It is interesting, because when it all comes down to it, the "good guys" are hurt due to restrictions, and the "bad guys" always end up pirating...
I find this analysis interesting. From my years of observing Slashdot, it seems like the majority of users that comment and moderate tend toward the liberal side (I know there are a lot of conservatives out there, but I'm talking about on average here).
The part I find interesting, though, is that this is the exact argument that a conservative uses with gun control--that gun control only restricts the good buys, and the bad guys will get their guns through illegitimate methods anyway. I'm not sure why liberals rebuff/ignore that argument, but I also find that this argument is so pervasive in this thread about DRM and music.
I'm not trying to accuse anyone of anything or really make a point, it was just an interesting observation.
Notice Balmer's statement, 'I wish those people just would be quiet.'
He's not saying, "Please don't release the findings so that blackhats can't use the exploits."
He's not even saying, "Please delay telling the public about your findings so that we have a chance to fix the flaws."
He's saying, "I wish they would be quiet so that we don't have to spend the time/money/manpower to plug our holes. It's not our fault people are exploiting the holes, it's the people who release security reports."
I know, you're saying that it's obvious a company would want to help it's bottom line, but he didn't even have the decency to make his statement very cryptically.
From the second article, "I'm not sure saving the work of typing '***********' into a little box when you want to install or update a program is worth the security risk it causes."
First, someone should tell him that he shouldn't reveal his passwords on an online article. Now anyone can root his box!
Second, someone should tell him that having a password of all the same characters is itself a security risk (and using one so obvious as '*' is just plain silly).
Let's pretend I sneak a video camera (yes, I know it's more technical, trying to make a point) in my local theater and record the film, then run home, encode it and upload it to the world.
The movie company then downloads the film, see's the spots and tracks it to my theater. Now what? Are they going to shake down the theater owners, untill they install security and metal detectors?
How does this really prevent anything <snip>
That's not the point of the spot system. The whole purpose of the MPAA doing this is to ruin the MPEG compression so that you won't want to upload it to the web. A movie will go from being 1.5 GB to >3GB if the spots are left in the movie.
You won't see the spots because they will only be in one or two frames (which might be illegal in some contries) every few seconds, but when your encoder tries to compress the movie, it will have to create an I-Frame (completely uncompressed) because the frame with a spot in it is sufficiently different from the frame before it that the compression won't save any space. So you will get three I-Frames in a row where you would have only one and two compressed frames.
So yes, you could still get the film videoed and on the web, but with your ADSL or cable modem, it will take signifigantly longer to upload, and likewise much longer to download (thus deterring "piracy").
I know an Amazon Associate who is willing to sell you that book, just be sure to add "inertishomepa-20" to the end of any url string to get the "special deal." I hear his current specials are on SAMS Teach Yourself books right now.
First, no matter how much pressure media giants put on copyright infringers that use P2P software to swap their music/movies/etc., these users will always find a way to continue trade the media. Even if the communities are reduced to using something like freenet, that group of people will always be there (yes, I know that there are many legal and encouraging uses for services like Kazaa, but the majority of users are downloading and serving music they have not bought legally).
Second, there are many uses for P2P not yet explored and invented. P2P became very popular around 2000 because of Napster, but file sharing is just the tip of the iceburg. Scientific computers across a P2P network can share computing power.
P2P is here to stay. In what form is not quite clear. It will obviously evolve and transform with the computing/Internet climate, but with bandwidth always becoming cheaper, I cannot see P2P going away.
I thought this was useful until I lost my little USB drive (or it was stolen, I can't figure out which). Now my public/private keypair are useless.
Fortunately, almost nobody else I know actually uses PGP, so if I create a new key, it's not a big deal.
And yes, I know you're thinking, "You shouldn't lose your USB drive," but in real life, stuff like this happens. I was always very careful with it, which makes me think it was possibly stolen (moral of that story, don't trust everyone with access to your work space).
> one thing does stand out, the use of the words 'improper contribution'. Not 'improper use'...
