If what that poster said is correct, then the only crypto is the software that verifies you entered the correct password, and then sends the "show second partition" command. And the whole lot is pointless, as that second partition itself is not protected in any way, except by running the vendor software itself on Windows.
I see your point, but it won't always be "infringers" who will be looking for these prior arts. And even if they were, an anonymous tip on "wikiforpriorartclaims.com" would let some do-good random make the complaint anyway.
Personally, I'd like to see it set up such that if random-joe finds prior art using publicly available information (aka 'Hey, I searched for the obvious terms A & B, and found prior art here'), then the applicant is fined, so the applicants themselves are forced to at least complete a cursory search for prior art. Of course, then we have to work out what counts as "obvious terms" and what is considered "publicly available" (are scientific journals?).
They just eavesdrop on communications between bots and the C&C. Trying to "compromise" the key exchange is as easy as breaking the asymmetric encryption algorithm. Aka, not very easy at all.
From the sounds of it, you're recommending that we move all file system operations over to the HDD (all of the managing where files are, how big they are, what directories exist etc)?
This is going back a few years, but I do believe that will only work for single sector writes. Basically, if you're writing to a whole heap of sectors, there's no guarantee that they'll all be lined up one after another. You might be writing 8 sectors at locations 2, 15, 16, 46, 124, 3422, 3423. For each sector written, you also have to update the filesystem, so the filesystem knows that the next sector is at 15 (or maybe specify that the address of the second section is 15, depending on filesystem).
I don't know if there are any improvements made to technology, however, that might streamline the process, especially if 8 sectors in a row are free for writing.
I see four numbers there, representing the decimal numbers 0 through 3 inclusive. He's not saying that "00,01,10,11" are labels for types of people, he's saying the number of types is "11", which if read as a binary number is 3 in decimal.
What OS is this on? I've had similar results under Windows, but under Linux it's quite common for flash to completely lock up my browser, about once a day.
accepting that the SOFTWARE REQUIREMENTS clearly state "Mac copmputer with intel Processor" clearly indicates the existinace of a prior OEM license.
Actually, that only indicates the existence of a Mac computer. I don't know of any clear cut definitions, but if I was looking to purchase an operating system, I would assume that the "computer" requirement only means hardware.
the 10.6 package actually does indicate 10.5 already be in existance as well as there is no 10.4 to 10.6 migration path using the 10.6 boxed product at $29 (you must buy the Mac Boxed Set at $169, which also clearly indicates it is intended only to upgrade 10.3 or 10.4).
Can you show me where it "indicates" this? Last time I checked, I could not see any noticable markings on the package that indicate that 10.5 is required, nor that 10.4 would not be sufficient. Actually, I couldn't find any specific instruction on the package that states anything about requiring a version of OSX.
This is clear text on the outside of the box, further clarified by references to apple.com for more detailed system requirements and their EULA full text.
This is considdered FULL legal disclosure pre-sale. It has been argued, and upheld in court, numerous times, for Apple and all other software vendors since back in the 80s when software retail packaging statrted becoming popular, when software could be bought without talking to a sales rep first.
EULAs have been enforced in some specific instances. They have been declared non-binding in other instances. There has not yet, afaik, been an all encompassing decision made, that makes all EULAs either binding nor non-binding.
Additionally, what encompasses agreement of the EULA? I know many state "if you do not agree, then return the product", but what if I don't bother reading it. What if I see a big wall of text, then manipulate my software (the software I purchased) to remove said wall-of-text. Now I just see a blank box, which I agree to. What now?
Just because they sell a product that will let you install it on blank hardware doesn't mean they can't consider it an upgrade for the version that came with your hardware (which you legally bought a license for when you bought the hardware).
Just because the term "upgrade" is used, doesn't mean it requires the old license. My Pentium was an upgrade when compared to my 386. It had a bigger hard drive, a faster processor, and more RAM. It didn't somehow magically require my 386 to function, it was a complete stand alone system which was better than a 386, and hence an upgrade.
If they mention on the package that it "requires OSX 10.5" or similar, then I understand. MS does this on upgrade packages. Game expansions almost always state "Original_game_name is required to use this software". If they make this clear, then yes a regular customer could tell that it requires an existing OSX install, but without it all "upgrade" means is that is has better features when compared to an older version.
Actually, "Upgrade" appears on the package for both 10.5 and 10.6.
I'll take your word for it. But I also know that it (10.5) will install on a blank drive, so it must be marketing-speak.
A new computer purchased today will quite often be an "upgrade" when compared against a 386 purchased many years ago. That doesn't inherently imply that the 386 is required to run the new computer.
