and like I'm getting support from the Linux community on kernel 1.0... You CAN in fact get support for 1.0 kernel. The source is out there and if sufficiently motivated, ANYONE can make a patch and get something fixed even if Linus/RedHat/Novell/etc could care less. This is simply NOT the case with closed source like M$, where they basically have you by the short ones. Example, Windows Defender software recently claimed they no longer support Win2k. They said, if you want to use it you MUST upgrade to XP. A closer examination shows that they only reason this is the case is because they added a rule in the installer that says if OS is less than XP, do not install. Without the rule the software works great on Win2K but MS does not want you to use Win2k. Meanwhile the latest automatic upgrade to Defender definition causes all existing Win2K Defender clients to crash - forcing you to have to download latest version, which is XP only. So suddenly you are FORCED (there's that word) to upgrade to XP if you want Defender (no, whether you actually want it is a whole other story).
Now, I do believe MS has full *right* to do this, but just because you CAN be an asshole, does not mean you SHOULD be an asshole and does not mean people have to like it. It just goes to demonstrate the value of open source over closed.
What exactly does Oracle offer besides database offerings? Erm, check out their web site - look at the other two columns of products besides database - they offer quite a few products including little things like Oracle ERP, Peoplesoft and Siebel.
And it's a scientific FACT that we're all doomed? Your theory seems to be that if we all just give up science we'll be OK. Erm, a - I never said that we should give up on science and b - the fact I am talking about is evolution.
Just because abusing something can cause harm, does not mean you do not use it - mean you be smart about how you use it.
...a massive super bug some day that will kill you...
That's sounds a bit emotional. If it has any basis in scientific fact you haven't established it. I believe you're espousing the age old theory that we'll eventually destroy ourselves by playing with nature. That mad scientists with blow us all up. Actually the "massive superbug" theory , regardless of if you believe it will kill you, is rooted in scientific FACT, not emotion. The theory is basically same as evolution, overuse of antibiotics and anti-bacterial stuff will kill all but the most resistant, hard to kill, strains. Shifting the survival rate of the bacteria to the most resistant strains will make antibiotics ineffective. Furthermore, because rate of exposure of humans to bacteria is significantly lower, our ability to produce antibodies will be significantly reduced and will make us much more susceptible to bacteria(this is evident in Americans drinking water in foreign countries and getting sick, where locals are just fine because they've been exposed to this all their life). Now, since this is the same bacteria that has been "bred" to be resistant to antibiotics, we are really fucked once we catch it, since we have no way of killing it with drugs and our immune system can't handle it. So goes the theory.
actually, it sounds suspiciously like xul (http://www.mozilla.org/projects/xul/) with some flash thrown in. mind you, i've not read the article or played with any of the apps so i'm just guessing wildly.
There is no Appolo, just XUL....;-)
Re:Any advantages over having only one connector?
on
eSATA Connectors
·
· Score: 1
As an aside, I think the industry should really standardize on something to be a 'universal' interface, like USB or Firewire for desktop systems. Let's just remove all other types of interfaces, even VGA/DVI/HDMI cables and maybe even Ethernet. By standardizing the interfaces, end users will be far less confused, the interface decided upon will be further commoditized and prices for cables and connectors and such will fall. You are kidding right? Average user can barely tell the difference between these cables now and you want to make them all look the same to make it LESS confusing. It will just confuse them more. You will find the monitor plugged into the ethernet port, keyboards into the video port and hard drive plugged into the wall socked and a frustrated user going "why isn't this working?!?!?!?" I mean most people cant tell the difference between VGA and 9-pin serial port, and forget about the number of people who try to plug into phone wire into the ethernet port instead of modem. USB did a decent job of universalizing peripheral connections, but that does not have the bandwidth to carry video signal and unless you start building ethernet cards into the wall sockets, it will not work for ethernet. (a USB NIC is still has all the same cables, even more) The only way you can make all cables the same is by making all ports on the computer the same - that the same as in same logically , not just physically, because most are of the mentality - if the plug fits, it must be the right place to plug it in.
So much for the Constitutional prohibition against ex-post-facto laws. Somebody needs to fight this in court, it's blatantly unconstitutional. I don't think this is a law and thus not unconstitutional - however it could be illegal business practice.
Personally, I think retroactive pay-per-play (payola laws do not cover Internet!!!) fees are in order. RIAA now owes us 10 cents per song per listener we have played since station's beginning in '95. That should be a few trillion dollars.
While above is a joke, I think pay-per-play IS the answer to this. Let internet station CHARGE RIAA artists for playing their songs. If internet has so many listeners, the labels and artist will have to bypass RIAA to SELL to the stations. If you can get some momentum on this, you can make RIAA irrelevant fast as signing up with them means your songs do not get played.
