetrap comes down? The way it is now that can mass-produce them. With you method they have to be processed individually on the fly. Which brings it back to my original point - what could possibly go wrong?
Which isn't better than all these thousands of routers with the EXACT SAME default password, how, exactly?
Like I said, you're shifting the problem. You are creating a much more complicated problem in order to solve a simple one. And making them much more expensive to manufacture. If you actually were a product manager at Cisco and you proposed your "solution" you'd be laughed out of the room.
If the default password is imprinted on the outside of the equipment
The guy said "on the box," if you were paying attention. Also, "imprinting" on the outside of the equipment is not exactly trivial and certainly not free, especially if something goes wrong. The first time a shipment goes out with incorrect passwords that'll be the end of that, and it'll got back to "admin" or "Cisco0" in a heartbeat.
And of course in the mean time all you've done is shift the problem. Now there'll be thousands of routers with the password printed right on them!
It wasn't a troll, but rather modpoints were abused by people who simply did not like what you said
Considering that what he said completely misses the point, but in a sly way, it absolutely is a troll, even if the author was oblivious to it.
This is the way normal copyright claims are handled:
- Company A appears to be infringing on B's copyright.
- B sends A a letter explaining in detail how they're infringing, and asks them to stop.
- If A refuses, B may take further steps, such as a lawsuit.
Here's what SCO did:
- Declared infringement, refused to explain why, demanded money, and filed a lawsuit. It is worth pointing out that to this day, years later, SCO has never justified their claim.
Apple would no doubt be delighted to sell songs for less. That's not where they make their money. And yes, the labels are screwed. But they won't wake up until and if one of the majors breaks from pack and sells DRM-free songs at a low price. The first one to do that will get the dough, but it seems more likely that none of them will, as they suffer from the delusion that they can go back to the way things were before.
Right. Who wouldn't love Ruby with such obviously clear syntax as this?
Assuming you're being sarcastic, The ? is simply part of the method name. It could just as easily been written is_directory. But because a question mark is allowed in method names, the convention is for methods which return a boolean to end with ?. It only looks a little odd when a parameter is passed. Parentheses are optional on method calls, so when there's no parameter you can write something like if socket.connected? which to me is pretty darn clear.
anyone who makes a career out of defending people who steal music clearly has no morals at all. i wouldn't bother arguing with the dolt.
So you're against the whole notion of defense attorneys in general, and for matter, the pesky matter of waiting for the actual outcome? I suspect that if you ever have to defend yourself against something that's you'd be quite fortunate to have him, or someone just like him, on your side of the table.
If not having a case was enough to win then the nature of the defendant is irrelevant;
The point is they have no case, they must know they have no case, and they know the defendant's health. And yet they press on anyway. So it goes to demonstrate how slimy they are. Are they really that short on potential defendants?
Our constitution doesn't allow another country or organization to impose rules or obligations on us that we don't agree to accept.
Of course, we did agree to accept. That's part of the deal. Just like we want other countries to accept ruling in our favor. That's how that stuff works.
I suggest you read the constitution and figure out how international law effects the US.
Presumably you mean "affects." But that's OK. It seem to be a frequent "advantage" (as you put it) of our public education system. And your whole notion of "if we don't like it then screw you guys" is exactly why the US will slowly slide downhill in the coming decades as the rest of world passes it by.
ut, under the DMCA, you are allowed to bundle copy protection with your works
But that's not what they did. "copy protection" doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with the computer. They injected a rootkit. That software remained on the computer forever unless the user figured out how to forcibly remove it, even if he had long-ago gotten rid of the CD.
The first time a user attempts to play such a CD on a Windows system, a program will be installed even before a dialog box prompts the user to accept a license agreement.[6] The EULA did not mention that it installed hidden software. The software will then remain resident in the user's system, intercepting all accesses of the CD drive to prevent any media player or ripper software other than the one included with XCP-Aurora from accessing the music tracks of the Sony CD. No obvious way to uninstall the program is provided. Attempting to remove the software by deleting the associated files manually will render the CD drive inoperable due to registry settings that the program has altered.
If you or I had done exactly that we'd be in jail right now.
Sure. But at that point you're just turing it into a Martingale. Looking at the chart now and checking some emails I wrote, when I first thought about shorting it the price was under ten dollars. Fortunately I did not actually do it. If I had I'd have seen the price quickly go to $20. Now not only am I looking at a huge loss, but I can't know that this is the top. What if it goes to 30 or 40? Absurd? Yes, but absurd things happen. Going to $20 was absurd!
Suppose at that point IBM decides that instead of fighting that they decide to make some small settlement offer. If that had happened the stock will instantly double, and now you are really in trouble. What are you going to do? Risk everything you have to sweat this short out? At some point you have to take your medicine and cover your position.
Even without that happening I would have had to have held onto that losing trade for more than two years in order to ride it out! And then another two to get to where we are today.
Was there money to be made shorting SCOX? Yes, obviously. But to call it easy, as the original poster did, is just plain silly. You'd have earned every nickel of it.
Doing this by going short obviously isn't going to do it - markets want a balanced book by the end of the trading day.