To compare with MS, Windows upgrades often specifically state that an older version is required, just like many expansion packs for games state "Requires original_game_name to play". The word "upgrade" by itself doesn't always mean that an older version must be present.
Isn't it possible that the parent has hit the nail on the head here, that the word "upgrade" on the packaging is simply stating that 10.6 is "better" than 10.5 for some meaning of the word "better", without the requirement that 10.5 be already installed?
I realise that what you say is how things worked for you, but on my old laptop (integrated Intel 945GMA, 1.6GHz single core cpu, 1.5GB RAM), compiz ran fine. I could do all the snazzy 3d effects, and I had no noticable slowdowns, and rarely if ever saw a crash.
I'm not sure what features are lacking from compiz when compared to OSX or Vista/7, but I find the application switchers, expose/desktop wall and window previews to be very useful, and these are things I've been using for a number of years now.
I'm in science for the sake of doing science, not for the money. However, there probably aren't too many like me. Also, for what it's worth, the money a "business" offers me to work on things to benefit them, as opposed to university position+grants to work on things which interest me, makes it an easy choice. There are plenty of smart scientists around, but they'd all rather be working on their own projects, than whatever the business wants. If you want to entice them away, you have to offer them something.
Now we have confirmed that Netflix is throttling instant streaming PC-users to a rediculous 50 or 60 KB/sec cap
That's an interesting argument. He showed that each thread was throttled to 50 or 60 KB/sec, but he never had any evidence to support his argument atht it's netflix at fault, not his ISP or some other internet issue.
And yet, all this is just a distraction from the fact that this type of task is MUCH EASIER to do in a Windows environment than a Linux environment... I thought Linux was the "more powerful" OS?
Well you could simply not install Solitaire. If desperate, you could even mount/home as noexec, and you'd possibly do a better job of blocking Solitaire than Windows. It's been a while (win2000) since I last tried, but all you had to do was rename the.exe file (or, god forbid, download a solitaire "variant" with a differing filename) and Windows would happily run it for you.
What's the point to this? Unless I'm mistaken (and I did RTFA), they will only be able to work out where the person sat if they listen to the recording. That means either a) they've already caught them, or b) they've managed to leave the cinema, go home, compress and upload the film. Do cinemas in the US record full ID of every person attending, including what seat they sat at?
Or maybe the vast majority of [the worlds] software runs on [Windows], and [Windows is] what students will encounter on the vast majority of computers they will use in the real world because that is what schools have used, and how Microsoft helped build their monopoly.
Uuh do you know what the reply-all button does? It doesn't email "everyone", it just emails the people who are in the cc: line of the email as well as the original sender.
So US laws determine what happens on US servers run by US companies, and other countries have no say, regardless of where the users are.
Can we extend this logic and say that servers not in the US, and not run by US companies or people, are not under US jurisdiction, and as such the US (government, companies or people) should not interfere with them?
You know what sucks? I hate microsoft a LOT. More than most people possibly, but it doesn't matter how screwed up their OS's get, I will never switch to Linux which I love dearly (in its use and philosophy). That's because Linux will most probably NEVER:
-Let me run my old PC games
-Let me run current PC games (without great hassle)
-Let me run applications specific to my line of work (3d studio max, maya, premiere, photoshop, and various game engines)
Actually, Linux has done almost all it can to let you run old PC games, current PC games and applications specific to your line of work. It's not some fundamental feature of the OS, or lacking API's which is causing your troubles. It's that the old games/current games/applications do not support Linux.
The WINE guys are doing their best to reverse engineer the APIs and whatnot, but in regards to effort required, it is much easier for companies to work from source code and make their software work under Linux, than it is for the WINE guys to work from binary blods to try and get the software working.
I know why I stopped reading "tech media". Because each article is at least 10 pages long, and 90% of each page is ads.
Get it through your heads. The internet does not require pages. Just shove all the info onto one page. A banner up top I can handle, one down the side I guess. Don't clutter our screen with ads and minimal content, and then whine when we stop reading.
So, the draft removes the right to prosecute someone for cracking protected content? Businesses will love that extra complication for prosecuting hackers or disgruntled employees. The way I see it, they can no longer prosecute for simply cracking protected content. I see this as being akin to not being able to prosecute for jimmying open a lock. You can still be prosecuted for breaking and entering, for trespassing, for stealing.
So these hackers, or disgruntled employees, can no longer be prosecuted for cracking protected content, but surely they can be prosecuted for the cyber equivalent of breaking and entering/trespassing/stealing?
I'm no lawyer. Hell, I'm not even American so I have no idea how your legal system works, or what the exact laws are. This is just how I see the interpretation.
