From what I understand here the RIAA didnt really want to bankrupt this woman. They really just wanted to assert their IP rights, they typically dont want whatever money would be awarded from a trial against some random individual.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but like hell they didn't. It's pretty clear these guys see the "threaten 'em all into paying" strategy as a moneymaker and a way to set an example. Both interests are served by bankrupting average Joes and Janes.
They knew, exactly what they were doing. And IMHO they deserve to pay the price, far more than some kid who innocently downloads a song and gets taken to the cleaners for $4000 neither they nor their parents can afford.
The type of fuels mentioned seem to be petroleum-based, so I would imagine gasoline and oil would work. The article doesn't seem to provide an exhaustive list, but since it says "bio-diesel", I would bet ordinary gasoline would be one of the things that could be used.
Looks like once again the Slashdot summary is overblown and misleading.
Not really -- it's a matter of semantics. The summary is using "fuel" not to mean "anything", but rather, "fuel" as we think of it currently in common parlance. And as the summary immediately follows with examples, I think it's pretty clear what's being talked about.
I'm all for criticism where it's warranted, but in this case, I think the summary is actually rather good.
What would be interesting to me: a tool that deliberately modifies timestamps and/or creates ghost deleted files to tell a normal-looking story of computer use, when the actual history has been anything but.
In other words, forensics tools can assemble the history of file use on a disk. If it's known that the disk was in use before a certain date, but no timestamps can be found before that date (on current or deleted files), one may suspect the disk was wiped at that point. Likewise, physical disk usage for a given file system type has known and studied statistical characteristics over time. If the statistics are off, if you don't find deleted file images where you expect them, you may suspect that the freespace was wiped, or that certain unused disk space that would normally contain deleted file images contained files that are now wiped.
What happens when you have a tool that modifies timestamps on current and deleted files such that a normal distribution of them extend back before the date of disk wipe? Even worse, what happens if the tool can create "ghost" images of deleted files, in order to fool tools that look for normal statistical disk usage?
Once you have such a tool, wiping a disk and starting over can literally be done undetectably. So much for worry about having to maintain disk drive evidence after being hit with a subpoena.
As I understand it, the physical magnetic characteristics of data written to a hard drive change over time, such that very old data tends to be tougher to erase than newer data. Of course, you'll not find many hard drives in continual use for 10 years:)
At any rate, determining the magnetic remnance of a given domain on a hard drive may be pretty difficult, and surely the effort would be far beyond what a normal forensics investigation would devote to a case.
I wonder how many of these 40M licenses are really XP purchasers claiming their Vista disks?
...or PC's coming with Vista pre-installed (some of which were subsequently upgraded to XP, etc., etc.).
The figure I'm really interested in is the one I haven't seen: How many standalone copies of Vista have been sold since the official release date? A lesser figure would be the actual installed number of Vista copies in use right now (admittedly, a little tough to get ahold of).
Frankly, if they haven't published those figures, I find it a little odd.
SCO's tried this, and it hasn't worked out too well for them. Go for it, if you want. But the history of those who can't learn from mistakes isn't a very good one.
...that you're talking to Microsoft, as open source software is the intellectual property of its authors, and they have every right to license it to others to use as they wish.
On the other hand, Microsoft has a long history of appropriating others' ideas.
Whether or not you agree with the idea of limiting intellectual property rights, open source advocates aren't the ones pushing the appropriation of others' intellectual property, here.
Fair enough. But it should be noted that reports of Vista's performance hit compared with XP are not simply coming from MS-haters. They're across the board. Your experience is obviously different, but there are an awful lot of people, many of whom have no record of being anti-Microsoft, who say otherwise.
I'm no fan of Microsoft. But I want to make clear: my aversion to Vista isn't based on who it's made by: right now, I run XP Pro. However, I see absolutely no reason why I should have to buy a computer that would otherwise be classified as absolutely cutting edge (and just a few of years ago would have cost multiple tens of thousands of dollars) just to get adequate performance out of the operating system.
I also have a deep, deep aversion to "upgrading" to an operating system that is explicitly designed to limit what I can otherwise legally do with content. From everything I've read (no, not just here) that's not FUD: it's an explicit design goal Microsoft had with Vista.
Maybe, just maybe, Vista is a really damn good OS.
Considering that the vast majority of those buying Vista would have done so sight unseen (on new PC's), drawing the conclusion that "Vista is really a damn good OS" from the sales values, even if they're what you say, is a bit unwarranted, don't you think?
From what I've gathered about Vista, that XP would outperform it on battery life doesn't surprise.
From what I've gathered about Vista, XP would outperform it in just about every way imaginable, except in its ability to funnel vendor-locked-in cash to Microsoft.
Slashdot Mirror
From what I understand here the RIAA didnt really want to bankrupt this woman. They really just wanted to assert their IP rights, they typically dont want whatever money would be awarded from a trial against some random individual.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but like hell they didn't. It's pretty clear these guys see the "threaten 'em all into paying" strategy as a moneymaker and a way to set an example. Both interests are served by bankrupting average Joes and Janes.
They knew, exactly what they were doing. And IMHO they deserve to pay the price, far more than some kid who innocently downloads a song and gets taken to the cleaners for $4000 neither they nor their parents can afford.
Yes, I think she seriously does. If the court upholds the law, that expectation isn't unrealistic.
And sweet justice, it would be.
More importantly, does she think that a trade association owns the copyrights?
