It sounds like there are products out there that already do exactly what this guy's camera does. And they probably do things a lot better (i.e. take power from the rails, offer a "swivel" camera so you can take pictures front, back, or side) - but you get what you pay for. As interesting as this is, I don't see how he did things any better.
This could have been said of Linux when it first got started (and I'm sure many people did):
"It sounds like there are products out there that already do exactly what this guy's (operating system) does. And they probably do things a lot better - but you get what you pay for. As interesting as this is, I don't see how he did things any better."
In time, perhaps this traincam will become even better as he refines his technique and passes on the information on how to do it to others.
> In short, this guy's idea for curbing infection rates of &pluralize("virus"); is to restrict systems network access to one new host per second.
So what happens when a worm is created that does network accesses at 1 per second? This would not trigger an alarm, and so probably wouldn't be noticed.
Certain programs have been developed that allow users to bypass Battle.net's CD-key-authentication process. Although these programs might have been made with good intentions, they directly promote software piracy by allowing users who have illegitimately obtained our games to play them as if they'd been legitimately purchased. Furthermore, because these programs allow access without a CD key, they render malicious users unaccountable, thereby eliminating Blizzard's ability to protect legitimate consumers. Therefore, Blizzard has taken an aggressive stance opposing the use of these programs.
What about Kali? Does Kali authenticate CD-keys before it lets you play on its services? No it does not. Why is Blizzard not going after them?
This is actually a Microsoft ploy... they are using it to gauge their share of the webserver market! I can see the headlines now... "Microsoft IIS the innovative leader in home web servers."
> The DMCA needs to be stopped before it stunts technology permanantly.
More correctly, it will stunt _American_ technology permanently. If this trend is allowed to continue and the US falls farther and farther into restrictive legislation, it won't be long before other countries with less restrictive laws will pass you by. Show the lawmakers in the US how this will affect company's ability to compete on the world stage, and perhaps they will think twice about its usefulness.
For example, recently the US eased restrictions on exporting of encryption. Why? Because US companies were concerned about other counties coming out with equivalent or better products which they then shipped to the world, while the US companies could not.
While many people have made references to alternatives to Napster such as OpenNap and Gnutella, called Freenet. Here is a quote from their page at http://freenet.sourceforge.net
"Freenet is a peer-to-peer network designed to allow the distribution of information over the Internet in an efficient manner, without fear of censorship. Freenet is completely decentralized, meaning that there is no person, computer, or organisation in control of Freenet or essential to its operation. This means that Freenet cannot be attacked like centralized peer-to-peer systems such as Napster. Freenet also employs intelligent routing and caching meaning that it learns to route requests more efficiently, automatically mirrors popular data, makes network flooding almost impossible, and moves data to where it is in greatest demand. All of this makes it much more efficient and scalable than systems such as Gnutella."
While people may argue that programs such as this will only encourage the spread of piracy, I think that anything which allows (relatively) anonymous sharing of information will be abused to some degree by people out there. I would much rather have a certain amount of "bad stuff" happening because of a certain program than have my every movement tracked and logged by The Man.
People are trying to find ways around Microsoft's click-through agreement so that they can post the specification somewhere... but what good does this do? While it does show Microsoft's intentions, it will also tempt people to write apps that implement it. Of course, these apps will most likely not interoperate well (if at all) with their UNIX variants, and the unwashed masses will stay with the safety of Microsoft again.
Some of the comments expressed so far in support of Metallica seem to have judged the users of Napster as already being guilty. Should Napster ban users simply because Metallica says they are trading illegal mp3's? Should police come and drag you away to jail for 10 years simply because I said so?
I think that Metallica will have do more to prove that these people were really illegally trading their songs. They will have to check that the filenames that they saw being transferred were indeed Metallica songs and that the user does not have the right to do so. Just because I rename my entire collection of 5MB text files to "Metallica - Seek and Destroy.mp3" and share them out over Napster does not make me a pirate. Stupid, but not a pirate.
Slashdot Mirror
It sounds like there are products out there that already do exactly what this guy's camera does. And they probably do things a lot better (i.e. take power from the rails, offer a "swivel" camera so you can take pictures front, back, or side) - but you get what you pay for. As interesting as this is, I don't see how he did things any better.
