Logging Logging occurs when information is sent from the Player to a streaming media server. Logging informs the server of various pieces of information so that services can be improved. The information includes such details as: connection time, Internet protocol (IP) address of the computer that connected to the server, Player version, Player identification (ID) number, date, protocol, and so on. Most information is neither unique, nor traceable to your machine.
My god man! What else do they want to take? Not traceable to my static IP? The Player ID Number? Who the hell are they kidding when they say it isn't unique?
This is a load of horseshit, thats what it is. Microsoft is babbling at the general public with ridiculous lies. I *use* windowsXP because I think it's good software, and I mildly support microsoft in some things, but my lord, this "informative privacy statement" is crap.
"...no information is collected on Microsoft's servers that would be personally identifiable..."
So, in other words, Microsoft (having engineered the world's most widely used operating system) still hasn't figured out how to pinpoint where data transfer is coming from. Because it seems to me, oddly, that if I'm sending someone data through a system they set up that I don't know about... they must know about it, and also must know how to analyze the results of all their data-grabbing. And see where the crap is coming from. And keep track of what I'm listening to.
I don't use Windows Media player, personally. But if it ever came down to the log files, I'm sure MS could say to someone who ripped the software: "Actually, you have an unauthorized copy of windowsXP, how else would you be transmitting data through our security loophole with the same key as those twenty thousand other people?"
Digital Millenium Copyright Act: (layman's definition) A piece of legislature which prevents people from thieving digital ideas or products and publishing them as their own.
BNETD: A program that emulates a battle.net server.
Notice how it says "server"? Blizzard doesn't sell their server software, and nor does BNETD allow people to play the Blizzard games. I've never heard of a company shutting down a utility on the grounds that it enables more people to use their product. That'd be like a bucket company suing a mop company for making mops designed to fit in their buckets.
Microsoft will be installing QuarterSlots(TM) into their controllers, to make sure that the players have actually bought the controllers and USB keys legally.
"It isn't fair!" claimed Joey, who says that "Mom wont even give me fifty cents for a game on the X-Box", even after he bought it with his "christmas money".
Microsoft will be handing out the controllers free, but will be requiring that they be brought back into the stores to empty out the quarters that have been filled inside. A microsoft spokesperson commented: "Hell, 50 bucks of change a day gets heavy, you know. You wouldn't want to hold that in your hand, would you? See, we're just making it easier on the consumer!"
Isn't this the most powerful weapon we're ever going to see on a battlefield?
Think about it. The time to take to shoot down a wing of jets - five of them, say - is five times the time it takes to reposition the laser, fire, and acquire a new target. Maybe a few seconds.
The Airforce might be useless. This would completely change warfare - obselete the modern armor which is dominating the battlefield; make the shield against the laser more neccessary than standard metal plating.
It's scary, guys. The United States Military might become obselete by the technology it's procuring.
This whole scheme seems like a way to authenticate your data that's been stored on paper.
For instance, a company can send out shipping and inventory forms with their "key" printed in the ink, which the buyer is wary of. That way, competitor can't falsify forms or orders or somesuch.
Or, and I think a really interesting application, schools can verify that students have actually turned in their own work. Sure, you can still copy, but there's nothing worse than having Bart Simpson scrawl his name down on your test and get accepted into the special school. =P
If reports print things without unveiling the fact that they're a reporter, it's mostly just unethical journalism, which can actually get you in trouble - because since you didn't announce that you were doing an interview, you don't have legal proof that the guy said everything (and agrees with eveyrthing) he said. If that stuff is bad stuff, he can sue you for libel.
It's really the same principle. I carry around a data representation of who I am, and to verify it, they swipe my data through a little machine before they let me eat, etc. Most of the time, they don't check the face, don't counter-check the name, don't do anything. In fact, I could go eat as most other white males (they'd probably notice if I gave them an african american girl's card, they aren't THAT slow.;))
But really, what's so different? We haven't moved to a much better system yet, even though fingerprint ID is readily and widely available, wouldn't require me to carry around an ID card, and wouldn't require the lady who has to swipe my card for me (really, a silly expense for the university).
Just seems like "modernization" needs to happen in concept as well as "tech", and that it isn't.
