He made it so you can access features that the terms of service clearly say cost money and is not allowed.
Wrong -- the TOS say nothing of the sort. That's really the source of this whole fiasco -- the TOS is not consistent with MS's business plan for Express. Instead of being able to point to a specific clause violation, MS has been forced to Be Evil.
Good point, but there's also such a thing as too many options.
(1) Microsoft has long supported drive mapping to network storage, more recently adding stuff like WebDAV support. (2) Then there's Exchange public folders and increased mailbox storage (see TFA). (3) Third, you've got the SharePoint for intranet web. You could say Microsoft CMS Server is a fourth option, but it's been discontinued, merged into SharePoint 2007.
The problem is that these three storage methods have COMPLETELY different UIs. One is integrated into the OS; two is a fat client (or OWA); three is Internet Explorer plus MS Office. Each have their various strengths and weaknesses, but that's not the point.
The point is it's confusing as hell for users to switch in between the three. (Wait, how do I copy this attachment in my email to my department's SharePoint site?) And yes, organizations do frequently implement all three (e.g., my employer does, and I'm in IT support this stuff:-)). Plus, many organizations may have a FOURTH (or fifth, or more) non-MS system in place to store generic user files, e.g. in-house wikis, one of the hundreds of CMSes out there, etc.
Solution? Better integration of these three methods and a more unified UI from MS, for one. Two, organizations need to plan it out better as to what data should go where. Right now, it's a murky picture at best.
I'm not disputing the current (as of 1999) definition of GB, or the fact that OSes should use GiB instead of GB.
But the fact remains that it is dishonest for hard drive manufacturers to put a big fat "200GB!" sticker on the front of the box when they know their customers' OSes will report it as 186GB.
This would be a non-issue if they would market it as a "200GB/186GiB" drive.
Spot on. Looking ahead to terabyte drives, an 11.0 TB drive = 10.0 TiB. Quite a disparity.
I really hope the disk storage industry gets its act together before then. Switch to more honest advertising practices, please. OSes have been measuring disk space in binary (not decimal!) for decades now.
Other than the obvious execution speed issue, there's a second factor involved that's nearer and dearer to Microsoft's heart: protection of their IP.
.NET has excellent reflection support. Consequently,.NET assemblies are easily decompiled. And there are numerous freely available tools to do this.
Sure, there's obfuscation. Doubtlessly, MS already uses obfuscation extensively in every one of its published.NET assemblies.
But obfuscation will only get you so far. Your garden-variety reverse engineer will have an easier time working with obfuscated.NET code than traditional assemblies.
I'm sure the experienced DDoSer knows he's going to lose a fair number of his zombies eventually. Counter-attacks are par for the course. If the extortionist is smart, he'll have redundancy, regeneration, and misdirection all built in to his botnetting scheme.
I haven't the foggiest as to what the monetary value of a botnet is (anyone have any idea?) But I imagine that a DDoSer will still come out ahead after extorting his $50,000, even if he loses a botnet or two.
I think Ivan did get paid; it's just not very clear because of the language barrier. From TFA:
eXe: no all paid =(
Hardcore: nobody paid? really?
eXe: somebody ...
Hardcore: did anyone pay at all?
eXe: anyone
The article mentions that Ivan (eXe) spoke very poor English. Obviously, he hasn't mastered all the intracies of using quantifiers in English. This is what I assume Ivan means:
eXe: no all paid =(
== Not everyone paid.
Hardcore: nobody paid? really?
eXe: somebody == Some of them paid. ...
Hardcore: did anyone pay at all?
eXe: anyone == Some of them paid.
So yes, our favorite Russian DoS extortionist was raking in the big rubles... at least by my reading. In any case, Ivan goes to trial later this year... hopefully the facts will become clearer then.
What is really needed, is serious money being pushed into Interpol, and hiring whitehats there. Online criminals aren't going to spend much time in countries with strong federal police, like the US.
Simply pumping money into Interpol won't cut it, but it's a start. It will also take a huge increase in cooperation, trust, and manpower from governments and police forces at all levels (local, regional, national, and otherwise).
