450-per-month contract for a T1 line that delivers 1.44Mbit/sec. of bandwidth. He pays 10 times more than the cable provider would have charged and receives one quarter of the bandwidth
Granted, he pays roughly 10 times, if you already have cable and phone through your cable company, and if you don't count the taxes and fees that specifically get added for cable internet. 8mbps cable is $46 / month where I live. What people don't realize is that at 1.544mbps, you actually get the full bandwidth and a stable connection. You have 24 64kbit direct links to your ISP. With cable, everyone's data is transmitted over the cable lines, so you share your bandwidth with everyone on your node. If you happen to be on a node with few subscribers on it, you will get the full 8mbps. More than likely, you will get a MUCH slower connection at least during busy times. Also, a T1 is very reliable, and cable internet is NOT. I tried cable internet twice in two different areas and got rid of it both times due to slow speeds and dropped connections. Eventually it was going out almost every day. I would call tech support and be on the line for 45 minutes while he had me unplug MY COMPUTER. Come on, my computer should have NO EFFECT on whether the little green link light on the cable box is on. You know how many times our T1 has gone down at work over the last three years? ZERO.
I think the most misleading portion though is claiming 1/4 the bandwidth. The upload speed on cable is actually a MAXIMUM of 512kbps, that used to be 128kbps and might vary from area to are and depending on how active your node is. If you have people using P2P on your node, forget about it. A T1's upload speed is actually three times as much at 1.44mbps. Also with a T1 you have lower latency than with a cable box. Both of these items are important for a web programming business, this guy should be happy with the increased value of a T1 over cable internet. Combine that with the improved reliability (also very important if you're running a business), and I would get the T1 over the Cable even if it was available.
We're talking about ethics. An artist's "right" is a government-granted right to encourage the creation of new works that will eventually be in the public domain. That is unlike the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... Read John Locke's second treatise on government, particularly chapter 5 on property. The idea of "intellectual property" doesn't satisfy "The 'labour' of his body and the 'work' of his hands". Also the artist is not removing something from the common state. That is what makes something one's property, taking possession of it. Ideas cannot be property.
You argue that the artist uses labor to design his works and that makes them property. However, nothing is taken from the common state. Also, there is no shortage of copies. Locke argues that people should have the right to do what they wish if it does not harm another. Making a copy of a CD does not harm the artist in the least. The only argument for 'harm' is that the artist doesn't receive compensation, which he is only entitled to because the government has restricted the rights of others. The actual act of copying does no harm. The supposed harm follows from the government's restriction of the rights of the copier. This is completely unlike shoplifting a CD, which directly harms the store by removing property from its possession without compensation.
When copying a CD, the copier is doing the labor himself on an item that he has already purchased and is in his possession. Copies can be made ad infinitum, there is no shortage. The song doesn't degrade or become scarce because the copier made a copy, it actually becomes more bountiful. As Locke says:
"For he that leaves as much as another can make use of does as good as take nothing at all. Nobody could think himself injured by the drinking of another man, though he took a good draught, who had a whole river of the same water left him to quench his thirst."
I addressed the taking vs. copying argument in my last line: "The fact that the RIAA suffers no direct loss of capital from music downloads does indeed complicate the ethical question at the heart of all of this."
I guess you didn't get that far.
Oh I read it, I guess I just didn't think the vague reference to 'complicating the ethical question' was sufficient. You are not 'taking' anything, you are duplicating it. Taking means gaining possession or control. Copyright is basically the original author telling everyone else what they can do with their own physical resources. That is the point I was trying to make. It's the difference between the government-granted monopoly on copying and property rights that have been recognized since the dawn of history.
My friend said it was pretty fun on his XBox. I'd love to try it, but I refuse to install any more games with SecureROM. It's just not worth it. I'd get to play a game, but there's another useless service installed on my computer, I'll have to keep the CD handy whenever I want to play (on my laptop, at home and at the office) and I'd have to uninstall daemon tools from all my computers.
