Even if you spell "Millenium" correctly there is no such citation in the letter. This is a standard copyright claim, that would be no less valid (or invalid, IANAL) prior to the passage of the Act.
Up until now, it's been remarked how surprisingly tolerant Sony has been of Aibo hacking, and the hacking of Sony's proprietary software. The fact is they weren't as tolerant as hoped, merely slow to act.
Frankly, it's a relief that Sony finally decided to assert their ownership. Perhaps now the recurrent nightmares of a loner Aibo terrorist-hacker unleashing an army of K-9 mechas on the White House will finally cease.
Incidentally, if you look up "idiot" is my thesaurus, "Microsoft" is listed as a synonym
And if you look up "news" in my dictionary, you will find the word "recent" in there. Since MS acknowledged the issue in 1999, this ain't news. That was the point, not that MS offered any explanation for the way the thesaurus is edited. They don't need to; all thesaurii are edited, according to the preferences of the publisher.
Especially in a thread about bogus claims of Microsoft "censorship," which is not censorship at all.
Due to an evil moderator most Slashdot readers will not see the complaint of (misfortunately named) user "LinuxIsForAssholes" that this issue was addressed by Microsoft back on Decemer 23, 1999.
Here's the link the silenced MS advocate offered. He also states that this is not news (obviously!) and that it certainly doesn't matter (that's a matter of opinion, though I agree).
While his name makes him instant moderation material, in this case his point is good.
You can't omit words from reference materials. It's ridiculous.
That is clearly not so. If you don't omit words, what, then, is the distinction of an "unabridged" edition?
Every word processor maker has to draw the line. You won't find "c*cks*cker" in any WP thesaurus; once you accept that, the question becomes where to draw the line, now whether or not it's okay to omit words.
Subtract 5 megabytes, that's the Java VM that isn't an "update" but an initial install; if MS and Sun got along better that woulda shipped with the OS.
The only "critical" update is a 2-meg fix for the IE exploit involving extra-long URL's.
Another fat package is a "software compatability" fix, which helps a bunch of apps work correctly in XP. This is not a bad thing! Nero was making fine disks on my system, but some page errors were registering in the system log when it ran; they're now gone. MS helping with software compatability is not a bad thing!
Of the remaining updates, they are all "feature" updates, having little to do with the core functions of the OS.
That wording is strange, but apparently it's just boilerplate that uses plural in case plural is needed. I opened up the update executable, it only contains the files needed for the IE update. Doing some quick research, the only problems I'm seeing reported on the critical update are update failures, mostly attributable to security settings, and fear that updating XP might "patch" cracked versions to a non-working state (with no real evidence that it does so).
I'd really like to know the details on any more complex issues arising from this update.
(There are also seven "non-critical" and numerous driver updates available at the Windows update site right now; some users may not be aware which update is causing them problems, particularly if they left "auto-update" on; I've seen some folks trace their problms to driver updates. Rolling back drivers in XP really does seem to work for these.)
I'm not denying that commercial software does have to look at marketing cycles. XP missed "back-to-school," but made it in time for Christmas, so one would think it highly likely that it may have been pushed out the door sooner than would be ideal.
But I haven't seen any real evidence that this is the case. I work in ISP support, so I don't have a choice, I need to work with and support XP every day. I am not anxious to say anything nice about MS, but XP looks like a rare instance of them doing something right (privacy and "leveraging" issues aside).
All software that goes gold has to exist in limbo for a while.
The patch is for a recently-discovered exploit in all versions of IE past version 5.01. As I was asked to metamoderate someone who modded you up, I looked into it:
"A vulnerability exists in Internet Explorer 5.01, 5.5, and 6 that could enable an attacker to send you to a third-party site and include commands that, to the third-party site, would appear to have come from you. The precise actions that could be taken by using these commands would vary from site to site, but one example of a potential action would be to send you to your Web-based mail service with a command to delete your mail."
Thanks, the Register link clarifies the issue considerably. The redirect is most likely temporary, just until they can lick the issue of compatible scripting, which is a thorn in every web designer's side...
They do this a lot lately. Usually when they need new numbers in a large area, so they create a non-localized exchange ("overlay"). In your case, I'm curious as to how you were getting 52k if it's a long hop to the exchange? I'm assuming they didn't change your number, did they move the central office?
TV did us the great favor of getting rid of the ads, so they could broadcast the WTC tape over and over and over. Now, they blast in with new promos: "More anthrax victims! Details at 11!" Newscasters' preference to refer to each anthrax exposure as a "victim," no matter how clean their bill of health (even the bogus MS anthrax "victims"), is a pure ratings ploy, completely in conflict with public interest.
