Although interesting on the surface, that softpedia piece reads like it was written by Verizon PR. No surprise, since the "article" is basically a regurgitation of the Verizon "whitepaper" most likely regurgitated by someone who has none to a basic understanding of pen testing and web security:
"With all this information in hand, Verizon helped the company block the hacker's IP, remove the Web shell, take down its server, reset passwords for all compromised accounts, and upgrade the CMS."
And the world was great again. Right?
"For instance, we found numerous mistyped commands and observed that the threat actors constantly struggled to interact with the compromised servers."
Next time you won't be so lucky... or alternatively, what about the more l33t sk1ll3d that are still inside the shipping company network who Verizon didn't find?
"Additionally, as a sign of their lack of skills, the attacker also didn't use a proxy or VPN and exposed their home IP address."
Send in the drones?
Interesting angle but poorly written article that blows smoke so far up Verizon's ass that it comes out their nose. Based on the descriptions of how incompetent the hackers were, OPM could have figured this one out. Hardly a ringing endorsement of Verizon RISK team.
There is no logical reason that should be a 10, unless I am missing something. I presume that Hanno is the guy who found it... "The bug does not crash less, it can only be made visible by running less with valgrind or compiling it with Address Sanitizer. The security impact is likely minor as it is only an invalid read access."
That was just the first and most graphic example that came to mind. Otherwise we largely agree, especially that fear makes money right now and for always. I don't have much of an opinion on CVSSv3, not having used it. v2 works well enough for my needs at present.
CVSSv2 is a perfectly usable metric by which to classify risk of security incidents.
From what I have seen, Mitre and NIST often show inaccurate CVSS scores on the CVE pages. In order for the metric to be truly useful, every organization has to localize measurement to their environment and each vendor needs to measure impact against their use or non-use of the underlying code. At the end of the day, it's all about risk measurement, but with those steps you end up with a reasonably accurate assessment.
I speak as someone who monitors RSS feeds of CVEs and deals with both responses to and creation of CVE statements. There is nothing wrong with the current system that wider spread adoption and education cannot fix. Part of the problem is the media hype surrounding the bugs. If every little issue wouldn't get a cute name -- Shellshock, Logjam, POODLE -- the reactions might be a little less kneejerk.
I withheld my salary history from Google when I applied for a position around 2009, and have every reason to believe that's why I failed my self assessment. I couldn't even get an interview. Nothing else in the assessment was out of order. Just a hypothesis, but there are only so many ways to fail a "self assessment" when you have insiders in your corner and a good skill match for a position.
Don't blame the politicians. Blame ourselves, collectively.
Yes, blame the politicians. To paraphrase Pogo, I have met the politician and he is us.
NFL is a non-profit organization. It does not make any profit. What you call 9 billion dollar profit, might look like profit, walk like profit, bark like profit, smell like profit, bite like profit. But it is NOT profit.
That's the heart of the problem. Fsck the brain-dramaged NFL oligarchy. We the public have given them too much, and the real question is can we revoke what has been given? Do the lawyers and politicians really speak for the public good. Do they represent us (or at least some craven manifestation of our collective unconscious?)
There is a subtle shift in power taking place within the sports world right now as evidenced by the lawsuits vs NCAA and NFL by players and former players, the ouster of Donald Sterling, and any number of other more minor incidents. Those are taking place between labor and management in the courts, and in public opinion, in as much as anyone is paying attention, which most probably do not as long as they get their sports fix on a metered dose.
>> Modern professional DSL cameras out perform physical film cameras in every measurable way.
This is absolutely untrue. DSLR cameras, when used for video, continue to suffer from a number of potential show-stopping issues.
1. Moiré - the wrong patterns cause serious problems 2. Rolling shutter - objects in motion or camera in motion cause serious problems 3. Overheating - continuous shooting is limited as is shooting in certain environmental conditions
It's more than just the specs when you get down to using one in real world scenarios for professional production.
I welcome a reasoned discussion about public displays of self-pity and knee-jerk reactions that have grown to accompany our round-the-clock culture of disaster porn. Let's bring cable television and the media into this discussion, if we're going to cast about for perps in this mess. If it bleeds it leads, bitches.
Most mass murderers leave notes. This kid destroyed evidence and despite having the tools and the education, left very little digital footprint. The mystery of it all feeds into a global media frenzy where TV, radio, press and social media are all competing to sell us to advertisers using this latest disaster and public outrage.