Why? Pirates are going to have the hacked version available on their sites anyway, sometimes before it's even available for purchase. If people want a free version of the game, they'll get it there. Why not just use a CD-KEY that is checked with online play? I think some studio should run a test. Sell a version of a game without copy protection for $10 or $20 more than the one with copy protection. I'd pay more for the game without copy protection... If there's a study that actually shows that copy protection reduces the value of games to consumers, maybe they would wake up.
But the ethical component of this is at the heart of the discussion, IMHO. One's ethics determines whether or not they feel entitled to something for which they wouldn't pay.
[...]
3. It is not a good value, so I am justified in taking it.
You are not 'taking' it, you are copying it. If I make a sand castle on a beach and then tell you that you can make your own castle, but you have to pay me a $20 for the right to do that, what will you do?
Pay me the $20 because you want to build a sandcastle that badly
Don't build the sandcastle because the price is too steep
Build the sandcastle without paying me because you're not hurting anyone and you're sure not going to pay me $20 for it
Except for the lucky few, musicians or "artists" are rather on the poor side. I play in a local band, so many a time after a show we hang out with the headlining act. I see behind the scenes, behind the image... Signed musicians, and they sleep in their van, taking shifts driving to the next show. If they're lucky, someone in town offers them a place to crash for the night. That doesn't really sound like a bunch of people making >= $200k/year to me.
Excellent point. The current system of perpetual copyrights and DRM isn't working to get money to the people that actually create the music. Sure it works for a very small minority of artists, but not for the majority. The only ones it really works well for are the record companies that have control over the music produced by the artists.
In a world without copyrights, an artist makes and album and sells it for $15. You buy one copy, make a thousand copies and sell it for $5. You make a bundle even though you did no work, and the artist goes broke and never makes another album. Same story for books and movies. Capitolism means benefitting from your labor.
Capitalism is about ownership of resources and production and sale of goods without government interference. By granting a limited monopoly to copyright holders, government-granted copyright monopolies interfere with the free market. Copyright creates an artificial shortage of a song and constrains the production of copies by others. In true capitalism, the government wouldn't stop someone from making copies and selling them for $5. The person that could produce, distribute and market their copies the best for the lowest price would turn out to be the winner.
Copyright is SUPPOSED to be a balance. It encourages people to make creative works by guaranteeing them a period of monopoly. But, after the copyright term expires, the work enters the public domain where it benefits all. The idea is fine. The problem is that the "limited period" has almost turned into perpetual copyrights, which is bad for the public.
I totally agree with you here. I think we need some copyright term to enable authors of expressive works to make money from them. The current copyright term however will prevent my grandkids from copying a CD that my classmate made for the duration of their lives. The media itself will have long ceased to exist by then unless extraordinary measures are taken to protect it.
Just because MP3 is acceptable quality at 256kbps doesn't mean iTunes shouldn't win that. AAC is still higher quality at the same bit rate even if most people can't tell the difference.
(WAL-MART) - $0.94 vs $1.29: cheaper is better, but were these songs recorded by children working 16 hours a day in China for slave wages?:)
(WAL-MART) - MP3 vs AAC: MP3 is more portable
(ITUNES) - 256kbp vs. 256kbp: You say that they are the same, but AAC is higher quality at the same bit rate. In any case, this is at best a tie for WAL-MART, so WAL-MART still wouldn't "win" 3/4. I don't know what the parent was talking about...
(ITUNES) - "censored" vs. "non-censored": non-censored is better
I guess I'll setup a vanilla install of Windows 2000 (no service packs) on a computer and use it to store my media files. I think I'll put it outside my firewall in the DMZ so I can have easy access to my music from anywhere on the internet... I would give the administrator account a strong password, but I'd probably just forget it so I think I'll leave it blank instead. Of course I'll have to enable HTTP, FTP and Microsoft file sharing for easy access to my music...
