I was at my local CC store on 12/17 and they had a sign placed on top of the ReplayTV that explained exactly what was going on, and that there may be some contradictory advertisments still in circulation because of the rapidness of the change.
Those who bought from 11/17 to 12/16 appear to be the big winners... it look like their 110% price protection claims are going to be valid.
- Level 1 support of ISO-9660 would kick you back to the days of 8.3 style file names. Level 2 and 3 would get you up to 32 characters, but that still isn't on-par with modern OSes. - You'd need to go to Level 3 in order to fragment files, but then you run into non-support in older OSes. - ISS-9660 has some character limitations in file names, which means a Windows user would be forced to rename certain files when dragging them over from their HD. With FAT32 supported, such glitches are impossible.
Forget about using Joliet... that's belongs to Microsoft too.
This isn't so much as encuraging NTFS but discuraging the drive/card makers from creating "THIN32" or whatever. If they were to be successful in rolling out their own new standard, then MS would be forced to license and implement that.
Not needed... you're confusing that with the requirement that an owner must defend a trademark or lose it. Non-enforcement doesn't invalidate a patent, only prior works can do that.
However, non-enforcing a patent and then allowing it to go into widespread use unchecked is a very slimeball thing to do. If somebody pointed out that FAT32 was owned by Microsoft, and there was no affordable licenses, the makers of FAT32-formatted devices would suddenly stop, turn around, and pick another, presumably less MS-compatible format.
If Microsoft chose to waive-off their patent into the public domain, they could do that. However, then they'd be allowing the open source world to have access to it too, and MS wouldn't want to do that.
By establishing a nominal fee, they prevent open source programs from formatting things to FAT32, but allow the making of FAT32-formatted devices to go on relatively unhindered...
It's also protection from anybody claiming this is a "stealth patent" because they're stepping up nice and early and saying if you want to format things as FAT32, pay up.
You can't truely hide a patent (it's on file at the USPTO) and allowing it to go into widespread use and then setting a high price is perfectly legal, it's just a slimeball tactic, and one that is likely to result in your standard being thrown out the window on contact.
Microsoft is basically insuring that FAT32 becomes the standard for card-based memory by charging a pocket-change fee that clearly every manufacturer can pay. Had the charged too much, or had not set a price and somebody put out a what-if article that said Microsoft could pull a SCO-like lawsuit spree on anybody using their patent, then surely a replacement standard would be developed, and Microsoft would find themselves forced to at least embed new drivers into Windows and maybe even paying royalties.
It's simple, and it already can be read by Windows, Mac and Linux... including old releases of all three. If you're designing a device with not a lot of computing power and you don't feel like writing drivers...
XM's "CNET Channel" is the remains of the former 24/7 CNET Radio operation that existed for a while on KNEW 910 Oakland and for an even shorter time on WBPS 890 Boston. Basically, CNET severly downsized their radio operation down to a couple netstreams a day, and the only show from the channel left standing was Online Tonight which existed long before the CNET Radio format did anyway. Expect Online Tonight to get moved to another XM talk format the next time they do a realignment of XM's channels, but since there's only been one such shift in the service's history it's hard to guess when that'll be.
One other difference is that DirecTV has a few hundred premium and pay per view channels which are of interest to hackers because you can't get those with your regularly-priced subscription alone. XM has only one premium channel, everything else is in their main subscription.
There's hardly anything to gain by hacking XM compared to DirecTV... which is definitely a reason why there's been much fewer attempts.
"Major investor" doesn't always equate to a controling interest, and in XM's case it certainly doesn't. In their press releases, XM says their "strategic investors include America's leading car, radio and satellite TV companies - General Motors, American Honda Motor Co. Inc., Clear Channel Communications and DIRECTV." Far from owning the company, Clear Channel can't even manage to be first on the list...