Blaming guns is such a knee-jerk and simplistic response to a complicated social phenomenon rooted in an overlapping series of pathologies.
Sure is a great petri dish for copycat crimes up to 12/21 (and beyond?) . . .
"Claims have been made that factors in Calvi's death were the Vatican Bank, Banco Ambrosiano's main shareholder; the Mafia, which may have used Banco Ambrosiano for money laundering; and the Propaganda Due or P2 clandestine Masonic Lodge."
Seriously, a legitimate conspiracy involving Opus Dei, the Mafia, and the Freemasons. The truth is stranger than fiction.
Use Pacifist and extract Safari3 from your install disk. It'll install alongside Safari 4. I know because my employer *ahem* advised us not to run Safari v.4 when it was first released, but I didn't catch the email until after I ran a full set of updates upon return from a week's absence.
| You can use it, but you can't actually -do- anything with it
A dual G5 tower with max out RAM and video will run 10.5.x and FCPv6 just fine, and can capture, edit, and render HD via Decklink and eSATA RAID or similar and drive multiple monitors. But that's not anything anyone would want to do with a computer, I suppose. It might be a bit slow, but can get the job done.
Safe Boot would clean out caches and re-link dynamic libraries. I believe it also cleans out some of the/var and/tmp and lock files, but that's just an assumption based on the types of problems that I've seen it fix.
I worked in tech support for Dell in 1994. At that time they were digging themselves out of the hole that they dug by selling PCs through Wal-Mart. The strategy, AFAIK, was a complete failure. It deluged their technical support organization with the most basic computer questions. Everybody that I spoke with at the company proclaimed it an unmitigated disaster. Dell couldn't get out of the arrangment fast enough. Not sure why this is new or news. Perhaps their Indian tech support will be better equipped to handle the calls this go-round, but I doubt it.
>> You've obviously never made a movie before. Hollywood doesn't throw money around willy-nilly. Every penny is budgeted and accounted for. Everyone knows their job and does it right the first time -- and they are well rewarded for it because Hollywood appreciates a good worker and has no time for fuck-ups. Bringing a movie in on time saves money, it doesn't waste it. Every day that a movie goes over budget costs a small fortune. Real movies (not garbage shot in mom's basement) cost real money. I suggest to anyone who thinks they can make a quality movie* in a reasonable amount of time for less than a million to try it. You won't succeed, but you'll learn a lot. If amatuer hour is all you want then you can cut corners. If you want a professional product, hire the pros and expect to pay a pro's rate. Aside from a few ego-maniacal "stars", movies are so expensive because of the shear number of expert crew and technical elements involved. The camera and lenses alone are probably worth more than you'll make in a decade. >>
Bullshit! At first I thought you were being sarcastic. The fact is that Hollywood wastes money like crazy. Starts with all the extra staff they need to pay to get the talent to work on the film. They are terrible at accounting. Guess you've never heard of how difficult it is to audit a production budget coming out of a studio. The studio system plays a game of creative budget combination too. If Film A is over-budget and Film B has crew and or locations that Film A can use, they just use it out of B's budget. You must work for a Hollywood studio if you're pushing shit like this. Sure there are a lot of talented crew out there who know their jobs and do them right. But, that doesn't keep films from being bloated budgetary nightmares.
I also disagree with your notion that "anyone who thinks they can make a quality movie* in a reasonable amount of time for less than a million... won't succeed." That's a load of crap, quite honestly. There are countless dozens of films made for that type of budget every year. You don't hear about them because the Studio System either doesn't pick them up or doesn't promote them. Guess you've never heard of Roger Corman either. Not saying that he was the king of quality, but he did produce a number of classics. With the tools available to an independent filmmaker today, given a good script, a director with a strong vision, a talented DP and capable actors you can make a quality film today for under $100,000. I have tried, and I know it can be done. Of course you have to cut corners, but if you know which corners can be safely cut, the audiences will barely even notice the difference.
There are plenty of talented independent filmmakers who are capable of making a film for far less than that. I'd think that one of the primary benefits of trying this hybrid open source model for filmmaking would be that costs would be kept down substantially. Seriously, why not set a goal of making a film using this collaboration methodology for sub $100,000? Good films can be made at that price point, especially if you don't have to pay talent to act and don't need to rent a lot of gear. Are they planning on trying to get A-List talent to act in this frankenfilm? Such a bloated budget leads me to believe that it's either not well thought-out or somebody is trying to derive a substantial income from the process. If you're going to test the unknown when it comes to development methodology, why not do it on the cheap? That budget may be pie in the sky, but it's way too high.