Seriously though, I don't think this is so much to track down who initially shared the files as it would be to catch people who are actively sharing files, including files they didn't buy. Right now if the RIAA scans someone's computer or downloads a file over a P2P network, they don't know where it came from. Let's say Joe downloads a song and Alex copies it. Alex then makes it available on P2P. If the RIAA's investigators download it from Alex and it has Joe's watermark, they know that not only did Alex copy it from someone else, but he is making it available to others. They know there is no way that Alex ripped the song himself or bought it because they know Joe did. If Joe does happen to make it available himself, they have a stronger case if the IP that is sharing it also can be traced back to Joe.
If a user goes through the trouble of re-encoding the work, it may erase the watermark or make it unrecognizable. A "watermark" may work in various ways however. Let's say that 32 parts of a song are used as markers. It could be an extra 1/10th of a second of silence or a note held for an extra 1/10th of a second let's say. A unique 32-bit code could be embedded that would probably survive re-encoding. I seriously doubt this will happen though because it would in essence be altering the song. Re-encoding will affect sound quality however, and be a pain for a normal user to do.
Now if someone got their hands on two identical tracks with watermarks for different people embedded, I don't think it would be very difficult to come up with an algorithm to remove the watermarks or scramble the information.
In Firefox, type "about:config" in the address bar and hit [Enter]. This will bring up configuration settings.
Right-click on the settings and pick "New->String".
Enter "general.useragent.override" for the name.
For the value, enter "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1;.NET CLR 1.1.4322;.NET CLR 2.0.50727)".
Now your browser will appear to be IE 7. This will throw off browser counters on the web though so it may artificially inflate IE numbers at the expense of Firefox numbers. You can try an opera user-agent string if you know it. Actually, anything else probably won't be blocked, it probably looks for the Firefox one in particular. Here's one for Safari on a MAC: "Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/85.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) safari/85.5"
They have the right to protect their IP. However, they have the responsibility to make sure they are targeting the right people. They have kept several cases going after getting evidence that they sued the wrong people.
Businesses have a much lighter right to privacy, and it would be difficult to show how submitting a photo to Google (for use as a free service to help people find their business) could cause harm.
Our advertising dollar is every bit as useful to you as an American one.
Actually your dollar is still worth less than ours...
Montreal's metropolitan area has a population of 3.6 million people.
You don't know much about urban sprawl in America. You can take most of the populations here and triple them. While it says LA has only 3.8 million people, the LA metropolitan area has almost 13 million. That's 3 times as many people, and the per capita income for LA is $35,1881 American dollars while Montreal's is only $28,595 in your funny-money.
It's sad all right. It's sad that many convenient music playing devices still have only 4-8 gig of memory (including the iPhone). It's sad that MP3 CD players still only play seven hours of music at good quality MP3 compression. It's sad that I still need two CDs to store a single audiobook on compressed MP3 (mono 64kbit) to listen to on a road trip. One thing that's not sad is that we still use compression for audio.
It's called detailed billing and you can have it removed by a single request to customer service. What a non-issue. Of course, if detailed billing wasn't offered by default, I'm sure there would be people whining that they're not being told where their charges are coming from.
Where their 'charges' are coming from? First off, they aren't being charged anything for the transfers, it's part of their unlimited data package. Second, the only 'detail' was the date and time. That doesn't give a lot of information. Third, would turning off detailed billing mean you no longer received itemizations on actual charges, such as when your niece 'borrowed' your phone for a two hour call to her boyfriend in Spain?
While most of us may agree with the message, many will object to the spelling, and specifically to the dont used instead of don't.
There's a technical reason for the missing apostrophe, though, because messing with this very character (') is part of the technique apparently used by the attackers.
There is no stumbling block here. All the hacker had to do would be to escape their own apostrophe. That's the very vulnerability that makes this work.
'; update speeches set text = 'Don''t try to hack this site, I beat you to it.' where id = 1;'
First of all, that figure is $12,500 per year. Which isn't a lot of money.
