Re:Where are IBM's priorities?
on
CPRM Voted Down
·
· Score: 4
This only marks you as under 40. Older programmers and hackers used to regard IBM the way young kiddies do Microsoft, and with better reason, since their monopoly was more complete and there weren't nice squishy linux sandboxes to play in.
Ouch! Did I just bite a troll? Hate when I do that, it's like biting tinfoil.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Too bad that was anon - it was funny. When I finished the next major revision of my script for rapid porn downloading I would have sent it to you.
It doesn't work right now, because I'm in the middle of revising the core fuzzyfying functions for searching on variants of, for example/yoursisterstits/images/poolbabe1.jpg to find backup files and additional images not listed in the thumbnail gallery, plus revising the user interface for declaring the method of fooling mod_referer, but who am I kidding. I don't have that much time to look at porn.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
10 Someone posts something horribly offensive to
a forum there. They now own it and are therefore
responsible for it.
20 They are sued by whatever group is offended or
injured by the posting.
30 Goto 10
That's not a horrible idea - but you'd have to catch them claiming to own the post in the first place - save this one in your pocket. If they ever republish stuff, then publish Co$ docs and sit back.
It would be far more likely that the reverse would happen - if they've ever dodged responsibility, then use this defense when they claim ownership. Less satisfying.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Great! So now we just need someone to hold your hand while you bell the cat and Presto!;-)
Looking forward to hearing your developments!
Seriously, there was somone a year or two ago who made a vast leap in voice recognition by realizing that you need to vary the timing between firings. Now I haven't heard of any practical developments, patents, licenses, or products as a result, so it may have been bullshit, but... Given that so many years of neural net research apparently overlooked this simple variation of technique, and given that any application of this to routing technology would necessarily make use of asynchronous signals, someone like myself who has no real knowledge about neural nets at all can see that it's likely that a big chunk of the theoretical groundwork for such an application is still terra incognita. Which means that we could easily be looking at 5 years research time PLUS design, development, implementation, and deployment of an utterly new routing protocol, one which would have to speak natively to at least BGP, if not other routing protocls, and which could have mission-critical implications for every major backbone provider.
Good luck!
P.S. Don't forget to post those links when you find them!
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
The issue is not whether the pipes are saturated, the issue is whether the routers can propagate and crunch routing information fast enough. Spam is irrelevant; the size and complexity of the Internet is.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
But in all honesty, the best argument is a straightforward upgrade path. I tried to upgrade a RedHat box, and after the fourth RPM that needed another RPM or was missing files or didn't compile correctly, I wiped the disc, mounted a couple dirs, and installed a fresh, current system with a few commands. If upgrading is hard, people do it less. That's why boxes get hacked, often.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Re:They must be serving via Win95
on
TCP/IP Over HTTP
·
· Score: 3
It's a bug in Microsoft's development libraries. There was a discussion about it on Bugtraq, with a link to a
FAQ
. It's not a Y2K bug, so no one will bother tracking the productivity lost as a result, which is too bad, because it could be really big. And yes, changing the clock on your computer at work does count as lost productivity.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
For Ed Wood fans, however, I'd point out that "Glen or Glenda" is probably worse.
For anyone who's actually watched "Earth: Final Conflict": did they fire all the writers last season and replace them with crackheads? There was an episode this season (Zo'or wants all the gold) that was so bad I laughed out loud. Don't make me flame it in detail; don't.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
The mod points would be a nice touch. Make sure to ask everyone to meta-moderate all day as well! Then we can laugh as the more pugnacious moderate each other into oblivion, then get smack-down'd for it by anonymous meta-mods.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Well, duh! How is their fragile business plan supposed to overturn tens of thousands of years of agricultural practice if they can't shove it down farmer's throats with bizaare requirements to do genetic testing and corruption of the legal system? It's just not fair to Monsanto to put the burden of their dangerous experiments on them!
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Well, what I can't figure is how a shitty business plan (seeds can't walk! pollen doesn't travel! this stuff will just sit there! life forms can be patented! farmers will love sterile crops!) gives Monsanto the power to go around sampling people's fields and demanding they destroy crops, when those people have not been proven guilty of a crime. They should keep their fucking seeds indoors if they can't handle the consequences. And any business plan that can't be executed with cruise ships full of lawyers is a bad business plan.
