...this means that there are people in the EU who are being denied their Basic Human Right to free 100MB Internet service! Could it be that there has been some exaggeration going on? Have we been misled?
TI is not "preventing calculator hobbyists from running their own software on calculators they bought and paid for." They are selling calculators that are exceptionally difficult to run your own software on (a stupid move), but they are doing nothing to prevent you from doing do so should figure out how. If you don't like that don't buy one. None of your rights are being infringed. You got what you paid for and you are free to do with it as you will.
The attackers have tens of thousands of bots attacking tens of thousands of accounts. They can afford to wait long enough between attacks on any given account that there is a good chance that the real user will log in and reset the bad login counter. Sure, they'll get locked out of a lot of accounts, but so what? The legit user will just curse and jump through whatever hoops he needs to get it unlocked and in the meantime there's another 9999 accounts to work on. They expect to fail to get into most of the accounts anyway.
That doesn't tell you that they don't use hashing, just that they create an initial password and mail it to you (unless what they send you is a password that you typed in when you signed up).
> All of the N of characters have to be compared before a match can be > declared, so surely every hash comparison should take an identical amount of > time ?
Only successful ones. In much existing software the test exits as soon as a mismatch is found.
> If it was genuinely the artists who were getting the money I'd be quite > happy to cough up the cash.
I wouldn't (even if I lived in the UK). I never download any music at all. Why the hell should I pay a "levy" for your copyright infringement? That's a private civil matter between you and the copyright owners.
> What happens is the artist gets a large "lump sum", but that sum is actually > an open "loan" in the small print of the contract...
So don't sign the damn contract. Don't go on about "small print". Either you can read it and understand it (or have your lawyer explain it to you), you don't sign it, or you are a fool.
> How can I get someone to pay attention to the fact that all the police need > to do is file some RIAA-style paperwork to find the name associated with > this IP address and knock on the right door to nab a criminal and recover my > property?
You need to go to court (in the state where the stolen computer is now located) and get a court order requiring the ISP to reveal the address. This pretty much requires that you hire a lawyer licensed in that state.
Slashdot Mirror
> When was the last major worm anyways?
Microsoft Windows 7 was released in 2009, IIRC. It has reportedly infected over 150 million computers.
...this means that there are people in the EU who are being denied their Basic Human Right to free 100MB Internet service! Could it be that there has been some exaggeration going on? Have we been misled?
TI is not "preventing calculator hobbyists from running their own software on calculators they bought and paid for." They are selling calculators that are exceptionally difficult to run your own software on (a stupid move), but they are doing nothing to prevent you from doing do so should figure out how. If you don't like that don't buy one. None of your rights are being infringed. You got what you paid for and you are free to do with it as you will.
The attackers have tens of thousands of bots attacking tens of thousands of accounts. They can afford to wait long enough between attacks on any given account that there is a good chance that the real user will log in and reset the bad login counter. Sure, they'll get locked out of a lot of accounts, but so what? The legit user will just curse and jump through whatever hoops he needs to get it unlocked and in the meantime there's another 9999 accounts to work on. They expect to fail to get into most of the accounts anyway.
> Yes, but you would need tens thousands of attempts to accurately measure the
> difference.
The attackers have tens of thousands of bots.
That doesn't tell you that they don't use hashing, just that they create an initial password and mail it to you (unless what they send you is a password that you typed in when you signed up).
Unless the hashing is done on the client.
> All of the N of characters have to be compared before a match can be
> declared, so surely every hash comparison should take an identical amount of > time ?
Only successful ones. In much existing software the test exits as soon as a mismatch is found.
> Phew! Black hats thwarted again!
By you and a few thousand other geeks. Hundreds of millions of "consumers" remain vulnerable.
This could have been prevented by the vendors taking the obvious step of making the router serial number the default password.
> ...NEVER let your browser remember passwords.
Never let it remember important passwords. There's no harm in letting it store passwords for trivial sites such as Slashdot.
n/t
> If it was genuinely the artists who were getting the money I'd be quite
> happy to cough up the cash.
I wouldn't (even if I lived in the UK). I never download any music at all. Why the hell should I pay a "levy" for your copyright infringement? That's a private civil matter between you and the copyright owners.
> What happens is the artist gets a large "lump sum", but that sum is actually
> an open "loan" in the small print of the contract...
So don't sign the damn contract. Don't go on about "small print". Either you can read it and understand it (or have your lawyer explain it to you), you don't sign it, or you are a fool.
> I don't understand why our economic system has chosen this particular group
> of self-righteous tossers for special privileges.
Your economic system hasn't chosen this particular group of self-righteous tossers for special privileges. Your government has.
> Costs will be passed on to the consumer, ensuring that the companies
> themselves are not affected.
Wrong. Any price increase will result in a decrease in sales. If the increase is a "passed on cost" the company's net revenue will decline.
> Doesn't do a damn thing it claims other than criminalizing previously legal
> acts.
DRM does no such thing. Laws criminalizing the bypassing of DRM do so.
...not on "infringing copies". An important distinction.
Berlusconi is a lobbyist now?
> How often do we need to remind them what the 1st Amendment actually says?
Daily. At least.
Of course, you may then get reminded what some of the other Amendments say...
> Why didn't they try to define perverted?
It may already be defined elsewhere in Massachusetts law.
Banned in Boston
> How can I get someone to pay attention to the fact that all the police need
> to do is file some RIAA-style paperwork to find the name associated with
> this IP address and knock on the right door to nab a criminal and recover my
> property?
You need to go to court (in the state where the stolen computer is now located) and get a court order requiring the ISP to reveal the address. This pretty much requires that you hire a lawyer licensed in that state.
Right. The last one was on Mars, and look at the place now.
But not of Slashdot commenters: you looked at the article.
> Better still, read the comment to the article by Torbjorn...
I quit reading when I got to "stealth creationist". That's the sort of ad hominem crap that's typical of Slashdot comments.