Is it just me, or does the excerpt posted by Riding with Robots lack any sort of detail? It reads to me like "Hey, we found something important. Really important. Now come to our site to find out what". Surely it wouldn't be too hard to mention that they found a concentrated silica deposit, which would require water to create.
I just saw a blocked flash ad. Clicked "Skip ad", and got to another blocked flash ad. Clicked "Skip ad" again. Still the same page. I don't mind ads on websites. Full-page ads that require flash, javascript and cookies to get past, and I do draw the line.
Slashdot Mirror
See http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1498504&cid=30659002
If what that poster said is correct, then the only crypto is the software that verifies you entered the correct password, and then sends the "show second partition" command. And the whole lot is pointless, as that second partition itself is not protected in any way, except by running the vendor software itself on Windows.
I see your point, but it won't always be "infringers" who will be looking for these prior arts. And even if they were, an anonymous tip on "wikiforpriorartclaims.com" would let some do-good random make the complaint anyway.
Personally, I'd like to see it set up such that if random-joe finds prior art using publicly available information (aka 'Hey, I searched for the obvious terms A & B, and found prior art here'), then the applicant is fined, so the applicants themselves are forced to at least complete a cursory search for prior art. Of course, then we have to work out what counts as "obvious terms" and what is considered "publicly available" (are scientific journals?).
They just eavesdrop on communications between bots and the C&C. Trying to "compromise" the key exchange is as easy as breaking the asymmetric encryption algorithm. Aka, not very easy at all.
From the sounds of it, you're recommending that we move all file system operations over to the HDD (all of the managing where files are, how big they are, what directories exist etc)?
This is going back a few years, but I do believe that will only work for single sector writes. Basically, if you're writing to a whole heap of sectors, there's no guarantee that they'll all be lined up one after another. You might be writing 8 sectors at locations 2, 15, 16, 46, 124, 3422, 3423. For each sector written, you also have to update the filesystem, so the filesystem knows that the next sector is at 15 (or maybe specify that the address of the second section is 15, depending on filesystem). I don't know if there are any improvements made to technology, however, that might streamline the process, especially if 8 sectors in a row are free for writing.
I see four numbers there, representing the decimal numbers 0 through 3 inclusive. He's not saying that "00,01,10,11" are labels for types of people, he's saying the number of types is "11", which if read as a binary number is 3 in decimal.
What OS is this on? I've had similar results under Windows, but under Linux it's quite common for flash to completely lock up my browser, about once a day.
accepting that the SOFTWARE REQUIREMENTS clearly state "Mac copmputer with intel Processor" clearly indicates the existinace of a prior OEM license.
Actually, that only indicates the existence of a Mac computer. I don't know of any clear cut definitions, but if I was looking to purchase an operating system, I would assume that the "computer" requirement only means hardware.
the 10.6 package actually does indicate 10.5 already be in existance as well as there is no 10.4 to 10.6 migration path using the 10.6 boxed product at $29 (you must buy the Mac Boxed Set at $169, which also clearly indicates it is intended only to upgrade 10.3 or 10.4).
Can you show me where it "indicates" this? Last time I checked, I could not see any noticable markings on the package that indicate that 10.5 is required, nor that 10.4 would not be sufficient. Actually, I couldn't find any specific instruction on the package that states anything about requiring a version of OSX.
This is clear text on the outside of the box, further clarified by references to apple.com for more detailed system requirements and their EULA full text.
This is considdered FULL legal disclosure pre-sale. It has been argued, and upheld in court, numerous times, for Apple and all other software vendors since back in the 80s when software retail packaging statrted becoming popular, when software could be bought without talking to a sales rep first.
EULAs have been enforced in some specific instances. They have been declared non-binding in other instances. There has not yet, afaik, been an all encompassing decision made, that makes all EULAs either binding nor non-binding.
Additionally, what encompasses agreement of the EULA? I know many state "if you do not agree, then return the product", but what if I don't bother reading it. What if I see a big wall of text, then manipulate my software (the software I purchased) to remove said wall-of-text. Now I just see a blank box, which I agree to. What now?
Just because they sell a product that will let you install it on blank hardware doesn't mean they can't consider it an upgrade for the version that came with your hardware (which you legally bought a license for when you bought the hardware).
Just because the term "upgrade" is used, doesn't mean it requires the old license. My Pentium was an upgrade when compared to my 386. It had a bigger hard drive, a faster processor, and more RAM. It didn't somehow magically require my 386 to function, it was a complete stand alone system which was better than a 386, and hence an upgrade.