Also, you have to factor in that a number of XM's channels aren't even programmed by XM, but are programmed by outside content suppliers. XM just passes through what they're given. Sure, Clear Channel controls a few of those such as the Kiss XM channel, but it's hard to ignore such a large part of the radio universe. Clear Channel's syndicated shows appear on XM... but so does the entire Fox News Channel, CNBC's biggest names, ESPN's personalties, and ABC's syndicated talkers. If XM has any sort of political bias, you can't detect it in their programming lineup... they've got people all over the map.
For XM's internal channels, XM has their own staff of program directors. And, those PDs have a rather unusual situation because many of those channels are commercial free, and those that do accept commercials accept less than the typical FM station. This changes their goal... they no longer need to deliver the "advertiser friendly" demographics so much as they just need to keep subscribers getting what they want... they can get away with things not allowed on FM radio in the same way that HBO can put on shows that'd never be accepted by the broadcast networks, they're being paid more for a subscription model than the advertising model.
Clear Channel's ownership in XM is more or less a hedge just in case this satellite radio thing puts a dent in their taking over the world plans. CC hardly has much control over the company...
I've never heard the station myself, but I'm pretty sure "Playboy Radio" is based on the articles. Afterall, there's a limitation in the technology that prevents them from transmitting their pictures...
There's no FCC mandate for censorship, it really depends on which station you're listening to within the services. So one channel might stick to radio edits while another more adult-aimed format will will play the album cuts.
Almost all cell systems operate in that way... with the phone selecting the strongest available tower but also being aware of several other towers. Calculating the propigation delay any set three towers creates a very accurate bullseye... knowing just one tower is enough to limit the possible area down to a couple square miles.
On the other hand, what's wrong with telling employees that the phone reports back to a tracking map? When they're on company time their true location should not be a secret to their boss, so there really isn't too much of a privacy concern... only those who have something to hide should be worried. If they want to go somewhere secret on their off hours, leave the business phone at home...
So long as the high standards to get a warrant still exist, that's not a bad thing for the world to have. It's a whole lot cheaper for the taxpayer to grab somebody's cell phone records compared to the conventional police tail...
As long as spam equates to sales, people who get duped into "updating their account numbers" or people willing to help a deposed Nigirian offical launder money, there will always be spam. It costs so little, it'll just take a few fools make a profit.
He's likely trying to spin some statement that says "If you really are doing opt-in e-mail, we'd never block you," from Brightmail into a promise that they won't blacklist him... doesn't quite work that way in his case.
The biggest problem with the "I didn't opt in!" complaints is that spammers have gotten better and better at submerging the opt-in indication to a yes-defaulted checkbox within all sorts of websites and software. Once you have slipped up and comprimised your e-mail address this way, you've basically given that publisher permission to spam you and share your address with any other spammers they want to "partner" with.
Therefore, anti-spam laws will always have a hole that a truck can be driven through. Since proving that you've never accidently tripped over a "universal opt-in" is nearly impossible to do, successful prosecutions will be tough.
The only way we're ever going to fully kill spam is to abandon SMTP and get a better way to verify that e-mail really came from the claimed sender and leaves a valid return address...
Re:Why convicted felons are interested in Thiefold
on
More E-Voting SNAFUs
·
· Score: 1
There might not be a full blown investigation in the matter, but it's hard to steal any meaningful ammount of money before it'd make their ATMs have a red-flag of a higher error rate than the competitors... might not be worth it to figure out exactly why, but still worth it to buy the competitor's machines...
Re:Why convicted felons are interested in Thiefold
on
More E-Voting SNAFUs
·
· Score: 1
Over-giving ATMs would be discovered in an instant in actual use. A certain model coming up $20 short in cash counts all over the place would be a giveaway clue that something is up.
Votes were never meant to be pure virtual. Use a touchscreen to help a voter make their paper ballots, but always print a paper ballot and drop it into the ballot box. It's okay to have machines count those paper ballots, but what we learned in Florida 2000 is that the paper ballot must be clearly human readable too. That way, manual recounters don't have any ballots where the voter's intent is questionable, and voters can read their ballot on the way to the box, and if it doesn't say what they want it to say they can hand tear it up and try again.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you.
Did anybody get a /. subscription as a gift? Anybody?