This is a great thing for the most infernal practice on the web - people loading other people's work into their frameset, with their titles and their content on either side of it.
If this isn't allowed, finally we'll be able to have some place where the author of the work has either the rest of his website recognized or has it branched away from the "link-pirate".
And actually, that stands for C-Sharp, not C-Flat at all. You could call it D-Flat, but that'd be like a boob-job gone wrong instead of a programming language.
How about a program that searches for the meta generator tags and looks for "Microsoft Frontpage X.X", deletes the page from the database, and commenses a DOS attack from the rest of the slashdot community?
"Not only in computer science, but also across all scientific fields, skeptical analysis of technical claims made by others, and the presentation of detailed evidence to support such analysis, is the heart of the scientific method. To outlaw such analysis is to outlaw the scientific method itself."
I couldn't agree with the Prof. any more. The DMCA is a ridiculous excuse for corporations to dictate how a consumer uses the product they have bought.
However, I think we need to look at this from a "helpful" perspective. Could the slashdot community come up with something that would both help the programmer and the artist (singer, songwriter, person). What about a computerized medium that took the recording industry out of the picture - they're hardly needed anymore anyway. Is there a way to circumvent the corporation and therefore the opression?
I think that we should be focusing on a "better" DMCA. One that has nothing to do with copy-protection, but one that focuses on digital information as a possession, or something like this. I'm no lawyer, so I'm not really sure. But that's my take on it.
Variation is the subject for Human Change and Progression. Why doesn't "Professor" Jones look at something like, say, Malaria in relation to Sickle-Cell genes, or other diseases or climates and how they effect populations?
Since the entire world doesn't operate on a level where we can completely control our environment, there's no way to be sure if evolution is truly over. Then again, in Biology and Psychology classes, it HAS been noted that we are the only species on the planet that currently effects its own evolutionary change.
I just hope we can all come to the better conclusion that evolution isn't nearly over. We're still a changing species - but we're looking at ourselves in a relatively small time window. Modern society in comparison to evolution is a silly idea. The window isn't large enough to fit 'evolution' in.
U2, probably the biggest rock band of the last few years, with their top grossing tour, large number of grammy nominations, and superbowl performance this year, have openly said that they support passion for their music as long as "nobody is making a profit". Read their lyrics, read the quotes. It's all about the music, the fans, and the world, not about feeding corporate America.
U2 also allows people to record, tape, bootleg, rebootleg, download bootleg, and video their concerts, as long as they aren't selling the merchandise. I can't see how they would have any sort of objection with the online shuffling of their tracks.
You know, it's important to support bands like this, they're the reason that the new-age music revolution is going to take place. Free transfer of data and software is the only way that we're going to keep the net the way it is, communication - not profiteering.
It seems interesting to me that the DMCA allows no condition of fair use when it comes to breaking encryption on purchases - at least, this is how the article presents it.
Notice that Aibopet never actually uses the code within the Aibo to make a profit. Someone could argue, technically, that he uses it to make a name for himself, but he hardly even does that. I think it's interesting that Sony would choose to pursue legal action on the basis that the code was cracked, not that something illegal was done with the code.
This is something like purchasing a refrigerator, dismantling it, using the fan to cool yourself, and using the shelves inside to hold books. Sure, it wasn't the intended use of the product, but who's the seller to determine the intended use and then legally enforce that use? Encryption was brought about for a variety of reasons, but one of the reasons wasn't to make sure that a product was used in a specific way - rather, it's primary ability is to keep other people from making a profit on someone else's ideas.
As long as Aibopet isn;t doing that, I don't really understand Sony's original position on the issue.
It's whether or not it's legal for a software firm to market only to a specific operating system.
Reasoning states that it's completely illegal for a software firm to only sell to a single operating system manufacturer without giving their code to other operating-systems so that they can produce a workable solution.
Picture this: Hot-Dog Bob buys Ketchup from Heinz. Heinz refuses to sell ketchup to ANY other stand, because they like the way Bob does business. Is this legal, to deprive all the other Hot-Dog stands of a widely used condiment on the basis that they like the way bob does business? (without even adressing the concerns of the other hot-dog owners in general?)
