You know what? I don't give a good goddamn about RFC 1122. Our servers get pounded on every port that is open, every day, since forever. Cutting off ping reduces it dramatically. So, by violating that particulary RFC, I do have a more wonderful day.
Um, so does microsoft.com... You don't want to be like them, do you?
Exactly. That's why the only practical way to implement DRM is to make Receiver (B) a different entity from Attacker (C). Right now they are the same person, but if we're not careful then pretty soon (B) will be DRM hardware. You will end up being the "attacker" (C) trying to get at your own data.
Not exactly... DRM-on-hardware will not make the receiver the hardware. The hardware is just an encumberance. The receiver is still the person behind the keyboard. The hardware is still in the physical control of the user and subject to attacks. Examples? DeCSS for DVDs... Mod chips for consoles... Linux-on-iPods...
I agree that supporting brain-dead DRM implementations is self-defeating, but I doubt DRM-on-hardware will ever reach the level of stopping determined hackers. Then the smart-cow scenerio takes over... Once one smart cow opens the gate, the rest follow.
That is precisely correct. The typical encryption scenerio is described as Sender (A), Receiver (B), and Attacker (C). The trick is how to keep the secrets from C. With DRM, B and C are the same person...
F = Likelihood of remaining on the first page of comments R = Recognizability rating (editors=9, Taco=10, ACs=0) D = User ID numerical ranking, 3 or fewer digits=10 V = Actual intelligence score of post S = Number of "Me too" replies generated A = General interest of story commenting on
Actually, if you look at the logic from what MS has said, they just admitted that UNIX shells are better that Microsoft shells. They have promised something better, but that admission by itself reveals the depth of fear-and-loathing they have for UNIX.
Sorry your shot of cash to Bay didn't work out better for you, Bill*.
Made for Apple, by whomever, but not for the manufacturer to sell to anyone else. Apple can do that, as they have most of the way since the Apple ][ (excepting all the Apple ][ clones which required dubious ROMS, etc. and the brief period where Mac Hardware was produced by several firms before Jobs yanked the hardware production back in house.) With OS-X running on Intel, it would be pointless for Apple to compete with vendors who do it very well. Besides, as Microsoft has shown, the money isn't in the hardware, but the software.
Oh, I agree with every word. The point I should have made clearer is while Apple gets a better price for their hardware, they need it just to make the same or similar margins as the Dells and Gateways of the world. You have to factor in a reasonable profit for the manufacturer on top of everything else. While the White Boxers cut corners to prop up margins, Apple (hopefully) keeps the specs tight and high quality. That's why WinTel can't quite put them out.
They could be freaked, sure, but try to remember that microsoft has a long history of writing software for apple's platform(s) and, unless I've missed a newsflash, they continue to do so.
Great reply! Dismissive AND condecending! Too bad you couldn't work in more intellectual superiority, you could have had the trifecta!
Now to your point, yes, MS makes Apple software. As an Apple user, I believe it is with at least a base of legitimacy that I make the following statement:
It sucks. All of it. From Office to IE, Microsoft software on the mac is trash and not to be taken seriously. While I certainly did not forget that fact, I did not mention it as it is irrelevent.
It's the death of the Mac, because Apple will likely be forced away from designing and manufacturing their own hardware, as Taiwan Inc., Dell, Lenovo, HP/Compaq, etc. etc. etc. will be able to beat their price every time.
My Mac Mini shipped to me direct from China. [point]Apple doesn't manufacture.[/point]
Even better, why not use a WINE-like (or say, WINE?) API interface layer to run actual Windows binaries under OSX? Could Apple be the one to fulfill the OS/2 promise of a "better Windows than Windows"? This is getting exciting! I bet may MS execs are in hard-core FREAK mode right about now!
Ah, but to do what you have suggested means that you are entitled the patents to use the DVD encryption/decryption method patented by the DVD Consortium. Nice try, but they thought of that already...
Alexander Noé: The letter itself is not explicitely marked as such, but I'm not sure if I have the right to publish an email sent to me in general without the sender agreeing on this.
Well, I don't know about Europe (or any other country, frankly), but I'd say an unsolicited email coming from an unknown person is yours to do with what you want. Secrets imply deception. Look at government in general for a great example of this concept.
Whether you download XP Pro or you hack the XP Home CD, you are using software beyond the rights that were licensed to you with respect to that software.
How am I using the software beyond the license terms if the functionality is already there and I just enable it by changing two bytes? In other words, why would I not be entitled to use the software that I bought and Microsoft provided to me on the disc?
Let me repeat it for the hard of understanding here - XP is not a server OS. Yes, you can use it as such, but you'd be a fool. If you want to run a Windows server, use a Windows Server OS. 2003 if you care about continued bug fixes and support, 2000 otherwise.
