Quote:
One thing to keep in mind when making your purchase to to look for the V1200 Plus, not the V1200. This update was made recently without much publicity so the distinction between the two models is not widely known. This difference is often not made overly clear by retailers so just keep an eye out when you are choosing your product.
Notice they don't even explain the difference. How helpfull of them...
I think the security researchers look at a vulnurability and would say that it needs to be patched, a minimal change of the form 'if exploits then avoid error', a relatively easy change. Their priority is to keep the application from being vulnerable to a flaw without breaking the app.
A software engineer working to maintain the codebase at a company however will say that a whole new layer of protections need to be added to the application to safeguard against this kind of attack, requiring a significant effort to refactor code and maintain the maintainability of the software.
Thus the security researcher expeects a quick fix while the company sees a maitainence nightmare in the making. It is not surprising the two groups disagree on how to handle these vulnurabilities.
This is essentially distributing the usefullness of one UPS over a number of devices using the ethernet. Why not just put an UPS on the household power supply if you care so much about this?
I think the primary feature of this is only one wire going into the phone. That beats my current cordless phones and is the same as the new fangled wi-fi cordless phones (only that one wire is power.)
Come to think of it I like the new fangled wi-fi cordless phone solution better, just migrate the base station from POTS to VoIP and put an UPS in it and we have a VoIP hotspot all over your house.
Not only could you not kill your father, you could not change any event to which you or anyone else had observed and recorded. Essentially this is the 12 Monkeys interpretation of time travel, you are only to observe.
Aren't Internet Service Providers better able to provide 911 services to their customers than VoIP providers? The whole concept of an overlay destroys the fundamental assumptions of 911 on the POTS.
I say the government should require that residential ISPs provide 911 service to their customers. Since my ISP is Verizon (DSL) I'm already covered.:)
Non-telephone residential ISPs could simply contract out the services to the local telephone monopoly (the government could even set rates!)
I don't really LIKE this idea but I like it a LOT MORE than the current disaster.
While both companies are adding very similar features to their next generation OSs I think it is plainly clear that both companies are independently gauging where the market is headed and incorporating these ideas in their products. This is the simple truth, we can dramatize it with claims of copying and 'we were here first' but the reality is that they are just competing to fill a need in their markets. I don't like MS any more than anyone else (typing on a powerbook) but I don't fault them for being able to see, just as well as Apple the importance of Search and integrating GPU advances etc.
Microsoft just takes longer to get the product out the door, they have to support heterogeneous machines and work with their bloated, bug-ridden codebase, it takes them a little longer than Apple who starts with OSS and then does whatever they can to slap the patented Mac GUI on it so that it looks & acts like the macos of old.
It has already been 'established' that the DMCA can be applied to prevent you from decrypting PUBLIC DOMAIN data, so why not data you hold a copyright on? Neither Adobe or Nikon are clean but the real evil is the government not the corporations.
It is perfectly natural for companies to support laws like the DMCA, which they feel will improve their profits. It is not acceptable however for the shareholders of that corporation (citizens of this country) or the elected leaders of this country to go along. I don't blame the companies for trying, I blame the citizenry and elected representatives for the companies succeeding.
A few more years and then we will face real challenges. We haven't gotten where we need to go (read: Turing Test capable hardware) yet, we need another 40 years!
There is a difference between taking dangerous and irrational steps to stop piracy and taking prudent measures to punish piracy when it is discovered.
I agree that we have to protect these 8 rights you speak of, in order to do so we have to punish people who abuse those rights to get stuff for free. Thus, I say good one more pirate captured.
I agree 100% that we need to be wary of our rights erroding, but what does someone getting arrested for violating copyright in order to distribute movies, facilitatiting copyright infringement really have to do with laws like the DMCA or anti-P2P laws (or the Sonny Bono copyright act) that do threaten our rights?
It is your right to make an oo # of copies... Now distributing them to others without a valid liscense to the content is NOT your right, under the terms of the liscense you obtained (suposing you did so) from the copyright holder (granted by 'SOCIETY' in order to promote invention), unless of course you had the right to redistribute in which case it is your right.
