Apparently you haven't visited the United States of Amerika lately.... It is illegal to give information to someone else knowing that they are going to use the information in committing a crime.
It falls under the "way" big, and "way" vague heading of "conspiracy".
By providing you links to infringing material, they are conspiring with both those that provide the material illegally, AND those that conspire to obtain the material illegally.
"Conspiracy" is the most "bogus", anti-free-speech charge cooked up by the US justice system -- since they can get nearly anyone who aids in any illegal activity.
In essence, you are not allowed to actually "aid" someone in committing a "crime" without also being considered guilty of that crime.
Giving "aid" is a slippery slope -- since giving "information" is one interpretation of giving "aid".
Currently, in the US, if you knowingly sell (or give?) materials (or information?) to someone that you know, who plans to use your product(s) in the commission of a crime, then you can also be charged with "conspiracy" and qualify for the same sentence as if you had committed the crime.
So much for free speech or freedom of expression. That's now "trumped" by "intent of use" of the information.;^/
But this is only in the US....other nations have less supposed protections for freedom of expression than in the US, so they have even more (slippery) ground to base such prosecutions on.
"Any businessman wanting to avoid import duties and taxes of US$ 0.8 million that are 165% the cost of the goods would be nuts to open an office there after this."
There. Corrected that for you.
This sounds like the RIAA talking about how many billions they lose to piracy.
If you had to shell out an extra $1.65 for every dollar of product, you can be sure you wouldn't be buying anywhere near that amount of product -- instead, it would strangle the import goods needed for business. Really sounds more like Brazil is shooting themselves in the foot.
Some people actually trusted Microsoft? When? Where? Who? I thought it was just viewed as a necessary evil if one wanted the convenience of auto-update... Doesn't the click-through license MS provides pretty much grant MS the right to do as they wish? I'm still confused about where trust enters in. Wasn't it Bill Gates who said that "if you run someone else's program on your computer, it's no longer your computer"? By allowing Microsoft to run auto-update services, could MS reason that by running "their program" on your computer, you acknowledge that it's no longer, strictly, your computer?
"Willingly signed up for"? And your alternative choices? Did they offer you to option to only buy the "service" on a per-month fee with you supplying your own phone? If they don't, then they are not providing you the option for a "fair" contract.
Face it. Telco's hold alot of power - in some areas telcos are still monopolies in that there is only 1 carrier option.
What's even more crap -- the last time I had to change in my rate plan, they required a 1 year minimum contract to get an equivalent rate plan -- if I wanted to continue the month-to-month plan I had been on (it had been a contract, contract expired years ago), I would have had to pay about $15 more per month. I did NOT get a new phone, but would, theoretically, have had to pay a $200 early termination fee if I left "early".
The "supposed" benefit I got from them was getting a "reduced" monthly rate -- it wasn't for a phone. As you point out -- the $200 charge isn't to pay for "merchandise" or real "costs". It was just to "lock me in". I went ahead with the deal since I really didn't have a choice -- the other carriers do not have as good coverage in my area.
Seems like in order for a contract to be valid, the terms have to be reasonable and their needs to be an exchange (one-sided contracts can be declared invalid). In my situation, I'd likely have better legal standing since I didn't get a phone. The only thing they allegedly 'gave me' was a 'special', lower rate. But it would be "rather" unconvincing for them to claim that the contract cost them money that they needed to recoup. Their "cost" is giving me a "special" lower rate. It is obvious they can't recoup a monthly "loss" (because of the "lowness" of the monthly rate) by forcing me to go more months than I'd want to.:-)
But even in the case of getting a phone, as you mention, their cost for the phone is significantly lower than the advertised price, there's no reason why the $200 shouldn't be "depreciated" over the life of the contract, but apparently it doesn't? I.e. you can be 75% through the contract, yet still be charged the full $200. That seems completely unreasonable.
So hows the MPG on this car? Will it meet the new CA emissions standards? Can see it now -- rats...my plans for a flying car foiled by California anti-smog rules...
"Science is about repeatable, testable, observable results, not one-off flukes."
Yeah! Show me a repeatable supernova or gamma burst. I want to see it at the same point explode again -- or it not real! The science you talk about seems too full of dogma to be indistinguishable from religion.
I see, mostly, problems with CPU usage as Firefox remains "up" longer. Though very often, the problem I see manifests as an apparent, but false slowdown of most internet sites.
