Furthermore, the movie effectively is a 2-hour attack ad against the reelection of President Bush. It barely escapes being defined as one for the purposes of campaign funding laws because it doesn't directly ask or tell the viewer not to vote for Bush, it merely gives a lot of reasons not to.
I'm kind of surprised we haven't seen democratic-leaning groups sponsoring ticket giveaways in swing states...
It's not quite his film to give away. He sold it to a distributor, so Lions Gate owns the copyright rather than him, and Lions Gate intends on selling the DVD rights to Buena Vista Home Entertainment. (which is a part of Disney)
So, those interests most likely don't want to see their businesses undermined by downloading. It's amazing that Lions Gate's current stand is a "no comment" because they don't want to get into a public fight with their star director.
Well, that's why Lindows exists. You pay them and they'll worry about the complex comands and give you their "Click and Run" interface. Completely overpriced if you can do it yourself, but a pretty good deal if you don't have the time to figure all this stuff out.
Yeah... this is really just pointing out a key difference between the commerical software business model and the open source business model and nothing more. Microsoft's limited in what they can bundle because of Windows has a closed-source nature, while Linux is harder to make a profit from because Linus doesn't get paid for every copy...
The key thing about Linux distributions is that there's more than one, and in fact if you're not happy with the Linux kernel you can go with BSD...
In Windows-land, Microsoft makes the kernel, Microsoft makes the one and only window-manager, Microsoft selects which apps come in the one and only distro, and nearly all of them are Microsoft-made apps anyway.
That's the difference. A Linux distro is the blending of the Linux kernel with a set of tools that use the kernel. And from the most basic use of a kernel, the shell, there's already several to choose from. There's several window-managers.
It's okay to bundle when you're in a COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT... that's the one thing Microsoft seems to be forgetting.
However, pay-per-channel would case some of the crammed-on spinoff networks such as NickToons, Cartoon Network's Boomerang, and ESPNews to falter. There just wouldn't be enough demand for those to continue.
Sure, some new niche networks would form based on demand, but others that nobody asked for would be checking out.
What that effectively would be is 500 real-time streams with a TiVo or other DVR cherry picking the programs you want to see out of them.
There are some programs such as newscasts, sports events, and awards shows that seem pointless to watch if you're not watching them live. Also, in order to get the "watercooler effect", shows are always going to need "release times", such as becoming first available Thrusdays at 8pm ET and that will tend to resemble a present primetime lineup.
Daytime reruns of cable shows will never go away... those will function as re-feeds in case your DVR is busy, or somebody talks about a show you didn't capture on the first feed.
I don't think on-demand TV is going to scale out very well. There's already cases where people want to use an on-demand system but can't because the system is simply out of bandwidth to give them a stream of anything. That's just not going to work if that's the only way we get our TV.
TechTV's business format all-day TechLive show basically documented the failure of the.com economy as it happened in real time from April 2001 to November 2001, complete with the climax episode on 9-11-2001. On the finalie day you could see people cleaning out their desks in the background as they were being laid off, and the show abruptly ended halfway through the day going to a rerun of the previous day's TSS.
And in short, that's part of the reason we have less TV channels today. Several marginal channels that existed at the height of the market like CNNsi and All News Channel simply folded amid the decline in advertising spending and left no replacements. Several other networks have made dramatic format shifts, such as the TNN to SpikeTV conversion. You can score G4 + TechTV as being one channel going under and using the other for spare parts... it appears that most of G4TechTV's programming day is based on G4's archive and new episodes from mostly TechTV's standing productions.
If your competitor didn't innovate but instead stole your innovation while you still have patent protection, you have to litigate. Otherwise, your competitor makes profits that rightfully belong to you.
But in this case, this is being done to protect a US-based company from being driven out of the business by a competitor that's making the same product without having to pay any of the R&D costs behind it.
Patents exist so whomever bears the R&D cost has some decent chance of profiting before everybody else rushes in and drives down the price. If you allow the patent system to fall, R&D dies with it.
For anybody thinking "zinc whiskers in an operating room, isn't that bad for the patients?"... remember, zinc is found in vitamin tablets. It's actually good for the human body.
This is really just a subset of a larger problem... dust.
Any particle that's floating in the air that isn't a gas simply doesn't belong in a computer room. However, any time you've got humans in the room dust is sure to form. Dust can cause a computer to overheat, and these guys are just pointing out that if you ever get small charged particles flying in your room you've got real problems.