It was actually back in 2002, all thanks to the DMCA CARP ruling. The SomaFM About Page covers what they went through during that time. Now, with the latest fees, they're looking at about $1 million in royalty fees for the year of 2007, compared to $22,000 for 2006.
And all this just as I started listening to them... thanks a lot, Copyright Royalty Board. Assholes. Actually the fees are retroactive to 2006, so they still owe $1m for 2006, they just did not know that in 2006. This is ridiculous.
Oh really? So I could walk into a nuclear power plant today, or 3 years ago, with no problem? Is that a fact? That means I should have no problem carrying out my devious plan to put LSD in the water supply because, as you say, water treatment facilities are "completely open." Somehow I suspect you'll stick with your theory even though part of it has been proven false. You better have a LOT of LSD handy.. Its not like someone could go and plant bombs in california water supply.... note that they also found not one, not two, but TWENTY FIVE vehicles (that means cars and stuff). Of course if you want any significant amount of LSD to reach anyone, you better have one BIG ASS acid factory.
From the article:
"You can find just about anything in there," he said. "We've found safes from burglaries, soda pop machines, washing machines, all number of things."
Please describe exactly how a terrorist would get past airport security and into the most protected area of the airport, the control tower, or crack military grade encryption and use their own systems to pilot the plane. You are kidding right? How many times each month someone breaches airport security? Sometimes they even notice. A small group of well armed terrorists can get into control tower (which is probably not even AT the airport)
No need to hack or crack anything if you are sitting at the actual terminal.
What if it weren't remote control? What if, upon activation, all that happened was the plane figured out where it was, and plotted its own course, never accepting any outside-guiding signal? the removes the threat of flying into "zombie airspace", where someone is broadcasting a hack-signal and crasing planes. Definitely safer in respect to direct hijacking, but another attack vector becomes obvious - reprogramming of the autopilot in advance. Its kinda scarier then though, now once you set-off the autopilot, there is nothing people on the ground OR on board can do to stop it.
It only can happen after the pilot flips a switch. Actually that is not what the article says, it says it CAN be activated by pilots' switch or other sensors - it does not say it can ONLY be activated on the plane. For this system to work it HAS to be able to be activated from land. Sure the switch is there for quick activation in case of emergency, but it is not the ONLY way to activate it. There are plenty of ways that hijackers can take the plane without pilot activating the system, and if the ground control has this system in hijacking situation and cannot activate it, you know heads will roll. They would rather protect their own ass then the plane, so yes, it can be activated from the ground.
...set up a small state, join the treaty, declare storage of any credit card information illegal and then demand that all companies doing business online turn over all their credit card information, as well as arrest of all of their employees...Could be fun....
Australia, which you may have noticed by now, so SNL isn't hugely relevant. You mean US is not the only country that matters???? I am shocked, shocked I tell you;-)
Yep, I totally missed the fact this was in Australia until after I posted. Oh well...
A web site that generates faked "evidence" of filesharing with a name and an IP of your choosing exists in Sweden. Cool... now if only I knew sweedish (beyond "bork!bork!bork!" )
There seems to be a common misconception, that I noted in the testimony, that you have to use one of the reserved IP address ranges on the LAN side of a NATed router. In fact, you can use any address at all (I do). The only downside to this practice is if you eventually have to move the NATed host(s) to the WAN side, they need to be re-addressed - and of course, that only applies to hosts with statically assigned IPs. Well, if you move machine with a private IP onto WAN you still have to change IP if you want to have connectivity - using illegal public IP is irrelevant in this case. The real problem is the fact that you cannot access the network you are stealing IPs from. That being said, many large corporations which had public IP on every machine have put up NAT firewalls but still use public IPs on the inside. There is nothing really wrong with this if you own the block and no one else is using it on the net, except maybe the moral wrong of wasting IP addresses - since there is (at least a perceived) shortage of IP addresses out there.
In other words, by looking at the IP address contained in the payload, there's no way to tell that it was behind a NAT router or not simply because the IP address was not in a reserved range. Erm, not really because the real point he was trying to make is that the public address that the packet came from matched the address in the payload - which he alleges is the real IP of the machine running Kazaa. In your case the IPs would not match - private vs public IPs are mostly irrelevant to this, (as was much of the deposition)
Secondarily, since the computer interface IP address is in the packet payload, that is data that is being sent by an application. The application (whatever it was that was communicating with the P2P network) may:
- lie. It could be a hacked version of a P2P standard application, - allow user configuration of the IP address in the payload (if I remember correctly, some seem to), - be broken. I assume all versions of all applications that communicate on the indicated P2P network were not vetted for their proper functioning. True, very true. I am surprised to learn Kazaa actually puts the local IP into the payload at all. Seems pointless as that IP is useless if NAT is used, and if it is not, IP is already known.