I have to agree that isn't a lot of money for managing a server for a year taking into account all of your considerations. The problem is that you are wrong, the number is actually $62,500. I used calc.exe originally, but Google confirms it. So unless all of your numbers are off by a factor of at least 5, it's still a large amount of money:)
Is the "expert" a native English speaker? "Botnet, Trojan, and Back Door are example of malicious codes..." Aside from the grammatical atrocities, I have never heard of my fellow software engineers referring to software programs as "codes." A back-door is not a "code" or a program, nor are botnets. Bots are, Trojan (Horses) are, and they can open back doors. Precision, please?
I don't see how not being a native English speaker would affect any of his reasoning, but I thought the declaration as a whole used excellent grammar. You appear to be focusing on this one sentence to call his native language into question for some unknown reason. I didn't notice any other "grammatical atrocities"... I believe the whole problem is simply with the 's'. All software is code. Trojans and Bots are software programs, embodied in code. Back Doors are deliberate holes in security left in place to enable access, actually usually by maintainers or administrators as the term is commonly used. Botnets, trojans (you don't have to use the full term "trojan horse"), and back doors are all examples of software code that can be used to take over the victim's machine without their knowledge or permission. While using all three terms here is a bit confusing, the terms "botnet" and "trojan horse" don't necessitate the inclusion of a "back-door" to be able to perform this packet spoofing, and "back doors" don't necessarily have to be in botnets or trojan horses. This could use some more explaining, but I think if those three terms were just left out that it would have been crystal clear to me. Maybe some proofreading paralegal "corrected" his original pluralizations and he didn't notice before he signed the declaration. All in all, a minor typo and the only one I noticed myself looking through the document. Oh, if you have never heard of your fellow software engineers referring to software programs (or portions thereof) as "code", then I doubt you have ever written code yourself.
Do look at the expert's biography page on the site shilling his book. Plenty of asserted qualifications and certifications, although I don't see any formal degrees listed anywhere. It also asserts that "One final note Jayson was chosen as one of Time's persons of the year for 2006." (hint: so were you). The grammar in the bio is even worse than in the expert brief. Do a search for his name and you'll find precious little at all.
I urge people to actually read it instead of relying on edasofhy's mischaracterization. As for "Time's person of the year for 2006", he says "on a humorous note" and the link actually gave me a chuckle when i went to it, although I think he is mistaken as I am clearly Time's person of the year for 2006. As for his qualifications, I would rather have a Cisco CCIE certified person who has undertaken training setup my network than someone who has a BS in computer science, but you hire whoever you want.
Yes, we all know this is true from a technical perspective. However, the RIAA is not as dumb as to ignore it. From the depositions in the Lindor case (posted earlier by NewYorkCountryLawyer) they are also relying on the fact that Kazaa (and workalikes) apparently include the local IP in the protocol. So if I'm behind my router, and my IP is 192.168.1.1, but my router's IP is 123.45.6.78, then the RIAA will see BOTH addresses and know whether there's some NATting going on with a pretty high degree of certainty. However, if Kazaa reports the local IP as 123.45.6.78 as well, then it's highly unlikely any more than a single computer is behind that IP.
Reading the report, the "expert" here appears to be completely ignorant of this fact.
That's funny, I'm completely ignorant of that fact too... Maybe that's because it isn't mentioned anywhere in the Linares declaration that this one is responding too. Maybe because it's not the
Yes, we all know this is true from a technical perspective. However, the RIAA is not as dumb as to ignore it. From the depositions in the Lindor case (posted earlier by NewYorkCountryLawyer) they are also relying on the fact that Kazaa (and workalikes) apparently include the local IP in the protocol. So if I'm behind my router, and my IP is 192.168.1.1, but my router's IP is 123.45.6.78, then the RIAA will see BOTH addresses and know whether there's some NATting going on with a pretty high degree of certainty. However, if Kazaa reports the local IP as 123.45.6.78 as well, then it's highly unlikely any more than a single computer is behind that IP.