Computers most certainly can be run in a dirty room without immediate failures... but the dirtier a room happens, the more likely a phantom failure that is scientifically valid by some far-out reason like this but seems like a ghost in the machine crops in. We've just accepted unexplainable computer crashes on Windows machines... but this one's an OS-independent way to have problems.
I think just setting up The Ionic Breeze from The Sharper Image would be the killer app solution to this problem. Having positively charged metal in the room would be a magnet-like draw for this stuff that'd prevent it from being drawn to the computer equipment by airflows created from cooling fans.
A HEPA-quality air filter is also suggested... on the same concept. It'd be a fan-based air draw that'd trap any of these things coming through and therefore reduce the chances that any given particle lands inside the computers.
Which effectively means that it's a component of dust... so if you have dust buildup in your room, you're likely to find this among other problems forming.
Having the lead in market share doesn't affect the number and severity of security flaws in the program.
It affects the impact of an exploit should one be released, but you can't release a damaging exploit until a flaw is descovered that allows the exploit to work. The stakes are raised, but the game is still the same.
A secure-at-the-start program leads to no exploits possible and cuts the problem off at the head. Sure, there's going to be more people looking for the flaw, but if there's no flaw to find they won't get anywhere.
"Microsoft certainly respects the work CERT does to help protect the Internet and users. Regarding the consideration that users switch browsers, it is unfortunate that the published articles have misrepresented CERT's suggestions, and we are working with CERT to clarify their advice," Schare said.
Let's see what we have here. - First sentance tells us that Microsoft isn't going to try to attack the credibility of CERT because that'd be unlikely to get anywhere. - Second sentance is trying to blame "the media" for misreporting the story, but the media's working from a primary source that has a section heading called "Use a different web browser". I don't know how you're "misrepresenting" that when you take that as a suggesting to download any browser that isn't Internet Explorer which means Mozzila, Opera, Netscape or any other compeitor out there. They want CERT to take back the recomendation to just stop using IE... that's the only kind of "clarification" that's possible here.
Microsoft clearly wants a CERT retraction. But do they stand any chance at getting one?
Notice that it's the Department of Homeland Security seal at the top of the document. For our purposes, CERT is a subset of DoHS... it's just that the media is now picking up on the more known name of the larger organization to bring the story to the masses.
However, in CowboyNeal's defense, both articles cited here were published after that story on Sunday, and we now have the news of Microsoft's rather weak reaction claiming that CERT didn't mean what we all saw them say and Mozilla's reaction that downloads are up since the first reports. Still, that's a Slashback, not a new story.
The classic "You've won, come pick up your prize at..." scheme is a great way for police to get a ton of people who are wanted for various reasons to all show up in one place where they can seal the exits and arrest them all at once.
However, that kind of thing only appeals to the deadbeat dad type who doesn't have tons of money and decided that they could just skip paying child support to make ends meet... if the person is so rich to not need or want an extra TV, the bait just won't be appealing. Spammers are that well off...
Unfortunately, that's closing the barn door after the horse has already gotten out. Nearly all web server operators pull spammer sites offline as soon as they realize what has hit them to cut off the money chain before the transaction even happens. However, that's too late, the e-mail has already been sent.
Spamming's so profitable when it works that they can put up with an insanely low response rate... unless you can put up a perfect blockade to catch all money headed their way, you're never gonna get it all.
Unfortunately, there's no such thing as a world judical system. We have extradition and cooperation with the places that want the same from us... but there are also places where they just don't care about us.
The world is not united in supporting us in everything we do, and when we falsely assume that we get ourselves into a deeper problem.
Spammers aren't exactly the kind of people who are scared of breaking the law anyway. A good chunk of the time, even if sending the spam was legal, the message it contains doesn't exactly pass the smell test anyway. Phishing scams, offers to buy perscription pills without having to see your doctor, or the basic fraud of selling a product and then not sending it are some of their favorites.
We know who is spamming us. Afterall, the spam message needs some sort of e-mail address or web address so that the fools can respond, so you just have to follow the money trail to get back to the spammer.
The problem is that the worst these people are setting themselves up outside of US jurisdiction, so that FTC and company just can't get to them. Any spammer who doesn't is excessively stupid. There's nothing that the US courts can take from them... and I just don't think offering 20% of $0 is going to do much anyway.
Bottom line is that this plan doesn't connect. As much as spam annoys us, the US Government just can't do anything about it because it's a worldwide problem. On the Internet, if one jurisdiction doesn't like what you're doing, you just need to find another who will accept you.
Slashdot Mirror
Furthermore, the movie effectively is a 2-hour attack ad against the reelection of President Bush. It barely escapes being defined as one for the purposes of campaign funding laws because it doesn't directly ask or tell the viewer not to vote for Bush, it merely gives a lot of reasons not to.