Not only is the phrase nonsensical, but this clearly shows SCO's motives. If they were so conserned with 'improper contribution' then they would be trying to find and prosecute the contributor (much in the same way the RIAA is going after distributors of their music). Instead, SCO has made a direct attack on the open source community, the users who mostly don't know exactly what code is in the kernels they are using.
Somebody inside SCO released that code at some point. The way things are going, it seems like it was planned that way, so that they could purposefully front an attack against the open source community, because they really should have found the mole instead of trying to extort bystanders.
> comparing it with public-key or even private-key encryption
When you talk about public-key encryption you usually mean public/private key. I think what you were trying to say was comparing it to public-key and symmetric-key encryption.
Economy to RIAA: Your CD prices are too high. Market equilibrium is much lower, about half of what you're currently charging. And if you lower your prices, I promise to help you profit more!
RIAA: Damn you evil, stealing, pirate P2P users, you're the reason our profit isn't as high.
Evil P2P users:..|.. (imagine that as a hand)
RIAA: Alright, we're going to lower the prices and listen to Economy, but we're still going to blame you pirate-thiefs for this.
Now that the song is $9,700, I sure hope that the winning bidder actually plans to pay.
As it stands, the eBay fees are going to be $158.92, and it would stand to reason that the song will go for a lot more in the next 6 days. eBay's policy is that the seller pays them the fee whether or not the winning bidder pays (so if this song went for $100,000, georgeh734 would be screwed out of over $1,500 if the winning bidder didn't pay).
And the high bidder has a feedback rating of 0 right now; if I was the seller I would be sweating a little right now.
(And if he does pay--through PayPal--then georgeh734 will have to pay eBay even *more* money, but don't get me started on that issue)
Slashdot Mirror
It is interesting, because when it all comes down to it, the "good guys" are hurt due to restrictions, and the "bad guys" always end up pirating...
I find this analysis interesting. From my years of observing Slashdot, it seems like the majority of users that comment and moderate tend toward the liberal side (I know there are a lot of conservatives out there, but I'm talking about on average here).
The part I find interesting, though, is that this is the exact argument that a conservative uses with gun control--that gun control only restricts the good buys, and the bad guys will get their guns through illegitimate methods anyway. I'm not sure why liberals rebuff/ignore that argument, but I also find that this argument is so pervasive in this thread about DRM and music.
I'm not trying to accuse anyone of anything or really make a point, it was just an interesting observation.
I have a custom application that USES this service and when they disable it my company stops working...
I've been trying to get ahold of you. I DO want my diploma, and your program sounds really easy. How much does it cost?
Notice Balmer's statement, 'I wish those people just would be quiet.'
He's not saying, "Please don't release the findings so that blackhats can't use the exploits."
He's not even saying, "Please delay telling the public about your findings so that we have a chance to fix the flaws."
He's saying, "I wish they would be quiet so that we don't have to spend the time/money/manpower to plug our holes. It's not our fault people are exploiting the holes, it's the people who release security reports."
I know, you're saying that it's obvious a company would want to help it's bottom line, but he didn't even have the decency to make his statement very cryptically.
From the second article, "I'm not sure saving the work of typing '***********' into a little box when you want to install or update a program is worth the security risk it causes."
First, someone should tell him that he shouldn't reveal his passwords on an online article. Now anyone can root his box!
Second, someone should tell him that having a password of all the same characters is itself a security risk (and using one so obvious as '*' is just plain silly).
Humor is _never_ off topic.
Let's pretend I sneak a video camera (yes, I know it's more technical, trying to make a point) in my local theater and record the film, then run home, encode it and upload it to the world.
The movie company then downloads the film, see's the spots and tracks it to my theater. Now what? Are they going to shake down the theater owners, untill they install security and metal detectors?
How does this really prevent anything <snip>
That's not the point of the spot system. The whole purpose of the MPAA doing this is to ruin the MPEG compression so that you won't want to upload it to the web. A movie will go from being 1.5 GB to >3GB if the spots are left in the movie.