Firefox crashes Microsoft Windows.... the only way to get Windows back to a stable state after killing Firefox is to re-start the computer
I've seen no evidence of this one -- how can one reproduce? I have seen FF get worse and worse -- and restarting FF solves the problem, but haven't seen Windows die -- but then FF is limited to 1 CPU(Core) due to programming limitations (like buffer overruns, non-reentrant code will plague us for the next decade or two).
If you open a lot of windows and tabs in Firefox on a laptop, and put the laptop in and out of standby, you will eventually notice that the laptop fan is running all the time, even when there is no activity. That's the CPU bug, and it can potentially shorten the life of your laptop. The fan is often the laptop component that fails first.
Let me understand. Your laptop's fan turns on and stays on even though there is no CPU (or system?) activity and you believe this is a CPU bug? Why wouldn't this be a fan bug? Or a bug of the ACPI system? More often than not, those bugs are laptop or manufacturer specific.
It seems that most of your quotes supporting your case are quotes of yourself. That's hardly supporting evidence.
Try setting firefox's CPU priority to "idle" (4), and see if that changes anything. Just a guess, but since I don't see FF destablizing other progs, I'm guessing it's because it doesn't affect the other CPU's on my system (its display manager is single threaded and will remain so without a rewrite, I'm told). So maybe if you give your FF lowest priority, other programs (windows, thunderbird) won't be so affected.
It's possible FF is causing bugs in other programs to be displayed "more often", in the way that heavy CPU load can cause more race-conditions in the code to be hit more frequently.
Not an ideal solution, but restart FF "daily" (or whenever you start to notice a significant slowdown"). The "Restart with Tabs extension is great for helping to "save your place".
Perhaps the code would be more "reentrant" if it also released memory more cleanly?
Perhaps switch FF to a language with auto-garbage collection? (Perl anyone?:-))...
You said "The whole point of capitalism is to provide a SERVICE". Good thing no one told the inventor of the "pet rock" that they had to provide a "SERVICE"...unless you want to claim that being provided with a "pet rock" is a service. But if that's the case, why couldn't media giants claim that "inconvenience" is the service they are providing?:^)
Seems like examining data and then deciding to pass it on or not (filtering), would void their "common carrier" status. Or has something changed?
Seems if they technically "can" filter, then that opens the door to "forcing" them to filter -- if for no other reason than to classify the traffic as legal or illegal -- if they can do that, seems like it's a no brainer to see some state telling AT&T to enforce their decency / obscenity standards.
Another area -- if someone speaks/writes/posts/ (whatever) about an illegal act they are participating in and AT&T is "agreeing" to carry their conversation (since, by doing some filtering they are demonstrating that they *can* filter and are aware of traffic content), then doesn't AT&T keeping "quiet" make them liable for "conspiracy" charges?
If not, why not? Under, zero-tolerance drug laws, for example, "smoke shops" or "grow shops" can't sell you "goods" if you tell them, you are using them for illegal purposes. If you mention illegal drugs, and they sell you the "goods" (to consume, distribute, make, etc...), they are guilty of conspiracy to do the crime. I think they altered federal sentencing to make those who are guilty of conspiracy liable for the same prison terms: 5 year minimum for many (most?) crimes.
So if AT&T is monitoring traffic to determine what to block (or not), there's a good argument that they will be "aware" that "illegal conversations" are taking place -- and if they "sell you" the service (carry the call or traffic), then seems like "someone" might be liable for that "illegal" selling of goods to carry out an illegal act.
While there are potential problems, he doesn't say which systems.
The article mentions *nix based systems, but talks about Anti-Vir sw that layers on top of the OS. The layered AV SW, sounds like a windows problem.
While there are race conditions possible with many security solutions due to the fact that they are not bound into the kernel, none of the problems are new with "multi-core" than with other "MP" machines (computers did have multiple "Cores" (CPUs) in the past -- just not on one chip).
The article is very vague about what systems this affects, but if a module is properly implemented using the linux security module framework, it won't be affected by this problem. The only time/place where this affects modules is in close-source environments where they can't both decode *and* use the arguments without re-enabling interrupts within the same process.
"Systrace" (mentioned in base article), has been known to suffer from this problem for years (before Dual Core existed). But I thought it was (from the name) more intended to be a tracing tool/diagnostic for use in "friendly environments".
No one will need to fix anything unless they are required to (by law or by monetary considerations). This isn't a problem the average home user would have to deal with from the internet, *usually*, and even if it happens what you wanna bet that no changes will come down the line until they are required by some "customer". Maybe a government security involved contract would require this, but how many of those require network security in a hostile environment? i.e. usually if security is required, it's not directly on the internet.