As long as there are governments and police organizations out there that don't cooperate (and there are a *lot* of them), criminals will have their safe havens.
From a purely economic standpoint, it makes me wonder who's the real "extortionist"...
Yes, that's the first thought that popped into my head when I read that paragraph, too. But economics is more complex than simple dollar amounts. Even from a purely economic standpoint, Lyon and company still aren't the extortionists. Think supply and demand, those key parts of economics. The DDoSers created the demand, not Lyon. Lyon is just supplying the demanded service. As long as he is not unethically or unlawfully creating demand, it ain't extortion.
So basically what you're saying is that it's coming down to blackmail?
Disney: "Renew the contract or we'll crucify your characters by releasing a dozen straight-to-video crapfests!"
If I were a Pixar executive, I would call Disney's bluff. Disney is going to milk Pixar's previous creations for all they're worth, and then some, regardless of whether Pixar decides to play ball with Disney.
If the continued creative genius exhibited The Incredibles is any guide, Pixar continues to look forward rather than backward. I'm not worried about Disney's inevitable retaliation; Pixar will continue to innovate with or without Disney's cooperation.
This wouldn't be the first times organisations have gone over board on something and ruined what they already had. Look at all the long term really successful products (WinAmp, Google.com, etc) they do so by keeping it simple. Not trying to re-write the wheel and do things like this.
Actually, both Winamp and Google are victims of feature creep. And really, both of these killer apps have more functionality, features, and bloat than Firefox. Take a look:
Winamp rips, burns, and plays CDs, mp3s, wavs, and any other audio file you could think of; it has all sorts of eye candy (skins with transparencies, visualizations,...) It plays videos. It washes the dog and takes out the trash.
Google, too, has all sorts of extra features that have gone well outside its original mission (a search engine). Examples: Google is now a major ad server; the dozens of services listed here and here.
No, both of these huge popular, long-term successful products have certainly not been kept simple. The wheel has indeed been reinvented many times over, and the products are in fact stronger for it because Google and Nullsoft keep a close eye on their feature creep. They don't and they shouldn't stop their software from evolving to find new markets and improve old ones. The trick is to not go completely overboard with a new feature or product that works against other members of your product suite. Google and Nullsoft (and Firefox, for that matter) have been very good at this. They keep feature creep heading in the right direction.
Yeah, we still have great universities, but what percentage of the big universities are being filled by foreigners? (I don't mean "foreigners" in a racist sort of way). They learn here and take it home with them. Yeah, a lot of them stay, but a lot of them bring the education home...
...I think the US will cease to be a superpower in an economic and academic sense in the next few decades.
Good observation. You didn't say this explicitly, but: it's important to know that where technical know-how goes, academia will eventually follow. This is why the U.S. has such a large number of universities that are highly respected internationally. India certainly does have some excellent universities, but the "availability and quality of education per capita" is much, much higher in the U.S.
To prove the theory and track this trend, the trick is coming up with a good metric to measure "availability and quality of education per capita". Something like:
(E + S*R*(100-I)*K) / P
E = weighted sum of universities by international ranking
S = average salary
R = average annual raise %
I = average inflation %
K = arbitrary constant
P = population below retirement age
I'm sure staticians have tried to calculate something like this before; I can't think of any offhand.
Anyway, my main point is this: education is already getting better in India, and eventually, if the outsourcing trend increases, India's education institutions will surpass the U.S.'s. This process may take decades or centuries, but it will happen if outsourcing continues.
In 10 years, India will be full of very experienced managers, architects, and analysts. In the US though, most of those jobs will be gone much like the junior positions are leaving now.
That's a very keen observation. Perhaps in 20 years, the U.S. will be outsourcing jobs from India? I'm only half joking -- it's reasonable to expect that there will be steady shift throughout the global economy in the IT industry.
It is, of course, a bit premature to assume that India will get 100% of the world's IT work. There are balancing factors involved; Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" will eventually grow tired of pushing and pulling IT jobs across the oceans. But not for decades, I think.