You won't see the spots because they will only be in one or two frames (which might be illegal in some contries) every few seconds, but when your encoder tries to compress the movie, it will have to create an I-Frame (completely uncompressed) because the frame with a spot in it is sufficiently different from the frame before it that the compression won't save any space. So you will get three I-Frames in a row where you would have only one and two compressed frames.
So yes, you could still get the film videoed and on the web, but with your ADSL or cable modem, it will take signifigantly longer to upload, and likewise much longer to download (thus deterring "piracy").
I know an Amazon Associate who is willing to sell you that book, just be sure to add "inertishomepa-20" to the end of any url string to get the "special deal." I hear his current specials are on SAMS Teach Yourself books right now.
First, no matter how much pressure media giants put on copyright infringers that use P2P software to swap their music/movies/etc., these users will always find a way to continue trade the media. Even if the communities are reduced to using something like freenet, that group of people will always be there (yes, I know that there are many legal and encouraging uses for services like Kazaa, but the majority of users are downloading and serving music they have not bought legally).
Second, there are many uses for P2P not yet explored and invented. P2P became very popular around 2000 because of Napster, but file sharing is just the tip of the iceburg. Scientific computers across a P2P network can share computing power.
P2P is here to stay. In what form is not quite clear. It will obviously evolve and transform with the computing/Internet climate, but with bandwidth always becoming cheaper, I cannot see P2P going away.
I thought this was useful until I lost my little USB drive (or it was stolen, I can't figure out which). Now my public/private keypair are useless.
Fortunately, almost nobody else I know actually uses PGP, so if I create a new key, it's not a big deal.
And yes, I know you're thinking, "You shouldn't lose your USB drive," but in real life, stuff like this happens. I was always very careful with it, which makes me think it was possibly stolen (moral of that story, don't trust everyone with access to your work space).
Use http://www.gnugp.org
> one thing does stand out, the use of the words 'improper contribution'. Not 'improper use'...
Not only is the phrase nonsensical, but this clearly shows SCO's motives. If they were so conserned with 'improper contribution' then they would be trying to find and prosecute the contributor (much in the same way the RIAA is going after distributors of their music). Instead, SCO has made a direct attack on the open source community, the users who mostly don't know exactly what code is in the kernels they are using.
Somebody inside SCO released that code at some point. The way things are going, it seems like it was planned that way, so that they could purposefully front an attack against the open source community, because they really should have found the mole instead of trying to extort bystanders.
> comparing it with public-key or even private-key encryption
When you talk about public-key encryption you usually mean public/private key. I think what you were trying to say was comparing it to public-key and symmetric-key encryption.
I know this guy, and he's a pretty nasty h4XX0r. I didn't know he could take out whole buildings.
Oh, wait, you mean, this was an *actual* tornado. Crap, that must've hurt.
Economy to RIAA: Your CD prices are too high. Market equilibrium is much lower, about half of what you're currently charging. And if you lower your prices, I promise to help you profit more!
..|.. (imagine that as a hand)
RIAA: Damn you evil, stealing, pirate P2P users, you're the reason our profit isn't as high.
Evil P2P users:
RIAA: Alright, we're going to lower the prices and listen to Economy, but we're still going to blame you pirate-thiefs for this.
>Heck, 2.4.x was riddled with problems its entire run.
Must have been the SCO code.
Philanthropic bidder #1: I want to donate to the EFF.
Philanthropic bidder #2: No, I want to donate to the EFF.
Someone else: Guys, you can both donate to the EFF whether or not you win the eBay auction!
Bidders: Shut up, can't you see we're trying to win an eBay auction here!
Now that the song is $9,700, I sure hope that the winning bidder actually plans to pay.
As it stands, the eBay fees are going to be $158.92, and it would stand to reason that the song will go for a lot more in the next 6 days. eBay's policy is that the seller pays them the fee whether or not the winning bidder pays (so if this song went for $100,000, georgeh734 would be screwed out of over $1,500 if the winning bidder didn't pay).
And the high bidder has a feedback rating of 0 right now; if I was the seller I would be sweating a little right now.
(And if he does pay--through PayPal--then georgeh734 will have to pay eBay even *more* money, but don't get me started on that issue)