You can usually short a stock for years if you want to. It's done by in effect "borrowing" the stock from someone. In practice, the broker worries about that and for most stocks as far as you're concerned you simply hold a negative number of shares. Right now I have a stock in my portfolio that I've been short for weeks.
I don't think so. You opened the CD, you accepted the license.
You're kidding, right? Do you really think buyers (sorry... 'licensees') legally agreed to let Sony do what they did? By that logic, all malware would be perfectly legal as long as they could dupe you into 'accepting' a license. What if the license said you will send us all your money in exchange for listening to this CD? COuld they come 'round to collect your house if you don't pay?
I would have taken a long look at advising MD to cut their losses, file criminal reports, and hit Chapter 11 or Chapter 7 while they still have some assets worth liquidating.
Somebody at Media Defender has been making a lot of money. That person is not going to let this cash cow disappear. Media Defender will die, but he will start up a new company that he'll pitch as "it's like Media Defender two-point-oh! Now we'll really get those bastards!" And it will all begin again.
if they do start essentially pirating copyrighted works, then you will find trade embargos against countries who import the stuff in addition. It isn't like they would have a market outside their island. As for downloads, expect to see downloading from those countries becoming a felony in the US as well as other countries if this happens.
- If they get WTO permission it's not piracy.
- So you're saying that the US would rather go to the extent of engaging in embargos rather than comply with a ruling of the WTO? An organization to which they are a founding member? How arrogant and hypocritical that would be.
- Why would other countries make it a 'felony' if the WTO explicitly gave permission? Are you saying they would also rather ignore the WTO and elevate the US to being above the law?
The US has enjoyed an enormous advantage over the rest of the world, but those days of being far and away the king of the hill are coming to an end, and the US has to recognize that and learn how to actually get along with the rest of the world in a truly civilized way.
For what it's worth, I'm a born and bred American, once proud and now dismayed at how our country shirks and abandons the very foundations that made it great.
You don't go broke until you buy it back at the higher price.
Only if you have the money to cover it. And if you shorted at say 7 or 8, by the time it got to 20 you'd be scrambling to come up with the cash, and sooner or later you'd capitulate. And if you didn't have enough in your account your broker would automatically close you out by buying at the current market price, leaving an enormous hole in your bankroll.
It's one thing to short on paper, it's an *entirely* different thing to do it for real money. When there's real money on the line and you watch it rocket up sometime $2 and $3 a day, you'd be suicidal to just stand there and take it.
I shorted SCO right as the lawsuits started flying. Made an easy $100k.
If you shorted it right away you probably went broke. A *lot* of people shorted it in the $8-$10 range, only to see it run to $20. If you were one of those, either you busted out or you didn't have a very big position.
And I also don't tremble in mortal fear when carrying said sums of cash about either, any size, because I am quite capable of personal self defense, by skills, training, mindset and tools, and am perfectly willing to completely and probably permanently ruin some potential mugger's day without suffering angst over it.
Good idea. Raise the stakes in order to save some cash. That's a strategy that will work every time...right up until it doesn't. It doesn't matter how tough you are. There's always somebody somewhere who's tougher and more desperate than you are.
Considering they're now open to all, I wonder if they could be used in court?
Being obtainable and being "open to all" are two different things. My guess would be that in their present state about the only thing they'd be useful for is keeping MD from denying they exist.
Slashdot Mirror
Would that be before or after the mousetrap comes down? The way it is now that can mass-produce them. With you method they have to be processed individually on the fly. Which brings it back to my original point - what could possibly go wrong?
Which isn't better than all these thousands of routers with the EXACT SAME default password, how, exactly?
Like I said, you're shifting the problem. You are creating a much more complicated problem in order to solve a simple one. And making them much more expensive to manufacture. If you actually were a product manager at Cisco and you proposed your "solution" you'd be laughed out of the room.
The guy said "on the box," if you were paying attention. Also, "imprinting" on the outside of the equipment is not exactly trivial and certainly not free, especially if something goes wrong. The first time a shipment goes out with incorrect passwords that'll be the end of that, and it'll got back to "admin" or "Cisco0" in a heartbeat.
And of course in the mean time all you've done is shift the problem. Now there'll be thousands of routers with the password printed right on them!
Yes, what could possibly go wrong?
Considering that what he said completely misses the point, but in a sly way, it absolutely is a troll, even if the author was oblivious to it.
This is the way normal copyright claims are handled:
- Company A appears to be infringing on B's copyright.
- B sends A a letter explaining in detail how they're infringing, and asks them to stop. - If A refuses, B may take further steps, such as a lawsuit.
Here's what SCO did:
- Declared infringement, refused to explain why, demanded money, and filed a lawsuit. It is worth pointing out that to this day, years later, SCO has never justified their claim.
The good news is, it now costs $200 less to replace it. (Or $300 less if they use their Applebucks.)
Apple would no doubt be delighted to sell songs for less. That's not where they make their money. And yes, the labels are screwed. But they won't wake up until and if one of the majors breaks from pack and sells DRM-free songs at a low price. The first one to do that will get the dough, but it seems more likely that none of them will, as they suffer from the delusion that they can go back to the way things were before.