And the FBI. Why would they think we need terrorist warnings? After the WTC, we damn well know that *anything* can happen. As I recall, there was a "100% likelihood" of a terrosist attack a few days ago, that never came about (unless you count the Lone Nut of Trenton). But the FBI gave us warning after warning...not coincidentally the "anti-terrorist" USA Act (which I recall you defending in this same forum) was in Congress over the same period....
Your essay doesn't name a single thing that originated on the Internet. What are you talking about? The story about the dude who "surfed" a building fragment from the top of the WTC? Yeah, that silly story was spread by the Internet, so what? Cipro marketers? Yeah, I get that spam, too. But the real harm is not coming from the people, or from their ability to communicate.
Currently most new modems are v.92-capable, which theoretically increases uploads from 33.6 to 56k max (in actual practice, who knows?). I don't know that many ISP's are offering it yet.
I've heard of research that indicates that single-line dial-up has not yet reached a hard speed limit, but I doubt if anyone's interested in spending R&D on dialup speed just now. Despite the closings, broadband is still rapidly expanding, mostly through the baby bells and the cable giants.
Then there's "shotgunning", aka multilink, which has been around for years, which bonds two or more telephone lines.
Fixed Wireless, which combined high speed access with telephone services, had worth to AT&T as a hedge against lost market share in LD and in their dial-up ISP Worldnet; it also was meant to stand as a building block in their "all services, any distance" strategy.
With Wireless spun off, the new company is not interested in the high-speed access market, unless there's immediate profit in it. And there isn't. AWE will do better without it; they surprised the market yesterday by showing some black ink.
Still, this just doesn't completely jive. I thought that Microsoft was a big propenent of screwing the little guy over for intellectual property rights. Thus, WMA DRM, right?
Maybe MS is acting on principal...hahaha!
Actually, it's a matter of which side of the bread your butter is on. In this case, MS has a vested interest in software resolutions, which would be made redundant by Disney's scheme. Also, this is a Draconian measure that would mandate govt-approved chips in all copycapable digital devices. This would hurt PC sales (people would want to keep the old PC that copies properly rather than upgrade). What hurts PC sales, hurts MS.
nothing you ever say contibutes anything relevant to the discussion. Are you just trying to rack up posts or what?
Assuming that you are trying to "contibute anything relevant to the discussion," you should examine the link he posted. It concerns legislation backed primarily by Disney. It is relevant.
It is a well known fact that the terrorists communicated with each other through the internet
Hey, I hear they also used in-person voice communications. Time to get those listening stations posted on everty corner! Who knows how many unmonitored conversations are going on right now!
Fine. Let them get a warrant. I don't care who they tap, as long as they get the appropriate warrants first.
Oh, you mean they want to be able to tap anyone at will? Sorry, but there is absolutely no justification for that.
The Feds' argument, in past legislative pushes, has been that, since the courts have acknowledged the need for wiretaps in the course of criminal investigation, they need access to the communications networks that will make taps possible when suspects are using "new technology" communications. This created a small stir about ten-fifteen years ago when they first advocated legislation of a similar sort for digital/optical telephone networks, which they claimed at the time were more difficult to tap than copper wire. If I recall properly, they eventually got what they wanted (in a less surveillance-friendly atmosphere than we have today).
"Recent and continuing advances in electronic communications technology and services challenge, and at times erode, the ability of law enforcement agencies to fully implement lawful orders to intercept communications. These advances also challenge the ability of telecommunications carriers to meet their assistance responsibilities. Thus, law enforcement agencies are finding it increasingly difficult to deal with intercepted digital communication, which might now be voice, data, images, or video, or a mixture of all of them."
The FBI will LOVE this. Wireless is a snap to sniff. That is, unless you are talking about small, independent networks, which are hardly an alternative to the current net.
Really? With smart (maybe p2p-like?) wireless networks, FBI sniffers will have to cover the entire US territory, because this kind of communication is not centralized.
Do you really think such a network, with no backdoors, will be "lawful?"
'The goal might be to get companies that use packet data to have those packets go to one place for purposes of wiretap and other intercept capabilities," Baker said'
That would just be a matter of duplicating the packets; the Feds would presumably need to provide the bandwidth for getting that traffic load to their own network.
But I must say it's disturbing that many seem to think the worst thing here is the possible degradation of network performance...
Seventh graders are 12 or 13 years old. When I was 12, I couldn't avoid losing housekeys, lunch money, anything that wasn't bound to me in some manner.
Not all 12-year-olds are like me. Just enough to make this a way-too-expensive proposition, even assuming a PC is useful for a 12 year old.
Give the kids a laptop today and they will wind up hanging at The Remote Lounge tomorrow.
The Maine Governor's "vision for the future" starts out with an unconscious reference to Travis Bickle's "I've got to get organisized" that left me with vertiginous nausea. The guy seems to be a politico with a New Age rap, nothing more. A laptop in every pot? A poor political slogan, there are much better uses for cash, as the consensus here (among technophiles!) confirms.