I believe she's suing the individual companies.
Holy hell, that's funny
And that's the optimistic scenario.
Sounds at least as solid as people licensing MS patents that allegedly cover Linux.
Who says you can't make money off of Linux?
The great thing is, you don't actually have to sell someone anything. They'll just hand you money. One of the greatest swindles in history.
I guess that's what happens when you leave the door to Mount Doom unlocked :)
The type of fuels mentioned seem to be petroleum-based, so I would imagine gasoline and oil would work. The article doesn't seem to provide an exhaustive list, but since it says "bio-diesel", I would bet ordinary gasoline would be one of the things that could be used.
Not really -- it's a matter of semantics. The summary is using "fuel" not to mean "anything", but rather, "fuel" as we think of it currently in common parlance. And as the summary immediately follows with examples, I think it's pretty clear what's being talked about.
I'm all for criticism where it's warranted, but in this case, I think the summary is actually rather good.
Exactly.
Multijunction cells have always been efficient. The problem has been producing them economically.
More than that: a tool that will tell you whether it was turkey, ham or PBJ.
What would be interesting to me: a tool that deliberately modifies timestamps and/or creates ghost deleted files to tell a normal-looking story of computer use, when the actual history has been anything but.
In other words, forensics tools can assemble the history of file use on a disk. If it's known that the disk was in use before a certain date, but no timestamps can be found before that date (on current or deleted files), one may suspect the disk was wiped at that point. Likewise, physical disk usage for a given file system type has known and studied statistical characteristics over time. If the statistics are off, if you don't find deleted file images where you expect them, you may suspect that the freespace was wiped, or that certain unused disk space that would normally contain deleted file images contained files that are now wiped.
What happens when you have a tool that modifies timestamps on current and deleted files such that a normal distribution of them extend back before the date of disk wipe? Even worse, what happens if the tool can create "ghost" images of deleted files, in order to fool tools that look for normal statistical disk usage?
Once you have such a tool, wiping a disk and starting over can literally be done undetectably. So much for worry about having to maintain disk drive evidence after being hit with a subpoena.
As I understand it, the physical magnetic characteristics of data written to a hard drive change over time, such that very old data tends to be tougher to erase than newer data. Of course, you'll not find many hard drives in continual use for 10 years :)
At any rate, determining the magnetic remnance of a given domain on a hard drive may be pretty difficult, and surely the effort would be far beyond what a normal forensics investigation would devote to a case.
From the standpoint of the bottom line, this is true.
However, from the standpoint of the actual desirability or usefulness of the operating system, it doesn't tell us much.
Just who is buying Vista?
Home users, for whom a new PC comes with Vista by default. Of course, many of those PC's may just be upgraded to XP promptly. That's what I did.
Kind of like copies of AOL (what an amazingly successful company THAT must be--just look at all the copies of AOL out there!).
...just how many copies of AOL are in circulation. Surely, the fact that it's included with just about every new PC proves AOL is a stellar success.
I wonder how many of these 40M licenses are really XP purchasers claiming their Vista disks?
...or PC's coming with Vista pre-installed (some of which were subsequently upgraded to XP, etc., etc.).
The figure I'm really interested in is the one I haven't seen: How many standalone copies of Vista have been sold since the official release date? A lesser figure would be the actual installed number of Vista copies in use right now (admittedly, a little tough to get ahold of).
Frankly, if they haven't published those figures, I find it a little odd.
...that Vista is surpassing all sales expectations?
This doesn't sound like the words of a company that thinks it's doing really well.
SCO's tried this, and it hasn't worked out too well for them. Go for it, if you want. But the history of those who can't learn from mistakes isn't a very good one.
...that you're talking to Microsoft, as open source software is the intellectual property of its authors, and they have every right to license it to others to use as they wish.
On the other hand, Microsoft has a long history of appropriating others' ideas.
Whether or not you agree with the idea of limiting intellectual property rights, open source advocates aren't the ones pushing the appropriation of others' intellectual property, here.
Fair enough. But it should be noted that reports of Vista's performance hit compared with XP are not simply coming from MS-haters. They're across the board. Your experience is obviously different, but there are an awful lot of people, many of whom have no record of being anti-Microsoft, who say otherwise.
I'm no fan of Microsoft. But I want to make clear: my aversion to Vista isn't based on who it's made by: right now, I run XP Pro. However, I see absolutely no reason why I should have to buy a computer that would otherwise be classified as absolutely cutting edge (and just a few of years ago would have cost multiple tens of thousands of dollars) just to get adequate performance out of the operating system.
I also have a deep, deep aversion to "upgrading" to an operating system that is explicitly designed to limit what I can otherwise legally do with content. From everything I've read (no, not just here) that's not FUD: it's an explicit design goal Microsoft had with Vista.
Maybe, just maybe, Vista is a really damn good OS.
Considering that the vast majority of those buying Vista would have done so sight unseen (on new PC's), drawing the conclusion that "Vista is really a damn good OS" from the sales values, even if they're what you say, is a bit unwarranted, don't you think?
I'm no fan of Microsoft, but I'll stipulate that Vista only eats kittens.
Innocent, sweet, furry, helpless, adorable kittens.
From what I've gathered about Vista, that XP would outperform it on battery life doesn't surprise.
From what I've gathered about Vista, XP would outperform it in just about every way imaginable, except in its ability to funnel vendor-locked-in cash to Microsoft.