Case in point -- last evaluation I heard for Windows only involved it being tested as "secure" in a non-networked configuration. You want security? Don't let strange code, data or people on your computer...but the minimum required, disabling web-scripting, by default, is too much trouble for most people (I still have it turned off, but I'm willing to not have things magically work to be safer).
I don't see how this is 'news'...except for those who weren't awake last time this was discussed.
I'd visit Facecrap's website, but it doesn't like my browser (which is Firefox, FWIW, just the browser field says "lynx, braille edition"** (or similar). Stupid Facecrappers.
**-I don't normally give out my browser type to "strangers", and have a faint glimmer of hope for websites that respect the hint of focusing on *text*, rather than animated graphics (only ever found 1 website that detects 'lynx' and is considerate enough cut the "fluff" and focus on the content, and now, embarrassingly enough, I can't remember which it is...darn "pointer-rot"....
Not one to normally comment on spelling (I am guilty of far too many butcheries), but it's pathetic to see a slashdotter derive the word for "Hidration-based farming" from "Hidrogen". [sic sic sick]:-(
Not exactly. Since the Viacom article was about internet activity "in general" it wasn't about any particular person, but the original poster, responded to "Viacom's using "his video" in a web2.0 junk. By including his _personally_ made video in the category of "junk", the have and "are" sending a message to them. By including and posting their video of his video (and their commentary), on his "junk 2.0 website", he is sending both messages and commentary back to Viacom and those who see his video being used as an example of web junk 2.0. The fact that the messages aren't spelled out in "words" and "letters", doesn't deny that they are expression. His inclusion of their "opinion" on his video, on the very website they used as a source and example, is a type of ironic "recursion". This was a case of "silent commentary" -- no words were needed to send multiple messages to his "readers" (and Viacom)".
Less than 50% (some say as low as 20%) of communication is actually communicated in the words or text. While it's not clear if those estimates apply to typewritten communication -- it is still true that how you say something -- and what you choose to say, (or choose to say "nothing" on) all send meta-messages beyond the exact meanings of the words.
While it might make life much easier if it weren't true, "subtext", or meta-messages still communication much. The message may not feel as precise as words, yet in some instances can be more precise than words.
OTOH -- Viacom employs tons of lawyers who have nothing to do than to harass customers/users/viewers and usually the "individual" could do little more than afford a small amount of time with a lawyer if even that.
What a good lawyer could argue and win is real different than our current reality of "monetary and/or political might makes right".
Legality, fair use, free speech...none of those issues enter in to most situations like this -- its whatever the lawyers can convince an ignorant judge or jury of of being true (regardless of is relation to reality).:-/
when was vacation written? It auto responds basing its content on the received subject line.
The patent is complete crap -- even I wrote an auto-responder script for handing out internal licenses from a pool back in 95 or 96, maybe as late as 97, but that would be pushing it.
One by one Securom has been blocking Sysinternal utilities that allow one to examine the security state and actions taken by Securom. It not only checks for programs currently running, but in some cases checks to see if you have ever run certain system security & status programs since you last booted.
In TombRaider:Anniversary, Securom (as required/included by Eidos), checks to see if you've run ProcExp at anytime since your last reboot.
ProcExp, or ProcessExplorer, is now distributed by microsoft (as in it's on microsoft's servers). They acquired it when they bought up "Sysinternals/Mark Russinovitch run sysinternal's, (now microsoft's) "Process Explorer" (ProcExp) -- a more powerful replacement for the standard MS-TaskMonitor) -- since you last *booted*. It doesn't just check to see if it is running when you start the game -- it checks, apparently, for some driver used/loaded by ProcExp when it first runs.
I presume either Windows drivers aren't unloadable, or ProcExp just doesn't reload it on each invocation, but only loads it on the first run after boot.
Either way...you run ProcExp, you can't run TR:A unless you reboot.
Quaintly enough, once TRA is running -- as long as you don't "quit" out of the game, you can run ProcExp with no problems -- TRA only checks on startup (presumable to hide securom's actions).
