Either way, the Gravity Probe B experiment is expected to deliver a measurement of frame-dragging with 1% accuracy very soon.
Hmm... I don't know that results that are only 1% accurate are particularly meaningful in any measurement or experiment. I assume that they actually meant accurate to within 1% but that would be 99% accurate...
I do not believe that it was ever intended for CSS to behave in this manner. (If the designers of CSS or of Firefox intended this behavior to be possible, than my analysis fails).
To a certain extent its all just semantics anyway, but consider it from this angle:
Assuming that it was not the intent for CSS to grant document-writers this ability, what we have is a sort of vulnerability in the CSS model or its implementation that allows a document writer to gain more control over your browser than intended.
If it was the intent of the CSS designers, or of the browser designers, to enable this functionality (the ability of a document to specify that it can not be copied & pasted), then I am left only to object that I disapprove of google's choice, and not that it is a sort of security issue.
I am a firm believer in the need for copyright. I am a firm believer in the right of an author to retain certain rights. I am, however, very strongly of the opinion that the current scheme goes too far.
In my opinion the purpose of copyright is to increase the quantity and quality of material available in the public domain. I think that's what our countries founders meant, and I think they were right.
I did not force google to create google print. THEY DIDNT ASK ME TO PAY FOR THEIR CONTENT. THEY OFFERED IT UP FOR FREE. But then I learned that it contained a hack.
Is it now legal for any copyright owner to install a hack of any sort on your computer when you view their material?
would it be morally or legally acceptable for the installer for Doom3 to install a keylogger on my system?
Doh: missed Counter example 2: Same thing, really. The hard drive can "attack" itself, but hard drive firmware can't attack other programs that are in memory.
It could feed incorrect data, at which point it would be BROKEN and I could get a REPLACEMENT from the MANUFACTURER (assuming that this was bad firmware, and not because the drive died over the course of several years).
"Conter" Example 1: Correct. My game doesn't run if its CD isn't in the drive. But it the game is "attacking" itself.
In the google case the DOCUMENT is attacking your BROWSER. It is Firefox that stops working as expected, NOT the document. The document is not a program, it is not a web browser, it is a document.
A document generated by a program, yes, but not a program on my computer.
The vulnerability is that the print function of my browser will stop working for the entire duration of the display of the google print page on my screen.
I visited a web page, and that web page broke a feature of my web browser. The fact that there is a fix (closing the google print page and never going back) does *not* imply that the attack was unsuccessful. Only easy to circumvent. Easily circumvented attacks are still attacks.
Just because I run apache on my webserver, and not IIS does not mean that all the lovely URL overflow attacks I get aren't attacks. They just fail.
What it comes down to is this: after 9/11 the government realized that if it waited for people to do something wrong before neutralizing them, it'd be too late.
Simple solution! Give the government sweeping powers to secretly spy on people, and eliminate those that look threatening...
Alas, but that does give the terrorists precisely what they want -- a complete desctruction of our free society.
Fortunately, a judge somewhere saw that and chose to act in a small way to prevent that.
Now, just like before 9/11, the government has to demonstrate a high degree of probability that someone has actually broken the law before they can act to destroy them -- at least in this respect
Here's the thing... you probably wouldn't ever see a big payday.
I will tell you how this will work. Wait until the MPAA's notice goes to a lawyer. Especially a lawyer that specializes in civil suits (as opposed to, say, criminal law, or family law, or......).
Lawyer says "hey... this sounds like a good class action suit to me..."
3 years later lawyer makes $250 million, and everybody else gets $100 worth of free movies...
Itaniums are currently very expensive. Mostly because they are designed for servers. Also partly because the fixed-cost of designing the damn thing has to be recovered with fewer units, because its a server thing, and only really for servers that need 64-bit.
The reason that Intel is going to make "AMD compatible" 64-bit processors is because the AMD version extended x86, so that you don't have to emulate "old 32-bit apps" Since 99.9999999999999999999999999999% of all apps normal people run are of the "old 32-bit" variety, Intel hasn't been able to get eople to switch to a new architecture because it would run their apps slower. At least, until they had 64-bit apps to run.
Intel recognized that x86 is a painful architecture and tried to make a new one (not sure how much beter IA64 is, haven't digested the specs). AMD thought they should bet on a proven winner.
It is entirely forseeable, AMD won that battle. That's why Intel will make x86-64 chips. NOT because they can't make others.
Once again, pro Intel? You must be a troll, nobody actually likes Intel... Pro AMD? Ahh, there ya go, that's nice and informative...
why am I not surprised......
I happen to agree with the parent. There's nothing quite like an Intel CPU running on an Intel Chipset. I don't usually run Intel Motherboards, being an MSI and Gigabyte fan, but I always pick out an Intel chipset... They just work more often...
Don't like it? BFD. You can buy whatever you want.