This could have been said of Linux when it first got started (and I'm sure many people did):
"It sounds like there are products out there that already do exactly what this guy's (operating system) does. And they probably do things a lot better - but you get what you pay for. As interesting as this is, I don't see how he did things any better."
In time, perhaps this traincam will become even better as he refines his technique and passes on the information on how to do it to others.
these revamped version of the glasses seem to offer much more value and compatibility to the table
That's all well and good for the table, but even with these glasses, I'm sure the table will still suck in Quake.
> In short, this guy's idea for curbing infection rates of &pluralize("virus"); is to restrict systems network access to one new host per second.
So what happens when a worm is created that does network accesses at 1 per second? This would not trigger an alarm, and so probably wouldn't be noticed.
Certain programs have been developed that allow users to bypass Battle.net's CD-key-authentication process. Although these programs might have been made with good intentions, they directly promote software piracy by allowing users who have illegitimately obtained our games to play them as if they'd been legitimately purchased. Furthermore, because these programs allow access without a CD key, they render malicious users unaccountable, thereby eliminating Blizzard's ability to protect legitimate consumers. Therefore, Blizzard has taken an aggressive stance opposing the use of these programs.
What about Kali? Does Kali authenticate CD-keys before it lets you play on its services? No it does not. Why is Blizzard not going after them?
I have a sensitivity to pulsed microwaves... everytime I put my head in the microwave and turn it on, my head burns.
This is actually a Microsoft ploy... they are using it to gauge their share of the webserver market! I can see the headlines now... "Microsoft IIS the innovative leader in home web servers."
This P2P stuff is the devil's work! Behold!
vexorg has quit (Read error: 54 (Connection reset by peer))
Don't say I didn't warn you!
> The DMCA needs to be stopped before it stunts technology permanantly.
More correctly, it will stunt _American_ technology permanently. If this trend is allowed to continue and the US falls farther and farther into restrictive legislation, it won't be long before other countries with less restrictive laws will pass you by. Show the lawmakers in the US how this will affect company's ability to compete on the world stage, and perhaps they will think twice about its usefulness.
For example, recently the US eased restrictions on exporting of encryption. Why? Because US companies were concerned about other counties coming out with equivalent or better products which they then shipped to the world, while the US companies could not.
While many people have made references to alternatives to Napster such as OpenNap and Gnutella, called Freenet. Here is a quote from their page at http://freenet.sourceforge.net
"Freenet is a peer-to-peer network designed to allow the distribution of information over the Internet in an efficient manner, without fear of censorship. Freenet is completely decentralized, meaning that there is no person, computer, or organisation in control of Freenet or essential to its operation. This means that Freenet cannot be attacked like centralized peer-to-peer systems such as Napster. Freenet also employs intelligent routing and caching meaning that it learns to route requests more efficiently, automatically mirrors popular data, makes network flooding almost impossible, and moves data to where it is in greatest demand. All of this makes it much more efficient and scalable than systems such as Gnutella."
While people may argue that programs such as this will only encourage the spread of piracy, I think that anything which allows (relatively) anonymous sharing of information will be abused to some degree by people out there. I would much rather have a certain amount of "bad stuff" happening because of a certain program than have my every movement tracked and logged by The Man.
People are trying to find ways around Microsoft's click-through agreement so that they can post the specification somewhere... but what good does this do? While it does show Microsoft's intentions, it will also tempt people to write apps that implement it. Of course, these apps will most likely not interoperate well (if at all) with their UNIX variants, and the unwashed masses will stay with the safety of Microsoft again.
Some of the comments expressed so far in support of Metallica seem to have judged the users of Napster as already being guilty. Should Napster ban users simply because Metallica says they are trading illegal mp3's? Should police come and drag you away to jail for 10 years simply because I said so?
I think that Metallica will have do more to prove that these people were really illegally trading their songs. They will have to check that the filenames that they saw being transferred were indeed Metallica songs and that the user does not have the right to do so. Just because I rename my entire collection of 5MB text files to "Metallica - Seek and Destroy.mp3" and share them out over Napster does not make me a pirate. Stupid, but not a pirate.
Good thing I didn't sell my y2k secure underground bunker complex, I'll have a safe place to hide when it all comes down ;)