Interestingly, in the previous "TR:Legends", securom already prevented some sysinternal utils (at least filemon/regmon that I'm aware of) -- but at least then they didn't require you to reboot your machine if you had used them. That's really a pain for legitimate users. It's definitely a straw on the camel's back. I game to break from work for a while -- if I have to destroy my workspace setup via a required reboot, it makes the game far less valuable. Leaving it up is a partial workaround, but the game doesn't reset the sound after it's been minimized or paused -- so the longer it's up, the more distorted the sound gets....but who wants sound with their game anyway...:-/
Try to go to "sysinternals.com", it forwards you to "http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysinternals/def ault.mspx" "Microsoft TechNet: Windows Sysinternals"
The latest versions of the utils are there, but now that MS owns the programs and employ Mark R., what do you think would happen if MS, due to some security feature or addition, installed something that "hid" itself from the standard UI? Depending on what it was and "why", would they want a "rootkitrevealer" program that advertises the new addition? Perhaps they wouldn't care what users thought (like that's a "stretch") even if users used MS's own utils to detect it...but will MS "always" not care what people think?
Who knows....but might it be under a "federal security letter" ordering them to insert some monitoring software that should remain hidden (and any disclosure of the work, patch, installation or "letting" it be found, might be grounds for criminal penalties)...and even if MS might care, we know the Bush government won't care, will order it secret, and then proceed to "un-recall" any memories associated with how it got there and/or claim executive privilege (your tax dollars at work).
Gives me an idea... If a large enough group of game programmers in the industry all agreed to add something "AO" worthy to their story line, then Sony and Nintendo would lose. If game programmers were organized, or unionized, they might be able to exert a strong enough influence that policies might be changed -- especially if the releases on the PC start increasing the PC-playing audience.
There is an advantage to an "open hardware design"...
I think Speakeasy uses/contracts with Covad -- at least they used to when my DSL was installed. The "Best Buy" deal has me a bit worried as well. They actually had technically competent people to handle problems at Speakeasy that didn't pretend to know it all or talk down to you. I keep fearing that Best-Buy will replace the good support folks with "Porn^wGeek Squad". Ug. Runs about 3-4 times what Comcast does, but I don't have to worry about bandwidth caps (Speakeasy actually encourages people to sell their unused bandwidth to neighbors; they'll optionally handle billing) or selective traffic shaping...at least I didn't before BB took over. Nothing has changed that I know of, but past experience is no predictor of future actions by BB.
Respect? Cherish? Bush reliving childhood....
on
Failing Our Geniuses
·
· Score: 1
> What ever happened to respecting and cherishing differences?... like "This child is bright, this one... not so much"... ----
Since when have the intelligent respected or cherished the "slow" or the "retarded" class?
For that matter -- when have kids respected or cherished "the gifted" or "intelligent" kids? More often than not, they are regarded as being a pain by teachers who have problems challenging them while meeting the needs of the rest of the class.
Basically, it boils down to George W. Bush feeling really bad growing up...he wants to protect others like him...
So an "American company" gives preferential treatment to countries like China and India....for what? So that they can continue importing our IT support and development jobs?
Does anyone think any of the foreign "outsourcing" would have happened if the job-receiving countries hadn't first pirated stuff that we had to pay full price for?
So?????....What? Supposedly American workers can't compete on price...well, perhaps if we adopt the way of the Chinese and stop paying for IP, then American workers won't cost so much since everything will be cheaper.
I think it is outright bull-patties that these foreign companies are given cheap prices that are fractions what we pay -- because they are purportedly a "poorer" society. If all higher "IP" is "proportionally" marked down, that means any of those countries will be able to compete more effectively against US workers because their costs, including both earlier training and current "IP" costs are significantly less than what we in the US pays.
It's like "health care". If drugs and medical devices cost here what they cost oversees, then more people here at home probably wouldn't be finding health care so unaffordable, for example. If we paid the same as customers overseas, how much higher would domestic consumer's standard of living be at any pay point.
It really burns me when I see countries to which US employers are sending jobs (that used to be performed domestically) also get, sometimes, obscene price breaks over what we pay in the US. It really shows what patsies US citizens have become in support overblown capitalism that primarily uses threat of law in our country to extract money from us that is "given" away to other countries in order to make the "base" sale. Drug companies have even admitted that we pay outrageous prices here in the US which *allows* them to charge more reasonable prices overseas. If they don't charge a "reasonable" price -- then sometimes their country will violate the drug patents to treat citizens. Because their government puts people before big businesses, companies have to compete against piracy as a market force. Here in the US, despite the propaganda pushed on us by the RIAA or MPA, piracy is very "low" compared to other countries. Yet it is *here* in the US that they focus their enforcement dollars.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently you haven't visited the United States of Amerika lately.... It is illegal to give information to someone else knowing that they are going to use the information in committing a crime.
;^/
It falls under the "way" big, and "way" vague heading of "conspiracy".