I'm kind of surprised we haven't seen democratic-leaning groups sponsoring ticket giveaways in swing states...
It's not quite his film to give away. He sold it to a distributor, so Lions Gate owns the copyright rather than him, and Lions Gate intends on selling the DVD rights to Buena Vista Home Entertainment. (which is a part of Disney)
So, those interests most likely don't want to see their businesses undermined by downloading. It's amazing that Lions Gate's current stand is a "no comment" because they don't want to get into a public fight with their star director.
Well, that's why Lindows exists. You pay them and they'll worry about the complex comands and give you their "Click and Run" interface. Completely overpriced if you can do it yourself, but a pretty good deal if you don't have the time to figure all this stuff out.
Yeah... this is really just pointing out a key difference between the commerical software business model and the open source business model and nothing more. Microsoft's limited in what they can bundle because of Windows has a closed-source nature, while Linux is harder to make a profit from because Linus doesn't get paid for every copy...
The key thing about Linux distributions is that there's more than one, and in fact if you're not happy with the Linux kernel you can go with BSD...
In Windows-land, Microsoft makes the kernel, Microsoft makes the one and only window-manager, Microsoft selects which apps come in the one and only distro, and nearly all of them are Microsoft-made apps anyway.
That's the difference. A Linux distro is the blending of the Linux kernel with a set of tools that use the kernel. And from the most basic use of a kernel, the shell, there's already several to choose from. There's several window-managers.
It's okay to bundle when you're in a COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT... that's the one thing Microsoft seems to be forgetting.
However, pay-per-channel would case some of the crammed-on spinoff networks such as NickToons, Cartoon Network's Boomerang, and ESPNews to falter. There just wouldn't be enough demand for those to continue.
Sure, some new niche networks would form based on demand, but others that nobody asked for would be checking out.
What that effectively would be is 500 real-time streams with a TiVo or other DVR cherry picking the programs you want to see out of them.
There are some programs such as newscasts, sports events, and awards shows that seem pointless to watch if you're not watching them live. Also, in order to get the "watercooler effect", shows are always going to need "release times", such as becoming first available Thrusdays at 8pm ET and that will tend to resemble a present primetime lineup.
Daytime reruns of cable shows will never go away... those will function as re-feeds in case your DVR is busy, or somebody talks about a show you didn't capture on the first feed.
I don't think on-demand TV is going to scale out very well. There's already cases where people want to use an on-demand system but can't because the system is simply out of bandwidth to give them a stream of anything. That's just not going to work if that's the only way we get our TV.
TechTV's business format all-day TechLive show basically documented the failure of the .com economy as it happened in real time from April 2001 to November 2001, complete with the climax episode on 9-11-2001. On the finalie day you could see people cleaning out their desks in the background as they were being laid off, and the show abruptly ended halfway through the day going to a rerun of the previous day's TSS.
And in short, that's part of the reason we have less TV channels today. Several marginal channels that existed at the height of the market like CNNsi and All News Channel simply folded amid the decline in advertising spending and left no replacements. Several other networks have made dramatic format shifts, such as the TNN to SpikeTV conversion. You can score G4 + TechTV as being one channel going under and using the other for spare parts... it appears that most of G4TechTV's programming day is based on G4's archive and new episodes from mostly TechTV's standing productions.
If your competitor didn't innovate but instead stole your innovation while you still have patent protection, you have to litigate. Otherwise, your competitor makes profits that rightfully belong to you.
But in this case, this is being done to protect a US-based company from being driven out of the business by a competitor that's making the same product without having to pay any of the R&D costs behind it.
Patents exist so whomever bears the R&D cost has some decent chance of profiting before everybody else rushes in and drives down the price. If you allow the patent system to fall, R&D dies with it.
For anybody thinking "zinc whiskers in an operating room, isn't that bad for the patients?"... remember, zinc is found in vitamin tablets. It's actually good for the human body.
This is really just a subset of a larger problem... dust.
Any particle that's floating in the air that isn't a gas simply doesn't belong in a computer room. However, any time you've got humans in the room dust is sure to form. Dust can cause a computer to overheat, and these guys are just pointing out that if you ever get small charged particles flying in your room you've got real problems.
Computers most certainly can be run in a dirty room without immediate failures... but the dirtier a room happens, the more likely a phantom failure that is scientifically valid by some far-out reason like this but seems like a ghost in the machine crops in. We've just accepted unexplainable computer crashes on Windows machines... but this one's an OS-independent way to have problems.
