Their excuse was that they needed those terms to be able to deliver the user's content on their hardware as it existed or might exist in the future, plus do things like back it up. Somehow, when the uproar got too loud, they figured out a way to change it.
It is hard control a product like which is self replicating.
That's why Monsanto tried to sell seed with the Terminator gene, to keep the next generation seeds from being viable when planted. The uproar was so huge that they had to back off.
I concur with the earlier poster. Monsanto marketing technology makes Microsoft look like a child.
Sorry, but I beg to differ. You can't beat the IBM laptops with a stick, and for corporate use the IBM desktop machines have stuff in them that make my life a WHOLE lot easier. And, they are bloody fast.
At the present time, what is distinguishing the two in question from the 'real' MS certificates?
The dates. Microsoft says that they received no legit certificates on the dates in question (Jan 29 and 30, 2001). If you check the date of the certificates and it says "Microsoft Corporation" on those dates, it's bogus.
And how many people are going to look at the dates?
If it's possible for MS to revoke those two, why can't the crackers revoke the real ones?
Microsoft didn't revoke them, Verisign did. The problem is that essentially nobody looks at the Revocation List.
When you get the "Always trust..." message, it applies to a particular certificate. These are new certificates, so you'll get the message again. The danger is in all the people that will see that the bogus certificate is from "Microsoft Corporation" and click "Accept".
Plus, what's to keep me from (1) uninstalling the software; (2) backing the file up to CDROM; (3) hacking on the read-only copy? Especially if I combine it with some of the other features, like removing the right to reboot the machine?
What happens if I want to resell the game? What happens if I want to take it over to a friend's house? What happens if I don't happen to have a network connection?
Now MS starts charging with no easy way around it, and those millions will start paying.
Or, they will find some other cheap or free software to do what they want.
You can't assume that people will continue behaving the same when the conditions change. More likely, they will change their behaviour, into a more convenient / inexpensive pattern.
I have known about junkbuster filtering software for quite some time, but didnt think it was worth the effort needed to set it up properly and maintain the block lists.
Go use Guidescope. It's by the Junkbuster people, but they keep the block list online and the proxy looks there before downloading the ad. Works great. (In case you ask, the time it takes to look up the ad is far shorter than the time it would have taken to download the ad, so there's still a net gain, and you get to see gray boxes where the ads were! I haven't seen a CNet ad yet.)
He merely punished the student for violating the rules of the school, which to my mind is within his rights.
What rule of a school, ANY SCHOOL, controls what a student says with his own computer, on his own webserver, on his own time, from his own home? You must have a pretty strange idea of how far the authority of a school extends.
You may be interested to know that the book Principia Mathematica by Russel and Whithead, a book which defined our system of mathematics from bare logic, took 211 pages before it got to the point where it could construct '1+1=2'.
Until the phenomenon of speciation is observed, either in the lab or in the wild, the case for the Descent of Man is a difficult one to make with the kind of certainty that this scientist is insisting he has established.
Speciation has been observed. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html gives several instances. Of course, what you're calling for is not speciation, but something else which will not happen on human timescales, so you may as well go away unsatisfied.
So by this logic, If you are using a Cell phone and I evesdrop on your conversation I'm not invading your privacy? Your Phone is broadcasting out and assuming you're close enough its on my property. I'm not paying for cell phone access, so I can listen to your conversation cause its on my property, right?
Stealing and Invading Privacy are two different things.
You should also note that until just a few years ago, it was indeed perfectly legal to listen to any radio transmission you could receive, as long as you didn't divulge the contents. That meant that, yes, you COULD listen to cellphone calls. You just couldn't tell anybody else about the contents. Then, one of the first content-protection laws, ECMA, was passed making it illegal to listen to cell phones. This was a law passed purely for the convenience of the cell-phone companies, so they could say "Yes, we're secure - it's against the law to listen in." It was and is still technically feasible, however. Even old televisions that went above channel 70 could hear cellphone calls. (Note: this law is rapidly becoming moot, since most cell companies are switching to digital as fast as then can go. You could still scan the digital cellphone bands, but it's much harder to listen in. )
I have phone lines that cross my propery, does that mean I can hook into them and get free long distance?
No, because now you're not passively intercepting the radio waves. You're taking active steps to steal service.
You're letting your indignation take over your higher thought processes, plus you have forgotten recent history. Calm down.
As far as I know, according to the law you can still listen to cordless phones, which is nearly as entertaining. And, for a really good time, try scanning baby monitors.
Slashdot Mirror
Their excuse was that they needed those terms to be able to deliver the user's content on their hardware as it existed or might exist in the future, plus do things like back it up. Somehow, when the uproar got too loud, they figured out a way to change it.