Actually, the RIAA was dumb enough to ignore it in the materials in this case, but even if the RIAA did bury that information somewhere, this expert correctly points out that a primary statement in the Linares declaration is blatantly false. Or as you put it, "Yes, we all know this is true from a technical perspective." The court, which relies on experts such as Mr. Linares, may not think it is so obvious. The best you can say of that statement is that it is deliberately misleading.
Actually your information on the Kazaa network is incorrect as well. It does not have to report the internal IP address at all. I believe very early versions of Kazaa may have done this, but not for quite some time.
Also, some of this is really atrocious. Early in the report it cites an example of someone downloading child pornography sitting in a car by "hacking" a wi-fi network. Only at the end of the report does it admit that the network was unsecured. If you connect to 'linksys' are you "hacking" that network? Would you use that term No. No "hacking" (in any reasonable sense) is going on.
Do you work for the RIAA? Did we even read the same report? Here's what it actually says on page 14:
An example of the dangers of open networks is the case of Walter Nowakoski. Nowakoski connected to unsecured home networks and used the bandwidth via unencrypted wireless networks to download child pornography. This is an example of criminals using networks of others to commit crimes so that the innocent are victims twice -- once for the theft of their own network resource and then when they are wrongly accused for the illegal activity.
Perhaps you are talking about page 7:
b) Exhibit 6 -- Sci-Tech November 23, 2003 article from CTA News Staff reporting a driver of a motor vehicle engaged in internet child pornography utilizing a laptop computer and Wi-Fi (wireless fidelity) card to crack into a computer in a nearby home.
Here is is merely listing the attachments to his declaration. He uses the term "crack" (not "hack"), which is appropriate because it means to defeat the security of a computer system. More importantly, though, is that at this point he is merely summarizing the attachment which does use the word "crack" so it is appropriate. The wi-fi connections (as he did it at multiple locations) may have not been secured by an access code, but it is illegal to do that. Don't you think it's strange that you can be charged with "Breaking and Entering" by opening an unlocked door or window? This is semantics, he was using a wireless network he shouldn't have been using for an illegal purpose that could get the innocent owners charged if the police had relied on the RIAA's expert.
The scan itself is 12-bit, which they say is as good as 14-bit due to some Leica trickery. Since the originals don't have a high contrast, my guess is that they've simply increased the contrast while scanning, making more pixels fall into different slots. ICBW, but if so, it's still 12-bits, just contrast-enhanced.
Actually, they say the original films (at least some types) do have high contrast, so they were able to modify the Leica to scan at 14 bits instead of the standard 12 bits to capture all the detail from the film that they can.
Each metric frame is scanned using a Leica DSW 700 photogrammetric scanner, which obtains a 200 pix/mm (5 micron pixels) spatial resolution and 14-bit A/D (16,384 shades of grey). The DSW 700 was modfied from the original 12-bit A/D to a 14-bit A/D because the Moon is a very contrasty target and the original film is capable of capturing a very wide range of grey scale variation. The combination of small pixels (5 micron) and the 14-bit gray scale results in a very detailed scan and very large raw scan files (1.3 Gbytes).
Slashdot Mirror
They both crap all over you.
Granted, he pays roughly 10 times, if you already have cable and phone through your cable company, and if you don't count the taxes and fees that specifically get added for cable internet. 8mbps cable is $46 / month where I live. What people don't realize is that at 1.544mbps, you actually get the full bandwidth and a stable connection. You have 24 64kbit direct links to your ISP. With cable, everyone's data is transmitted over the cable lines, so you share your bandwidth with everyone on your node. If you happen to be on a node with few subscribers on it, you will get the full 8mbps. More than likely, you will get a MUCH slower connection at least during busy times. Also, a T1 is very reliable, and cable internet is NOT. I tried cable internet twice in two different areas and got rid of it both times due to slow speeds and dropped connections. Eventually it was going out almost every day. I would call tech support and be on the line for 45 minutes while he had me unplug MY COMPUTER. Come on, my computer should have NO EFFECT on whether the little green link light on the cable box is on. You know how many times our T1 has gone down at work over the last three years? ZERO.