What's next, a farmer next to a Monsanto-poisoned field gets the pollen in his, Monsanto comes in with the jackbooted thugs and burns his crops? Those people are enemies of research, development, science, biology, agriculture, intellectual freedom, and just about everything else good and natural.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
You know, I was going to reflexively say something about how the hacker/cracker speech is redundant and that it's pointless trying to educate anyone about what a hacker is, but this time they really went too far. This is horribly sloppy journalism and really unprofessional. It's one thing to juice up the headlines, it's another to completely misrepresent the article and the story. I don't see anything related to ANY definition of hacking here.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
In that light it sounds like the Napster user's defense; "I have the right to make a copy, therefore I have the right to give anyone access to the copy." He's right as far as internal databases are concerned. It's collecting money from third parties for access to the database that is the theft.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Close, but no cigar. The distinction between personal enjoyment and use and public distribution and broadcast is one of the main tenets of intellectual property law since the invention of mechanical reproduction.
Filmmakers have to get permission and pay to use "Happy Birthday" in a film, but no one can stop you from singing it at home.
Read your post again; the issue is not whether the NYTimes can store the articles in an internal database, make backup copies, or write it on paper napkins and give them to partygoers. The issue is whether they can charge for a new form of distrubution without seeking additional permission from (read: pay additional money to) copyright holders. I don't see any way that they have purchased the articles in multiple formats, and it doesn't appear that they've secured the rights to distribute the articles in all formats.
A better analogy would be the MP3.com case, where they were (theoretically) making money off redistributing the music on the CDs by some semi-magical transferrence of powers. MP3.com made basically the same argument as the NYTimes; we have some rights to this material, the end user has some right to access, hence we have the right to provide access in a novel way. The courts did not agree with MP3.com, and if the Times wins this, MP3.com should get their money back.
Which makes me wonder what the Times has had to say about MP3.com. Their editorials could be cited in court against them, and the plaintiffs lawyers would be crazy if they hadn't tried to use that against the Times.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
First you blame the schools for not doing the parents' job (religious education of your children), and now you think the solution is parents doing the school's job? I don't buy this one bit. If you want kids learning about "God prayer, and the Ten Commandments", teach them yourself, and leave MY tax dollars out of it. You don't want the government to be Mom or Big Brother; you want it to be the godfather.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Funny, where are the people who always scream "It's THEIR company, not YOURS, they can do WHATEVER THEY WANT and you have NO right to complain." (as if someone's right to do something eliminates the right of others to complain). Where are they? Why haven't they spoken up on this subject?
Funny, I worked at a company owned and staffed almost exclusively by Orthodox Jews who had regular prayer sessions (yes, I know that's not the term, but I don't want to confuse these lunks) on company time. So why didn't someone sue them? Because of the Jew lawyers? Silly me, I thought it was religious freedom or something.
And yet, I can't think of a single European I've met who would do anything but snort in disgust at the notion of prayer at work.
Check your facts, bub.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Hey, is it just me or is it really tired and trite to accuse all who value privacy of being paranoid?
Here's something fun you can do with someone's doubleclick profile; use it to assist trashing someone's credit. It's no secret that credit card fraud detection works largely by identifying purchases in unusual places or types. So if I'm running a credit card ring, and I know what type of purchases you make, I can probably multiply by a factor of 5 or more the amount I can extract from your stolen credit card before any fraud detection kicks in.
Not to mention corporate espionage; it's assumed that DoubleClick doesn't sell certain kinds of information in their database to all their customers. I wonder how much Bezos would pay to find out what B&N customers are up to? Bet he can't find out legally. Sure would be really tempting if some mysterious party offered a stolen report, wouldn't it?
There are lots of nasty things that can come out of this kind of hack, and not all of it is about finding your preferred vendor for butt plugs. That being said, it may still be easier to get this information by bribing DoubleClick employees than via hackery.
Oh, and RTFArticle; they did give doubleclick lead time before breaking the story.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
They used to extend this prohibition to all homosexuals, not just closeted ones. That's why William Burroughs called being homosexual "the perfect cover." So, in fact, NAMBLA might just be the best cover for operating an open nest of spies that the CIA ever had.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
You're going in the right direction, but you won't get there that way.