I also agree with all the other posters who said that the process is most likely to lead to a stillborn film that will likely be unwatchable. I'm a sysadmin turned film producer, and based on my experience the best films are a labor of love by one or a handful of strong-willed individuals. I've been to Sundance and countless other festivals, and from what I've seen the best independent films are always driven by the vision of a single individual (or at most a small few). You want to see the collaborative process at work, just watch any sitcom on television today. Those are all written in a collaborative type methodology. What happens is individual politics and lobbying get in the way of a good product... i.e. "You vote for my joke, and I'll vote for yours". It rarely works. You need a Larry David to act as a totalitarian leader much like linux needs Linus.
I highly recommend the film 'The Kid Stays in the Picture' for a behind the scenes look at the Hollywood creative process. Book is even better. Fact is that Robert Evans was dogmatic and totalitarian about how his pictures were produced, and he wouldn't settle for second-rate choices. And the films he produced were far far greater works of art because of it. He went head-to-head with Coppola on 'The Godfather' and won... "The fat fuck shot a great film, but it ain't on the screen. It's either in his kitchen or on the cutting room floor."
The Copyright to the film is owned by "Westside Productions, LLC."
Westside Productions
331 West 57th Street, #201
New York City, NY 10019
Tel: 718-399-3279 Fax: 212-399-3500
Call and ask them who are members of the LLC. At least I believe that is them. Another google result. Draw your own conclusions...
Westside Productions
Subject: Executive Assistant - (New York, NY) Posted At 05:07:02 09/25/2003
Position will provide executive administrative support to high-profile New York-based filmmaker/director. Duties include preparing correspondence, managing busy calendar, answering calls, scheduling appointments and coordinating travel, maintaining filing system, expense reporting, multi-tasking and priortizing assignments, assisting with publicity and creative work as needed. Job Requirements: No recent college graduates. 5 year work experience as a secretary or assistant is preferred for this job. Need a savvy, well spoken, hard working candidate with initiative, good judgement and a sense of humor. Strong command of Word, Excel, Outlook.
It is their right (obligation) to distribute the movie in contractually-defined venues (theatrical release) in contractually-defined territories (for LGF most likely North America), for a contractually-defined length of time (X years). It is their right (some might say obligation) to defend their contracts, including defense against "piracy" (i.e. unauthorized distribution).
If you read the link in parent, it is also not clear that Lion's Gate Films (LGF) has expressed legal concern over unauthorized p2p distribution of the film. What they seem to be expressing concern over in that article are opponents of the film from inciting unauthorized distribution. At least that is my read. Sounds like idle threats mostly to me. The smartest thing they can do is encourage poor quality bootlegs so that people who might otherwise not have seen the film can see it, and perhaps later purchase tickets to see it on the big screen, with full resolution, sound, and with an audience.
I've long believed, as a filmmaker, that the smartest policy to combat "piracy" would be to let low quality dupes go unchecked and flourish, while vigorously controlling high quality distribution. That way the work can stand on its own merit, and what the distribution chain controls is quality not access. The Studio System (a) cannot think in these terms out of greed and lack of foresight, and (b) is so used to selling the public shlock that they dupe audiences into paying for in theaters that it is not in their best interests to give anyone advance access. IOW, most of the work turned out by the film industry is unable to stand on its own merits.
I don't know where you got your information, but I can confirm (albeit anecdotally) to the contrary. I have a 500mhz ibook with a serial number starting with UV139.
The classic video chipset problem has just recently manifested itself on my system. Flickering (brightness) display which can be alleviated by applying pressure to the left of the trackpad. Based on the information I've gathered, this problem does not seem to be heat related. Rather, it seems to be a loose connection with the video chip, as reported elsewhere.
I have confirmed that my system has 8mb VRAM. The logic board has been replaced once for a different issue. As far as I can tell, my problem is exactly the same as the one that Apple is providing this coverage for. I will have to convince them that my computer should be covered under the program. Wish me luck.
Just because you haven't yet experienced the commonplace logic board problems doesn't mean you won't ever. When you do, I expect you'll find that sledgehammer quite useful.