Assuming you're being sarcastic, The ? is simply part of the method name. It could just as easily been written is_directory. But because a question mark is allowed in method names, the convention is for methods which return a boolean to end with ?. It only looks a little odd when a parameter is passed. Parentheses are optional on method calls, so when there's no parameter you can write something like if socket.connected? which to me is pretty darn clear.
So you're against the whole notion of defense attorneys in general, and for matter, the pesky matter of waiting for the actual outcome? I suspect that if you ever have to defend yourself against something that's you'd be quite fortunate to have him, or someone just like him, on your side of the table.
The point is they have no case, they must know they have no case, and they know the defendant's health. And yet they press on anyway. So it goes to demonstrate how slimy they are. Are they really that short on potential defendants?
If you're really going to pretend you meant that, I'm done talking with you.
I suggest you read the constitution and figure out how international law effects the US.
Presumably you mean "affects." But that's OK. It seem to be a frequent "advantage" (as you put it) of our public education system. And your whole notion of "if we don't like it then screw you guys" is exactly why the US will slowly slide downhill in the coming decades as the rest of world passes it by.
But that's not what they did. "copy protection" doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with the computer. They injected a rootkit. That software remained on the computer forever unless the user figured out how to forcibly remove it, even if he had long-ago gotten rid of the CD.
From the wikipedia description:
If you or I had done exactly that we'd be in jail right now.
Sure. But at that point you're just turing it into a Martingale. Looking at the chart now and checking some emails I wrote, when I first thought about shorting it the price was under ten dollars. Fortunately I did not actually do it. If I had I'd have seen the price quickly go to $20. Now not only am I looking at a huge loss, but I can't know that this is the top. What if it goes to 30 or 40? Absurd? Yes, but absurd things happen. Going to $20 was absurd!
Suppose at that point IBM decides that instead of fighting that they decide to make some small settlement offer. If that had happened the stock will instantly double, and now you are really in trouble. What are you going to do? Risk everything you have to sweat this short out? At some point you have to take your medicine and cover your position.
Even without that happening I would have had to have held onto that losing trade for more than two years in order to ride it out! And then another two to get to where we are today.
Was there money to be made shorting SCOX? Yes, obviously. But to call it easy, as the original poster did, is just plain silly. You'd have earned every nickel of it.
You can usually short a stock for years if you want to. It's done by in effect "borrowing" the stock from someone. In practice, the broker worries about that and for most stocks as far as you're concerned you simply hold a negative number of shares. Right now I have a stock in my portfolio that I've been short for weeks.
You're kidding, right? Do you really think buyers (sorry... 'licensees') legally agreed to let Sony do what they did? By that logic, all malware would be perfectly legal as long as they could dupe you into 'accepting' a license. What if the license said you will send us all your money in exchange for listening to this CD? COuld they come 'round to collect your house if you don't pay?
Somebody at Media Defender has been making a lot of money. That person is not going to let this cash cow disappear. Media Defender will die, but he will start up a new company that he'll pitch as "it's like Media Defender two-point-oh! Now we'll really get those bastards!" And it will all begin again.
- If they get WTO permission it's not piracy.
- So you're saying that the US would rather go to the extent of engaging in embargos rather than comply with a ruling of the WTO? An organization to which they are a founding member? How arrogant and hypocritical that would be.
- Why would other countries make it a 'felony' if the WTO explicitly gave permission? Are you saying they would also rather ignore the WTO and elevate the US to being above the law?
The US has enjoyed an enormous advantage over the rest of the world, but those days of being far and away the king of the hill are coming to an end, and the US has to recognize that and learn how to actually get along with the rest of the world in a truly civilized way.
For what it's worth, I'm a born and bred American, once proud and now dismayed at how our country shirks and abandons the very foundations that made it great.
Yeah, I must admit it was pretty impressive how they locked up all those Sony execs after the rootkit CD fiasco.
Only if you have the money to cover it. And if you shorted at say 7 or 8, by the time it got to 20 you'd be scrambling to come up with the cash, and sooner or later you'd capitulate. And if you didn't have enough in your account your broker would automatically close you out by buying at the current market price, leaving an enormous hole in your bankroll.
It's one thing to short on paper, it's an *entirely* different thing to do it for real money. When there's real money on the line and you watch it rocket up sometime $2 and $3 a day, you'd be suicidal to just stand there and take it.
If you shorted it right away you probably went broke. A *lot* of people shorted it in the $8-$10 range, only to see it run to $20. If you were one of those, either you busted out or you didn't have a very big position.
That's a typo. It's supposed to be "a leaving provider..."
Or you could do what I do, put a dot on the side that goes up.
Good point. The "approximately half" comes directly from SCO's actual petition, which seems kinda strange.
Good idea. Raise the stakes in order to save some cash. That's a strategy that will work every time...right up until it doesn't. It doesn't matter how tough you are. There's always somebody somewhere who's tougher and more desperate than you are.
Being obtainable and being "open to all" are two different things. My guess would be that in their present state about the only thing they'd be useful for is keeping MD from denying they exist.