I was at my local CC store on 12/17 and they had a sign placed on top of the ReplayTV that explained exactly what was going on, and that there may be some contradictory advertisments still in circulation because of the rapidness of the change.
Those who bought from 11/17 to 12/16 appear to be the big winners... it look like their 110% price protection claims are going to be valid.
Here are a few benefits on face value...
- Level 1 support of ISO-9660 would kick you back to the days of 8.3 style file names. Level 2 and 3 would get you up to 32 characters, but that still isn't on-par with modern OSes.
- You'd need to go to Level 3 in order to fragment files, but then you run into non-support in older OSes.
- ISS-9660 has some character limitations in file names, which means a Windows user would be forced to rename certain files when dragging them over from their HD. With FAT32 supported, such glitches are impossible.
Forget about using Joliet... that's belongs to Microsoft too.
This isn't so much as encuraging NTFS but discuraging the drive/card makers from creating "THIN32" or whatever. If they were to be successful in rolling out their own new standard, then MS would be forced to license and implement that.
Not needed... you're confusing that with the requirement that an owner must defend a trademark or lose it. Non-enforcement doesn't invalidate a patent, only prior works can do that.
However, non-enforcing a patent and then allowing it to go into widespread use unchecked is a very slimeball thing to do. If somebody pointed out that FAT32 was owned by Microsoft, and there was no affordable licenses, the makers of FAT32-formatted devices would suddenly stop, turn around, and pick another, presumably less MS-compatible format.
If Microsoft chose to waive-off their patent into the public domain, they could do that. However, then they'd be allowing the open source world to have access to it too, and MS wouldn't want to do that.
By establishing a nominal fee, they prevent open source programs from formatting things to FAT32, but allow the making of FAT32-formatted devices to go on relatively unhindered...
It's also protection from anybody claiming this is a "stealth patent" because they're stepping up nice and early and saying if you want to format things as FAT32, pay up. You can't truely hide a patent (it's on file at the USPTO) and allowing it to go into widespread use and then setting a high price is perfectly legal, it's just a slimeball tactic, and one that is likely to result in your standard being thrown out the window on contact. Microsoft is basically insuring that FAT32 becomes the standard for card-based memory by charging a pocket-change fee that clearly every manufacturer can pay. Had the charged too much, or had not set a price and somebody put out a what-if article that said Microsoft could pull a SCO-like lawsuit spree on anybody using their patent, then surely a replacement standard would be developed, and Microsoft would find themselves forced to at least embed new drivers into Windows and maybe even paying royalties.
It's simple, and it already can be read by Windows, Mac and Linux... including old releases of all three. If you're designing a device with not a lot of computing power and you don't feel like writing drivers...
Because aquiring music and burning mixes is a lot of work especially if you'd like to hear new artists you've never heard of yet...
XM's "CNET Channel" is the remains of the former 24/7 CNET Radio operation that existed for a while on KNEW 910 Oakland and for an even shorter time on WBPS 890 Boston. Basically, CNET severly downsized their radio operation down to a couple netstreams a day, and the only show from the channel left standing was Online Tonight which existed long before the CNET Radio format did anyway. Expect Online Tonight to get moved to another XM talk format the next time they do a realignment of XM's channels, but since there's only been one such shift in the service's history it's hard to guess when that'll be.
One other difference is that DirecTV has a few hundred premium and pay per view channels which are of interest to hackers because you can't get those with your regularly-priced subscription alone. XM has only one premium channel, everything else is in their main subscription. There's hardly anything to gain by hacking XM compared to DirecTV... which is definitely a reason why there's been much fewer attempts.
"Major investor" doesn't always equate to a controling interest, and in XM's case it certainly doesn't. In their press releases, XM says their "strategic investors include America's leading car, radio and satellite TV companies - General Motors, American Honda Motor Co. Inc., Clear Channel Communications and DIRECTV." Far from owning the company, Clear Channel can't even manage to be first on the list...