Why should anyone be compelled to have a web site? Great, now people are downloading the song off my web site, costing me lots of money, which I had hoped to save by putting my song on Napster. No thanks.
This might have the effect of actually INCREASING violations. Suppose I put a bunch of stuff on a web site, alert Napster, hack my own box so I can claim it wasn't me.... Now napster authorizes the trax, and the RIAA has two targets, not one to stop. Or suppose I just get free accounts via yahoo or whatever, and upload that way. The RIAA still has two targets in case of a violation. I bet you can guess what happens pretty soon after this scenario develops...
Third, after all the problems with mp3s on free web sites, they just get deleted automatically. Now I can't get my own songs on napster without a web site that I pay for. Sounds like a tax on non-RIAA musicians to me.
Fourth, I get some space on my friend's web server. But he doesn't want tons of downloads (he pays for bandwidth), so we set it up so that only the Napster servers (which check, automatically, once every day to see if the song is there; it was less often until the RIAA complained and before every download until ISPs complained) can download the song. Now the RIAA checks with their own automatic programs (they started this after the authorize-and-remove-file scandals that led to the once-a-day rule), sends an automated report to Napster (which STRANGELY seems to contain a whole lot of false positives, funny since they are now policing on "behalf" of unaffiliated artists like me), and my tracks are now blocked. It takes me weeks to find out why this is true, since the files are available periodically, after Napster checks and before the RIAA files their report. But I'm just an independent artist, so I can't afford to sue. I'm just locked out by my competitors, the RIAA.
Put it even more simply; if we can all stuff our songs on web servers, who the hell needs Napster? The whole POINT is to turn our local hard drives into temporary servers and create an automatic index. The solution you propose reminds me of all the times my parents asked me to turn the music down, repeatedly, until I couldn't hear it with my ears pressed to the speaker. If you're going to insist the music can't be heard, just fucking turn it off and admit that's what you are doing.
No, I don't have any answers, either. This is going to get a lot more complicated before it gets better.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
You are correct, but since the DCMA avoids defining "copy protection measures" I predict that the first week some hapless hacker puts out a program for getting around these broken CDs so he can put MP3s on his laptop, the RIAA tries to stomp the program a la DeCSS and make the program illegal. Ultimately they won't win, and may even damage the DCMA, but they will drag this out forever because they can't believe their fantasies of total control and limitless profits won't come true.
(Book)Mark my words.
Also, you gotta love the quote in the article from the guy who describes how heartbroken he is to see people listening to their CDs on their laptops on the plane or whatever (because it's an obstacle to acceptance of broken CDs). Geez, now they don't even want us to LISTEN to their music, makes you wonder why they make it and why they expect us to buy it.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
What? You are actually claiming that it's MORE fascist, not LESS, to ignore, yet allow, dissenters, crackpots, and jackasses with some stupid agenda, as opposed to PUNISHING them and, essentially, removing their membership in a society?
Good troll.
And contgrats for Katz on taking a different tactic; trolling outright. He actually entertains the argument that "should be exposed to ideas they might not have chosen themselves" by consuming mass media from the most solipsistic generation in memory, targeted specifically to their foibles and self-delusions in the most sophisticated pandering yet known.
There is a real point in saying that you are not informed, no matter how much information you consume, if that information does not include sources in common with society at large. I just can't believe that today's mass media represents the alternative in any real sense; that material goes through a "moderation" process more brutal, arbitrary, and self-limiting than anything else I've seen.
Yet taking these viewpoints and re-reading the article again, I can't help getting the feeling that Sunstein's views are far more sophisticated than the "Slashdot destroys journalism; death of civil society soon to follow" message that Katz extracts from them.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Slashdot Mirror
This only marks you as under 40. Older programmers and hackers used to regard IBM the way young kiddies do Microsoft, and with better reason, since their monopoly was more complete and there weren't nice squishy linux sandboxes to play in. Ouch! Did I just bite a troll? Hate when I do that, it's like biting tinfoil.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
It doesn't work right now, because I'm in the middle of revising the core fuzzyfying functions for searching on variants of, for example /yoursisterstits/images/poolbabe1.jpg to find backup files and additional images not listed in the thumbnail gallery, plus revising the user interface for declaring the method of fooling mod_referer, but who am I kidding. I don't have that much time to look at porn.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
It would be far more likely that the reverse would happen - if they've ever dodged responsibility, then use this defense when they claim ownership. Less satisfying.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Looking forward to hearing your developments!
