It is much worse than that in my opinion. I had to recode many parts of this ancient yet very important financial application. You wouldn't believe the horrors in that code. Goto galore, single threaded server components, buffer overflows and whatnot. However, that was nothing compared to the plethora of security deficiencies. Database root user with blank password for one. Absolutely no auditing. Everything sensitive transmitted in clear text. Insane amount of business logic bugs. If this company releases this source code, it closes shop next day because people would realize how insecure their software is.
Another application I worked on, had vendors dictate features and managers (without any technical background) gave us encryption routines. Worse than hacks, retarded XOR and shift routines that a 2 year old could crack. These same managers have used really badly coded RadioactiveX components made for browsers as a "high performance" server component. And of course they wonder why their servers can't take any load.
Embarrassment is probably a good reason why companies withhold source code, but I think it's more the fear of losing business over extremely shitty and insecure software is their primary concern.
Waste money? Great labels like The End Records sell CDs of their bands for 11 to 13 dollars. That is lossless + artwork + you don't have to worry about backups because it's on a CD! Great deal.
I'll stick to CDs for now, until big outlets like Amazon start selling lossless tracks.
MediaDefender wasn't only screwing people. They were screwing their clients as well (the big labels). I read a few of their emails, and one particulary caught my attention. I think Universal asked MD to produce stats about illegal downloads after they started another wave of lawsuits to see if these lawsuits have any effect on downloading (they were hoping it goes down).
One MD scumbag then forwards this email to his lackeys and he adds: "If you want a good laugh" to the forwarded mail.
These scumbag know that what they are doing is worthless, it doesn't stop piracy, but they both piss off users and rip off their own clients.
They also received one confidential study from a think-tank in Washington DC, the nice presentation had some extremely disgusting stats: only about 17% of the piracy comes from illegal downloads, the vast majority comes from people borrowing CDs... so much for the MAFIAA's claims.
At least, the (non-theistic) intelligent design view presents some hard questions to answer This is the zillionth time I ask the question, and no intelligent design proponent can answer it. Wanna try?
Ok, here it is: Who created our designer? And it's designer? And it's designer's designer?
Do you get it? Non theistic intelligent design amounts to an infinite number of designers. The only way to break this infinite regression is to introduce a deity, thus your intelligent design hypothesis ceases to be non theistic and it becomes God. Only God can break the infinite regression of designers.
I tried something like that with WMI when MOM agent (or was it SMS agent, can't recall) was eating up way too much CPU. I disabled WMI service. Reboot the machine, to my shock, WMI service was started despite being disabled. If MOM or SMS can do that, I am sure Windows Update could force start BITS even if it's disabled.
So what solution do you propose to stop stupid users from hurting themselves, but without severely restricting or inconveniencing their activities? I mean, it's fashionable to bash the IT industry, but can you come up with a solution? Why develop a solution for a non IT problem? The problem is that everyone and their dogs are running Windows as administrators. The solution is simple: educate the masses about NOT running their boxes as administrators. The security framework is already in Windows.
Blocking Firefox will be a very stupid move for many reasons:
- Only a minority of FF users use ad blocking. Blocking FF = lost revenue, FF is already at very high usage % in many parts of the world. - By blocking FF because of ad blocking capabilities, it will only force people who hate ads to develop these capabilities for other browsers. In fact, scratch that. That capability already exists. Opera and Konqueror has built in ad blocking and there are plugins available for IE too. Oh and there is always the good ole' host file. - By repeatedly bitching about ad blocking (and blocking some browsers), it will only make the problem worse. Mr. John Smith who has never heard of ad blocking, might actually read about and use one.
Well, this certainly seems odd, but, heh, who am I to question the work of the Almighty? Oh, we thank you Lord for this mighty fine intelligent design! Good job!
It should be an interesting test. If the ID crowd are sincere in their claim that the Desginer doesn't have to be divine, they'll be delighted. If, on the other hand, they're really just a bunch of religious fanatics, they'll be appalled. (I know which way I'm betting.) The creator *HAS TO BE* divine, or you end up with an infinite regression of designers. Because there is always the question: Who created the designer?
I little inflamatory and perhaps over the edge just a tiny bit, but your point is well taken. Personally, I don't think Bush is that power-mad or corrupt. I think he's just stupid. I think it's the people behind Bush who don't want to lose power. Of course, by this point, Bush probably wants to hold onto that power as well, but only because other people have told him it's necessary to do so in order to "keep the nation safe." Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.
This network shouldn't be a shock or frankly all that scary as long as they still require a court order to do it. Where have you been the last 5 or so years? Bush can listen to your phone without a warrant.
not to worry, the congress can give the dick-in-the-bush a hard time about their nominees, drag things out just to send a message You mean the same congress that gave Bush the green light without any fight to spy on americans? The same congress that backed down from an Iraq pullout clause on the budget? The same congress that does nothing?