Of course, you're right, as Microsoft has always made the server version distinctly different than the workstation. (What was the difference back in the NT 4.0 days, two registry entries and an extra thread to make sure you didn't change them?)
I understand and appreciate your point, but the differences between workstation and server versions of MS operating systems tend to be minimal. Of course, there is no XP server. so what do I know... Time to run Server 2003 as my Windows desktop os, I guess...
Why, because the WTC or Oklahoma City incedents were targeting someones datacenter?
No, I agree the data centers were not the target in those cases (AFAIK). But if you were to target the Beeb, knowing where they operate would relieve you of figuring it out for yourself...
Speaking of 9/11, the Linux/Apache powered BBC site was the only one that was consistantly up for me on 9/11.
I had a similar experience. I thought, "Now who would have updated info but no one would actually go there..." Answer? NPR... They were up but not smashed with traffic... I can't remember if I thought to try the BBC.
What's wrong with it? The addresses are all major data centers / carrier hotels, so it's not realhurts...ly a surprise that they are located there. It's not like you can just walk into any of these and get access to the servers.
So what happened to the servers in the World Trade center? Or the Federal building in Oklahoma? I don't live by "security through obscurity" but a little obscurity never hurts...
maybe it's just me, but i'm never putting physical addresses on ANY network map with any company i work for, especially maps that will be posted publicly.
I had exactly the same thought. Those are street addresses for crying out loud... Perhaps the author never intended for the network map to be made public? Some suit 'prolly thought it looked pretty...
Yeah, but what about fark.ru? If that site stays down, russian productivity will skyrocket! Our economy will collapse! Cats and dogs living together! MASS HYSTERIA!
This wouldn't be the first time that a company got stripped of a trademark because it got incorporated into common language. This happened to both frisbee and hola hoop.
Both Frisbee and Hula Hoop are still registered trademarks belonging to their respective owners. Perhaps you meant formica and xerography?:)
Slashdot Mirror
*Everyone* like Star Wars
Freddy Mercury didn't like Star Wars...
You know what? I don't give a good goddamn about RFC 1122. Our servers get pounded on every port that is open, every day, since forever. Cutting off ping reduces it dramatically. So, by violating that particulary RFC, I do have a more wonderful day.
Um, so does microsoft.com... You don't want to be like them, do you?
I dunno... Why don't you ask this guy?
if you file a lawsuit against IBM and loose, your financially screwed for life. not the kind of position I would like to be in.
Cue the SCO-bashing thread in 3...2...1...
Exactly. That's why the only practical way to implement DRM is to make Receiver (B) a different entity from Attacker (C). Right now they are the same person, but if we're not careful then pretty soon (B) will be DRM hardware. You will end up being the "attacker" (C) trying to get at your own data.
Not exactly... DRM-on-hardware will not make the receiver the hardware. The hardware is just an encumberance. The receiver is still the person behind the keyboard. The hardware is still in the physical control of the user and subject to attacks. Examples? DeCSS for DVDs... Mod chips for consoles... Linux-on-iPods...
I agree that supporting brain-dead DRM implementations is self-defeating, but I doubt DRM-on-hardware will ever reach the level of stopping determined hackers. Then the smart-cow scenerio takes over... Once one smart cow opens the gate, the rest follow.
Of course its still possible to break all DRM.
That is precisely correct. The typical encryption scenerio is described as Sender (A), Receiver (B), and Attacker (C). The trick is how to keep the secrets from C. With DRM, B and C are the same person...
Game Over
I havent seen so many runon sentances and bad capitalization/punctuation and mispelings since Third Grade,
Welcome to the IntarWeb!
(F x (R x D + V)) + S) / A
Where:
F = Likelihood of remaining on the first page of comments
R = Recognizability rating (editors=9, Taco=10, ACs=0)
D = User ID numerical ranking, 3 or fewer digits=10
V = Actual intelligence score of post
S = Number of "Me too" replies generated
A = General interest of story commenting on
Actually, if you look at the logic from what MS has said, they just admitted that UNIX shells are better that Microsoft shells. They have promised something better, but that admission by itself reveals the depth of fear-and-loathing they have for UNIX.
Sorry your shot of cash to Bay didn't work out better for you, Bill*.
(*Not really...)
Made for Apple, by whomever, but not for the manufacturer to sell to anyone else. Apple can do that, as they have most of the way since the Apple ][ (excepting all the Apple ][ clones which required dubious ROMS, etc. and the brief period where Mac Hardware was produced by several firms before Jobs yanked the hardware production back in house.) With OS-X running on Intel, it would be pointless for Apple to compete with vendors who do it very well. Besides, as Microsoft has shown, the money isn't in the hardware, but the software.
Oh, I agree with every word. The point I should have made clearer is while Apple gets a better price for their hardware, they need it just to make the same or similar margins as the Dells and Gateways of the world. You have to factor in a reasonable profit for the manufacturer on top of everything else. While the White Boxers cut corners to prop up margins, Apple (hopefully) keeps the specs tight and high quality. That's why WinTel can't quite put them out.