The problem here is cultural and wikipedia is the symptom. People, in general, are not skeptical enough.
Not quite. Wikipedia is not the symptom, it's an attempt at a cure. An increasing number of Wikipedians -- especially among the frequent contributors -- insist on citing verifiable sources in all articles. It is true that the average Joe visiting Wikipedia is not be skeptical enough. However, the average Wikipedian (i.e., a long-term contributor) possesses a healthy skepticism and respect for the truth.
Article writers who, desperately wanting to appear clever to their readers, encourage "experimenting" by intentionally making bad edits aren't helping matters. Instead of advocating vandalism, why not encourage readers to become full-fledged, healthily skeptical Wikipedians?
To the editors at The Register: excellent job on placing that ad banner... directly inside the death threat spam mail! Good idea to get your readers thinking that 'The Register Carrion Merchandise' is sponsored by the nigerian scammers... maybe the readers will send you {FOURTHY THOUSAND UNITED STATES DOLLARS}, too.
From the article:
From: Secretary Towogbola [secretary_in_chargeeeee@hotmail.com]
Subject: TREAT AS URGENT..Ben.. {THIS IS NO JUNK MAIL}
[Ad for 'The Register Merchandise']
"EXECUTION"EXECUTION"EXECUTION"'
NATIONAL CORPORATION HEADQUATERS LAGOS.
(rest of email follows)
Looks like somebody's getting fired from Marketing.:-D
Slashdot Mirror
There's a link to the actual order in TFA.
Wrong -- the TOS say nothing of the sort. That's really the source of this whole fiasco -- the TOS is not consistent with MS's business plan for Express. Instead of being able to point to a specific clause violation, MS has been forced to Be Evil.
Good point, but there's also such a thing as too many options.
:-)). Plus, many organizations may have a FOURTH (or fifth, or more) non-MS system in place to store generic user files, e.g. in-house wikis, one of the hundreds of CMSes out there, etc.
(1) Microsoft has long supported drive mapping to network storage, more recently adding stuff like WebDAV support.
(2) Then there's Exchange public folders and increased mailbox storage (see TFA).
(3) Third, you've got the SharePoint for intranet web. You could say Microsoft CMS Server is a fourth option, but it's been discontinued, merged into SharePoint 2007.
The problem is that these three storage methods have COMPLETELY different UIs. One is integrated into the OS; two is a fat client (or OWA); three is Internet Explorer plus MS Office. Each have their various strengths and weaknesses, but that's not the point.
The point is it's confusing as hell for users to switch in between the three. (Wait, how do I copy this attachment in my email to my department's SharePoint site?) And yes, organizations do frequently implement all three (e.g., my employer does, and I'm in IT support this stuff
Solution? Better integration of these three methods and a more unified UI from MS, for one. Two, organizations need to plan it out better as to what data should go where. Right now, it's a murky picture at best.
Google is your shotgun, Wikipedia is your rifle.
But the fact remains that it is dishonest for hard drive manufacturers to put a big fat "200GB!" sticker on the front of the box when they know their customers' OSes will report it as 186GB.
This would be a non-issue if they would market it as a "200GB/186GiB" drive.
I really hope the disk storage industry gets its act together before then. Switch to more honest advertising practices, please. OSes have been measuring disk space in binary (not decimal!) for decades now.
Yes, I misspoke in my original post. Oops. Hence the sentence in my reply: "Thanks for pointing that out."
Yes, those are part of the language core. Thanks for pointing that out. It would be counter-productive to obfuscate them, after all.
But you'd better believe that Microsoft obfuscates their enterprise-level assemblies (e.g., SharePoint Portal Server, Business Scorecard Manager, ...).
Sure, there's obfuscation. Doubtlessly, MS already uses obfuscation extensively in every one of its published .NET assemblies.
But obfuscation will only get you so far. Your garden-variety reverse engineer will have an easier time working with obfuscated .NET code than traditional assemblies.
...by the Bad Astromer. Still, I can never get enough of nitpicking sessions on Hollywood science. :-)
I haven't the foggiest as to what the monetary value of a botnet is (anyone have any idea?) But I imagine that a DDoSer will still come out ahead after extorting his $50,000, even if he loses a botnet or two.