I don't really think so. Software is as basic a part of computing as the operating system is, and being that way, the company should be required to allow distribution of their specific application across a multitude of platforms. After all, that's all software really does: a function, a thing. A tomato-taste.
"So it is not so remarkable that a noted conservative lawyer would see perfect reason for action to be brought against Microsoft for the transgressions we have all witnessed and experienced over the years; what is remarkable is that people would find such a position at all unusual."
I'm not sure I agree, at all. Alright, so from an intellectual standpoint, it's ridiculous that the public would find the Judge's position unreasonable, but from the Public's Perspective, it makes perfect sense.
Mircosoft Provides Software to the Large Majority of the Public that they Encounter Every Single Day for, in their mind, a reasonable price. Therefore, people who use this software have nothing against Microsoft, don't realize what it's doing to the industry as a whole, and keep going with their MSWord/Internet Explorer/WindowsXP Spyware.
The web has started to become "optimized" for Internet Explorer, but the public doesn't really care, because they aren't seeing the huge technological impairment that Microsoft is - they're only seeing the benefits.
If and when Microsoft really does make a PR mistake, or Linux finally jumps into the mainstream, I expect the "flyswatter of freedom" (from the article) to crack down on their heads, but for now, they're going to stay afloat because of public opinion and use.
I can't see Comcast winning in court anyway. It'll become readily apparent that bandwith is alotted on a per-modem basis and not on a per-computer, so the usage of bandwith over a number of machines does nothing to impose more strain on their network. In this sense, there's no way they could win in court, how would they justify cutting service to people who were using it within acceptable use? Either one computer can be hogging bandwith, or two can be sharing it... seems to make sense to me.
Furthermore, it seems like a forgotten waste of time for Comcast to try to pick up everyone who's using two computers (or more) over their service. They might pick up small businesses, or something, simply by paying attention to the fact that their bandwith is in use most of the time. One computer is more likely to have "down time" than two.
You know, this makes sense, up to a point. Most Liberal Arts kids have to write Essays to get into college, why not have Computer Science Geeky Kids Crack Codes?
Well, I think the major problem is the *lack* of creativity. This doesn't quite show that you have creative thought, only that you can deduce something logically. Now, as I understand it, that applies to programming, but really, if you're going to be a college student, life is more about creative problem solving than it is about logical.
Although, it is a neat idea. Will physics students be allowed to design experiments, or will others get similar "bonuses" to their college application process? I'd like to hope so.
Down with Standardized Tests, In With Creative Applications.
You know, normally I wouldn't be thinking this way, but I suppose its the natural reaction.
If the world fuel "economy" switches to hydrogen, what happens to the countries which sole income is provided by oil and fossil fuels? Won't these places be absolutely devestated and ruined by the collapse of their energy-demand? Hydrogen power is an amazing thing, but it'd be something like suddenly replacing the staple foods in the world with chemical products - it dents a rather secure and stable part of our lifestyle and global economy.
I just hope something can be worked out before the "dream" of hydrogen power can be achieved... it's scary stuff, when you think about it.
That ended, when Puff Daddy Blatantly Ripped off the Police (I'll be *MISSING* You?), Shaggy Blatantly Ripped off Steve Miller Band (Listen to ANGEL and then The Joker, my lord!), and countless other rappers decided that other *good* classic rock songs didn't actually deserve their copywrites.
So... I'd say... sometime in the mid-90s.
Maybe mid-80s, if you count Vanilla Ice (Under Pressue and Ice Ice Baby, yeeesh).
I realize it's an extremely amazing discovery, but I fail to realize the immense value of spending billions of dollars which could go to research on AIDS, Cancer, or serious human need to fuel the possibilities that extremely small bacteria still exist in the martian environment.
Maybe I'm being pessimistic about the whole thing, but I'm concerned that NASA and other science agencies aren't focused on the real question - intelligent life.
Of course, that's a problem, I know. I can't expect for NASA to find intelligent life before they find life at all. It just seems like a cash drain. Does anyone else feel the same way, or is everyone pro-digging-into-Mars-for-stuff?
Slashdot Mirror
Logging
Logging occurs when information is sent from the Player to a streaming media server. Logging informs the server of various pieces of information so that services can be improved. The information includes such details as: connection time, Internet protocol (IP) address of the computer that connected to the server, Player version, Player identification (ID) number, date, protocol, and so on. Most information is neither unique, nor traceable to your machine.