Also, you have to factor in that a number of XM's channels aren't even programmed by XM, but are programmed by outside content suppliers. XM just passes through what they're given. Sure, Clear Channel controls a few of those such as the Kiss XM channel, but it's hard to ignore such a large part of the radio universe. Clear Channel's syndicated shows appear on XM... but so does the entire Fox News Channel, CNBC's biggest names, ESPN's personalties, and ABC's syndicated talkers. If XM has any sort of political bias, you can't detect it in their programming lineup... they've got people all over the map.
For XM's internal channels, XM has their own staff of program directors. And, those PDs have a rather unusual situation because many of those channels are commercial free, and those that do accept commercials accept less than the typical FM station. This changes their goal... they no longer need to deliver the "advertiser friendly" demographics so much as they just need to keep subscribers getting what they want... they can get away with things not allowed on FM radio in the same way that HBO can put on shows that'd never be accepted by the broadcast networks, they're being paid more for a subscription model than the advertising model.
Clear Channel's ownership in XM is more or less a hedge just in case this satellite radio thing puts a dent in their taking over the world plans. CC hardly has much control over the company...
I've never heard the station myself, but I'm pretty sure "Playboy Radio" is based on the articles. Afterall, there's a limitation in the technology that prevents them from transmitting their pictures...
There's no FCC mandate for censorship, it really depends on which station you're listening to within the services. So one channel might stick to radio edits while another more adult-aimed format will will play the album cuts.
Almost all cell systems operate in that way... with the phone selecting the strongest available tower but also being aware of several other towers. Calculating the propigation delay any set three towers creates a very accurate bullseye... knowing just one tower is enough to limit the possible area down to a couple square miles.
On the other hand, what's wrong with telling employees that the phone reports back to a tracking map? When they're on company time their true location should not be a secret to their boss, so there really isn't too much of a privacy concern... only those who have something to hide should be worried. If they want to go somewhere secret on their off hours, leave the business phone at home...
The problem situation comes in the case of kids or employees who aren't given the option of turning off the locator feature.
So long as the high standards to get a warrant still exist, that's not a bad thing for the world to have. It's a whole lot cheaper for the taxpayer to grab somebody's cell phone records compared to the conventional police tail...
As long as spam equates to sales, people who get duped into "updating their account numbers" or people willing to help a deposed Nigirian offical launder money, there will always be spam. It costs so little, it'll just take a few fools make a profit.
He's likely trying to spin some statement that says "If you really are doing opt-in e-mail, we'd never block you," from Brightmail into a promise that they won't blacklist him... doesn't quite work that way in his case.
The biggest problem with the "I didn't opt in!" complaints is that spammers have gotten better and better at submerging the opt-in indication to a yes-defaulted checkbox within all sorts of websites and software. Once you have slipped up and comprimised your e-mail address this way, you've basically given that publisher permission to spam you and share your address with any other spammers they want to "partner" with.
Therefore, anti-spam laws will always have a hole that a truck can be driven through. Since proving that you've never accidently tripped over a "universal opt-in" is nearly impossible to do, successful prosecutions will be tough.
The only way we're ever going to fully kill spam is to abandon SMTP and get a better way to verify that e-mail really came from the claimed sender and leaves a valid return address...
There might not be a full blown investigation in the matter, but it's hard to steal any meaningful ammount of money before it'd make their ATMs have a red-flag of a higher error rate than the competitors... might not be worth it to figure out exactly why, but still worth it to buy the competitor's machines...
Over-giving ATMs would be discovered in an instant in actual use. A certain model coming up $20 short in cash counts all over the place would be a giveaway clue that something is up.
Votes were never meant to be pure virtual. Use a touchscreen to help a voter make their paper ballots, but always print a paper ballot and drop it into the ballot box. It's okay to have machines count those paper ballots, but what we learned in Florida 2000 is that the paper ballot must be clearly human readable too. That way, manual recounters don't have any ballots where the voter's intent is questionable, and voters can read their ballot on the way to the box, and if it doesn't say what they want it to say they can hand tear it up and try again.
Update that... MA is 16 1/2 for a license if and only if you've completed a registered driver's ed course, otherwise you have to wait for 17.