Not getting patches or fixes sooner. Being told that there is a flaw sooner. In this case not even what the flaw is... just that there is one, and that in a day or so we'll tell the world what it is -- heads up, somethings coming. That's it.
No "protection," no early patches, no nothing. Just a nice little note saying "we're working on a couple of security flaws, details forthcoming"
Calm yourself please. If you want to hate Microsoft, please do it for a valid reason, not some bullshit like this.
because you still do have access to the virus -- I mean, if it didn't run itself on your machine, what's the point... and it puts a copy of itself into system memory when it runs, so you technically have access to it...
in the end, it is a very fine point that would be decided somewhat arbitrarily by a panel of judges somewhere...
Technically, a virus is probably protected by copyright law, and therefore by the DMCA.
However, the DMCA does *not* disallow reverse engineering, it only forbids circumvention of access control mechanisms.
There are not usually any access control mechanisms on a virus, however if there were such mechanisms it would probably be a felony to make a device capable of circumventing them.
Not 100% sure though... I don't know enough about copyright law to be certain.
Not going to matter much if you set a precedent in France.
This is a French lawsuit. If the French government required all this stuff, and the rest of the world did not, Apple could simply put up a disclaimer saying "You may not use iTMS if you are currently in France" and then get on with their life.
Slashdot Mirror
HEY! There's nothing wrong with sprinting 'round the parking lot after seeing the movie!
If you really like WoW you will hate EQ2 and if you like EQ2 you will hate WoW.
This is not a hard-and-fast rule as one of my friends who is a rabid EQ player loved the WoW beta, and is probably going to buy EQ2 as well...
Either way, the Gravity Probe B experiment is expected to deliver a measurement of frame-dragging with 1% accuracy very soon.
Hmm... I don't know that results that are only 1% accurate are particularly meaningful in any measurement or experiment. I assume that they actually meant accurate to within 1% but that would be 99% accurate...
Or am I completely missing the obvious again...
fair point.
I do not believe that it was ever intended for CSS to behave in this manner. (If the designers of CSS or of Firefox intended this behavior to be possible, than my analysis fails).
To a certain extent its all just semantics anyway, but consider it from this angle:
Assuming that it was not the intent for CSS to grant document-writers this ability, what we have is a sort of vulnerability in the CSS model or its implementation that allows a document writer to gain more control over your browser than intended.
If it was the intent of the CSS designers, or of the browser designers, to enable this functionality (the ability of a document to specify that it can not be copied & pasted), then I am left only to object that I disapprove of google's choice, and not that it is a sort of security issue.
I am a firm believer in the need for copyright. I am a firm believer in the right of an author to retain certain rights. I am, however, very strongly of the opinion that the current scheme goes too far.
In my opinion the purpose of copyright is to increase the quantity and quality of material available in the public domain. I think that's what our countries founders meant, and I think they were right.
To parahprase:
Nothing is broken, google just broke the copy save and print features so that they didnt work anymore. That's not breaking something!
precisely.
And it could be done with pen-and-paper.
Lets outlaw things that make marks and things that you can make marks on. Then authors will be safe......
I did not force google to create google print. THEY DIDNT ASK ME TO PAY FOR THEIR CONTENT. THEY OFFERED IT UP FOR FREE. But then I learned that it contained a hack.
Is it now legal for any copyright owner to install a hack of any sort on your computer when you view their material?
would it be morally or legally acceptable for the installer for Doom3 to install a keylogger on my system?
Shut up retard.
EvilSS. I assume you are running lynx?
It can display pages.
There are perhaps other desirable features in a web browser that make it worth using firefox/mozilla/your-favorite-gui-browser?
or do you wish to amend your list of browser features?
It is the definition of a security vulnerability. A website has found a way to use a normally provided interface to have normally prohibited results.
The interface (CSS) is being hijacked to cause a temporary crippling of the web browser.
Nobody is asking anybody to force anybosdy else to do squat.
Pay attention or shut up.
Thanks.
Doh: missed Counter example 2:
Same thing, really. The hard drive can "attack" itself, but hard drive firmware can't attack other programs that are in memory.
It could feed incorrect data, at which point it would be BROKEN and I could get a REPLACEMENT from the MANUFACTURER (assuming that this was bad firmware, and not because the drive died over the course of several years).
"Conter" Example 1:
Correct. My game doesn't run if its CD isn't in the drive. But it the game is "attacking" itself.
In the google case the DOCUMENT is attacking your BROWSER. It is Firefox that stops working as expected, NOT the document. The document is not a program, it is not a web browser, it is a document.
A document generated by a program, yes, but not a program on my computer.
You got it.
The vulnerability is that the print function of my browser will stop working for the entire duration of the display of the google print page on my screen.