BTW, the MSNBC article seems a poor choice for a means to examine the "Pop!Tech" gathering, a once-over-lightly where several more in-depth looks at the participants may have been more worthwhile. That is available through the Pop!Tech website, linked above.
It must be that you are the moron, and a particularly dense one, since a Google search for Ford and PeoplePC, or even exploring the link to slashdot's original article, would have saved you the effort of posting. Idiot.
Consider this from the support guy's POV. If Linux installs incorrectly and screws up your boot (and don't tell me there's no user error or install flaws that can cause this, there certainly are!), why should MS be fixing that? It's not their issue.
Slashdot Mirror
He may indeed post at -1, but he was modded down (possibly after being modded up?). I first encountered this post while "meta-moderating."
Pardon, it does cite the "Mellenium" act. Maybe that's some kind of Japanese law?
Even if you spell "Millenium" correctly there is no such citation in the letter. This is a standard copyright claim, that would be no less valid (or invalid, IANAL) prior to the passage of the Act.
Up until now, it's been remarked how surprisingly tolerant Sony has been of Aibo hacking, and the hacking of Sony's proprietary software. The fact is they weren't as tolerant as hoped, merely slow to act.
Frankly, it's a relief that Sony finally decided to assert their ownership. Perhaps now the recurrent nightmares of a loner Aibo terrorist-hacker unleashing an army of K-9 mechas on the White House will finally cease.
And if you look up "news" in my dictionary, you will find the word "recent" in there. Since MS acknowledged the issue in 1999, this ain't news. That was the point, not that MS offered any explanation for the way the thesaurus is edited. They don't need to; all thesaurii are edited, according to the preferences of the publisher.
Especially in a thread about bogus claims of Microsoft "censorship," which is not censorship at all.
Due to an evil moderator most Slashdot readers will not see the complaint of (misfortunately named) user "LinuxIsForAssholes" that this issue was addressed by Microsoft back on Decemer 23, 1999.
Here's the link the silenced MS advocate offered. He also states that this is not news (obviously!) and that it certainly doesn't matter (that's a matter of opinion, though I agree).
While his name makes him instant moderation material, in this case his point is good.
That is clearly not so. If you don't omit words, what, then, is the distinction of an "unabridged" edition?
Every word processor maker has to draw the line. You won't find "c*cks*cker" in any WP thesaurus; once you accept that, the question becomes where to draw the line, now whether or not it's okay to omit words.
The only "critical" update is a 2-meg fix for the IE exploit involving extra-long URL's.
Another fat package is a "software compatability" fix, which helps a bunch of apps work correctly in XP. This is not a bad thing! Nero was making fine disks on my system, but some page errors were registering in the system log when it ran; they're now gone. MS helping with software compatability is not a bad thing!
Of the remaining updates, they are all "feature" updates, having little to do with the core functions of the OS.
That wording is strange, but apparently it's just boilerplate that uses plural in case plural is needed. I opened up the update executable, it only contains the files needed for the IE update. Doing some quick research, the only problems I'm seeing reported on the critical update are update failures, mostly attributable to security settings, and fear that updating XP might "patch" cracked versions to a non-working state (with no real evidence that it does so).
I'd really like to know the details on any more complex issues arising from this update.
(There are also seven "non-critical" and numerous driver updates available at the Windows update site right now; some users may not be aware which update is causing them problems, particularly if they left "auto-update" on; I've seen some folks trace their problms to driver updates. Rolling back drivers in XP really does seem to work for these.)
I'm not denying that commercial software does have to look at marketing cycles. XP missed "back-to-school," but made it in time for Christmas, so one would think it highly likely that it may have been pushed out the door sooner than would be ideal.
But I haven't seen any real evidence that this is the case. I work in ISP support, so I don't have a choice, I need to work with and support XP every day. I am not anxious to say anything nice about MS, but XP looks like a rare instance of them doing something right (privacy and "leveraging" issues aside).
All software that goes gold has to exist in limbo for a while.
The patch is for a recently-discovered exploit in all versions of IE past version 5.01. As I was asked to metamoderate someone who modded you up, I looked into it:
"A vulnerability exists in Internet Explorer 5.01, 5.5, and 6 that could enable an attacker to send you to a third-party site and include commands that, to the third-party site, would appear to have come from you. The precise actions that could be taken by using these commands would vary from site to site, but one example of a potential action would be to send you to your Web-based mail service with a command to delete your mail."
Needless to say, I moderated your moderator down.
They do this a lot lately. Usually when they need new numbers in a large area, so they create a non-localized exchange ("overlay"). In your case, I'm curious as to how you were getting 52k if it's a long hop to the exchange? I'm assuming they didn't change your number, did they move the central office?