My god man! What else do they want to take? Not traceable to my static IP? The Player ID Number? Who the hell are they kidding when they say it isn't unique?
This is a load of horseshit, thats what it is. Microsoft is babbling at the general public with ridiculous lies. I *use* windowsXP because I think it's good software, and I mildly support microsoft in some things, but my lord, this "informative privacy statement" is crap.
"...no information is collected on Microsoft's servers that would be personally identifiable..."
So, in other words, Microsoft (having engineered the world's most widely used operating system) still hasn't figured out how to pinpoint where data transfer is coming from. Because it seems to me, oddly, that if I'm sending someone data through a system they set up that I don't know about... they must know about it, and also must know how to analyze the results of all their data-grabbing. And see where the crap is coming from. And keep track of what I'm listening to.
I don't use Windows Media player, personally. But if it ever came down to the log files, I'm sure MS could say to someone who ripped the software: "Actually, you have an unauthorized copy of windowsXP, how else would you be transmitting data through our security loophole with the same key as those twenty thousand other people?"
Digital Millenium Copyright Act: (layman's definition) A piece of legislature which prevents people from thieving digital ideas or products and publishing them as their own.
BNETD: A program that emulates a battle.net server.
Notice how it says "server"? Blizzard doesn't sell their server software, and nor does BNETD allow people to play the Blizzard games. I've never heard of a company shutting down a utility on the grounds that it enables more people to use their product. That'd be like a bucket company suing a mop company for making mops designed to fit in their buckets.
DMCA all over again...
Microsoft will be installing QuarterSlots(TM) into their controllers, to make sure that the players have actually bought the controllers and USB keys legally.
"It isn't fair!" claimed Joey, who says that "Mom wont even give me fifty cents for a game on the X-Box", even after he bought it with his "christmas money".
Microsoft will be handing out the controllers free, but will be requiring that they be brought back into the stores to empty out the quarters that have been filled inside. A microsoft spokesperson commented: "Hell, 50 bucks of change a day gets heavy, you know. You wouldn't want to hold that in your hand, would you? See, we're just making it easier on the consumer!"
Isn't this the most powerful weapon we're ever going to see on a battlefield?
Think about it. The time to take to shoot down a wing of jets - five of them, say - is five times the time it takes to reposition the laser, fire, and acquire a new target. Maybe a few seconds.
The Airforce might be useless. This would completely change warfare - obselete the modern armor which is dominating the battlefield; make the shield against the laser more neccessary than standard metal plating.
It's scary, guys. The United States Military might become obselete by the technology it's procuring.
Congrats! :)
But are we all invited to the wedding?
This whole scheme seems like a way to authenticate your data that's been stored on paper.
For instance, a company can send out shipping and inventory forms with their "key" printed in the ink, which the buyer is wary of. That way, competitor can't falsify forms or orders or somesuch.
Or, and I think a really interesting application, schools can verify that students have actually turned in their own work. Sure, you can still copy, but there's nothing worse than having Bart Simpson scrawl his name down on your test and get accepted into the special school. =P
People say things "off the record" all the time.
If reports print things without unveiling the fact that they're a reporter, it's mostly just unethical journalism, which can actually get you in trouble - because since you didn't announce that you were doing an interview, you don't have legal proof that the guy said everything (and agrees with eveyrthing) he said. If that stuff is bad stuff, he can sue you for libel.
the magnetic card my university gave me?
;))
It's really the same principle. I carry around a data representation of who I am, and to verify it, they swipe my data through a little machine before they let me eat, etc. Most of the time, they don't check the face, don't counter-check the name, don't do anything. In fact, I could go eat as most other white males (they'd probably notice if I gave them an african american girl's card, they aren't THAT slow.
But really, what's so different? We haven't moved to a much better system yet, even though fingerprint ID is readily and widely available, wouldn't require me to carry around an ID card, and wouldn't require the lady who has to swipe my card for me (really, a silly expense for the university).
Just seems like "modernization" needs to happen in concept as well as "tech", and that it isn't.
This is a great thing for the most infernal practice on the web - people loading other people's work into their frameset, with their titles and their content on either side of it.