By providing you links to infringing material, they are conspiring with both those that provide the material illegally, AND those that conspire to obtain the material illegally.
"Conspiracy" is the most "bogus", anti-free-speech charge cooked up by the US justice system -- since they can get nearly anyone who aids in any illegal activity.
In essence, you are not allowed to actually "aid" someone in committing a "crime" without also being considered guilty of that crime.
Giving "aid" is a slippery slope -- since giving "information" is one interpretation of giving "aid".
Currently, in the US, if you knowingly sell (or give?) materials (or information?) to someone that you know, who plans to use your product(s) in the commission of a crime, then you can also be charged with "conspiracy" and qualify for the same sentence as if you had committed the crime.
So much for free speech or freedom of expression. That's now "trumped" by "intent of use" of the information.
But this is only in the US....other nations have less supposed protections for freedom of expression than in the US, so they have even more (slippery) ground to base such prosecutions on.
flash is P2P?
"Any businessman wanting to avoid import duties and taxes of US$ 0.8 million that are 165% the cost of the goods would be nuts to open an office there after this."
There. Corrected that for you.
This sounds like the RIAA talking about how many billions they lose to piracy.
If you had to shell out an extra $1.65 for every dollar of product, you can be sure you wouldn't be buying anywhere near that amount of product -- instead, it would strangle the import goods needed for business.
Really sounds more like Brazil is shooting themselves in the foot.
Some people actually trusted Microsoft? When? Where? Who? I thought it was just viewed as a necessary evil if one wanted the convenience of auto-update... Doesn't the click-through license MS provides pretty much grant MS the right to do as they wish? I'm still confused about where trust enters in.
Wasn't it Bill Gates who said that "if you run someone else's program on your computer, it's no longer your computer"? By allowing Microsoft to run auto-update services, could MS reason that by running "their program" on your computer, you acknowledge that it's no longer, strictly, your computer?
"Willingly signed up for"? And your alternative choices? Did they offer you to option to only buy the "service" on a per-month fee with you supplying your own phone? If they don't, then they are not providing you the option for a "fair" contract.
:-)
Face it. Telco's hold alot of power - in some areas telcos are still monopolies in that there is only 1 carrier option.
What's even more crap -- the last time I had to change in my rate plan, they required a 1 year minimum contract to get an equivalent rate plan -- if I wanted to continue the month-to-month plan I had been on (it had been a contract, contract expired years ago), I would have had to pay about $15 more per month. I did NOT get a new phone, but would, theoretically, have had to pay a $200 early termination fee if I left "early".
The "supposed" benefit I got from them was getting a "reduced" monthly rate -- it wasn't for a phone. As you point out -- the $200 charge isn't to pay for "merchandise" or real "costs". It was just to "lock me in". I went ahead with the deal since I really didn't have a choice -- the other carriers do not have as good coverage in my area.
Seems like in order for a contract to be valid, the terms have to be reasonable and their needs to be an exchange (one-sided contracts can be declared invalid). In my situation, I'd likely have better legal standing since I didn't get a phone. The only thing they allegedly 'gave me' was a 'special', lower rate. But it would be "rather" unconvincing for them to claim that the contract cost them money that they needed to recoup. Their "cost" is giving me a "special" lower rate. It is obvious they can't recoup a monthly "loss" (because of the "lowness" of the monthly rate) by forcing me to go more months than I'd want to.
But even in the case of getting a phone, as you mention, their cost for the phone is significantly lower than the advertised price, there's no reason why the $200 shouldn't be "depreciated" over the life of the contract, but apparently it doesn't? I.e. you can be 75% through the contract, yet still be charged the full $200. That seems completely unreasonable.
So hows the MPG on this car? Will it meet the new CA emissions standards? Can see it now -- rats...my plans for a flying car foiled by California anti-smog rules...
"Science is about repeatable, testable, observable results, not one-off flukes."
Yeah! Show me a repeatable supernova or gamma burst. I want to see it at the same point explode again -- or it not real! The science you talk about seems too full of dogma to be indistinguishable from religion.
I see, mostly, problems with CPU usage as Firefox remains "up" longer. Though very often, the problem I see manifests as an apparent, but false slowdown of most internet sites.
Firefox crashes Microsoft Windows. ... the only way to get Windows back to a stable state after killing Firefox is to re-start the computer
I've seen no evidence of this one -- how can one reproduce? I have seen FF get worse and worse -- and restarting FF solves the problem, but haven't seen Windows die -- but then FF is limited to 1 CPU(Core) due to programming limitations (like buffer overruns, non-reentrant code will plague us for the next decade or two).