What always amazes me in these cases is the "evidence" in the case is often logs and screenshots which are legal equivalent to eyewitness testimony. It contains no actual proof as they are quite easily faked, but they tend to be represented as absolute proof to general computer fearing people because they are computer generated and "computers cant be wrong". I always wanted to demonstrate the silliness of such "proof" by a small act of civil disobedience - write a simple program that given some basic parameters generates a ton of "evidence" or anything on any date complete with logs and screenshots.
I mean there is nothing wrong with eyewitness testimony as long as it is represented as such. What bugs me is that the "eyewitness" in this case is directly paid by the plaintiff. I mean would you, as a juror believe any "eyewitness" in ANY type of case if you know the "eyewitness" is being paid thousands of dollars to testify. I mean paying expert witnesses is one thing, but eyewitnesses? That just seems wrong.
Yep, I second that, on my DELL provided machine, the default search engine is DELL branded Google, and it is providing the paid ads from Google on the search.
I have to agree with whomever said that this is nowhere near as bad as SiteFinder - you have full control over this and it does not break DNS service. Besides, what do I care, I stopped using IE years ago.:-)
If as the MPAA says there were never any Web links to the blog, then how did the author of the software stumble upon it? No Web links equals no search engine listings equals effective invisibility to the outside world. The MPAA claim on this point is pretty easily verifiable via Google and Wayback machine. The way the author found out is via referrer logs on his own server, I guess the software had some hardcoded links. This is explained in the article BTW.
So, when they sue me for music sharing I can use the following?: Well, if they sue you for music sharing, I'd be surprised, they are MPAA, not RIAA. But since you don't seem to understand the difference between blog software and music, let me RIAA'lize your excuses
1. No html links were ever pointed to my music The music in question was never placed in location it could be played back from.
2. My music was never assigned a domain name The music was never burned to an audio cd or placed on portable music player.
3. The music was never advertised to the public in any way (only privately) If you used any P2P app, this is probably a barefaced lie as most any P2P automatically advertise you sharing this file (thus P2P name) Although you can claim you only shared in a closed P2P system.
4. The music in the file sharing program was a proof of concept and never moved into production The music in the file sharing program was a proof of concept and was never listened to.
5. The music in the file sharing program was only used for testing purposes This one works on its own
6. Should I have decided to make the move to production, then I would have paid the appropiate royalty fees Should I decide to actually LISTEN to this music, I would have purchased a license.
Some of these are kinda weak, but you get the point. Music audience is you, software audience is NOT MPAA.
Should we have decided to make the move to production, then we would have paid the 25 Pounds that would have authorized us to run a version of the blog without the logos and links. So, presumably, that means it's fine for me to download films created by MPAA members as long as I say I'll buy the DVD if I like them? First of all, bad choice of words on the title, I actually meant the claim against MPAA is sorta legit. But I'll bite and give you my thoughts on this. A better analogy would be "its ok to download films to watch a first few minutes and then say if I want to watch it, I would buy the dvd."
The actual point of the software is to be used by large number of people to read/respond to postings - this was not done in this case, just an internal mock up of a site (which of course should not have been posted on a public website, but still).
And despite my dislike of all things with AA in the title (sorry AAA, aardvarks) and given our collective thirst for revenge against THIS *AA, it does not seem to be THAT outlandish to use the software in this way, and even the author of said software agreed.
The material has been removed from our Web server.
* No Web links were ever provided to the blog.
* The blog was never assigned a domain name.
* The blog was never advertised to the public in any way.
* The material on the server was a proof of concept awaiting approval to move into production.
* The blog was only ever used for testing purposes.
* Should we have decided to make the move to production, then we would have paid the 25 Pounds that would have authorized us to run a version of the blog without the logos and links.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, I do believe MS has full *right* to do this, but just because you CAN be an asshole, does not mean you SHOULD be an asshole and does not mean people have to like it. It just goes to demonstrate the value of open source over closed.
-Em
-Em
Just because abusing something can cause harm, does not mean you do not use it - mean you be smart about how you use it.
-Em
That's sounds a bit emotional. If it has any basis in scientific fact you haven't established it.
I believe you're espousing the age old theory that we'll eventually destroy ourselves by playing with nature.
