He didn't decide to create patch Tuesday, Microsoft created this problem for themselves. Microsoft needs to put procedures in place to deal with problems around patch Tuesday, because Blackhats don't give shit and exploit you at their convenience.
This isn't one problem in a 30 year old OS, it's one of hundreds of problems in a widely used ten year old OS, why should customers pay Microsoft for Microsoft's mistakes?
Windows XP is released in dozens of languages with support contracts for all of them, and has two supported service packs, and a third 64-bit edition based off Windows Server 2003.
Poor Microsoft, fixing their own fuckups eating into their bottom line, it's not like people pay through the nose for Windows or anything.
No excuse for what this guy did. It was just spiteful, and he then went on to release a hotfix which didn't actually fix the bug. Way to go.
If you prefer to be fucked over by targeted attacks using unknown exploits that you can't guard against, be my guest. I prefer to be aware of the threats and mitigate when possible.
Microsoft made millions, possibly billions, of XP, but still can't deal with security problems. Instead, let's all point fingers to the guy who made us aware of the threat, just look at how irresponsible he is for warning us! Microsoft on the other hand is big and responsible, why they still give you hundreds of fixes for your lousy system for free, it's not like you bought it expecting functionality and at least a reasonable amount of security. Just don't complain when they decide to stop patching, it's all for your own good.
Hooray for benevolent, responsible Microsoft! Boo for evil, childish hacker!
It's an incredible stretch and even then it can only applies to "browsing history", not the "browser history" that is mentioned in the article. I missed the distinction when replying the first time.
Sniffing current browsing is not the same as getting browser history, particularly from a car that is just passing by. The summary is just plain old wrong as far as I can tell.
The risk is there until there's proof that it is just "FUD".
If it could be disproved it wouldn't make for good FUD, now would it? In fact, what exactly is there to disproof? That they are "considering forming a pool"? They probably are, but that doesn't mean that they can, which they haven't claimed to be able to. They don't say they have patents to form a pool with, which at least would be something that could remotely need proof of the opposite.
But even then they have to actually provide some evidence before "proof of the opposite" becomes possible.
Yes, you do fail to understand what the "unless" at the beginning of my comment meant.
It also happens to be completely useless to Google, or anybody else outside of your house, to know what the SSID of your access point is. But it doesn't change the fact that your scenario was explicitly excluded, mainly because it is unlikely.
There are now different positions on WebM. In my blog post I actually mention all of them, including (in an update) Carlo Daffara's analysis, which is rather optimistic about WebM not infringing MPEG LA's patents.
It's not so much different, as in line with what has been voiced in regards to avoidance of software patents by Tridge and the Xiph developers. It's in line with Adobe distributing VP6 in Flash without any apparent problems. Who besides MPEG LA (bias obvious), Apple (heavily invested in H.264 infrastructure, favorable licensing terms as a pool member) and x264 devs (heavily invested in H.264, not concerned about patent details) has actually voiced the former positions?
I never said that it does, but I admit that MPEG LA's statement that it may put together a WebM patent pool is nothing that I would advise anyone to discount as a possible scenario.
Don't forget that Vorbis is part of the spec, Fraunhofer is about to strike any day now.
"The news" are also not copyright protected, particular write-ups, images and videos may be (and no one would agree to give up their copyright after a month, archives are in some ways more valuable), but the facts as such aren't.
What rewards? How is Google not a commercial adopter of WebM? How often do companies provide indemnification for complex software? How often do they charge nothing for it? How is this any different then paying MPEG LA for essentially the same guarantees, but with more hooks and complexities?
Yeah, getting paid for your work is so out of date!
Leaving the larger issue aside... Copies are not work.
Those actors, photographers, musicians, writers and so on should all be grateful that I deem their lowly works worthy of my time!
Acting is work, the DVDs containing a record of it are not. Photographing is work, prints are not. Composing, performing and singing is work, the CDs containing a record of them are not. Writing, editing and typesetting is work, the books themselves are not.
This does not address how any of the above should be compensated, but it gives a better perspective on the debate.
You're also forgetting that copyright law is vitally important to the GPL and creative commons too.
This is false. They are mostly a protection against overbearing copyright. Basically all of the CC licenses (besides the non-commercial one) can be satisfied by a copyright independent requirement to identify the original author(s). The GPL is bit more tricky, but in the end the only advantage to keeping the source secret would be the ability to say "I can modify this to suit your needs, for a modest charge, no one else can...". It would simply be a bad business decision to lock yourself into that. Besides that, binaries can still be dissembled to figure out their secrets and/or directly modified.
What would that definition be? There is nothing contradictory about a "information wants to be free, artists want to eat, let's balance the two position", which a reasonably short period of limited copyright represents.
Unless your house is a Faraday cage Google could get that information with one of their WiFi aware vans. It's not your friend who gives out information about your wireless network, it's you, as a consequence of having one.
The rights of the stockholders, officers and employees, as applying to the corporation, should be curtailed to the same extent as their liability is reduced.
GPL in a sense is worse than closed source, in that it relies on the absurdity of our moronic legal system.
Non-sense. The GPL can't do anything to you that copyright can't. You can opt to refuse the license and deal with a plain old copyright violation. Proprietary software (including second generation BSD licensed software) is likely to add additional EULA terms.