Simply pumping money into Interpol won't cut it, but it's a start. It will also take a huge increase in cooperation, trust, and manpower from governments and police forces at all levels (local, regional, national, and otherwise).
As long as there are governments and police organizations out there that don't cooperate (and there are a *lot* of them), criminals will have their safe havens.
Yes, that's the first thought that popped into my head when I read that paragraph, too. But economics is more complex than simple dollar amounts. Even from a purely economic standpoint, Lyon and company still aren't the extortionists. Think supply and demand, those key parts of economics. The DDoSers created the demand, not Lyon. Lyon is just supplying the demanded service. As long as he is not unethically or unlawfully creating demand, it ain't extortion.
Or better yet, just post the torrent itself as a comment here on /., MIME-encoded. (Good luck getting around the lameness filter, though...)
Disney: "Renew the contract or we'll crucify your characters by releasing a dozen straight-to-video crapfests!"
If I were a Pixar executive, I would call Disney's bluff. Disney is going to milk Pixar's previous creations for all they're worth, and then some, regardless of whether Pixar decides to play ball with Disney.
If the continued creative genius exhibited The Incredibles is any guide, Pixar continues to look forward rather than backward. I'm not worried about Disney's inevitable retaliation; Pixar will continue to innovate with or without Disney's cooperation.
- Winamp rips, burns, and plays CDs, mp3s, wavs, and any other audio file you could think of; it has all sorts of eye candy (skins with transparencies, visualizations,
...) It plays videos. It washes the dog and takes out the trash.
- Google, too, has all sorts of extra features that have gone well outside its original mission (a search engine). Examples: Google is now a major ad server; the dozens of services listed here and here.
No, both of these huge popular, long-term successful products have certainly not been kept simple. The wheel has indeed been reinvented many times over, and the products are in fact stronger for it because Google and Nullsoft keep a close eye on their feature creep. They don't and they shouldn't stop their software from evolving to find new markets and improve old ones. The trick is to not go completely overboard with a new feature or product that works against other members of your product suite. Google and Nullsoft (and Firefox, for that matter) have been very good at this. They keep feature creep heading in the right direction.To prove the theory and track this trend, the trick is coming up with a good metric to measure "availability and quality of education per capita". Something like:
(E + S*R*(100-I)*K) / P
E = weighted sum of universities by international ranking
S = average salary
R = average annual raise %
I = average inflation %
K = arbitrary constant
P = population below retirement age
I'm sure staticians have tried to calculate something like this before; I can't think of any offhand.
Anyway, my main point is this: education is already getting better in India, and eventually, if the outsourcing trend increases, India's education institutions will surpass the U.S.'s. This process may take decades or centuries, but it will happen if outsourcing continues.
It is, of course, a bit premature to assume that India will get 100% of the world's IT work. There are balancing factors involved; Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" will eventually grow tired of pushing and pulling IT jobs across the oceans. But not for decades, I think.
And anyone on the black market. Which is yet another reason why this idea is totally bogus.
Not quite. Wikipedia is not the symptom, it's an attempt at a cure. An increasing number of Wikipedians -- especially among the frequent contributors -- insist on citing verifiable sources in all articles. It is true that the average Joe visiting Wikipedia is not be skeptical enough. However, the average Wikipedian (i.e., a long-term contributor) possesses a healthy skepticism and respect for the truth.
Article writers who, desperately wanting to appear clever to their readers, encourage "experimenting" by intentionally making bad edits aren't helping matters. Instead of advocating vandalism, why not encourage readers to become full-fledged, healthily skeptical Wikipedians?
Um... the typical barrage of user comments about the /. effect?
Um... ever consider the mind-bogglingly simple solution of:
ls -R> ~/dvd.index/<disc_label> for each dvd
grep "<whatever_youre_looking_for>" ~/dvd.index/*
From the article:
Looks like somebody's getting fired from Marketing.So that would make you... a pediaphile?