I want to be on the record that I submitted this story on Sunday, but for some unkown reason it was rejected. Yeah, ok guys. Why is it suddenly news now? Maybe slashdot should add some mechanism whereby you can find out why your story submission was rejected. Arbitrary.
Seems possible that if citibank was compromised and their webservers or some segment of them were 0wned that the miscreants covered their tracks. Perhaps the webserver logs were deleted or manipulated.
Of course it is more likely that citi knows full well about the problem and has all the logged information about it at their disposal. But, as is typical with financial institutions in such a pickle, their damage control protocols are to keep the story out of the press. There are longstanding folk tales about hackers blackmailing financials for beaucoup $$.
For those interested in this, the company behind Exenatide is Amylin [NASDAQ:AMLN]. I've been invested in them for years now, and happily so. They have another diabetes drug in even later stage development, Symlin.
If you want to learn more about them or their medicines I suggest checking their website www.amylin.com or check out the Yahoo! finance msg. board. Gotta wade through the typical signal/noise ratio on Yahoo, but there are quite a few intelligent posts that make it to that board.
Bought it at the Russian Market in Phnom Penh for USD$3.75. The quality looks decent on my ibook. Haven't watched it yet, but did check that it ran.
It can be purchased now for USD$2.00 in Saigon, I found out this evening. I picked up the Deer Hunter for my visit in country to go with Full Metal Jacket.
These are Malaysian pirate mafia copies or something. Since I can't go see the film anyway, the DVD at a cheaper price than popcorn in some USA theatres is quite a deal. Dunno about extra footage.
I don't care to comment on your premise, but you do have some facts terribly wrong. The announcement regarding a switch to Linux machines for the backend architecture was roughly a year ago. At that time, corporate and media support for Linux was nowhere what it is today, and the reception was overwhelmingly positive in places like Slashdot.
'Whateve [sic] they were running on before the switch' did not work perfectly fine. That there was even an illusion that it did is a testamant to the people who were breaking their asses to make it appear so. How do I know this? Because I was the architect of the migration. The difference can be summed up in two words: manual versus automated. We, the admins, were the primary instigators behind sending out press releases for that, as a way of spreading the word that Linux could successfully replace NT. It was not a trivial migration, but a rousing success when all is said and done.
Salon was still pre-IPO when that took place and the announcements were made, so how could that possibly bump the stock?
Slashdot Mirror
Although interesting on the surface, that softpedia piece reads like it was written by Verizon PR. No surprise, since the "article" is basically a regurgitation of the Verizon "whitepaper" most likely regurgitated by someone who has none to a basic understanding of pen testing and web security:
"With all this information in hand, Verizon helped the company block the hacker's IP, remove the Web shell, take down its server, reset passwords for all compromised accounts, and upgrade the CMS."
And the world was great again. Right?
"For instance, we found numerous mistyped commands and observed that the threat actors constantly struggled to interact with the compromised servers."
Next time you won't be so lucky ... or alternatively, what about the more l33t sk1ll3d that are still inside the shipping company network who Verizon didn't find?
"Additionally, as a sign of their lack of skills, the attacker also didn't use a proxy or VPN and exposed their home IP address."
Send in the drones?
Interesting angle but poorly written article that blows smoke so far up Verizon's ass that it comes out their nose. Based on the descriptions of how incompetent the hackers were, OPM could have figured this one out. Hardly a ringing endorsement of Verizon RISK team.
Fair enough on your pedantry, so what I should have said is perhaps "often enough". Case in point:
https://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/...
There is no logical reason that should be a 10, unless I am missing something. I presume that Hanno is the guy who found it ... "The bug does not crash less, it can only be made visible by running less with valgrind or compiling it with Address Sanitizer. The security impact is likely minor as it is only an invalid read access."
https://blog.fuzzing-project.o...
That was just the first and most graphic example that came to mind. Otherwise we largely agree, especially that fear makes money right now and for always. I don't have much of an opinion on CVSSv3, not having used it. v2 works well enough for my needs at present.
CVSSv2 is a perfectly usable metric by which to classify risk of security incidents.
From what I have seen, Mitre and NIST often show inaccurate CVSS scores on the CVE pages. In order for the metric to be truly useful, every organization has to localize measurement to their environment and each vendor needs to measure impact against their use or non-use of the underlying code. At the end of the day, it's all about risk measurement, but with those steps you end up with a reasonably accurate assessment.
