The publication date everywhere else is when you started selling it everywhere else.
So I sell it mail-order from day 1, from 'kaldifjördur'. Then after a year I start selling it over the counter elsewhere. or I only sell in mail order, but I don't start advertising it elsewhere until a year after I start selling it in 'kaldifjördur' or Only sell it mail order, advertise it everywhere, but call the book "Poems about a dried fish", and hope that nobody will buy it for a year...... The possibilities are endless... You realy can't make this claim you just made.
Assume I've written a rant where I accuse CowboyNeal of secretly harboring immoral thoughts about herring. I put it up on my private web page. That should be the publication date, no? Well, maybe. Nobody could find it as there are no links to it, and I don't tell anybody about it
You could write the same stuff in a book, have it printed and only sell it in 'kaldifjördur' (a isolated 20 km deep fjord in Greenland with 14 habitants ).
And after a year you start selling it somewhere else. So, whould the "publishing date" be when you start selling it somewhere else ?? You gotta be kidding !
If you cut ads out of a magazine, the magazine doesn't care. They made their money because the advertiser paid for the ad to be in there, and it was in there.
The example in the comment you were replying to was something on the line of : what if I hire a guy to come to my house and filter "Time" magazine for me, for example, cut out all Microsoft ads and replace them with Linux ads. I paid for the magazine, and it will not be redistributed from my house. Surely I have a right to do this, even if Microsoft paid money for the ads to be in there, and they weren't when I read the mag.
On the web the advertiser not only pays for ad placement, which in turn brings them direct profits (e.g: online
casino), but the person with the website depends on those ads being shown so he can get paid through cj, or
whatever system he uses.
I think everybody can see the point here, but what about *my* right to block ads ? (Or have it done for me) My point is that there is no law beeing broken here !
Gator most definitely sucks because not only is it evil spyware on peoples computers. But it takes money away from people who are trying to pay the hosting bill for their very cool web sites.
It may reduce income, but it surely doesn't *take any money away *.
I mean, even slasdot is getting paid for the ads on the site. And if those ads don't show up because gator replaced them, then gator is indirectly stealing revenue from slashdot.
Again, there is nothing beeing stolen, slashdot didn't *own it* in the first place, so it can't be stolen from it. If I want to block/. ads, I will simply do so (I am not doing it by the way). Now, if/. doesn't want to serve me the pages until I have downloaded the ads, they are of course free to do so, but again, that doesn't mean that I will display them on my screen.
The book is worth money since money was spent making it. The lithographs are worth money since money was spent making those (someone has to pay the graphic artists). The soundtrack is worth money (someone had to write the music). The DVD is worth something since someone had to pay to have it mastered...
One word: 'Wrong' !
Things are NOT worth what has been spent either developing or making them. The value of things is decided by the one who buys them.
If you belive that a pair of Nikes' is worth 80$ then that is the value of that pair of Nikes. Even if they were made in a Taiwanise sweat shop and Nike paid only 10$ for all the material+work+transport.
Being a collector, I understand what you're saying. It's only worth what people are willing to pay, blah blah blah. IMO, it IS worth $75. Now if they were going to charge $100 for it, then no, I wouldn't think it would be worth that much.
But you could still find people that would be ready to pay 100$ for it. For them it would be worth 100$, not because of the value that went into the package.
Okay, maybe I'm an idiot, but the "female" samples on that site are the exact same size.
Of course they are, what would you do with a file called "female_speex.vxz" ?
The file is decompressed again into a.wav file so people can compare the quality of *before* and *after* compression. Regarding the filesize, the site says: 15.1 kbps, and the file is about 6 seconds, which would make the compressed file about 11.3 KB
Also, the collector's edition includes the soundtrack (now on a separate disk), a coffee table book, 4 lithographs(?) (probably the 4 different covers of the game) and something else. In all, the collector's edition is well worth the price.
Things are not "worth" what you put into them. That is a well established economical fact. If you put 1 million into a software project, the results will not be "worth" 1 million. The real "worth" of all the stuff in the box is how much people are ready to pay for it. If Blizzard can't find custumers who are ready to pay more than 10$ for the package, the the package is only worth 10 dollars.
Here's a tip - go look at the results of the current poll. About a third of voters are looking for love. That probably means they're quite young but look at all the bile, outrage and debate on slashdot!
I doubt that bitching and trolling on/. qualifies as "speaking out".
Lately, however, such scrutiny has become non-existent....So where can we get our news now without the Big Brother Filter working overtime?
When you say 'we', are you talking about 'us' the readers of/. og 'you' the Americans ?
Criticism is not dead over hear in Europe, and that is one of the reasons that Europeans and Americans have such different oppinions about world affairs.
Sounds like you didn't RTFA. The problem is that the privacy practices prevented any real investigation of the fraud.