I think the most misleading portion though is claiming 1/4 the bandwidth. The upload speed on cable is actually a MAXIMUM of 512kbps, that used to be 128kbps and might vary from area to are and depending on how active your node is. If you have people using P2P on your node, forget about it. A T1's upload speed is actually three times as much at 1.44mbps. Also with a T1 you have lower latency than with a cable box. Both of these items are important for a web programming business, this guy should be happy with the increased value of a T1 over cable internet. Combine that with the improved reliability (also very important if you're running a business), and I would get the T1 over the Cable even if it was available.
We're talking about ethics. An artist's "right" is a government-granted right to encourage the creation of new works that will eventually be in the public domain. That is unlike the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... Read John Locke's second treatise on government, particularly chapter 5 on property. The idea of "intellectual property" doesn't satisfy "The 'labour' of his body and the 'work' of his hands". Also the artist is not removing something from the common state. That is what makes something one's property, taking possession of it. Ideas cannot be property.
You argue that the artist uses labor to design his works and that makes them property. However, nothing is taken from the common state. Also, there is no shortage of copies. Locke argues that people should have the right to do what they wish if it does not harm another. Making a copy of a CD does not harm the artist in the least. The only argument for 'harm' is that the artist doesn't receive compensation, which he is only entitled to because the government has restricted the rights of others. The actual act of copying does no harm. The supposed harm follows from the government's restriction of the rights of the copier. This is completely unlike shoplifting a CD, which directly harms the store by removing property from its possession without compensation.
When copying a CD, the copier is doing the labor himself on an item that he has already purchased and is in his possession. Copies can be made ad infinitum, there is no shortage. The song doesn't degrade or become scarce because the copier made a copy, it actually becomes more bountiful. As Locke says:
Oh I read it, I guess I just didn't think the vague reference to 'complicating the ethical question' was sufficient. You are not 'taking' anything, you are duplicating it. Taking means gaining possession or control. Copyright is basically the original author telling everyone else what they can do with their own physical resources. That is the point I was trying to make. It's the difference between the government-granted monopoly on copying and property rights that have been recognized since the dawn of history.
in your momma!
My friend said it was pretty fun on his XBox. I'd love to try it, but I refuse to install any more games with SecureROM. It's just not worth it. I'd get to play a game, but there's another useless service installed on my computer, I'll have to keep the CD handy whenever I want to play (on my laptop, at home and at the office) and I'd have to uninstall daemon tools from all my computers.
Why? Pirates are going to have the hacked version available on their sites anyway, sometimes before it's even available for purchase. If people want a free version of the game, they'll get it there. Why not just use a CD-KEY that is checked with online play? I think some studio should run a test. Sell a version of a game without copy protection for $10 or $20 more than the one with copy protection. I'd pay more for the game without copy protection... If there's a study that actually shows that copy protection reduces the value of games to consumers, maybe they would wake up.
You are not 'taking' it, you are copying it. If I make a sand castle on a beach and then tell you that you can make your own castle, but you have to pay me a $20 for the right to do that, what will you do?
Excellent point. The current system of perpetual copyrights and DRM isn't working to get money to the people that actually create the music. Sure it works for a very small minority of artists, but not for the majority. The only ones it really works well for are the record companies that have control over the music produced by the artists.
Capitalism is about ownership of resources and production and sale of goods without government interference. By granting a limited monopoly to copyright holders, government-granted copyright monopolies interfere with the free market. Copyright creates an artificial shortage of a song and constrains the production of copies by others. In true capitalism, the government wouldn't stop someone from making copies and selling them for $5. The person that could produce, distribute and market their copies the best for the lowest price would turn out to be the winner.
I totally agree with you here. I think we need some copyright term to enable authors of expressive works to make money from them. The current copyright term however will prevent my grandkids from copying a CD that my classmate made for the duration of their lives. The media itself will have long ceased to exist by then unless extraordinary measures are taken to protect it.