BSD's answer? Fuck copyright, do what you want; it doesn't presume to force change, but sets an example.
Thats a lie, BSD is several steps above 'do what you want'.
Slashdot Mirror
An unsubstantiated opinion (if you can call it that) dressed up as a fact.
He didn't decide to create patch Tuesday, Microsoft created this problem for themselves. Microsoft needs to put procedures in place to deal with problems around patch Tuesday, because Blackhats don't give shit and exploit you at their convenience.
This isn't one problem in a 30 year old OS, it's one of hundreds of problems in a widely used ten year old OS, why should customers pay Microsoft for Microsoft's mistakes?
It is usually a good idea to assume that it is, and is used for targeted attacks by skilled blackhats trying to stay under the radar.
Poor Microsoft, fixing their own fuckups eating into their bottom line, it's not like people pay through the nose for Windows or anything.
If you prefer to be fucked over by targeted attacks using unknown exploits that you can't guard against, be my guest. I prefer to be aware of the threats and mitigate when possible.
Microsoft made millions, possibly billions, of XP, but still can't deal with security problems. Instead, let's all point fingers to the guy who made us aware of the threat, just look at how irresponsible he is for warning us! Microsoft on the other hand is big and responsible, why they still give you hundreds of fixes for your lousy system for free, it's not like you bought it expecting functionality and at least a reasonable amount of security. Just don't complain when they decide to stop patching, it's all for your own good.
Hooray for benevolent, responsible Microsoft! Boo for evil, childish hacker!
Like f-spot's killer feature, fucking with timestamps.
Will be in the next stable, works great in the development version.
It's an incredible stretch and even then it can only applies to "browsing history", not the "browser history" that is mentioned in the article. I missed the distinction when replying the first time.
Current browsing is not browsing history.
Sniffing current browsing is not the same as getting browser history, particularly from a car that is just passing by. The summary is just plain old wrong as far as I can tell.
What if you throw your stuff all over the curb?
How the hell do you sniff browser history over WiFi? I call bullshit on that.
If it could be disproved it wouldn't make for good FUD, now would it? In fact, what exactly is there to disproof? That they are "considering forming a pool"? They probably are, but that doesn't mean that they can, which they haven't claimed to be able to. They don't say they have patents to form a pool with, which at least would be something that could remotely need proof of the opposite.
But even then they have to actually provide some evidence before "proof of the opposite" becomes possible.
Yes, you do fail to understand what the "unless" at the beginning of my comment meant.
It also happens to be completely useless to Google, or anybody else outside of your house, to know what the SSID of your access point is. But it doesn't change the fact that your scenario was explicitly excluded, mainly because it is unlikely.
It's not so much different, as in line with what has been voiced in regards to avoidance of software patents by Tridge and the Xiph developers. It's in line with Adobe distributing VP6 in Flash without any apparent problems. Who besides MPEG LA (bias obvious), Apple (heavily invested in H.264 infrastructure, favorable licensing terms as a pool member) and x264 devs (heavily invested in H.264, not concerned about patent details) has actually voiced the former positions?
Don't forget that Vorbis is part of the spec, Fraunhofer is about to strike any day now.
"The news" are also not copyright protected, particular write-ups, images and videos may be (and no one would agree to give up their copyright after a month, archives are in some ways more valuable), but the facts as such aren't.
What is your response to the assertion that multimedia isn't the patent minefield that everyone wants to (make us) believe?
What rewards? How is Google not a commercial adopter of WebM? How often do companies provide indemnification for complex software? How often do they charge nothing for it? How is this any different then paying MPEG LA for essentially the same guarantees, but with more hooks and complexities?
Leaving the larger issue aside... Copies are not work.
Acting is work, the DVDs containing a record of it are not. Photographing is work, prints are not. Composing, performing and singing is work, the CDs containing a record of them are not. Writing, editing and typesetting is work, the books themselves are not.
This does not address how any of the above should be compensated, but it gives a better perspective on the debate.
This is false. They are mostly a protection against overbearing copyright. Basically all of the CC licenses (besides the non-commercial one) can be satisfied by a copyright independent requirement to identify the original author(s). The GPL is bit more tricky, but in the end the only advantage to keeping the source secret would be the ability to say "I can modify this to suit your needs, for a modest charge, no one else can...". It would simply be a bad business decision to lock yourself into that. Besides that, binaries can still be dissembled to figure out their secrets and/or directly modified.
What would that definition be? There is nothing contradictory about a "information wants to be free, artists want to eat, let's balance the two position", which a reasonably short period of limited copyright represents.
Yet no one seems to look down upon turning the Windows machine connected to the same router into a bot. How come?
Unless your house is a Faraday cage Google could get that information with one of their WiFi aware vans. It's not your friend who gives out information about your wireless network, it's you, as a consequence of having one.
It doesn't matter, since it shouldn't be able to control the iPhone before the PIN has been entered.
The rights of the stockholders, officers and employees, as applying to the corporation, should be curtailed to the same extent as their liability is reduced.
Non-sense. The GPL can't do anything to you that copyright can't. You can opt to refuse the license and deal with a plain old copyright violation. Proprietary software (including second generation BSD licensed software) is likely to add additional EULA terms.
Thats a lie, BSD is several steps above 'do what you want'.