Instead of shouting back and forth 'it does', 'no it does not', could you please be so kind as to tell the rest of us who *DID* read the article, where it says anything in that direction.
I'm sorry but the string 'priv' doesn't even appear 1 time in the article.
It is not too
bad that they are leaving the hard drive market, but actually good that they are doing this. The Hard drives
have turned into a commodity. People are making them cheaper and cheaper. At some point, there will so
cheap that 1) there will be very little profit margin 2) only a handful of companies will be able to profit.
So, in order to protect the busines model of companies that don't (can't) adopt to new markets, the consumers should suffer, hmmmm, where have I heard this before...
Likewise, it would be a nice thing if the top 100 open source gurus would die today ?
Jeezz, what are you smoking man ?
Fundamentally, you change nothing. You add a tiny layer of obscurity, but that's it.
There is no obscurity involved, you can even take out a full page ad in 2600 Magazine and tell everyone how you did it. It doesn't change the level of security you get.
But your apps on the front-end will still be using your comms.
library, and if I r00t your front-end, I will still be able to talk to the "secure" machine (using your neatly
written comms library)
Sure you can root the data processing machine but so what ? You realy don't think that a security aware programmer would allow "SELECT * FROM Customers" query to run ?? (If you do, can I please have some of the stuff you are smoking ?)
Most likely the client would only send some details like name/address over the serial line and the server would reply with the rest of the personal information.
A commonly used solution in high-security environment is to isolate the database machine from the network. I.e no network card. You then connect the database machine to the data processing machine via either a serial cable, parallel cable or similer that doesn't have a network stack on top of the driver.
You then have to create a client/server/queue manager on both ends.
Your security problem is now reduced to the functionality of the client/server that talks over the cable and performs requests on the database.
(Assuming of course that you can control access to the console)
www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/books/mos2/sample-1.pdf
The history of UNIX has been told elsewhere (e.g., Salus, 1994). Part of that story will be given in Chap. 10. For now, suffice it to say, that because the source code was widely available, various organizations developed their own (incompatible) versions, which led to chaos. Two major versions developed, System V, from AT&T, and BSD, (Berkeley Software Distribution) from the University of California at Berkeley. These had minor variants as well. To make it possible to write programs that could run on any UNIX system, IEEE developed a standard for UNIX, called POSIX, that most versions of UNIX now support. POSIX defines a minimal system call interface that conformant UNIX systems must support. In fact, some other operating systems now also support the POSIX interface.
(This is copied from elsewhere, look it up on google for a history lesson.)
I don't think the slashdot effect would trigger this device. HTTP requests, AFAIK, is sent via ONE packet-
this device should be looking for hosts sending it many packets, like would occur in a DDOS attack.
If you read the article you will see that they ale also looking for 'many hosts sending few packages'. A new Internet work for example. And the solution is to block the worm's channel (the port(s) used). The problem is that tis would also detect a sharp increase in potential custumers as a 'worm attack' and close the shop down for business.
As far as detection goes, they use both traffic signatures and statistical anomaly detection. Meaning that yes,
it can effectively block the/. effect (if not too well configured).
From the article: The first task is to detect either an
anomalous rise in traffic volume, an
unusual ratio between connection
set-ups and tear-downs - the ratio
being 1:1 in legitimate traffic - or a
worm signature. The first necessitates
careful analysis and subtraction of
normal variability of traffic during the
day. NetDeflect then identifies the
nature of the spurious traffic and puts a
filter in its way, or, in the case of a
worm, disconnects the specific channel
the worm is using.
Since it can't block all the 4000 source IP addresses of the/. effect if would have to block of the "channel", that is all traffic to the local HTTP port, effectively closing the shop for business .
It would be stretching it to call that "blocking the attack"
Suppose this magically effective face-recognition software is 99.99 percent accurate. That is, if
someone is a terrorist, there is a 99.99 percent chance that the software indicates "terrorist," and
if someone is not a terrorist, there is a 99.99 percent chance that the software indicates
"non-terrorist." Assume that one in ten million flyers, on average, is a terrorist. Is the software
any good?
No. The software will generate 1000 false alarms for every one real terrorist. And every false
alarm still means that all the security people go through all of their security procedures. Because
the population of non-terrorists is so much larger than the number of terrorists, the test is
useless. This result is counterintuitive and surprising, but it is correct. The false alarms in this
kind of system render it mostly useless. It's "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" increased 1000-fold.
Peets said the SID would be helpful in two ways. "First, it would be easier to identify illegitimate products -- CDs that don't have a code would raise a red flag. Second, would be easier to trace the source if each code is linked to the plant where it was made."
Uhh ? First, what is the problem here and secondly, how well does the proposed solution solve it.