Otherwise, things just got very interesting...
They could be freaked, sure, but try to remember that microsoft has a long history of writing software for apple's platform(s) and, unless I've missed a newsflash, they continue to do so.
Great reply! Dismissive AND condecending! Too bad you couldn't work in more intellectual superiority, you could have had the trifecta!
Now to your point, yes, MS makes Apple software. As an Apple user, I believe it is with at least a base of legitimacy that I make the following statement:
It sucks. All of it. From Office to IE, Microsoft software on the mac is trash and not to be taken seriously. While I certainly did not forget that fact, I did not mention it as it is irrelevent.
It's the death of the Mac, because Apple will likely be forced away from designing and manufacturing their own hardware, as Taiwan Inc., Dell, Lenovo, HP/Compaq, etc. etc. etc. will be able to beat their price every time.
My Mac Mini shipped to me direct from China. [point]Apple doesn't manufacture.[/point]
Even better, why not use a WINE-like (or say, WINE?) API interface layer to run actual Windows binaries under OSX? Could Apple be the one to fulfill the OS/2 promise of a "better Windows than Windows"? This is getting exciting! I bet may MS execs are in hard-core FREAK mode right about now!
Ah, but to do what you have suggested means that you are entitled the patents to use the DVD encryption/decryption method patented by the DVD Consortium. Nice try, but they thought of that already...
Sadly, I don't think that the /. effect is anywhere near what it was several years ago.
:p
Fark takes down sites faster.
And posts the same stories a week earlier!
Alexander Noé: The letter itself is not explicitely marked as such, but I'm not sure if I have the right to publish an email sent to me in general without the sender agreeing on this.
Well, I don't know about Europe (or any other country, frankly), but I'd say an unsolicited email coming from an unknown person is yours to do with what you want. Secrets imply deception. Look at government in general for a great example of this concept.
Whether you download XP Pro or you hack the XP Home CD, you are using software beyond the rights that were licensed to you with respect to that software.
How am I using the software beyond the license terms if the functionality is already there and I just enable it by changing two bytes? In other words, why would I not be entitled to use the software that I bought and Microsoft provided to me on the disc?
If MS didn't want me to use it, why is it there?
Let me repeat it for the hard of understanding here - XP is not a server OS. Yes, you can use it as such, but you'd be a fool. If you want to run a Windows server, use a Windows Server OS. 2003 if you care about continued bug fixes and support, 2000 otherwise.
Of course, you're right, as Microsoft has always made the server version distinctly different than the workstation. (What was the difference back in the NT 4.0 days, two registry entries and an extra thread to make sure you didn't change them?)
I understand and appreciate your point, but the differences between workstation and server versions of MS operating systems tend to be minimal. Of course, there is no XP server. so what do I know... Time to run Server 2003 as my Windows desktop os, I guess...
Why, because the WTC or Oklahoma City incedents were targeting someones datacenter?
No, I agree the data centers were not the target in those cases (AFAIK). But if you were to target the Beeb, knowing where they operate would relieve you of figuring it out for yourself...
Speaking of 9/11, the Linux/Apache powered BBC site was the only one that was consistantly up for me on 9/11.
I had a similar experience. I thought, "Now who would have updated info but no one would actually go there..." Answer? NPR... They were up but not smashed with traffic... I can't remember if I thought to try the BBC.
What's wrong with it? The addresses are all major data centers / carrier hotels, so it's not realhurts...ly a surprise that they are located there. It's not like you can just walk into any of these and get access to the servers.
So what happened to the servers in the World Trade center? Or the Federal building in Oklahoma? I don't live by "security through obscurity" but a little obscurity never hurts...
maybe it's just me, but i'm never putting physical addresses on ANY network map with any company i work for, especially maps that will be posted publicly.
I had exactly the same thought. Those are street addresses for crying out loud... Perhaps the author never intended for the network map to be made public? Some suit 'prolly thought it looked pretty...
Yeah, but what about fark.ru? If that site stays down, russian productivity will skyrocket! Our economy will collapse! Cats and dogs living together! MASS HYSTERIA!
According to the article, the XBox OS was Windows 2000 with 95% of it removed or heavily altered
This just in from the Bureau of Totally Invented Statistics! Careful, though... 85% of statistics from the Bureau are totally invented...
This wouldn't be the first time that a company got stripped of a trademark because it got incorporated into common language. This happened to both frisbee and hola hoop.
:)
Both Frisbee and Hula Hoop are still registered trademarks belonging to their respective owners. Perhaps you meant formica and xerography?
I guess books also some in the same category of CDs (can't rent them) for pretty much the same reason.
I have no reference for book rental and had never heard you could not rent them legally. Can you cite a reference? I came up flat.