If you open a lot of windows and tabs in Firefox on a laptop, and put the laptop in and out of standby, you will eventually notice that the laptop fan is running all the time, even when there is no activity. That's the CPU bug, and it can potentially shorten the life of your laptop. The fan is often the laptop component that fails first.
Let me understand. Your laptop's fan turns on and stays on even though there is no CPU (or system?) activity and you believe this is a CPU bug? Why wouldn't this be a fan bug? Or a bug of the ACPI system? More often than not, those bugs are laptop or manufacturer specific.
It seems that most of your quotes supporting your case are quotes of yourself. That's hardly supporting evidence.
Try setting firefox's CPU priority to "idle" (4), and see if that changes anything. Just a guess, but since I don't see FF destablizing other progs, I'm guessing it's because it doesn't affect the other CPU's on my system (its display manager is single threaded and will remain so without a rewrite, I'm told). So maybe if you give your FF lowest priority, other programs (windows, thunderbird) won't be so affected.
It's possible FF is causing bugs in other programs to be displayed "more often", in the way that heavy CPU load can cause more race-conditions in the code to be hit more frequently.
Not an ideal solution, but restart FF "daily" (or whenever you start to notice a significant slowdown"). The "Restart with Tabs extension is great for helping to "save your place".
Perhaps the code would be more "reentrant" if it also released memory more cleanly?
Perhaps switch FF to a language with auto-garbage collection? (Perl anyone? :-))...
You said "The whole point of capitalism is to provide a SERVICE". :^)
Good thing no one told the inventor of the "pet rock" that they had to provide a "SERVICE"...unless you want to claim that being provided with a "pet rock" is a service. But if that's the case, why couldn't media giants claim that "inconvenience" is the service they are providing?
25 cent/gallon gasoline?
How many KWH are in a gallon of gas, anyway?
Are we moving closer to $$/joule pricing (or $$/MJ, dunno scale)?
Seems like examining data and then deciding to pass it on or not (filtering), would void their "common carrier" status. Or has something changed?
Seems if they technically "can" filter, then that opens the door to "forcing" them to filter -- if for no other reason than to classify the traffic as legal or illegal -- if they can do that, seems like it's a no brainer to see some state telling AT&T to enforce their decency / obscenity standards.
Another area -- if someone speaks/writes/posts/ (whatever) about an illegal act they are participating in and AT&T is "agreeing" to carry their conversation (since, by doing some filtering they are demonstrating that they *can* filter and are aware of traffic content), then doesn't AT&T keeping "quiet" make them liable for "conspiracy" charges?
If not, why not? Under, zero-tolerance drug laws, for example, "smoke shops" or "grow shops" can't sell you "goods" if you tell them, you are using them for illegal purposes. If you mention illegal drugs, and they sell you the "goods" (to consume, distribute, make, etc...), they are guilty of conspiracy to do the crime. I think they altered federal sentencing to make those who are guilty of conspiracy liable for the same prison terms: 5 year minimum for many (most?) crimes.
So if AT&T is monitoring traffic to determine what to block (or not), there's a good argument that they will be "aware" that "illegal conversations" are taking place -- and if they "sell you" the service (carry the call or traffic), then seems like "someone" might be liable for that "illegal" selling of goods to carry out an illegal act.
What does anyone else think?
While there are potential problems, he doesn't say which systems.
The article mentions *nix based systems, but talks about Anti-Vir sw that layers on top of the
OS. The layered AV SW, sounds like a windows problem.
While there are race conditions possible with many security solutions due to the fact that they are not bound into the kernel, none of the problems are new with "multi-core" than with other "MP" machines (computers did have multiple "Cores" (CPUs) in the past -- just not on one chip).
The article is very vague about what systems this affects, but if a module is properly implemented using the linux security module framework, it won't be affected by this problem. The only time/place where this affects modules is in close-source environments where they can't both decode *and* use the arguments without re-enabling interrupts within the same process.
"Systrace" (mentioned in base article), has been known to suffer from this problem for years (before
Dual Core existed). But I thought it was (from the name) more intended to be a tracing tool/diagnostic for use in "friendly environments".
No one will need to fix anything unless they are required to (by law or by monetary considerations). This isn't a problem the average home user would have to deal with from the internet, *usually*, and even if it happens what you wanna bet that no changes will come down the line until they are required by some "customer". Maybe a government security involved contract would require this, but how many of those require network security in a hostile environment? i.e. usually if security is required, it's not directly on the internet.