I speak as someone who monitors RSS feeds of CVEs and deals with both responses to and creation of CVE statements. There is nothing wrong with the current system that wider spread adoption and education cannot fix. Part of the problem is the media hype surrounding the bugs. If every little issue wouldn't get a cute name -- Shellshock, Logjam, POODLE -- the reactions might be a little less kneejerk.
I withheld my salary history from Google when I applied for a position around 2009, and have every reason to believe that's why I failed my self assessment. I couldn't even get an interview. Nothing else in the assessment was out of order. Just a hypothesis, but there are only so many ways to fail a "self assessment" when you have insiders in your corner and a good skill match for a position.
Don't blame the politicians. Blame ourselves, collectively.
Yes, blame the politicians. To paraphrase Pogo, I have met the politician and he is us.
NFL is a non-profit organization. It does not make any profit. What you call 9 billion dollar profit, might look like profit, walk like profit, bark like profit, smell like profit, bite like profit. But it is NOT profit.
Damn straight Skippy!
http://www.sportsonearth.com/a...
That's the heart of the problem. Fsck the brain-dramaged NFL oligarchy. We the public have given them too much, and the real question is can we revoke what has been given? Do the lawyers and politicians really speak for the public good. Do they represent us (or at least some craven manifestation of our collective unconscious?)
There is a subtle shift in power taking place within the sports world right now as evidenced by the lawsuits vs NCAA and NFL by players and former players, the ouster of Donald Sterling, and any number of other more minor incidents. Those are taking place between labor and management in the courts, and in public opinion, in as much as anyone is paying attention, which most probably do not as long as they get their sports fix on a metered dose.
>> Modern professional DSL cameras out perform physical film cameras in every measurable way.
This is absolutely untrue. DSLR cameras, when used for video, continue to suffer from a number of potential show-stopping issues.
1. Moiré - the wrong patterns cause serious problems
2. Rolling shutter - objects in motion or camera in motion cause serious problems
3. Overheating - continuous shooting is limited as is shooting in certain environmental conditions
It's more than just the specs when you get down to using one in real world scenarios for professional production.
And this is what passes for snarky comment, now-a-days?
Back in my day, we'd walk a mile uphill in the snow and get our 9600 baud modems connected before chiming in from the peanut gallery.
tar tzvf | grep
I've got email going back 20 years, and this has not failed me. Maybe you need to sub 'x' for 't' and use less, but don't over-engineer this problem.
I welcome a reasoned discussion about public displays of self-pity and knee-jerk reactions that have grown to accompany our round-the-clock culture of disaster porn. Let's bring cable television and the media into this discussion, if we're going to cast about for perps in this mess. If it bleeds it leads, bitches.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4&feature=player_embedded
Most mass murderers leave notes. This kid destroyed evidence and despite having the tools and the education, left very little digital footprint. The mystery of it all feeds into a global media frenzy where TV, radio, press and social media are all competing to sell us to advertisers using this latest disaster and public outrage.
Blaming guns is such a knee-jerk and simplistic response to a complicated social phenomenon rooted in an overlapping series of pathologies.
Sure is a great petri dish for copycat crimes up to 12/21 (and beyond?) . . .
Like they did to Roberto Calvi?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberto_Calvi
"Claims have been made that factors in Calvi's death were the Vatican Bank, Banco Ambrosiano's main shareholder; the Mafia, which may have used Banco Ambrosiano for money laundering; and the Propaganda Due or P2 clandestine Masonic Lodge."
Seriously, a legitimate conspiracy involving Opus Dei, the Mafia, and the Freemasons. The truth is stranger than fiction.
http://www.threemonkeysonline.com/who-killed-roberto-calvi/
Use Pacifist and extract Safari3 from your install disk. It'll install alongside Safari 4. I know because my employer *ahem* advised us not to run Safari v.4 when it was first released, but I didn't catch the email until after I ran a full set of updates upon return from a week's absence.
| You can use it, but you can't actually -do- anything with it
A dual G5 tower with max out RAM and video will run 10.5.x and FCPv6 just fine, and can capture, edit, and render HD via Decklink and eSATA RAID or similar and drive multiple monitors. But that's not anything anyone would want to do with a computer, I suppose. It might be a bit slow, but can get the job done.