Both sites you downloaded each 'half' from are responsible (as are you) and the site where you learned about the correlation of these two pieces of information. This isn't a gray area at all. Theoretically you could be holding onto random data that you don't know is copyrighted but where did you get that data? Why are you holding and distributing it and what do people search for when they are lead to that data?
Your example is just an example of an inefficient bit representation of the data, not some sneaky 'perfect encryption' as you suggest (of course it COULD be but it isn't).
This is the way it will continue to be, they can't stop us so they will be forced to prosecute us...
FACT: At some point in any file distribution protocol on the Internet a 'client' has been directed to a 'server' (peers, whatever) for a piece of information. The 'client' asks for this info and the 'server' provides it.
If the info being transfered is copyrighted then it is not legal for the 'client' to ask for and accept this info nor it is it legal for the 'server' to respond to these requests. If both the 'client' and 'server' are coroporating then this transfer will happen just fine.
If however either the 'client' or the 'server' are undercover 'good guys' then they can easilly rat out the other party; who, in the Internet, can eventually be tracked down and served with a lawsuit.
If you are running software that either requests (a 'client') or distributes (a 'server') information subject to copyrights then the copyright holder or an agent acting on their behalf can bust you, provided that the magic peer-to-peer search leads them to you (or your search leads you to them).
The only legal questions are whether this constitutes entrapment. If it does the pirates win and copyright law is broken. If it doesn't then the RIAA/MPAA/whoever wins and copyright law is safe.
All the fancy peer-to-peer protocol magic in the world can't change these basic facts. You don't anonymously receive and send packets on the Internet, you have a designated IP address and that can be followed to you.
On the other hand a different argument based on 'first principles' makes 'Digital copyright management' schemes such as CSS, HDCP, and Windows media also can't work.
The end result is that reality is set up to make copyright infringement impossible to stop and also impossible to hide (unless you absolutely trust who you are sharing information with, an unreasonable assumption).
This is just like the rest of life, breaking the law (murder, terrorism, etc) is VERY easy but getting away with it is VERY hard thus we make the punishment too great to worth the risk. Of course terrorism fails to respond to this formula and thus results in an up-hill battle that no one likes (lack of freedoms, privacy and security), one that eventually is destined to fail terribly.
P2P won't make illegal sharing 'safe' only 'easy'
on
Today in P2P
·
· Score: 1
FACT: At some point in any file distribution protocol on the Internet a 'client' has been directed to a 'server' (peers, whatever) for a piece of information. The 'client' asks for this info and the 'server' provides it.
If the info being transfered is copyrighted then it is not legal for the 'client' to ask for and accept this info nor it is it legal for the 'server' to respond to these requests. If both the 'client' and 'server' are coroporating then this transfer will happen just fine.
If however either the 'client' or the 'server' are undercover 'good guys' then they can easilly rat out the other party; who, in the Internet, can eventually be tracked down and served with a lawsuit.
If you are running software that either requests (a 'client') or distributes (a 'server') information subject to copyrights then the copyright holder or an agent acting on their behalf can bust you, provided that the magic peer-to-peer search leads them to you (or your search leads you to them).
The only legal questions are whether this constitutes entrapment. If it does the pirates win and copyright law is broken. If it doesn't then the RIAA/MPAA/whoever wins and copyright law is safe.
All the fancy peer-to-peer protocol magic in the world can't change these basic facts. You don't anonymously receive and send packets on the Internet, you have a designated IP address and that can be followed to you.
On the other hand a different argument based on 'first principles' makes 'Digital copyright management' schemes such as CSS, HDCP, and Windows media also can't work.
The end result is that reality is set up to make copyright infringement impossible to stop and also impossible to hide (unless you absolutely trust who you are sharing information with, an unreasonable assumption).
This is just like the rest of life, breaking the law (murder, terrorism, etc) is VERY easy but getting away with it is VERY hard thus we make the punishment too great to worth the risk. Of course terrorism fails to respond to this formula and thus results in an up-hill battle that no one likes (lack of freedoms, privacy and security), one that eventually is destined to fail terribly.