If this isn't allowed, finally we'll be able to have some place where the author of the work has either the rest of his website recognized or has it branched away from the "link-pirate".
And actually, that stands for C-Sharp, not C-Flat at all. You could call it D-Flat, but that'd be like a boob-job gone wrong instead of a programming language.
How about a program that searches for the meta generator tags and looks for "Microsoft Frontpage X.X", deletes the page from the database, and commenses a DOS attack from the rest of the slashdot community?
Go Google! Get rid of the fake HTML goons!
"Not only in computer science, but also across all scientific fields, skeptical analysis of technical claims made by others, and the presentation of detailed evidence to support such analysis, is the heart of the scientific method. To outlaw such analysis is to outlaw the scientific method itself."
I couldn't agree with the Prof. any more. The DMCA is a ridiculous excuse for corporations to dictate how a consumer uses the product they have bought.
However, I think we need to look at this from a "helpful" perspective. Could the slashdot community come up with something that would both help the programmer and the artist (singer, songwriter, person). What about a computerized medium that took the recording industry out of the picture - they're hardly needed anymore anyway. Is there a way to circumvent the corporation and therefore the opression?
I think that we should be focusing on a "better" DMCA. One that has nothing to do with copy-protection, but one that focuses on digital information as a possession, or something like this. I'm no lawyer, so I'm not really sure. But that's my take on it.
That I've ever heard of.
Variation is the subject for Human Change and Progression. Why doesn't "Professor" Jones look at something like, say, Malaria in relation to Sickle-Cell genes, or other diseases or climates and how they effect populations?
Since the entire world doesn't operate on a level where we can completely control our environment, there's no way to be sure if evolution is truly over. Then again, in Biology and Psychology classes, it HAS been noted that we are the only species on the planet that currently effects its own evolutionary change.
I just hope we can all come to the better conclusion that evolution isn't nearly over. We're still a changing species - but we're looking at ourselves in a relatively small time window. Modern society in comparison to evolution is a silly idea. The window isn't large enough to fit 'evolution' in.
They've had this stance on their concerts since day one. Their name was chosen by the audience at a concert, for damn sake. =P
Most of the bands don't care either way.
U2, probably the biggest rock band of the last few years, with their top grossing tour, large number of grammy nominations, and superbowl performance this year, have openly said that they support passion for their music as long as "nobody is making a profit". Read their lyrics, read the quotes. It's all about the music, the fans, and the world, not about feeding corporate America.
U2 also allows people to record, tape, bootleg, rebootleg, download bootleg, and video their concerts, as long as they aren't selling the merchandise. I can't see how they would have any sort of objection with the online shuffling of their tracks.
You know, it's important to support bands like this, they're the reason that the new-age music revolution is going to take place. Free transfer of data and software is the only way that we're going to keep the net the way it is, communication - not profiteering.
"We've got bush..."
Good place for Slashdot, anyway. =P
It seems interesting to me that the DMCA allows no condition of fair use when it comes to breaking encryption on purchases - at least, this is how the article presents it.
Notice that Aibopet never actually uses the code within the Aibo to make a profit. Someone could argue, technically, that he uses it to make a name for himself, but he hardly even does that. I think it's interesting that Sony would choose to pursue legal action on the basis that the code was cracked, not that something illegal was done with the code.
This is something like purchasing a refrigerator, dismantling it, using the fan to cool yourself, and using the shelves inside to hold books. Sure, it wasn't the intended use of the product, but who's the seller to determine the intended use and then legally enforce that use? Encryption was brought about for a variety of reasons, but one of the reasons wasn't to make sure that a product was used in a specific way - rather, it's primary ability is to keep other people from making a profit on someone else's ideas.
As long as Aibopet isn;t doing that, I don't really understand Sony's original position on the issue.
It's whether or not it's legal for a software firm to market only to a specific operating system.
Reasoning states that it's completely illegal for a software firm to only sell to a single operating system manufacturer without giving their code to other operating-systems so that they can produce a workable solution.
Picture this: Hot-Dog Bob buys Ketchup from Heinz. Heinz refuses to sell ketchup to ANY other stand, because they like the way Bob does business. Is this legal, to deprive all the other Hot-Dog stands of a widely used condiment on the basis that they like the way bob does business? (without even adressing the concerns of the other hot-dog owners in general?)