He has been a disaster for this country. Good riddance. He is just a puppet. The puppet master is still pretty much in power. I doubt his replacement will be different. The democrats pretty much gave Bush a blank check to do whatever he wants.
Many Christians interpret that as being made in God's spiritual image and have for years. Not all people of religion are cooks. By what criteria can you judge that your interpretation is the right one?
Most people who follow "tomes of old," myself included, believe that humans evolved from apes. For the large majority of believers they're orthogonal subjects, and evolving from apes does not preclude being created in the image of God, any more than evolving from a zygote does. This "God" must have been a pretty weak designer. I mean...
- We can't eat and breathe the same time. - We have to keep our blood constantly warm while other animals don't have to. - Our eyesight sucks compared to a lot of animals. If "God" can design such good eyesight for some animals, why not design this for himself and us? - Our hearing sucks compared to a lot of animals. - Did the designer fail Gravity 101? Why are the woman's intestines continually slamming against the uterus and in some cases causing pain and bleeding? As if it was "designed" for walking on 4 legs... - Why is it that a hyena can pretty much eat shit and not get sick of it, yet us, designed in the image of "God" would die from that or get very sick? - Cancer? Is that some kind of stack overflow in the DNA programming by "God"? - There are a few gases like CO that we can't smell and that would kill us. Why didn't "God" design us in a way so we can smell them? A practical joke mayhaps? - What kind of engineer puts the pleasure center of the body inches away from sewers?
If "God" really created us in his image, he is either: (1) Grossly incompetent. (2) He is weak himself.
What he said was that they monitored less than 100 people inside the US. I think it's unlikely that those people include any US citizens. You assume AT&T and Co. are telling the truth. Do we have any evidence that *ONLY* 100 people were spied on? You also assume that the people who were spied on where not US citizens.
We likewise cannot disprove that we were created by an intelligent creator. So... ummm... who created the creator? And... ummm... it's creator? And... ummmm... it's creator's creator? And... ummm... ~@$$%%!!$%##
Also note that flac has just changed the format, thus breaking backwards compatibility. You got any more information on this? I always encode in FLAC my CDs when I buy them, started back in the day with FLAC 1.0 now up to the most recent one, 1.2. I never had any playback issues with either MediaMonkey nor Amarok (Xine). I wonder if I should re-encode my CDs with latest FLAC.
You are right that Joe Sixpack doesn't care about mp3 quality, however, if you decompress the mp3 file and re-encode it, it will be different than watermarked version, not just because the watermark is gone, but because the degraded re-encoded version will be different with or without watermark anyways, making the process of identifying the watermark itself very hard.
It will be difficult to remove watermarks without destroying the original content.. watermarks are very advanced these days...
Its VERY easy to remove watermarks, no matter how sophisticated. Don't believe me? Take two or more originals, uncompress the format, compare the difference, null the offending part, and re-encode.
This cat-mouse game will continue until the end of time. I don't think it's that easy. Mp3 is already lossy, once decompressed and re-encoded to compare with a watermarked version, it will lose quality and the binary information will be different so comparing won't be easy at all.
Even if you have the original CD, and you rip the track from it, encode it into the exact Mp3 format (same bitrate and all) as the watermarked one, what guarantees that iTunes used the same disc to encode it? What guarantees that iTunes rip the same exact way as you? Nothing, so the Mp3 file will be different even if encoded with same parameters.
Slashdot Mirror
It is much worse than that in my opinion. I had to recode many parts of this ancient yet very important financial application. You wouldn't believe the horrors in that code. Goto galore, single threaded server components, buffer overflows and whatnot. However, that was nothing compared to the plethora of security deficiencies. Database root user with blank password for one. Absolutely no auditing. Everything sensitive transmitted in clear text. Insane amount of business logic bugs. If this company releases this source code, it closes shop next day because people would realize how insecure their software is.
Another application I worked on, had vendors dictate features and managers (without any technical background) gave us encryption routines. Worse than hacks, retarded XOR and shift routines that a 2 year old could crack. These same managers have used really badly coded RadioactiveX components made for browsers as a "high performance" server component. And of course they wonder why their servers can't take any load.
Embarrassment is probably a good reason why companies withhold source code, but I think it's more the fear of losing business over extremely shitty and insecure software is their primary concern.
Waste money? Great labels like The End Records sell CDs of their bands for 11 to 13 dollars. That is lossless + artwork + you don't have to worry about backups because it's on a CD! Great deal.
I'll stick to CDs for now, until big outlets like Amazon start selling lossless tracks.