Case in point -- last evaluation I heard for Windows only involved it being tested as "secure" in a non-networked configuration. You want security? Don't let strange code, data or people on your computer...but the minimum required, disabling web-scripting, by default, is too much trouble for most people (I still have it turned off, but I'm willing to not have things magically work to be safer).
I don't see how this is 'news'...except for those who weren't awake last time this was discussed.
Australia has a congress?
I'd visit Facecrap's website, but it doesn't like my browser (which is Firefox, FWIW, just the browser field says "lynx, braille edition"** (or similar). Stupid Facecrappers.
**-I don't normally give out my browser type to "strangers", and have a faint glimmer of hope for websites that respect the hint of focusing on *text*, rather than animated graphics (only ever found 1 website that
detects 'lynx' and is considerate enough cut the "fluff" and focus on the content, and now, embarrassingly enough, I can't remember which it is...darn "pointer-rot"....
Not one to normally comment on spelling (I am guilty of far too many butcheries), but it's pathetic to see a slashdotter derive the word for "Hidration-based farming" from "Hidrogen". [sic sic sick] :-(
Are you familiar with fuzzy logic? :-)
Not exactly. Since the Viacom article was about internet activity "in general" it wasn't about any particular person, but the original poster, responded to "Viacom's using "his video" in a web2.0 junk. By including his _personally_ made video in the category of "junk", the have and "are" sending a message to them. By including and posting their video of his video (and their commentary), on his "junk 2.0 website", he is sending both messages and commentary back to Viacom and those who see his video being used as an example of web junk 2.0. The fact that the messages aren't spelled out in "words" and "letters", doesn't deny that they are expression. His inclusion of their "opinion" on his video, on the very website they used as a source and example, is a type of ironic "recursion". This was a case of "silent commentary" -- no words were needed to send multiple messages to his "readers" (and Viacom)".
:-/
Less than 50% (some say as low as 20%) of communication is actually communicated in the words or text. While it's not clear if those estimates apply to typewritten communication -- it is still true that how you say something -- and what you choose to say, (or choose to say "nothing" on) all send meta-messages beyond the exact meanings of the words.
While it might make life much easier if it weren't true, "subtext", or meta-messages still communication much. The message may not feel as precise as words, yet in some instances can be more precise than words.
OTOH -- Viacom employs tons of lawyers who have nothing to do than to harass customers/users/viewers and usually the "individual" could do little more than afford a small amount of time with a lawyer if even that.
What a good lawyer could argue and win is real different than our current reality of "monetary and/or political might makes right".
Legality, fair use, free speech...none of those issues enter in to most situations like this -- its whatever the lawyers can convince an ignorant judge or jury of of being true (regardless of is relation to reality).
when was vacation written? It auto responds basing its content on the received subject line.
The patent is complete crap -- even I wrote an auto-responder script for handing out internal licenses
from a pool back in 95 or 96, maybe as late as 97, but that would be pushing it.
One by one Securom has been blocking Sysinternal utilities that allow one to examine the security state and actions taken by Securom. It not only checks for programs currently running, but in some cases checks to see if you have ever run certain system security & status programs since you last booted.
In TombRaider:Anniversary, Securom (as required/included by Eidos), checks to see if you've run ProcExp at anytime since your last reboot.
ProcExp, or ProcessExplorer, is now distributed by microsoft (as in it's on microsoft's servers). They acquired it when they bought up "Sysinternals/Mark Russinovitch run sysinternal's, (now microsoft's) "Process Explorer" (ProcExp) -- a more powerful replacement for the standard MS-TaskMonitor) -- since you last *booted*. It doesn't just check to see if it is running when you start the game -- it checks, apparently, for some driver used/loaded by ProcExp when it first runs.
I presume either Windows drivers aren't unloadable, or ProcExp just doesn't reload it on each invocation, but only loads it on the first run after boot.
Either way...you run ProcExp, you can't run TR:A unless you reboot.
Quaintly enough, once TRA is running -- as long as you don't "quit" out of the game, you can run ProcExp with no problems -- TRA only checks on startup (presumable to hide securom's actions).