...phil
Or maybe Microsoft really IS the evil empire?
...phil
That's why Monsanto tried to sell seed with the Terminator gene, to keep the next generation seeds from being viable when planted. The uproar was so huge that they had to back off.
I concur with the earlier poster. Monsanto marketing technology makes Microsoft look like a child.
...phil
Sorry, but I beg to differ. You can't beat the IBM laptops with a stick, and for corporate use the IBM desktop machines have stuff in them that make my life a WHOLE lot easier. And, they are bloody fast.
...phil
Or maybe MVS?
...phil
The dates. Microsoft says that they received no legit certificates on the dates in question (Jan 29 and 30, 2001). If you check the date of the certificates and it says "Microsoft Corporation" on those dates, it's bogus.
And how many people are going to look at the dates?
If it's possible for MS to revoke those two, why can't the crackers revoke the real ones?
Microsoft didn't revoke them, Verisign did. The problem is that essentially nobody looks at the Revocation List.
...phil
When you get the "Always trust..." message, it applies to a particular certificate. These are new certificates, so you'll get the message again. The danger is in all the people that will see that the bogus certificate is from "Microsoft Corporation" and click "Accept".
...phil
Having or not having the ads show up won't make any difference - if the layout is bad, it's bad either way.
...phil
Plus, what's to keep me from (1) uninstalling the software; (2) backing the file up to CDROM; (3) hacking on the read-only copy? Especially if I combine it with some of the other features, like removing the right to reboot the machine?
...phil
What happens if I want to resell the game? What happens if I want to take it over to a friend's house? What happens if I don't happen to have a network connection?
...phil
Or, they will find some other cheap or free software to do what they want.
You can't assume that people will continue behaving the same when the conditions change. More likely, they will change their behaviour, into a more convenient / inexpensive pattern.
...phil
That actually might be enough to get the politicians off their collective asses and get them to fund space development.
...phil
One of the new domains is supposed to be .nom, which is reserved for individuals.
...phil
Go use Guidescope. It's by the Junkbuster people, but they keep the block list online and the proxy looks there before downloading the ad. Works great. (In case you ask, the time it takes to look up the ad is far shorter than the time it would have taken to download the ad, so there's still a net gain, and you get to see gray boxes where the ads were! I haven't seen a CNet ad yet.)
...phil
What rule of a school, ANY SCHOOL, controls what a student says with his own computer, on his own webserver, on his own time, from his own home? You must have a pretty strange idea of how far the authority of a school extends.
...phil
You may be interested to know that the book Principia Mathematica by Russel and Whithead, a book which defined our system of mathematics from bare logic, took 211 pages before it got to the point where it could construct '1+1=2'.
...phil
Speciation has been observed. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html gives several instances. Of course, what you're calling for is not speciation, but something else which will not happen on human timescales, so you may as well go away unsatisfied.
...phil
Censure is not the same as censor. Look them up.
...phil
Hm. I bought one off ebay a few months back and paid about 1/3 that price.
...phil
Opera 5 also has this form of cookie control.
...phil
I believe it's QNX or a flavor thereof.
...phil
Nothing, except that once Napster is notified by a non-BMI (say, Sony), Napster can no longer claim they don't know. Napster then has to block access.
...phil
How beautiful is the snowshine in your eyes, so directly current from the static in your brain.
...phil
Remember, a lot of those guys were *not* watching live video, but reporting what the telemetry was telling them.
...phil
Stealing and Invading Privacy are two different things.
You should also note that until just a few years ago, it was indeed perfectly legal to listen to any radio transmission you could receive, as long as you didn't divulge the contents. That meant that, yes, you COULD listen to cellphone calls. You just couldn't tell anybody else about the contents. Then, one of the first content-protection laws, ECMA, was passed making it illegal to listen to cell phones. This was a law passed purely for the convenience of the cell-phone companies, so they could say "Yes, we're secure - it's against the law to listen in." It was and is still technically feasible, however. Even old televisions that went above channel 70 could hear cellphone calls. (Note: this law is rapidly becoming moot, since most cell companies are switching to digital as fast as then can go. You could still scan the digital cellphone bands, but it's much harder to listen in. )
I have phone lines that cross my propery, does that mean I can hook into them and get free long distance?
No, because now you're not passively intercepting the radio waves. You're taking active steps to steal service.
You're letting your indignation take over your higher thought processes, plus you have forgotten recent history. Calm down.
As far as I know, according to the law you can still listen to cordless phones, which is nearly as entertaining. And, for a really good time, try scanning baby monitors.
...phil