Safe Boot would clean out caches and re-link dynamic libraries. I believe it also cleans out some of the /var and /tmp and lock files, but that's just an assumption based on the types of problems that I've seen it fix.
I worked in tech support for Dell in 1994. At that time they were digging themselves out of the hole that they dug by selling PCs through Wal-Mart. The strategy, AFAIK, was a complete failure. It deluged their technical support organization with the most basic computer questions. Everybody that I spoke with at the company proclaimed it an unmitigated disaster. Dell couldn't get out of the arrangment fast enough. Not sure why this is new or news. Perhaps their Indian tech support will be better equipped to handle the calls this go-round, but I doubt it.
June 7, 1993
>>
... won't succeed." That's a load of crap, quite honestly. There are countless dozens of films made for that type of budget every year. You don't hear about them because the Studio System either doesn't pick them up or doesn't promote them. Guess you've never heard of Roger Corman either. Not saying that he was the king of quality, but he did produce a number of classics. With the tools available to an independent filmmaker today, given a good script, a director with a strong vision, a talented DP and capable actors you can make a quality film today for under $100,000. I have tried, and I know it can be done. Of course you have to cut corners, but if you know which corners can be safely cut, the audiences will barely even notice the difference.
You've obviously never made a movie before. Hollywood doesn't throw money around willy-nilly. Every penny is budgeted and accounted for. Everyone knows their job and does it right the first time -- and they are well rewarded for it because Hollywood appreciates a good worker and has no time for fuck-ups. Bringing a movie in on time saves money, it doesn't waste it. Every day that a movie goes over budget costs a small fortune. Real movies (not garbage shot in mom's basement) cost real money. I suggest to anyone who thinks they can make a quality movie* in a reasonable amount of time for less than a million to try it. You won't succeed, but you'll learn a lot. If amatuer hour is all you want then you can cut corners. If you want a professional product, hire the pros and expect to pay a pro's rate. Aside from a few ego-maniacal "stars", movies are so expensive because of the shear number of expert crew and technical elements involved. The camera and lenses alone are probably worth more than you'll make in a decade.
>>
Bullshit! At first I thought you were being sarcastic. The fact is that Hollywood wastes money like crazy. Starts with all the extra staff they need to pay to get the talent to work on the film. They are terrible at accounting. Guess you've never heard of how difficult it is to audit a production budget coming out of a studio. The studio system plays a game of creative budget combination too. If Film A is over-budget and Film B has crew and or locations that Film A can use, they just use it out of B's budget. You must work for a Hollywood studio if you're pushing shit like this. Sure there are a lot of talented crew out there who know their jobs and do them right. But, that doesn't keep films from being bloated budgetary nightmares.
I also disagree with your notion that "anyone who thinks they can make a quality movie* in a reasonable amount of time for less than a million
There are plenty of talented independent filmmakers who are capable of making a film for far less than that. I'd think that one of the primary benefits of trying this hybrid open source model for filmmaking would be that costs would be kept down substantially. Seriously, why not set a goal of making a film using this collaboration methodology for sub $100,000? Good films can be made at that price point, especially if you don't have to pay talent to act and don't need to rent a lot of gear. Are they planning on trying to get A-List talent to act in this frankenfilm? Such a bloated budget leads me to believe that it's either not well thought-out or somebody is trying to derive a substantial income from the process. If you're going to test the unknown when it comes to development methodology, why not do it on the cheap? That budget may be pie in the sky, but it's way too high.
... i.e. "You vote for my joke, and I'll vote for yours". It rarely works. You need a Larry David to act as a totalitarian leader much like linux needs Linus.
... "The fat fuck shot a great film, but it ain't on the screen. It's either in his kitchen or on the cutting room floor."
I also agree with all the other posters who said that the process is most likely to lead to a stillborn film that will likely be unwatchable. I'm a sysadmin turned film producer, and based on my experience the best films are a labor of love by one or a handful of strong-willed individuals. I've been to Sundance and countless other festivals, and from what I've seen the best independent films are always driven by the vision of a single individual (or at most a small few). You want to see the collaborative process at work, just watch any sitcom on television today. Those are all written in a collaborative type methodology. What happens is individual politics and lobbying get in the way of a good product
I highly recommend the film 'The Kid Stays in the Picture' for a behind the scenes look at the Hollywood creative process. Book is even better. Fact is that Robert Evans was dogmatic and totalitarian about how his pictures were produced, and he wouldn't settle for second-rate choices. And the films he produced were far far greater works of art because of it. He went head-to-head with Coppola on 'The Godfather' and won
The Copyright to the film is owned by "Westside Productions, LLC."