I don't really think so. Software is as basic a part of computing as the operating system is, and being that way, the company should be required to allow distribution of their specific application across a multitude of platforms. After all, that's all software really does: a function, a thing. A tomato-taste.
"So it is not so remarkable that a noted conservative lawyer would see perfect reason for action to be brought against Microsoft for the transgressions we have all witnessed and experienced over the years; what is remarkable is that people would find such a position at all unusual."
I'm not sure I agree, at all. Alright, so from an intellectual standpoint, it's ridiculous that the public would find the Judge's position unreasonable, but from the Public's Perspective, it makes perfect sense.
Mircosoft Provides Software to the Large Majority of the Public that they Encounter Every Single Day for, in their mind, a reasonable price. Therefore, people who use this software have nothing against Microsoft, don't realize what it's doing to the industry as a whole, and keep going with their MSWord/Internet Explorer/WindowsXP Spyware.
The web has started to become "optimized" for Internet Explorer, but the public doesn't really care, because they aren't seeing the huge technological impairment that Microsoft is - they're only seeing the benefits.
If and when Microsoft really does make a PR mistake, or Linux finally jumps into the mainstream, I expect the "flyswatter of freedom" (from the article) to crack down on their heads, but for now, they're going to stay afloat because of public opinion and use.
I can't see Comcast winning in court anyway. It'll become readily apparent that bandwith is alotted on a per-modem basis and not on a per-computer, so the usage of bandwith over a number of machines does nothing to impose more strain on their network. In this sense, there's no way they could win in court, how would they justify cutting service to people who were using it within acceptable use? Either one computer can be hogging bandwith, or two can be sharing it... seems to make sense to me.
Furthermore, it seems like a forgotten waste of time for Comcast to try to pick up everyone who's using two computers (or more) over their service. They might pick up small businesses, or something, simply by paying attention to the fact that their bandwith is in use most of the time. One computer is more likely to have "down time" than two.
You know, this makes sense, up to a point. Most Liberal Arts kids have to write Essays to get into college, why not have Computer Science Geeky Kids Crack Codes?
Well, I think the major problem is the *lack* of creativity. This doesn't quite show that you have creative thought, only that you can deduce something logically. Now, as I understand it, that applies to programming, but really, if you're going to be a college student, life is more about creative problem solving than it is about logical.
Although, it is a neat idea. Will physics students be allowed to design experiments, or will others get similar "bonuses" to their college application process? I'd like to hope so.
Down with Standardized Tests, In With Creative Applications.
You know, normally I wouldn't be thinking this way, but I suppose its the natural reaction.
If the world fuel "economy" switches to hydrogen, what happens to the countries which sole income is provided by oil and fossil fuels? Won't these places be absolutely devestated and ruined by the collapse of their energy-demand? Hydrogen power is an amazing thing, but it'd be something like suddenly replacing the staple foods in the world with chemical products - it dents a rather secure and stable part of our lifestyle and global economy.
I just hope something can be worked out before the "dream" of hydrogen power can be achieved... it's scary stuff, when you think about it.
That ended, when Puff Daddy Blatantly Ripped off the Police (I'll be *MISSING* You?), Shaggy Blatantly Ripped off Steve Miller Band (Listen to ANGEL and then The Joker, my lord!), and countless other rappers decided that other *good* classic rock songs didn't actually deserve their copywrites.
So... I'd say... sometime in the mid-90s.
Maybe mid-80s, if you count Vanilla Ice (Under Pressue and Ice Ice Baby, yeeesh).
I realize it's an extremely amazing discovery, but I fail to realize the immense value of spending billions of dollars which could go to research on AIDS, Cancer, or serious human need to fuel the possibilities that extremely small bacteria still exist in the martian environment.
Maybe I'm being pessimistic about the whole thing, but I'm concerned that NASA and other science agencies aren't focused on the real question - intelligent life.
Of course, that's a problem, I know. I can't expect for NASA to find intelligent life before they find life at all. It just seems like a cash drain. Does anyone else feel the same way, or is everyone pro-digging-into-Mars-for-stuff?