I think just setting up The Ionic Breeze from The Sharper Image would be the killer app solution to this problem. Having positively charged metal in the room would be a magnet-like draw for this stuff that'd prevent it from being drawn to the computer equipment by airflows created from cooling fans.
A HEPA-quality air filter is also suggested... on the same concept. It'd be a fan-based air draw that'd trap any of these things coming through and therefore reduce the chances that any given particle lands inside the computers.
Which effectively means that it's a component of dust... so if you have dust buildup in your room, you're likely to find this among other problems forming.
Having the lead in market share doesn't affect the number and severity of security flaws in the program.
It affects the impact of an exploit should one be released, but you can't release a damaging exploit until a flaw is descovered that allows the exploit to work. The stakes are raised, but the game is still the same.
A secure-at-the-start program leads to no exploits possible and cuts the problem off at the head. Sure, there's going to be more people looking for the flaw, but if there's no flaw to find they won't get anywhere.
"Microsoft certainly respects the work CERT does to help protect the Internet and users. Regarding the consideration that users switch browsers, it is unfortunate that the published articles have misrepresented CERT's suggestions, and we are working with CERT to clarify their advice," Schare said.
Let's see what we have here.
- First sentance tells us that Microsoft isn't going to try to attack the credibility of CERT because that'd be unlikely to get anywhere.
- Second sentance is trying to blame "the media" for misreporting the story, but the media's working from a primary source that has a section heading called "Use a different web browser". I don't know how you're "misrepresenting" that when you take that as a suggesting to download any browser that isn't Internet Explorer which means Mozzila, Opera, Netscape or any other compeitor out there. They want CERT to take back the recomendation to just stop using IE... that's the only kind of "clarification" that's possible here.
Microsoft clearly wants a CERT retraction. But do they stand any chance at getting one?
Not really. This is the original source document...
Notice that it's the Department of Homeland Security seal at the top of the document. For our purposes, CERT is a subset of DoHS... it's just that the media is now picking up on the more known name of the larger organization to bring the story to the masses.
Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.
We did this story on Sunday...
However, in CowboyNeal's defense, both articles cited here were published after that story on Sunday, and we now have the news of Microsoft's rather weak reaction claiming that CERT didn't mean what we all saw them say and Mozilla's reaction that downloads are up since the first reports. Still, that's a Slashback, not a new story.
The classic "You've won, come pick up your prize at..." scheme is a great way for police to get a ton of people who are wanted for various reasons to all show up in one place where they can seal the exits and arrest them all at once.
However, that kind of thing only appeals to the deadbeat dad type who doesn't have tons of money and decided that they could just skip paying child support to make ends meet... if the person is so rich to not need or want an extra TV, the bait just won't be appealing. Spammers are that well off...
Unfortunately, that's closing the barn door after the horse has already gotten out. Nearly all web server operators pull spammer sites offline as soon as they realize what has hit them to cut off the money chain before the transaction even happens. However, that's too late, the e-mail has already been sent.
Spamming's so profitable when it works that they can put up with an insanely low response rate... unless you can put up a perfect blockade to catch all money headed their way, you're never gonna get it all.
Unfortunately, there's no such thing as a world judical system. We have extradition and cooperation with the places that want the same from us... but there are also places where they just don't care about us.
The world is not united in supporting us in everything we do, and when we falsely assume that we get ourselves into a deeper problem.
Spammers aren't exactly the kind of people who are scared of breaking the law anyway. A good chunk of the time, even if sending the spam was legal, the message it contains doesn't exactly pass the smell test anyway. Phishing scams, offers to buy perscription pills without having to see your doctor, or the basic fraud of selling a product and then not sending it are some of their favorites.
We know who is spamming us. Afterall, the spam message needs some sort of e-mail address or web address so that the fools can respond, so you just have to follow the money trail to get back to the spammer.
The problem is that the worst these people are setting themselves up outside of US jurisdiction, so that FTC and company just can't get to them. Any spammer who doesn't is excessively stupid. There's nothing that the US courts can take from them... and I just don't think offering 20% of $0 is going to do much anyway.
Bottom line is that this plan doesn't connect. As much as spam annoys us, the US Government just can't do anything about it because it's a worldwide problem. On the Internet, if one jurisdiction doesn't like what you're doing, you just need to find another who will accept you.
Which is only useful if you're passing the last stoplight on the road. Otherwise, you'll lose your time advantage at the next light.
That's entirely true. Auto makers can publish lower numbers if they're so...
oh... well, guess that doesn't do much good anyway.