Seriously, there was somone a year or two ago who made a vast leap in voice recognition by realizing that you need to vary the timing between firings. Now I haven't heard of any practical developments, patents, licenses, or products as a result, so it may have been bullshit, but... Given that so many years of neural net research apparently overlooked this simple variation of technique, and given that any application of this to routing technology would necessarily make use of asynchronous signals, someone like myself who has no real knowledge about neural nets at all can see that it's likely that a big chunk of the theoretical groundwork for such an application is still terra incognita. Which means that we could easily be looking at 5 years research time PLUS design, development, implementation, and deployment of an utterly new routing protocol, one which would have to speak natively to at least BGP, if not other routing protocls, and which could have mission-critical implications for every major backbone provider.
Good luck!
P.S. Don't forget to post those links when you find them!
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
The issue is not whether the pipes are saturated, the issue is whether the routers can propagate and crunch routing information fast enough. Spam is irrelevant; the size and complexity of the Internet is.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
For that reason, I can't rid my mind of the idea.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
But in all honesty, the best argument is a straightforward upgrade path. I tried to upgrade a RedHat box, and after the fourth RPM that needed another RPM or was missing files or didn't compile correctly, I wiped the disc, mounted a couple dirs, and installed a fresh, current system with a few commands. If upgrading is hard, people do it less. That's why boxes get hacked, often.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
It's a bug in Microsoft's development libraries. There was a discussion about it on Bugtraq, with a link to a FAQ . It's not a Y2K bug, so no one will bother tracking the productivity lost as a result, which is too bad, because it could be really big. And yes, changing the clock on your computer at work does count as lost productivity.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
For Ed Wood fans, however, I'd point out that "Glen or Glenda" is probably worse.
For anyone who's actually watched "Earth: Final Conflict": did they fire all the writers last season and replace them with crackheads? There was an episode this season (Zo'or wants all the gold) that was so bad I laughed out loud. Don't make me flame it in detail; don't.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
The mod points would be a nice touch. Make sure to ask everyone to meta-moderate all day as well! Then we can laugh as the more pugnacious moderate each other into oblivion, then get smack-down'd for it by anonymous meta-mods.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
But if the defendant fails the Turing test, what can you do?
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Umm... I think the little smiley face - see the colon folowed by the close parenthesis? look at it on its side - means it is a joke.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Well, duh! How is their fragile business plan supposed to overturn tens of thousands of years of agricultural practice if they can't shove it down farmer's throats with bizaare requirements to do genetic testing and corruption of the legal system? It's just not fair to Monsanto to put the burden of their dangerous experiments on them!
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
What's next, a farmer next to a Monsanto-poisoned field gets the pollen in his, Monsanto comes in with the jackbooted thugs and burns his crops? Those people are enemies of research, development, science, biology, agriculture, intellectual freedom, and just about everything else good and natural.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
You know, I was going to reflexively say something about how the hacker/cracker speech is redundant and that it's pointless trying to educate anyone about what a hacker is, but this time they really went too far. This is horribly sloppy journalism and really unprofessional. It's one thing to juice up the headlines, it's another to completely misrepresent the article and the story. I don't see anything related to ANY definition of hacking here.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
In that light it sounds like the Napster user's defense; "I have the right to make a copy, therefore I have the right to give anyone access to the copy." He's right as far as internal databases are concerned. It's collecting money from third parties for access to the database that is the theft.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Filmmakers have to get permission and pay to use "Happy Birthday" in a film, but no one can stop you from singing it at home.
Read your post again; the issue is not whether the NYTimes can store the articles in an internal database, make backup copies, or write it on paper napkins and give them to partygoers. The issue is whether they can charge for a new form of distrubution without seeking additional permission from (read: pay additional money to) copyright holders. I don't see any way that they have purchased the articles in multiple formats, and it doesn't appear that they've secured the rights to distribute the articles in all formats.