"The Viola browser is not the same as the 906 invention," said Trey Davis, UC's director of special projects and new media. "Neither browser was in the public domain, so neither can invalidate the 906 invention."
Wait a darn minute...
According to Wikpedia...
Prior art is all information that has been disclosed to the public in any form before a given date.
So where does Trey Davis get off talking about public domain (a MUCH stronger burdern than necessary)???
Oops I am an employee of the University of California, I retract this post =)
The functionality of a PDA will remain and will grow in popularity but it will be merged with other devices. Convergence is a good thing, PDAs, phones, mp3 players, basically all personal electronics devices will converge.
Slashdot Mirror
Notice they don't even explain the difference. How helpfull of them...
A software engineer working to maintain the codebase at a company however will say that a whole new layer of protections need to be added to the application to safeguard against this kind of attack, requiring a significant effort to refactor code and maintain the maintainability of the software.
Thus the security researcher expeects a quick fix while the company sees a maitainence nightmare in the making. It is not surprising the two groups disagree on how to handle these vulnurabilities.
This is essentially distributing the usefullness of one UPS over a number of devices using the ethernet. Why not just put an UPS on the household power supply if you care so much about this? I think the primary feature of this is only one wire going into the phone. That beats my current cordless phones and is the same as the new fangled wi-fi cordless phones (only that one wire is power.) Come to think of it I like the new fangled wi-fi cordless phone solution better, just migrate the base station from POTS to VoIP and put an UPS in it and we have a VoIP hotspot all over your house.
This will require UPS to be built into the Ethernet switch / router right? Or is it voodoo magic? :)
Why aren't these all over P2P then? Oh no one wants them?
If you don't need the 'protection' of the GPL then do it RIGHT. Free (as in speach) Software belongs only ONE place, the PUBLIC DOMAIN!
I still believe in the Church-Turing Thesis... Our brains might not work LIKE computers but they don't do work DIFFERENTLY than them either.
But maybe you were always there, you could have been there but you most certainly didn't kill your father.
Not only could you not kill your father, you could not change any event to which you or anyone else had observed and recorded. Essentially this is the 12 Monkeys interpretation of time travel, you are only to observe.
Aren't Internet Service Providers better able to provide 911 services to their customers than VoIP providers? The whole concept of an overlay destroys the fundamental assumptions of 911 on the POTS. I say the government should require that residential ISPs provide 911 service to their customers. Since my ISP is Verizon (DSL) I'm already covered. :)
Non-telephone residential ISPs could simply contract out the services to the local telephone monopoly (the government could even set rates!)
I don't really LIKE this idea but I like it a LOT MORE than the current disaster.
Microsoft just takes longer to get the product out the door, they have to support heterogeneous machines and work with their bloated, bug-ridden codebase, it takes them a little longer than Apple who starts with OSS and then does whatever they can to slap the patented Mac GUI on it so that it looks & acts like the macos of old.
It is perfectly natural for companies to support laws like the DMCA, which they feel will improve their profits. It is not acceptable however for the shareholders of that corporation (citizens of this country) or the elected leaders of this country to go along. I don't blame the companies for trying, I blame the citizenry and elected representatives for the companies succeeding.
Oh well, it was too good to be true.
Don't forget Streaming apps that are relatively latency tolerant but can't handle jitter (variance in the data rate) very well.
movie: ZIP
Brings up showtimes at local theaters... Goodbye moviefone hello google
Just design your next P2P app to include a message dialog that would constitute entrapment as you say...
C: "I am interested in Daredevil"
S: "I have Daredevil and will let you watch it, would you like to illegally download Daredevil?"
C: "Yes, that is a good Idea I had not thought of, will you send me Daredevil?"
S: "Here you go!"
That is GREAT!, now is this protocol safe from this type of sting?
There is a difference between taking dangerous and irrational steps to stop piracy and taking prudent measures to punish piracy when it is discovered. I agree that we have to protect these 8 rights you speak of, in order to do so we have to punish people who abuse those rights to get stuff for free. Thus, I say good one more pirate captured.