TV did us the great favor of getting rid of the ads, so they could broadcast the WTC tape over and over and over. Now, they blast in with new promos: "More anthrax victims! Details at 11!" Newscasters' preference to refer to each anthrax exposure as a "victim," no matter how clean their bill of health (even the bogus MS anthrax "victims"), is a pure ratings ploy, completely in conflict with public interest.
And the FBI. Why would they think we need terrorist warnings? After the WTC, we damn well know that *anything* can happen. As I recall, there was a "100% likelihood" of a terrosist attack a few days ago, that never came about (unless you count the Lone Nut of Trenton). But the FBI gave us warning after warning...not coincidentally the "anti-terrorist" USA Act (which I recall you defending in this same forum) was in Congress over the same period....
Your essay doesn't name a single thing that originated on the Internet. What are you talking about? The story about the dude who "surfed" a building fragment from the top of the WTC? Yeah, that silly story was spread by the Internet, so what? Cipro marketers? Yeah, I get that spam, too. But the real harm is not coming from the people, or from their ability to communicate.
I've heard of research that indicates that single-line dial-up has not yet reached a hard speed limit, but I doubt if anyone's interested in spending R&D on dialup speed just now. Despite the closings, broadband is still rapidly expanding, mostly through the baby bells and the cable giants.
Then there's "shotgunning", aka multilink, which has been around for years, which bonds two or more telephone lines.
Fixed Wireless, which combined high speed access with telephone services, had worth to AT&T as a hedge against lost market share in LD and in their dial-up ISP Worldnet; it also was meant to stand as a building block in their "all services, any distance" strategy.
With Wireless spun off, the new company is not interested in the high-speed access market, unless there's immediate profit in it. And there isn't. AWE will do better without it; they surprised the market yesterday by showing some black ink.
Not directly related, but of interest in how quickly these things can pan out (or wash out), here's Michael Armstrong's ambitious plans for combining AT&T services and how it failed.
1. Cisco does not charge for firmware updates.
2. Programming mistakes are not the only, or even the primary, reason for firmware updates. Mostly, it's new features
3. For someone who gripes about programming mistakes, you type quite carelessly.
Maybe MS is acting on principal...hahaha!
Actually, it's a matter of which side of the bread your butter is on. In this case, MS has a vested interest in software resolutions, which would be made redundant by Disney's scheme. Also, this is a Draconian measure that would mandate govt-approved chips in all copycapable digital devices. This would hurt PC sales (people would want to keep the old PC that copies properly rather than upgrade). What hurts PC sales, hurts MS.
Assuming that you are trying to "contibute anything relevant to the discussion," you should examine the link he posted. It concerns legislation backed primarily by Disney. It is relevant.
Hey, I hear they also used in-person voice communications. Time to get those listening stations posted on everty corner! Who knows how many unmonitored conversations are going on right now!
get lost, troll...
The Feds' argument, in past legislative pushes, has been that, since the courts have acknowledged the need for wiretaps in the course of criminal investigation, they need access to the communications networks that will make taps possible when suspects are using "new technology" communications. This created a small stir about ten-fifteen years ago when they first advocated legislation of a similar sort for digital/optical telephone networks, which they claimed at the time were more difficult to tap than copper wire. If I recall properly, they eventually got what they wanted (in a less surveillance-friendly atmosphere than we have today).
"Recent and continuing advances in electronic communications technology and services challenge, and at times erode, the ability of law enforcement agencies to fully implement lawful orders to intercept communications. These advances also challenge the ability of telecommunications carriers to meet their assistance responsibilities. Thus, law enforcement agencies are finding it increasingly difficult to deal with intercepted digital communication, which might now be voice, data, images, or video, or a mixture of all of them."
That's from ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE IN A DIGITAL AGE, July 1995, OTA-BP-ITC-149, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office
Do you really think such a network, with no backdoors, will be "lawful?"
That would just be a matter of duplicating the packets; the Feds would presumably need to provide the bandwidth for getting that traffic load to their own network.
But I must say it's disturbing that many seem to think the worst thing here is the possible degradation of network performance...
Seventh graders are 12 or 13 years old. When I was 12, I couldn't avoid losing housekeys, lunch money, anything that wasn't bound to me in some manner.
Not all 12-year-olds are like me. Just enough to make this a way-too-expensive proposition, even assuming a PC is useful for a 12 year old.
Give the kids a laptop today and they will wind up hanging at The Remote Lounge tomorrow.
The Maine Governor's "vision for the future" starts out with an unconscious reference to Travis Bickle's "I've got to get organisized" that left me with vertiginous nausea. The guy seems to be a politico with a New Age rap, nothing more. A laptop in every pot? A poor political slogan, there are much better uses for cash, as the consensus here (among technophiles!) confirms.
BTW, the MSNBC article seems a poor choice for a means to examine the "Pop!Tech" gathering, a once-over-lightly where several more in-depth looks at the participants may have been more worthwhile. That is available through the Pop!Tech website, linked above.