If they mention on the package that it "requires OSX 10.5" or similar, then I understand. MS does this on upgrade packages. Game expansions almost always state "Original_game_name is required to use this software". If they make this clear, then yes a regular customer could tell that it requires an existing OSX install, but without it all "upgrade" means is that is has better features when compared to an older version.
Actually, "Upgrade" appears on the package for both 10.5 and 10.6.
I'll take your word for it. But I also know that it (10.5) will install on a blank drive, so it must be marketing-speak.
A new computer purchased today will quite often be an "upgrade" when compared against a 386 purchased many years ago. That doesn't inherently imply that the 386 is required to run the new computer.
To compare with MS, Windows upgrades often specifically state that an older version is required, just like many expansion packs for games state "Requires original_game_name to play". The word "upgrade" by itself doesn't always mean that an older version must be present.
Isn't it possible that the parent has hit the nail on the head here, that the word "upgrade" on the packaging is simply stating that 10.6 is "better" than 10.5 for some meaning of the word "better", without the requirement that 10.5 be already installed?
I realise that what you say is how things worked for you, but on my old laptop (integrated Intel 945GMA, 1.6GHz single core cpu, 1.5GB RAM), compiz ran fine. I could do all the snazzy 3d effects, and I had no noticable slowdowns, and rarely if ever saw a crash.
I'm not sure what features are lacking from compiz when compared to OSX or Vista/7, but I find the application switchers, expose/desktop wall and window previews to be very useful, and these are things I've been using for a number of years now.
I'm in science for the sake of doing science, not for the money. However, there probably aren't too many like me. Also, for what it's worth, the money a "business" offers me to work on things to benefit them, as opposed to university position+grants to work on things which interest me, makes it an easy choice. There are plenty of smart scientists around, but they'd all rather be working on their own projects, than whatever the business wants. If you want to entice them away, you have to offer them something.
Now we have confirmed that Netflix is throttling instant streaming PC-users to a rediculous 50 or 60 KB/sec cap
That's an interesting argument. He showed that each thread was throttled to 50 or 60 KB/sec, but he never had any evidence to support his argument atht it's netflix at fault, not his ISP or some other internet issue.
And yet, all this is just a distraction from the fact that this type of task is MUCH EASIER to do in a Windows environment than a Linux environment... I thought Linux was the "more powerful" OS?
/home as noexec, and you'd possibly do a better job of blocking Solitaire than Windows. It's been a while (win2000) since I last tried, but all you had to do was rename the .exe file (or, god forbid, download a solitaire "variant" with a differing filename) and Windows would happily run it for you.
Well you could simply not install Solitaire. If desperate, you could even mount
What's the point to this? Unless I'm mistaken (and I did RTFA), they will only be able to work out where the person sat if they listen to the recording. That means either a) they've already caught them, or b) they've managed to leave the cinema, go home, compress and upload the film. Do cinemas in the US record full ID of every person attending, including what seat they sat at?
Or maybe the vast majority of [the worlds] software runs on [Windows], and [Windows is] what students will encounter on the vast majority of computers they will use in the real world because that is what schools have used, and how Microsoft helped build their monopoly.
Uuh do you know what the reply-all button does? It doesn't email "everyone", it just emails the people who are in the cc: line of the email as well as the original sender.
So US laws determine what happens on US servers run by US companies, and other countries have no say, regardless of where the users are. Can we extend this logic and say that servers not in the US, and not run by US companies or people, are not under US jurisdiction, and as such the US (government, companies or people) should not interfere with them?
The WINE guys are doing their best to reverse engineer the APIs and whatnot, but in regards to effort required, it is much easier for companies to work from source code and make their software work under Linux, than it is for the WINE guys to work from binary blods to try and get the software working.
Ok, maybe I'm blind, but I can't find the print link, or the all-on-one-page link? Does this really require 10 separate pages to view?
In soviet russia, overlords welcome you
I know why I stopped reading "tech media". Because each article is at least 10 pages long, and 90% of each page is ads. Get it through your heads. The internet does not require pages. Just shove all the info onto one page. A banner up top I can handle, one down the side I guess. Don't clutter our screen with ads and minimal content, and then whine when we stop reading.
Is it just me, or does the excerpt posted by Riding with Robots lack any sort of detail? It reads to me like "Hey, we found something important. Really important. Now come to our site to find out what". Surely it wouldn't be too hard to mention that they found a concentrated silica deposit, which would require water to create.
I just saw a blocked flash ad. Clicked "Skip ad", and got to another blocked flash ad. Clicked "Skip ad" again. Still the same page. I don't mind ads on websites. Full-page ads that require flash, javascript and cookies to get past, and I do draw the line.