Call and ask them who are members of the LLC. At least I believe that is them. Another google result. Draw your own conclusions ...
It is not "the distributor's movie".
It is their right (obligation) to distribute the movie in contractually-defined venues (theatrical release) in contractually-defined territories (for LGF most likely North America), for a contractually-defined length of time (X years). It is their right (some might say obligation) to defend their contracts, including defense against "piracy" (i.e. unauthorized distribution).
If you read the link in parent, it is also not clear that Lion's Gate Films (LGF) has expressed legal concern over unauthorized p2p distribution of the film. What they seem to be expressing concern over in that article are opponents of the film from inciting unauthorized distribution. At least that is my read. Sounds like idle threats mostly to me. The smartest thing they can do is encourage poor quality bootlegs so that people who might otherwise not have seen the film can see it, and perhaps later purchase tickets to see it on the big screen, with full resolution, sound, and with an audience.
I've long believed, as a filmmaker, that the smartest policy to combat "piracy" would be to let low quality dupes go unchecked and flourish, while vigorously controlling high quality distribution. That way the work can stand on its own merit, and what the distribution chain controls is quality not access. The Studio System (a) cannot think in these terms out of greed and lack of foresight, and (b) is so used to selling the public shlock that they dupe audiences into paying for in theaters that it is not in their best interests to give anyone advance access. IOW, most of the work turned out by the film industry is unable to stand on its own merits.
I don't know where you got your information, but I can confirm (albeit anecdotally) to the contrary. I have a 500mhz ibook with a serial number starting with UV139.
The classic video chipset problem has just recently manifested itself on my system. Flickering (brightness) display which can be alleviated by applying pressure to the left of the trackpad. Based on the information I've gathered, this problem does not seem to be heat related. Rather, it seems to be a loose connection with the video chip, as reported elsewhere.
I have confirmed that my system has 8mb VRAM. The logic board has been replaced once for a different issue. As far as I can tell, my problem is exactly the same as the one that Apple is providing this coverage for. I will have to convince them that my computer should be covered under the program. Wish me luck.
Just because you haven't yet experienced the commonplace logic board problems doesn't mean you won't ever. When you do, I expect you'll find that sledgehammer quite useful.
I want to be on the record that I submitted this story on Sunday, but for some unkown reason it was rejected. Yeah, ok guys. Why is it suddenly news now? Maybe slashdot should add some mechanism whereby you can find out why your story submission was rejected. Arbitrary.
Sour grapes, me?
Seems possible that if citibank was compromised and their webservers or some segment of them were 0wned that the miscreants covered their tracks. Perhaps the webserver logs were deleted or manipulated.
Of course it is more likely that citi knows full well about the problem and has all the logged information about it at their disposal. But, as is typical with financial institutions in such a pickle, their damage control protocols are to keep the story out of the press. There are longstanding folk tales about hackers blackmailing financials for beaucoup $$.
If you want to learn more about them or their medicines I suggest checking their website www.amylin.com or check out the Yahoo! finance msg. board. Gotta wade through the typical signal/noise ratio on Yahoo, but there are quite a few intelligent posts that make it to that board.
Bought it at the Russian Market in Phnom Penh for USD$3.75. The quality looks decent on my ibook. Haven't watched it yet, but did check that it ran.
It can be purchased now for USD$2.00 in Saigon, I found out this evening. I picked up the Deer Hunter for my visit in country to go with Full Metal Jacket.
These are Malaysian pirate mafia copies or something. Since I can't go see the film anyway, the DVD at a cheaper price than popcorn in some USA theatres is quite a deal. Dunno about extra footage.
ltrz
'Whateve [sic] they were running on before the switch' did not work perfectly fine. That there was even an illusion that it did is a testamant to the people who were breaking their asses to make it appear so. How do I know this? Because I was the architect of the migration. The difference can be summed up in two words: manual versus automated. We, the admins, were the primary instigators behind sending out press releases for that, as a way of spreading the word that Linux could successfully replace NT. It was not a trivial migration, but a rousing success when all is said and done.
Salon was still pre-IPO when that took place and the announcements were made, so how could that possibly bump the stock?
Anyway, just correcting some of the facts.
-jjr