Given that those manufacturing CDs and DVDs in the thousands for illegal sales, will simply use someones elses's ID, it becomes obvious that we are not beeing told the whole story here..
Slashdot Mirror
So I sell it mail-order from day 1, from 'kaldifjördur'. Then after a year I start selling it over the counter elsewhere. .....
or
I only sell in mail order, but I don't start advertising it elsewhere until a year after I start selling it in 'kaldifjördur'
or
Only sell it mail order, advertise it everywhere, but call the book "Poems about a dried fish", and hope that nobody will buy it for a year.
The possibilities are endless... You realy can't make this claim you just made.
Sorry, the link should have been www.outguess.org
Will it do anything differently than the rock-solid and famous OutGuess" ?
Assume I've written a rant where I accuse CowboyNeal of secretly harboring immoral thoughts about herring. I put it up on my private web page. That should be the publication date, no? Well, maybe. Nobody could find it as there are no links to it, and I don't tell anybody about it
You could write the same stuff in a book, have it printed and only sell it in 'kaldifjördur' (a isolated 20 km deep fjord in Greenland with 14 habitants ).
And after a year you start selling it somewhere else. So, whould the "publishing date" be when you start selling it somewhere else ?? You gotta be kidding !
People will charge what the market will bear and addicts will bear anything to get a fix.
Im the absence of competition, yes. this is what Microsoft is doing. And, no, this is not *funny* ..
piracy has been the (supposed) bane of the music industry,
The music industry is *dead* ???
If you cut ads out of a magazine, the magazine doesn't care. They made their money because the advertiser paid for the ad to be in there, and it was in there.
The example in the comment you were replying to was something on the line of : what if I hire a guy to come to my house and filter "Time" magazine for me, for example, cut out all Microsoft ads and replace them with Linux ads. I paid for the magazine, and it will not be redistributed from my house. Surely I have a right to do this, even if Microsoft paid money for the ads to be in there, and they weren't when I read the mag.
On the web the advertiser not only pays for ad placement, which in turn brings them direct profits (e.g: online casino), but the person with the website depends on those ads being shown so he can get paid through cj, or whatever system he uses.
I think everybody can see the point here, but what about *my* right to block ads ? (Or have it done for me) My point is that there is no law beeing broken here !
Gator most definitely sucks because not only is it evil spyware on peoples computers. But it takes money away from people who are trying to pay the hosting bill for their very cool web sites.
It may reduce income, but it surely doesn't *take any money away *.
I mean, even slasdot is getting paid for the ads on the site. And if those ads don't show up because gator replaced them, then gator is indirectly stealing revenue from slashdot.
Again, there is nothing beeing stolen, slashdot didn't *own it* in the first place, so it can't be stolen from it. If I want to block /. ads, I will simply do so (I am not doing it by the way). Now, if /. doesn't want to serve me the pages until I have downloaded the ads, they are of course free to do so, but again, that doesn't mean that I will display them on my screen.
One word: 'Wrong' !
Things are NOT worth what has been spent either developing or making them. The value of things is decided by the one who buys them.
If you belive that a pair of Nikes' is worth 80$ then that is the value of that pair of Nikes. Even if they were made in a Taiwanise sweat shop and Nike paid only 10$ for all the material+work+transport.
Being a collector, I understand what you're saying. It's only worth what people are willing to pay, blah blah blah. IMO, it IS worth $75. Now if they were going to charge $100 for it, then no, I wouldn't think it would be worth that much.
But you could still find people that would be ready to pay 100$ for it. For them it would be worth 100$, not because of the value that went into the package.
Okay, maybe I'm an idiot, but the "female" samples on that site are the exact same size.
Of course they are, what would you do with a file called "female_speex.vxz" ? .wav file so people can compare the quality of *before* and *after* compression.
The file is decompressed again into a
Regarding the filesize, the site says: 15.1 kbps, and the file is about 6 seconds, which would make the compressed file about 11.3 KB
They also differ in only one place in the file.
Realy ?
Things are not "worth" what you put into them. That is a well established economical fact. If you put 1 million into a software project, the results will not be "worth" 1 million. The real "worth" of all the stuff in the box is how much people are ready to pay for it. If Blizzard can't find custumers who are ready to pay more than 10$ for the package, the the package is only worth 10 dollars.
I doubt that bitching and trolling on /. qualifies as "speaking out".
I don't know why, but when I read your post, I immediately thought of this thing.
Although it looks like a complete joke, there is a lot of truth in there.
When you say 'we', are you talking about 'us' the readers of /. og 'you' the Americans ?
Criticism is not dead over hear in Europe, and that is one of the reasons that Europeans and Americans have such different oppinions about world affairs.
Unbreakable isn't.
Well, you can't kill a dead person, so I guess Windows could be regarded as "unbreakable"
And to those that don't get it: "Dead can't die".
Instead of shouting back and forth 'it does', 'no it does not', could you please be so kind as to tell the rest of us who *DID* read the article, where it says anything in that direction.
I'm sorry but the string 'priv' doesn't even appear 1 time in the article.
So, in order to protect the busines model of companies that don't (can't) adopt to new markets, the consumers should suffer, hmmmm, where have I heard this before...
Likewise, it would be a nice thing if the top 100 open source gurus would die today ?
Jeezz, what are you smoking man ?
There is no obscurity involved, you can even take out a full page ad in 2600 Magazine and tell everyone how you did it. It doesn't change the level of security you get.
But your apps on the front-end will still be using your comms. library, and if I r00t your front-end, I will still be able to talk to the "secure" machine (using your neatly written comms library)
Sure you can root the data processing machine but so what ? You realy don't think that a security aware programmer would allow "SELECT * FROM Customers" query to run ?? (If you do, can I please have some of the stuff you are smoking ?)
Most likely the client would only send some details like name/address over the serial line and the server would reply with the rest of the personal information.
A commonly used solution in high-security environment is to isolate the database machine from the network. I.e no network card. You then connect the database machine to the data processing machine via either a serial cable, parallel cable or similer that doesn't have a network stack on top of the driver.
You then have to create a client/server/queue manager on both ends.
Your security problem is now reduced to the functionality of the client/server that talks over the cable and performs requests on the database.
(Assuming of course that you can control access to the console)
A bit of effort, but it works.
Unix? Open source? I don't think so.
You don't have a good IT background have you ?
www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/books/mos2/sample-1.pdf
The history of UNIX has been told elsewhere (e.g., Salus, 1994). Part of that story will be given in Chap. 10. For now, suffice it to say, that because the source code was widely available, various organizations developed their own (incompatible) versions, which led to chaos. Two major versions developed, System V, from AT&T, and BSD, (Berkeley Software Distribution) from the University of California at Berkeley. These had minor variants as well. To make it possible to write programs that could run on any UNIX system, IEEE developed a standard for UNIX, called POSIX, that most versions of UNIX now support. POSIX defines a minimal system call interface that conformant UNIX systems must support. In fact, some other operating systems now also support the POSIX interface.
(This is copied from elsewhere, look it up on google for a history lesson.)
By the time they can look at the referer header, the pacet has already eaten away their bandwith ..
I don't think the slashdot effect would trigger this device. HTTP requests, AFAIK, is sent via ONE packet- this device should be looking for hosts sending it many packets, like would occur in a DDOS attack.
If you read the article you will see that they ale also looking for 'many hosts sending few packages'. A new Internet work for example. And the solution is to block the worm's channel (the port(s) used). The problem is that tis would also detect a sharp increase in potential custumers as a 'worm attack' and close the shop down for business.
As far as detection goes, they use both traffic signatures and statistical anomaly detection. Meaning that yes, it can effectively block the
From the article:
The first task is to detect either an anomalous rise in traffic volume, an unusual ratio between connection set-ups and tear-downs - the ratio being 1:1 in legitimate traffic - or a worm signature. The first necessitates careful analysis and subtraction of normal variability of traffic during the day. NetDeflect then identifies the nature of the spurious traffic and puts a filter in its way, or, in the case of a worm, disconnects the specific channel the worm is using.
Since it can't block all the 4000 source IP addresses of the /. effect if would have to block of the "channel", that is all traffic to the local HTTP port, effectively closing the shop for business .
It would be stretching it to call that "blocking the attack"
!! Nobody can block the /. effect !!
Bruce talks about 99.9%, so there's 0.1% left, not 0.01% as the story says right now.
No, sorry, just read Bruce's Cryptogram
Suppose this magically effective face-recognition software is 99.99 percent accurate. That is, if someone is a terrorist, there is a 99.99 percent chance that the software indicates "terrorist," and if someone is not a terrorist, there is a 99.99 percent chance that the software indicates "non-terrorist." Assume that one in ten million flyers, on average, is a terrorist. Is the software any good?
No. The software will generate 1000 false alarms for every one real terrorist. And every false alarm still means that all the security people go through all of their security procedures. Because the population of non-terrorists is so much larger than the number of terrorists, the test is useless. This result is counterintuitive and surprising, but it is correct. The false alarms in this kind of system render it mostly useless. It's "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" increased 1000-fold.
Peets said the SID would be helpful in two ways. "First, it would be easier to identify illegitimate products -- CDs that don't have a code would raise a red flag. Second, would be easier to trace the source if each code is linked to the plant where it was made."
Uhh ? First, what is the problem here and secondly, how well does the proposed solution solve it.
Given that those manufacturing CDs and DVDs in the thousands for illegal sales, will simply use someones elses's ID, it becomes obvious that we are not beeing told the whole story here ..