Interestingly, in the previous "TR:Legends", securom already prevented some sysinternal utils (at least filemon/regmon that I'm aware of) -- but at least then they didn't require you to reboot your machine if you had used them. That's really a pain for legitimate users. It's definitely a straw on the camel's back. I game to break from work for a while -- if I have to destroy my workspace setup via a required reboot, it makes the game far less valuable. Leaving it up is a partial workaround, but the game doesn't reset the sound after it's been minimized or paused -- so the longer it's up, the more distorted the sound gets....but who wants sound with their game anyway...:-/
Try to go to "sysinternals.com", it forwards you to "http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysinternals/def ault.mspx"
"Microsoft TechNet: Windows Sysinternals"
The latest versions of the utils are there, but now that MS owns the programs and employ Mark R., what do you think would happen if MS, due to some security feature or addition, installed something that "hid" itself from the standard UI? Depending on what it was and "why", would they want a "rootkitrevealer" program that advertises the new addition? Perhaps they wouldn't care what users thought (like that's a "stretch") even if
users used MS's own utils to detect it...but will MS "always" not care what people think?
Who knows....but might it be under a "federal security letter" ordering them to insert some monitoring software that should remain hidden (and any disclosure of the work, patch, installation or "letting" it be found, might be grounds for criminal penalties)...and even if MS might care, we know the Bush government won't care, will order it secret, and then proceed to "un-recall" any memories associated with how it got there and/or claim executive privilege (your tax dollars at work).
Gives me an idea... If a large enough group of game programmers in the industry all agreed to add something "AO" worthy to their story line, then Sony and Nintendo would lose. If game programmers were organized, or unionized, they might be able to exert a strong enough influence that policies might be changed -- especially if the releases on the PC start increasing the PC-playing audience.
There is an advantage to an "open hardware design"...
I think Speakeasy uses/contracts with Covad -- at least they used to when my DSL was installed. The "Best Buy" deal has me a bit worried as well. They actually had technically competent people to handle problems at Speakeasy that didn't pretend to know it all or talk down to you. I keep fearing that Best-Buy will replace the good support folks with "Porn^wGeek Squad". Ug. Runs about 3-4 times what Comcast does, but I don't have to worry about bandwidth caps (Speakeasy actually encourages people to sell their unused bandwidth to neighbors; they'll optionally handle billing) or selective traffic shaping...at least I didn't before BB took over. Nothing has changed that I know of, but past experience is no predictor of future actions by BB.
> What ever happened to respecting and cherishing differences? ... like "This child is bright, this one... not so much"...
----
Since when have the intelligent respected or cherished the "slow" or the "retarded" class?
For that matter -- when have kids respected or cherished "the gifted" or "intelligent" kids? More often than not, they are regarded as being a pain by teachers who have problems challenging them while meeting the needs of the rest of the class.
Basically, it boils down to George W. Bush feeling really bad growing up...he wants to protect others like him...
If you mean 1 septillion why say trillion trillion? Can't anyone count these days?
Average income "elsewhere" is expensive...
Yeah? So what?
So an "American company" gives preferential treatment to countries like China and India....for what? So that they can continue importing our IT support and development jobs?
Does anyone think any of the foreign "outsourcing" would have happened if the job-receiving countries hadn't first pirated stuff that we had to pay full price for?
So?????....What? Supposedly American workers can't compete on price...well, perhaps if we adopt the way of the Chinese and stop paying for IP, then American workers won't cost so much since everything will be cheaper.
I think it is outright bull-patties that these foreign companies are given cheap prices that are fractions what we pay -- because they are purportedly a "poorer" society. If all higher "IP" is
"proportionally" marked down, that means any of those countries will be able to compete more effectively against US workers because their costs, including both earlier training and current "IP" costs are significantly less than what we in the US pays.
It's like "health care". If drugs and medical devices cost here what they cost oversees, then more people here at home probably wouldn't be finding health care so unaffordable, for example. If we paid the same as customers overseas, how much higher would domestic consumer's standard of living be at any pay point.
It really burns me when I see countries to which US employers are sending jobs (that used to be performed domestically) also get, sometimes, obscene price breaks over what we pay in the US. It really shows what patsies US citizens have become in support overblown capitalism that primarily uses threat of law in our country to extract money from us that is "given" away to other countries in order to make the "base" sale. Drug companies have even admitted that we pay outrageous prices here in the US which *allows* them to charge more reasonable prices overseas. If they don't charge a "reasonable" price -- then sometimes their country will violate the drug patents to treat citizens. Because their government puts people before big businesses, companies have to compete against piracy as a market force. Here in the US, despite the propaganda pushed on us by the RIAA or MPA, piracy is very "low" compared to other countries. Yet it is *here* in the US that they focus their enforcement dollars.
Something just seems very "wrong" about this...