That mad scientists with blow us all up. Actually the "massive superbug" theory , regardless of if you believe it will kill you, is rooted in scientific FACT, not emotion. The theory is basically same as evolution, overuse of antibiotics and anti-bacterial stuff will kill all but the most resistant, hard to kill, strains. Shifting the survival rate of the bacteria to the most resistant strains will make antibiotics ineffective. Furthermore, because rate of exposure of humans to bacteria is significantly lower, our ability to produce antibodies will be significantly reduced and will make us much more susceptible to bacteria(this is evident in Americans drinking water in foreign countries and getting sick, where locals are just fine because they've been exposed to this all their life). Now, since this is the same bacteria that has been "bred" to be resistant to antibiotics, we are really fucked once we catch it, since we have no way of killing it with drugs and our immune system can't handle it. So goes the theory.
-Em
Could be Java.
There is no Appolo, just XUL....;-)actually, it sounds suspiciously like xul (http://www.mozilla.org/projects/xul/) with some flash thrown in. mind you, i've not read the article or played with any of the apps so i'm just guessing wildly.
-Em
Personally, I think retroactive pay-per-play (payola laws do not cover Internet!!!) fees are in order. RIAA now owes us 10 cents per song per listener we have played since station's beginning in '95. That should be a few trillion dollars.
While above is a joke, I think pay-per-play IS the answer to this. Let internet station CHARGE RIAA artists for playing their songs. If internet has so many listeners, the labels and artist will have to bypass RIAA to SELL to the stations. If you can get some momentum on this, you can make RIAA irrelevant fast as signing up with them means your songs do not get played.
-Em
And all this just as I started listening to them... thanks a lot, Copyright Royalty Board. Assholes. Actually the fees are retroactive to 2006, so they still owe $1m for 2006, they just did not know that in 2006. This is ridiculous.
-Em
From the article:
No need to hack or crack anything if you are sitting at the actual terminal.
-Em
-Em
-Em
A quick search reveals a number of airplane hijackings since 9/11 so I am not sure what is your point.
-Em
Basically this turns planes into remote control missiles - and this is a GOOD THING????
I mean to do something like 9/11 you don't even have to be ON the plane???
It seems to make thing MORE dangerous, not less.
-Em
...set up a small state, join the treaty, declare storage of any credit card information illegal and then demand that all companies doing business online turn over all their credit card information, as well as arrest of all of their employees...Could be fun....
-Em
Yep, I totally missed the fact this was in Australia until after I posted. Oh well...
-Em
IANAL, I mean if you could not use copyrighted material for parody, a lot of TV shows would be out of business. (SNL anyone)
-Em
Thanks.
-Em
- lie. It could be a hacked version of a P2P standard application,
- allow user configuration of the IP address in the payload (if I remember correctly, some seem to),
- be broken. I assume all versions of all applications that communicate on the indicated P2P network were not vetted for their proper functioning. True, very true. I am surprised to learn Kazaa actually puts the local IP into the payload at all. Seems pointless as that IP is useless if NAT is used, and if it is not, IP is already known.
-Em
What always amazes me in these cases is the "evidence" in the case is often logs and screenshots which are legal equivalent to eyewitness testimony. It contains no actual proof as they are quite easily faked, but they tend to be represented as absolute proof to general computer fearing people because they are computer generated and "computers cant be wrong". I always wanted to demonstrate the silliness of such "proof" by a small act of civil disobedience - write a simple program that given some basic parameters generates a ton of "evidence" or anything on any date complete with logs and screenshots.
I mean there is nothing wrong with eyewitness testimony as long as it is represented as such. What bugs me is that the "eyewitness" in this case is directly paid by the plaintiff. I mean would you, as a juror believe any "eyewitness" in ANY type of case if you know the "eyewitness" is being paid thousands of dollars to testify. I mean paying expert witnesses is one thing, but eyewitnesses? That just seems wrong.
-Em
Yep, I second that, on my DELL provided machine, the default search engine is DELL branded Google, and it is providing the paid ads from Google on the search.
I have to agree with whomever said that this is nowhere near as bad as SiteFinder - you have full control over this and it does not break DNS service. Besides, what do I care, I stopped using IE years ago.:-)
-Em
-Em
Some of these are kinda weak, but you get the point. Music audience is you, software audience is NOT MPAA.
-Em
The actual point of the software is to be used by large number of people to read/respond to postings - this was not done in this case, just an internal mock up of a site (which of course should not have been posted on a public website, but still).
And despite my dislike of all things with AA in the title (sorry AAA, aardvarks) and given our collective thirst for revenge against THIS *AA, it does not seem to be THAT outlandish to use the software in this way, and even the author of said software agreed.
-Em
short of it is:
MPAA Response: