What you describe is an "autostart" or re-infection at startup. If a path can be found to infect once, it can often be utilized again. Once an infection "sticks" in this way, I've seen malware do random port pings on subnets it finds.
I'm implying only that when initially read from ROM, it's as clean as it was written. Certainly any kernel can be subsequently infected, given current techniques. I know of no kernel that can't be rooted, given various techniques, and possibly a soldering iron+.
A kernel launched from write-protected, hence read-only memory, is going to be the same every time. Subsequent loads can infect a kernel that sits in writeable memory, where malware can do its work. ROMs just are not changeable, unless they're of a genre that permits this, like electrically-erasible programmable read only memory, or EEROMs, which usually take an electrical charge or specific freqs of light to allow change.
My problem with this kit is that we would probably prosecute someone that makes malaria or HIV or even the common cold viruses more difficult to cure. Yes, tools need to be made to discover how to secure system more thoroughly, but we're not instilling diligence on the parts of OS makers and sysadmins to stop the problems we have now.
So your math isn't realistic. This is a dumb terminal for $20/month. I can give you a shovel, and you might find an old Televideo in a landfill some place that might be adaptable to WiFi.
Google believes convenience is going to rule, but there's little compelling for $20/month.
I believe claims that there are 100M+ users of Skype. Internationally, I'm sure it's dominant. But it's also a vehicle for media delivery (e.g. multicast and youtubing) that's ready made, and debugged. Mostly.
The race is on. If it hurts the telco's-- I'm for the payback.
I can't help your understanding of the US vs. MS. I was there during that era, and long before. Microsoft was a skunk. They've been sued successfully in jurisdictions across the world.
If you believe that I'm validating Microsoft by its purchase, I think you've misread what I've been saying. Microsoft isn't holier by its purchase. It does, however, realistically increase its asset value and gives them a chance to make a better attempt at Google, Apple, and potentially, the FOSS community.
Microsoft is buying a huge user base. They need it, because their own efforts at getting a big social community have otherwise largely failed. Google has one, Apple has one, now Microsoft's bought one.
If this spawns great FOSS VoIP and P2P media distribution infrastructure, so much the better.
They have huge marketshare, but a monopoly is a different thing. By their presence, they don't have a barrier to market. This is an important distinction. There are great apps (I like ooVoo) that do the same thing. There's a larger user network, and it's become the de facto VoIP app-- not one that was awarded through monopolistic behavior. It's good. But not unkillable/unstoppable by any stretch of the imagination.
Skype is but one of many-- albeit one with more sunken capital and assets-- and its functionality can be replicated easily. Microsoft could exclude Linux or even Apple users. That would be silly of them.
There are dozens of decent VoIP apps out there, and some of them are browser-based rather than P2P. So there is no monopoly-- not that this reason makes Microsoft any more holy. It's more added value for Microsoft. Others can add similar value and reap those benefits, too.
I love your encouraging words, but they're all your optimism, rather than the actual state of things. In every podunk town in the US and Canada, there's a filling station that fills you with petrofuels, not joules, not compressed hydrogen, not LNG.
The ecosystems are diffuse and therefore none of them is winning, and none will likely win because the leadership of both countries is coopted by the petro-suppliers. We can agree that each technology could make a lot of money, and I'll state that none of them will until it's very late in the game. The urgency is a direct f(x) of consumer pain, and the lag time to elections where somebody's mandate becomes clear-- probably a petro company that dives into one of the alternate sources.
Your future is a long time away. The sun beats down each day, and few harvest its power. The moon moves the oceans each day, and very few harvest its power. The potentials you see are dashed against the rocks of entrenched organizations with record profits on a roll, enforced by world religious turmoil that plays in its favor. If the Middle East ever gets organized, the oil companies will simply find another monopoly facade to exploit. It is the nature of things. So are the bribes. To change it happens one person at a time, and the pace of that change is that of a glacier.
You speak of technology saving a world that still burns turds to heat food. The rate of change isn't pacing the technology needed to solve the problem, and if you were thinking that everyone will recognize the altrustic need to stop spending making petro-dollars to convenience an ostensible financial advantage, I have a bridge on 59th St in Brooklyn to sell you.
The pace is faster than what we can deal with. You may be living in ocean front property in the High Sierras by the time someone figures out the "the technology (that) brings us to the tipping point..."
Electric cars need a supply chain that simply doesn't exist. Deforestation in the face of that nice new kitchen table and that new west wing to your chateau is going to thwart things.
In terms of the broad-brush, I've lived long enough to find that categorization is endemic to the human will to try to make sense out of what they see. I would want to subscribe to ostensible N-word privilege, yet find it still ends up poking at other human defense. Along the way, I watch those with poorly formed defenses allow umbrage to blossom into other ugly emotions, seeded by their circumstances. I traipse lightly, therefore-- except where sociopathy attracts the poke it so richly deserves. I think you no sociopath, but most of the lawyers I've met have that trait, IMHO, caveated by IANAP.
We'll have to continue to disagree. Lots of case law backs up the theory that the transitive properties of the TCA and DCMA protect CNet pretty thoroughly. And I caveat my statements with IANAL as I feel that I'm obliged to-- with my understanding of how law is practiced, and who can practice law. Making pronouncements that imply legal practice aren't legal in my jurisdiction. Impersonation has been successfully challenged, and clarity isn't good here.
Could CNet have been stupid? It wouldn't have been the first time, but in my personal experience with CNet and their personnel, it would have been out of character-- and on the surface of what's been presented, the analogies stick.
There are those with poor interdisciplinary skills, but although they make glaring mistakes, I believe these geeks you cite to be in the minority. I prefer the company of geeks. And I have no fear of out-wrenching any number of people. Coding? I'm a comparative light-weight. The same for hardware-- cars and mechanical things are pretty easy for me. Politics? Never.
And we geeks caveat ourselves: IANAL. And we geeks also watch proceedings very carefully, for many different reasons. We analogize, we cite previous cases and the theories of judgment behind them, and how the cases were argued-- and especially what the results were, like them or not.
The equivalency cited up and down the post comments indeed cite whether CNet promoted the activity or whether actually encouraged or otherwise incited users to perform illegal downloads. We don't have the direct citations in the captioned litigation available for comment. It's unlikely that they did. They would be stupid to do so.
CNet is a conveyance, just like a billboard is a conveyance. There are countless suits brought against computer service providers that are held subsequently harmless for conveyance-- unless they actively censor or promote what third parties do. Merely serving as a host for conversations, files, and so on, isn't harmful, says case law that I've seen.
It's my guess that their attorneys convinced them that there's a theory of law that can goad a positive judgment. It's my belief they're wrong. Geeks with screwdrivers are good people. I code, and I rebuild cars and motorcycles, build systems, and refurbish homes. Casting a broad net is an unwise position.
Various US civil litigation results have held hosting organizations immune for the actions of users that post comments, files, and so on. Much has to do with the site's EULA, and how the TCA works to hold hosting orgs harmless. If CNet came up with ad copy that said yeah, download music for free! then they're likely still not culpable because there is music that can be downloaded legally-- bereft of copyright protection-- for free. Encouraging people to download legally free music is protected, too. LimeWire was ultimately stupid for many reasons covered here before. CNet is merely a distributor of stuff. I don't think they encourage downloading software illegally or using the tools they offer to do so. Ad banners around various products are likely provided by the product makers or their agents.
If you go by a Lamar billboard on the freeway and it encourages illegal action, Lamar isn't liable. (yes, CBS owns billboards and CNet, too, oddly). I'm pretty sure that same protection is afforded in this case, but IANAL and dislike them anyway.
1) it's not clear that CNet came up with whatever was being placed around the LimeWire ad; it might have been ad copy from the P2P software provider or its ad agency 2) there might indeed be legal software on any given P2P software; if bands are shown in an ad, that might violate IP surrounding the band's image, but it doesn't talk about the action of downloading specific things 3) lots of free/shareware can be used incorrectly and the enticement to use software in such a way doesn't endorse the actions. 4) If you use a picture of a robber in a gun ad-- is one encouraging the action of robbing or using a gun to stop a robbery? 5) are there actions using P2P software to legally share software? I can think of a few-- although many actions clearly are not 6) to what extent have the ostensible holders been hurt? do they have nexus to claim damages?
The artists might have nexus, but I'm guessing that CNet will be held harmless, after many lawyers buy yachts. IANAL, too. Yet this shoot-the-messenger approach is really unlikely to succeed.
That's not the picture I painted with my words. I'll answer the question in your last paragraph:
Yes, it's a fact, and it makes money.
To answer the question before that:
Yes, pedophiles act on porn, as do other adults. Child molestation is often enough the result of being aroused about sex with children. Porn is one of the arousal routes; incest is another.
No. AT&T is Southwest Bell with lipstick. They are an amalgamation of Ameritech, PacBell, and assets they picked up on the way. But at the core, they are a "Baby Bell" monopoly. It's the management of SW Bell in their "take over the world" phase.
And now they need to complete their rape and pillage by buying T-Mobile. Did you think the caps were for technical reasons? No. They need revenue to finance the hideous acquisition that would make them The Death Star Monopoly again.
No. Therapists have similar education and unless ill themselves, will be unwilling to deny the salient studies and evidence. And most therapists have a lot of child sex issues to deal with.... often in adult patients that experienced it as a child.
Slashdot Mirror
What you describe is an "autostart" or re-infection at startup. If a path can be found to infect once, it can often be utilized again. Once an infection "sticks" in this way, I've seen malware do random port pings on subnets it finds.
Apple can't pass indemnity. IANAL, but Apple would be stupid to sign a contract that did pased indemnity because it would cost them a fortune.
Instead, prior art needs to be found so that this patent can be invalidated. Somebody, please.....
I'm implying only that when initially read from ROM, it's as clean as it was written. Certainly any kernel can be subsequently infected, given current techniques. I know of no kernel that can't be rooted, given various techniques, and possibly a soldering iron+.
No.
A kernel launched from write-protected, hence read-only memory, is going to be the same every time. Subsequent loads can infect a kernel that sits in writeable memory, where malware can do its work. ROMs just are not changeable, unless they're of a genre that permits this, like electrically-erasible programmable read only memory, or EEROMs, which usually take an electrical charge or specific freqs of light to allow change.
My problem with this kit is that we would probably prosecute someone that makes malaria or HIV or even the common cold viruses more difficult to cure. Yes, tools need to be made to discover how to secure system more thoroughly, but we're not instilling diligence on the parts of OS makers and sysadmins to stop the problems we have now.
You pegged my irony meter. Now it's broken.
Hey-- Microsoft just bought Skype! You can use that instead, right?
(now ducking)
So your math isn't realistic. This is a dumb terminal for $20/month. I can give you a shovel, and you might find an old Televideo in a landfill some place that might be adaptable to WiFi.
Google believes convenience is going to rule, but there's little compelling for $20/month.
I believe claims that there are 100M+ users of Skype. Internationally, I'm sure it's dominant. But it's also a vehicle for media delivery (e.g. multicast and youtubing) that's ready made, and debugged. Mostly.
The race is on. If it hurts the telco's-- I'm for the payback.
I can't help your understanding of the US vs. MS. I was there during that era, and long before. Microsoft was a skunk. They've been sued successfully in jurisdictions across the world.
If you believe that I'm validating Microsoft by its purchase, I think you've misread what I've been saying. Microsoft isn't holier by its purchase. It does, however, realistically increase its asset value and gives them a chance to make a better attempt at Google, Apple, and potentially, the FOSS community.
Microsoft is buying a huge user base. They need it, because their own efforts at getting a big social community have otherwise largely failed. Google has one, Apple has one, now Microsoft's bought one.
If this spawns great FOSS VoIP and P2P media distribution infrastructure, so much the better.
We'll have to disagree on that one, and the fact that you won't ever realize I'm right.
They have huge marketshare, but a monopoly is a different thing. By their presence, they don't have a barrier to market. This is an important distinction. There are great apps (I like ooVoo) that do the same thing. There's a larger user network, and it's become the de facto VoIP app-- not one that was awarded through monopolistic behavior. It's good. But not unkillable/unstoppable by any stretch of the imagination.
Skype is but one of many-- albeit one with more sunken capital and assets-- and its functionality can be replicated easily. Microsoft could exclude Linux or even Apple users. That would be silly of them.
There are dozens of decent VoIP apps out there, and some of them are browser-based rather than P2P. So there is no monopoly-- not that this reason makes Microsoft any more holy. It's more added value for Microsoft. Others can add similar value and reap those benefits, too.
I love your encouraging words, but they're all your optimism, rather than the actual state of things. In every podunk town in the US and Canada, there's a filling station that fills you with petrofuels, not joules, not compressed hydrogen, not LNG.
The ecosystems are diffuse and therefore none of them is winning, and none will likely win because the leadership of both countries is coopted by the petro-suppliers. We can agree that each technology could make a lot of money, and I'll state that none of them will until it's very late in the game. The urgency is a direct f(x) of consumer pain, and the lag time to elections where somebody's mandate becomes clear-- probably a petro company that dives into one of the alternate sources.
Your future is a long time away. The sun beats down each day, and few harvest its power. The moon moves the oceans each day, and very few harvest its power. The potentials you see are dashed against the rocks of entrenched organizations with record profits on a roll, enforced by world religious turmoil that plays in its favor. If the Middle East ever gets organized, the oil companies will simply find another monopoly facade to exploit. It is the nature of things. So are the bribes. To change it happens one person at a time, and the pace of that change is that of a glacier.
You speak of technology saving a world that still burns turds to heat food. The rate of change isn't pacing the technology needed to solve the problem, and if you were thinking that everyone will recognize the altrustic need to stop spending making petro-dollars to convenience an ostensible financial advantage, I have a bridge on 59th St in Brooklyn to sell you.
The pace is faster than what we can deal with. You may be living in ocean front property in the High Sierras by the time someone figures out the "the technology (that) brings us to the tipping point..."
Electric cars need a supply chain that simply doesn't exist. Deforestation in the face of that nice new kitchen table and that new west wing to your chateau is going to thwart things.
Accepted.
In terms of the broad-brush, I've lived long enough to find that categorization is endemic to the human will to try to make sense out of what they see. I would want to subscribe to ostensible N-word privilege, yet find it still ends up poking at other human defense. Along the way, I watch those with poorly formed defenses allow umbrage to blossom into other ugly emotions, seeded by their circumstances. I traipse lightly, therefore-- except where sociopathy attracts the poke it so richly deserves. I think you no sociopath, but most of the lawyers I've met have that trait, IMHO, caveated by IANAP.
We'll have to continue to disagree. Lots of case law backs up the theory that the transitive properties of the TCA and DCMA protect CNet pretty thoroughly. And I caveat my statements with IANAL as I feel that I'm obliged to-- with my understanding of how law is practiced, and who can practice law. Making pronouncements that imply legal practice aren't legal in my jurisdiction. Impersonation has been successfully challenged, and clarity isn't good here.
Could CNet have been stupid? It wouldn't have been the first time, but in my personal experience with CNet and their personnel, it would have been out of character-- and on the surface of what's been presented, the analogies stick.
There are those with poor interdisciplinary skills, but although they make glaring mistakes, I believe these geeks you cite to be in the minority. I prefer the company of geeks. And I have no fear of out-wrenching any number of people. Coding? I'm a comparative light-weight. The same for hardware-- cars and mechanical things are pretty easy for me. Politics? Never.
And we geeks caveat ourselves: IANAL. And we geeks also watch proceedings very carefully, for many different reasons. We analogize, we cite previous cases and the theories of judgment behind them, and how the cases were argued-- and especially what the results were, like them or not.
The equivalency cited up and down the post comments indeed cite whether CNet promoted the activity or whether actually encouraged or otherwise incited users to perform illegal downloads. We don't have the direct citations in the captioned litigation available for comment. It's unlikely that they did. They would be stupid to do so.
CNet is a conveyance, just like a billboard is a conveyance. There are countless suits brought against computer service providers that are held subsequently harmless for conveyance-- unless they actively censor or promote what third parties do. Merely serving as a host for conversations, files, and so on, isn't harmful, says case law that I've seen.
It's my guess that their attorneys convinced them that there's a theory of law that can goad a positive judgment. It's my belief they're wrong. Geeks with screwdrivers are good people. I code, and I rebuild cars and motorcycles, build systems, and refurbish homes. Casting a broad net is an unwise position.
Various US civil litigation results have held hosting organizations immune for the actions of users that post comments, files, and so on. Much has to do with the site's EULA, and how the TCA works to hold hosting orgs harmless. If CNet came up with ad copy that said yeah, download music for free! then they're likely still not culpable because there is music that can be downloaded legally-- bereft of copyright protection-- for free. Encouraging people to download legally free music is protected, too. LimeWire was ultimately stupid for many reasons covered here before. CNet is merely a distributor of stuff. I don't think they encourage downloading software illegally or using the tools they offer to do so. Ad banners around various products are likely provided by the product makers or their agents.
If you go by a Lamar billboard on the freeway and it encourages illegal action, Lamar isn't liable. (yes, CBS owns billboards and CNet, too, oddly). I'm pretty sure that same protection is afforded in this case, but IANAL and dislike them anyway.
1) it's not clear that CNet came up with whatever was being placed around the LimeWire ad; it might have been ad copy from the P2P software provider or its ad agency 2) there might indeed be legal software on any given P2P software; if bands are shown in an ad, that might violate IP surrounding the band's image, but it doesn't talk about the action of downloading specific things 3) lots of free/shareware can be used incorrectly and the enticement to use software in such a way doesn't endorse the actions. 4) If you use a picture of a robber in a gun ad-- is one encouraging the action of robbing or using a gun to stop a robbery? 5) are there actions using P2P software to legally share software? I can think of a few-- although many actions clearly are not 6) to what extent have the ostensible holders been hurt? do they have nexus to claim damages?
All good question to make lawyers rich.
The artists might have nexus, but I'm guessing that CNet will be held harmless, after many lawyers buy yachts. IANAL, too. Yet this shoot-the-messenger approach is really unlikely to succeed.
for its use. It's the theory of selling guns, while immoral by some people's standards, doesn't pull the trigger-- purchasers pull the trigger.
If CNet is liable, then so are computer makers as they're a huge source of computers, which then download that pirated stuff.
This guy is merely enriching the lawyers that talked him into it..... and this too, will soon pass.
That's not the picture I painted with my words. I'll answer the question in your last paragraph:
Yes, it's a fact, and it makes money.
To answer the question before that:
Yes, pedophiles act on porn, as do other adults. Child molestation is often enough the result of being aroused about sex with children. Porn is one of the arousal routes; incest is another.
No. AT&T is Southwest Bell with lipstick. They are an amalgamation of Ameritech, PacBell, and assets they picked up on the way. But at the core, they are a "Baby Bell" monopoly. It's the management of SW Bell in their "take over the world" phase.
And now they need to complete their rape and pillage by buying T-Mobile. Did you think the caps were for technical reasons? No. They need revenue to finance the hideous acquisition that would make them The Death Star Monopoly again.
No. Therapists have similar education and unless ill themselves, will be unwilling to deny the salient studies and evidence. And most therapists have a lot of child sex issues to deal with.... often in adult patients that experienced it as a child.
While really stupid, I don't think sexting is probably a crime. Likewise, nudity is harmless. Sex with children is not.