Just because MP3 is acceptable quality at 256kbps doesn't mean iTunes shouldn't win that. AAC is still higher quality at the same bit rate even if most people can't tell the difference.
(WAL-MART) - $0.94 vs $1.29: cheaper is better, but were these songs recorded by children working 16 hours a day in China for slave wages?(WAL-MART) - MP3 vs AAC: MP3 is more portable
(ITUNES) - 256kbp vs. 256kbp: You say that they are the same, but AAC is higher quality at the same bit rate. In any case, this is at best a tie for WAL-MART, so WAL-MART still wouldn't "win" 3/4. I don't know what the parent was talking about...
(ITUNES) - "censored" vs. "non-censored": non-censored is better
I guess I'll setup a vanilla install of Windows 2000 (no service packs) on a computer and use it to store my media files. I think I'll put it outside my firewall in the DMZ so I can have easy access to my music from anywhere on the internet... I would give the administrator account a strong password, but I'd probably just forget it so I think I'll leave it blank instead. Of course I'll have to enable HTTP, FTP and Microsoft file sharing for easy access to my music...
Seriously though, I don't think this is so much to track down who initially shared the files as it would be to catch people who are actively sharing files, including files they didn't buy. Right now if the RIAA scans someone's computer or downloads a file over a P2P network, they don't know where it came from. Let's say Joe downloads a song and Alex copies it. Alex then makes it available on P2P. If the RIAA's investigators download it from Alex and it has Joe's watermark, they know that not only did Alex copy it from someone else, but he is making it available to others. They know there is no way that Alex ripped the song himself or bought it because they know Joe did. If Joe does happen to make it available himself, they have a stronger case if the IP that is sharing it also can be traced back to Joe.
If a user goes through the trouble of re-encoding the work, it may erase the watermark or make it unrecognizable. A "watermark" may work in various ways however. Let's say that 32 parts of a song are used as markers. It could be an extra 1/10th of a second of silence or a note held for an extra 1/10th of a second let's say. A unique 32-bit code could be embedded that would probably survive re-encoding. I seriously doubt this will happen though because it would in essence be altering the song. Re-encoding will affect sound quality however, and be a pain for a normal user to do.
Now if someone got their hands on two identical tracks with watermarks for different people embedded, I don't think it would be very difficult to come up with an algorithm to remove the watermarks or scramble the information.
Now your browser will appear to be IE 7. This will throw off browser counters on the web though so it may artificially inflate IE numbers at the expense of Firefox numbers. You can try an opera user-agent string if you know it. Actually, anything else probably won't be blocked, it probably looks for the Firefox one in particular. Here's one for Safari on a MAC: "Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/85.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) safari/85.5"
They have the right to protect their IP. However, they have the responsibility to make sure they are targeting the right people. They have kept several cases going after getting evidence that they sued the wrong people.
Businesses have a much lighter right to privacy, and it would be difficult to show how submitting a photo to Google (for use as a free service to help people find their business) could cause harm.
Actually your dollar is still worth less than ours...
You don't know much about urban sprawl in America. You can take most of the populations here and triple them. While it says LA has only 3.8 million people, the LA metropolitan area has almost 13 million. That's 3 times as many people, and the per capita income for LA is $35,1881 American dollars while Montreal's is only $28,595 in your funny-money.
It's sad all right. It's sad that many convenient music playing devices still have only 4-8 gig of memory (including the iPhone). It's sad that MP3 CD players still only play seven hours of music at good quality MP3 compression. It's sad that I still need two CDs to store a single audiobook on compressed MP3 (mono 64kbit) to listen to on a road trip. One thing that's not sad is that we still use compression for audio.
What about the 6-year-old boy who was suspended because a teacher witnessed him kissing a classmate on the cheek?