A better analogy would be the MP3.com case, where they were (theoretically) making money off redistributing the music on the CDs by some semi-magical transferrence of powers. MP3.com made basically the same argument as the NYTimes; we have some rights to this material, the end user has some right to access, hence we have the right to provide access in a novel way. The courts did not agree with MP3.com, and if the Times wins this, MP3.com should get their money back.
Which makes me wonder what the Times has had to say about MP3.com. Their editorials could be cited in court against them, and the plaintiffs lawyers would be crazy if they hadn't tried to use that against the Times.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
First you blame the schools for not doing the parents' job (religious education of your children), and now you think the solution is parents doing the school's job? I don't buy this one bit. If you want kids learning about "God prayer, and the Ten Commandments", teach them yourself, and leave MY tax dollars out of it. You don't want the government to be Mom or Big Brother; you want it to be the godfather.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
It only takes one lawyer, troll.
Funny, where are the people who always scream "It's THEIR company, not YOURS, they can do WHATEVER THEY WANT and you have NO right to complain." (as if someone's right to do something eliminates the right of others to complain). Where are they? Why haven't they spoken up on this subject?
Funny, I worked at a company owned and staffed almost exclusively by Orthodox Jews who had regular prayer sessions (yes, I know that's not the term, but I don't want to confuse these lunks) on company time. So why didn't someone sue them? Because of the Jew lawyers? Silly me, I thought it was religious freedom or something.
And yet, I can't think of a single European I've met who would do anything but snort in disgust at the notion of prayer at work.
Check your facts, bub.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Hey, is it just me or is it really tired and trite to accuse all who value privacy of being paranoid?
Here's something fun you can do with someone's doubleclick profile; use it to assist trashing someone's credit. It's no secret that credit card fraud detection works largely by identifying purchases in unusual places or types. So if I'm running a credit card ring, and I know what type of purchases you make, I can probably multiply by a factor of 5 or more the amount I can extract from your stolen credit card before any fraud detection kicks in.
Not to mention corporate espionage; it's assumed that DoubleClick doesn't sell certain kinds of information in their database to all their customers. I wonder how much Bezos would pay to find out what B&N customers are up to? Bet he can't find out legally. Sure would be really tempting if some mysterious party offered a stolen report, wouldn't it?
There are lots of nasty things that can come out of this kind of hack, and not all of it is about finding your preferred vendor for butt plugs. That being said, it may still be easier to get this information by bribing DoubleClick employees than via hackery.
Oh, and RTFArticle; they did give doubleclick lead time before breaking the story.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
They used to extend this prohibition to all homosexuals, not just closeted ones. That's why William Burroughs called being homosexual "the perfect cover." So, in fact, NAMBLA might just be the best cover for operating an open nest of spies that the CIA ever had.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Put it even more simply; if we can all stuff our songs on web servers, who the hell needs Napster? The whole POINT is to turn our local hard drives into temporary servers and create an automatic index. The solution you propose reminds me of all the times my parents asked me to turn the music down, repeatedly, until I couldn't hear it with my ears pressed to the speaker. If you're going to insist the music can't be heard, just fucking turn it off and admit that's what you are doing.
No, I don't have any answers, either. This is going to get a lot more complicated before it gets better.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
No, it makes you a D.A. in Tex-ass 8-P
That's a joke, for the humor-impaired.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
(Book)Mark my words.
Also, you gotta love the quote in the article from the guy who describes how heartbroken he is to see people listening to their CDs on their laptops on the plane or whatever (because it's an obstacle to acceptance of broken CDs). Geez, now they don't even want us to LISTEN to their music, makes you wonder why they make it and why they expect us to buy it.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Good troll.
And contgrats for Katz on taking a different tactic; trolling outright. He actually entertains the argument that "should be exposed to ideas they might not have chosen themselves" by consuming mass media from the most solipsistic generation in memory, targeted specifically to their foibles and self-delusions in the most sophisticated pandering yet known.
There is a real point in saying that you are not informed, no matter how much information you consume, if that information does not include sources in common with society at large. I just can't believe that today's mass media represents the alternative in any real sense; that material goes through a "moderation" process more brutal, arbitrary, and self-limiting than anything else I've seen.
Yet taking these viewpoints and re-reading the article again, I can't help getting the feeling that Sunstein's views are far more sophisticated than the "Slashdot destroys journalism; death of civil society soon to follow" message that Katz extracts from them.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.