I agree 100% that we need to be wary of our rights erroding, but what does someone getting arrested for violating copyright in order to distribute movies, facilitatiting copyright infringement really have to do with laws like the DMCA or anti-P2P laws (or the Sonny Bono copyright act) that do threaten our rights?
What part of this is difficult to understand?
Yes you are right, please mentally substitute all those words I used for words representing the thoughts you know I meant to mean. Thanks :)
Your example is just an example of an inefficient bit representation of the data, not some sneaky 'perfect encryption' as you suggest (of course it COULD be but it isn't).
FACT: At some point in any file distribution protocol on the Internet a 'client' has been directed to a 'server' (peers, whatever) for a piece of information. The 'client' asks for this info and the 'server' provides it.
If the info being transfered is copyrighted then it is not legal for the 'client' to ask for and accept this info nor it is it legal for the 'server' to respond to these requests. If both the 'client' and 'server' are coroporating then this transfer will happen just fine.
If however either the 'client' or the 'server' are undercover 'good guys' then they can easilly rat out the other party; who, in the Internet, can eventually be tracked down and served with a lawsuit.
If you are running software that either requests (a 'client') or distributes (a 'server') information subject to copyrights then the copyright holder or an agent acting on their behalf can bust you, provided that the magic peer-to-peer search leads them to you (or your search leads you to them).
The only legal questions are whether this constitutes entrapment. If it does the pirates win and copyright law is broken. If it doesn't then the RIAA/MPAA/whoever wins and copyright law is safe.
All the fancy peer-to-peer protocol magic in the world can't change these basic facts. You don't anonymously receive and send packets on the Internet, you have a designated IP address and that can be followed to you.
On the other hand a different argument based on 'first principles' makes 'Digital copyright management' schemes such as CSS, HDCP, and Windows media also can't work.
The end result is that reality is set up to make copyright infringement impossible to stop and also impossible to hide (unless you absolutely trust who you are sharing information with, an unreasonable assumption).
This is just like the rest of life, breaking the law (murder, terrorism, etc) is VERY easy but getting away with it is VERY hard thus we make the punishment too great to worth the risk. Of course terrorism fails to respond to this formula and thus results in an up-hill battle that no one likes (lack of freedoms, privacy and security), one that eventually is destined to fail terribly.
If the info being transfered is copyrighted then it is not legal for the 'client' to ask for and accept this info nor it is it legal for the 'server' to respond to these requests. If both the 'client' and 'server' are coroporating then this transfer will happen just fine.
If however either the 'client' or the 'server' are undercover 'good guys' then they can easilly rat out the other party; who, in the Internet, can eventually be tracked down and served with a lawsuit.
If you are running software that either requests (a 'client') or distributes (a 'server') information subject to copyrights then the copyright holder or an agent acting on their behalf can bust you, provided that the magic peer-to-peer search leads them to you (or your search leads you to them).
The only legal questions are whether this constitutes entrapment. If it does the pirates win and copyright law is broken. If it doesn't then the RIAA/MPAA/whoever wins and copyright law is safe.
All the fancy peer-to-peer protocol magic in the world can't change these basic facts. You don't anonymously receive and send packets on the Internet, you have a designated IP address and that can be followed to you.
On the other hand a different argument based on 'first principles' makes 'Digital copyright management' schemes such as CSS, HDCP, and Windows media also can't work.
The end result is that reality is set up to make copyright infringement impossible to stop and also impossible to hide (unless you absolutely trust who you are sharing information with, an unreasonable assumption).
This is just like the rest of life, breaking the law (murder, terrorism, etc) is VERY easy but getting away with it is VERY hard thus we make the punishment too great to worth the risk. Of course terrorism fails to respond to this formula and thus results in an up-hill battle that no one likes (lack of freedoms, privacy and security), one that eventually is destined to fail terribly.
According to Wikpedia...
So where does Trey Davis get off talking about public domain (a MUCH stronger burdern than necessary)???Oops I am an employee of the University of California, I retract this post =)
Its called a Universal Turing Machine...