I visited a web page, and that web page broke a feature of my web browser. The fact that there is a fix (closing the google print page and never going back) does *not* imply that the attack was unsuccessful. Only easy to circumvent. Easily circumvented attacks are still attacks.
Just because I run apache on my webserver, and not IIS does not mean that all the lovely URL overflow attacks I get aren't attacks. They just fail.
Ahh, but here's the thing...
I went looking, for instance, for a GUI program that would allow me to look at the contents of a SQL database.
I eventually did find such a program -- it used the proprietary interface provided by my database.
Along the way, however, I found 4 competing standard protocols for how to do this -- and not one application that used any of them.
A standard for everything is fine, but what about 4 'standards' for everything. No good. Not standard anymore.
Precisely
What it comes down to is this: after 9/11 the government realized that if it waited for people to do something wrong before neutralizing them, it'd be too late.
Simple solution! Give the government sweeping powers to secretly spy on people, and eliminate those that look threatening...
Alas, but that does give the terrorists precisely what they want -- a complete desctruction of our free society.
Fortunately, a judge somewhere saw that and chose to act in a small way to prevent that.
Now, just like before 9/11, the government has to demonstrate a high degree of probability that someone has actually broken the law before they can act to destroy them -- at least in this respect
Here's the thing...
......).
you probably wouldn't ever see a big payday.
I will tell you how this will work. Wait until the MPAA's notice goes to a lawyer. Especially a lawyer that specializes in civil suits (as opposed to, say, criminal law, or family law, or
Lawyer says "hey... this sounds like a good class action suit to me..."
3 years later lawyer makes $250 million, and everybody else gets $100 worth of free movies...
Bullshit.
Itaniums are currently very expensive. Mostly because they are designed for servers. Also partly because the fixed-cost of designing the damn thing has to be recovered with fewer units, because its a server thing, and only really for servers that need 64-bit.
The reason that Intel is going to make "AMD compatible" 64-bit processors is because the AMD version extended x86, so that you don't have to emulate "old 32-bit apps" Since 99.9999999999999999999999999999% of all apps normal people run are of the "old 32-bit" variety, Intel hasn't been able to get eople to switch to a new architecture because it would run their apps slower. At least, until they had 64-bit apps to run.
Intel recognized that x86 is a painful architecture and tried to make a new one (not sure how much beter IA64 is, haven't digested the specs). AMD thought they should bet on a proven winner.
It is entirely forseeable, AMD won that battle. That's why Intel will make x86-64 chips. NOT because they can't make others.
Yay for slashdot!
Once again, pro Intel? You must be a troll, nobody actually likes Intel... Pro AMD? Ahh, there ya go, that's nice and informative...
why am I not surprised......
I happen to agree with the parent. There's nothing quite like an Intel CPU running on an Intel Chipset. I don't usually run Intel Motherboards, being an MSI and Gigabyte fan, but I always pick out an Intel chipset... They just work more often...
Don't like it? BFD. You can buy whatever you want.
I hate to say this, but...
RTFA
Not getting patches or fixes sooner. Being told that there is a flaw sooner. In this case not even what the flaw is... just that there is one, and that in a day or so we'll tell the world what it is -- heads up, somethings coming. That's it.
No "protection," no early patches, no nothing. Just a nice little note saying "we're working on a couple of security flaws, details forthcoming"
Calm yourself please. If you want to hate Microsoft, please do it for a valid reason, not some bullshit like this.
Thanks.
-- Fareq
Ok.
Calm down, think for a minute...
you are right. It costs money to deal with spam. But it costs *more* money to deal with physical mail.
The argument isn't that spam is without cost, just that its preferable to your suggested alternative of paper mail.
Some of us still think they are both ugly and useless
it depends...
because you still do have access to the virus -- I mean, if it didn't run itself on your machine, what's the point... and it puts a copy of itself into system memory when it runs, so you technically have access to it...
in the end, it is a very fine point that would be decided somewhat arbitrarily by a panel of judges somewhere...
Technically, a virus is probably protected by copyright law, and therefore by the DMCA.
However, the DMCA does *not* disallow reverse engineering, it only forbids circumvention of access control mechanisms.
There are not usually any access control mechanisms on a virus, however if there were such mechanisms it would probably be a felony to make a device capable of circumventing them.
Not 100% sure though... I don't know enough about copyright law to be certain.
Not going to matter much if you set a precedent in France.
This is a French lawsuit. If the French government required all this stuff, and the rest of the world did not, Apple could simply put up a disclaimer saying "You may not use iTMS if you are currently in France" and then get on with their life.
Yes, that's why I use Red Hat as well.
I tried Mandrake once, version 7 maybe? been a while...
Didn't work very well for me, but the machine it was on had problems anyway.
Never was able to get Debian to install... Installer kept dying on me, but ah well...
I do what I can...
-- Fareq