I tried to download the torrent, but all I got was a bad rip of Fight Club... This site has everything so far.
MediaDefender wasn't only screwing people. They were screwing their clients as well (the big labels). I read a few of their emails, and one particulary caught my attention. I think Universal asked MD to produce stats about illegal downloads after they started another wave of lawsuits to see if these lawsuits have any effect on downloading (they were hoping it goes down).
... so much for the MAFIAA's claims.
One MD scumbag then forwards this email to his lackeys and he adds: "If you want a good laugh" to the forwarded mail.
These scumbag know that what they are doing is worthless, it doesn't stop piracy, but they both piss off users and rip off their own clients.
They also received one confidential study from a think-tank in Washington DC, the nice presentation had some extremely disgusting stats: only about 17% of the piracy comes from illegal downloads, the vast majority comes from people borrowing CDs
Ok, here it is: Who created our designer? And it's designer? And it's designer's designer?
Do you get it? Non theistic intelligent design amounts to an infinite number of designers. The only way to break this infinite regression is to introduce a deity, thus your intelligent design hypothesis ceases to be non theistic and it becomes God. Only God can break the infinite regression of designers.
Non theistic intelligent design is impossible.
I tried something like that with WMI when MOM agent (or was it SMS agent, can't recall) was eating up way too much CPU. I disabled WMI service. Reboot the machine, to my shock, WMI service was started despite being disabled. If MOM or SMS can do that, I am sure Windows Update could force start BITS even if it's disabled.
There, I solved your problem.
Blocking Firefox will be a very stupid move for many reasons:
- Only a minority of FF users use ad blocking. Blocking FF = lost revenue, FF is already at very high usage % in many parts of the world.
- By blocking FF because of ad blocking capabilities, it will only force people who hate ads to develop these capabilities for other browsers. In fact, scratch that. That capability already exists. Opera and Konqueror has built in ad blocking and there are plugins available for IE too. Oh and there is always the good ole' host file.
- By repeatedly bitching about ad blocking (and blocking some browsers), it will only make the problem worse. Mr. John Smith who has never heard of ad blocking, might actually read about and use one.
This is a war website publishers can't win.
Well, this certainly seems odd, but, heh, who am I to question the work of the Almighty? Oh, we thank you Lord for this mighty fine intelligent design! Good job!
IE was abandoned pretty much everywhere, not just Mac. It took Firefox for MS to wake up and start making IE7.
Yea, what AC said!
Take a psychopath and give him a baseball bat. He can/will hurt people. Maybe even kill a few. Give him a gun and ...
I don't think many people like the Patriot act, but it's law for now. And this tool will just make it worse (if it exists and works as described).
(bold emphasis is mine)
- We can't eat and breathe the same time.
- We have to keep our blood constantly warm while other animals don't have to.
- Our eyesight sucks compared to a lot of animals. If "God" can design such good eyesight for some animals, why not design this for himself and us?
- Our hearing sucks compared to a lot of animals.
- Did the designer fail Gravity 101? Why are the woman's intestines continually slamming against the uterus and in some cases causing pain and bleeding? As if it was "designed" for walking on 4 legs
- Why is it that a hyena can pretty much eat shit and not get sick of it, yet us, designed in the image of "God" would die from that or get very sick?
- Cancer? Is that some kind of stack overflow in the DNA programming by "God"?
- There are a few gases like CO that we can't smell and that would kill us. Why didn't "God" design us in a way so we can smell them? A practical joke mayhaps?
- What kind of engineer puts the pleasure center of the body inches away from sewers?
If "God" really created us in his image, he is either:
(1) Grossly incompetent.
(2) He is weak himself.
Skype network was overloaded by the zillions of Windows PCs rebooting after the patch installations.
STACK OVERFLOW
++NO CARRIER
You are right that Joe Sixpack doesn't care about mp3 quality, however, if you decompress the mp3 file and re-encode it, it will be different than watermarked version, not just because the watermark is gone, but because the degraded re-encoded version will be different with or without watermark anyways, making the process of identifying the watermark itself very hard.
Its VERY easy to remove watermarks, no matter how sophisticated. Don't believe me? Take two or more originals, uncompress the format, compare the difference, null the offending part, and re-encode.
This cat-mouse game will continue until the end of time. I don't think it's that easy. Mp3 is already lossy, once decompressed and re-encoded to compare with a watermarked version, it will lose quality and the binary information will be different so comparing won't be easy at all.
Even if you have the original CD, and you rip the track from it, encode it into the exact Mp3 format (same bitrate and all) as the watermarked one, what guarantees that iTunes used the same disc to encode it? What guarantees that iTunes rip the same exact way as you? Nothing, so the Mp3 file will be different even if encoded with same parameters.