Where their 'charges' are coming from? First off, they aren't being charged anything for the transfers, it's part of their unlimited data package. Second, the only 'detail' was the date and time. That doesn't give a lot of information. Third, would turning off detailed billing mean you no longer received itemizations on actual charges, such as when your niece 'borrowed' your phone for a two hour call to her boyfriend in Spain?
There is no stumbling block here. All the hacker had to do would be to escape their own apostrophe. That's the very vulnerability that makes this work.
'; update speeches set text = 'Don''t try to hack this site, I beat you to it.' where id = 1;'I have to agree that isn't a lot of money for managing a server for a year taking into account all of your considerations. The problem is that you are wrong, the number is actually $62,500. I used calc.exe originally, but Google confirms it. So unless all of your numbers are off by a factor of at least 5, it's still a large amount of money :)
I don't see how not being a native English speaker would affect any of his reasoning, but I thought the declaration as a whole used excellent grammar. You appear to be focusing on this one sentence to call his native language into question for some unknown reason. I didn't notice any other "grammatical atrocities"... I believe the whole problem is simply with the 's'. All software is code. Trojans and Bots are software programs, embodied in code. Back Doors are deliberate holes in security left in place to enable access, actually usually by maintainers or administrators as the term is commonly used. Botnets, trojans (you don't have to use the full term "trojan horse"), and back doors are all examples of software code that can be used to take over the victim's machine without their knowledge or permission. While using all three terms here is a bit confusing, the terms "botnet" and "trojan horse" don't necessitate the inclusion of a "back-door" to be able to perform this packet spoofing, and "back doors" don't necessarily have to be in botnets or trojan horses. This could use some more explaining, but I think if those three terms were just left out that it would have been crystal clear to me. Maybe some proofreading paralegal "corrected" his original pluralizations and he didn't notice before he signed the declaration. All in all, a minor typo and the only one I noticed myself looking through the document. Oh, if you have never heard of your fellow software engineers referring to software programs (or portions thereof) as "code", then I doubt you have ever written code yourself.
I urge people to actually read it instead of relying on edasofhy's mischaracterization. As for "Time's person of the year for 2006", he says "on a humorous note" and the link actually gave me a chuckle when i went to it, although I think he is mistaken as I am clearly Time's person of the year for 2006. As for his qualifications, I would rather have a Cisco CCIE certified person who has undertaken training setup my network than someone who has a BS in computer science, but you hire whoever you want.
That's funny, I'm completely ignorant of that fact too... Maybe that's because it isn't mentioned anywhere in the Linares declaration that this one is responding too. Maybe because it's not the
Actually, the RIAA was dumb enough to ignore it in the materials in this case, but even if the RIAA did bury that information somewhere, this expert correctly points out that a primary statement in the Linares declaration is blatantly false. Or as you put it, "Yes, we all know this is true from a technical perspective." The court, which relies on experts such as Mr. Linares, may not think it is so obvious. The best you can say of that statement is that it is deliberately misleading. Actually your information on the Kazaa network is incorrect as well. It does not have to report the internal IP address at all. I believe very early versions of Kazaa may have done this, but not for quite some time.
Do you work for the RIAA? Did we even read the same report? Here's what it actually says on page 14:
Perhaps you are talking about page 7:
Here is is merely listing the attachments to his declaration. He uses the term "crack" (not "hack"), which is appropriate because it means to defeat the security of a computer system. More importantly, though, is that at this point he is merely summarizing the attachment which does use the word "crack" so it is appropriate. The wi-fi connections (as he did it at multiple locations) may have not been secured by an access code, but it is illegal to do that. Don't you think it's strange that you can be charged with "Breaking and Entering" by opening an unlocked door or window? This is semantics, he was using a wireless network he shouldn't have been using for an illegal purpose that could get the innocent owners charged if the police had relied on the RIAA's expert.
Actually, they say the original films (at least some types) do have high contrast, so they were able to modify the Leica to scan at 14 bits instead of the standard 12 bits to capture all the detail from the film that they can.
My GOD, the moon is inhabited by giant hairstylists!