I really don't know where they find these people. I noticed his title was "strategy analyst" not "security analyst." The part where he said "Security needs to be built into the architecture of the operating system. This cannot happen if your source code is publicly available"--what rock has this guy been living under? This guy is supposed to have some kind of understanding about OS security?
I wouldn't be too concerned about this article at any rate. Open source has already proven itself in this area. It just goes to show that there is still a bit of ignorance about it and there will always be someone that digs it up and puts it in an article...
If the response is "I can't afford a DAT," then you also probably wouldn't be able to afford good enough computer hardware capable of making a quality recording of a live performance, either.
A DAT would save me a lot of trouble, however I already have a computer that is sufficient (for now at least.) Last night one band offered to let me borrow a digital 4-track for recording future events so I might do that. Keep in mind that I am NOT a musician (nor do I play one on MTV.) I love music but don't have any talent in that area. That's a huge part of the reason I'm doing this.
Another possibility that is showing some promise is getting sponsored with IDSL or ADSL access at one of the local bars so I can broadcast live events. If that happens the computer will become an absolute requirement. The software I use for that will be icecast which allows MP3 streaming.
You can already do most of this stuff with Windows.
This is fine if you're just playing around sampling some stuff. But for recording a live performance you need an operating system that has a high level of reliability. That's something that is not currently available for Windows.
This a great topic. I've been waiting for the opportunity to ask some questions. At this point I need tools for recording, mixing, and realtime visualization of line input.
I've been using Goldwave for recording. It's a great shareware program despite only being available for Windows. The problem, other than my aversion to Windows, is that when Windows crashes the entire segment I was recording is lost. This is a definately a problem when it's live performances that you are recording.
Gmurf (open source) has a lot of potential but needs more development. The primary thing I'm looking for right now is software that allows me to record and does realtime visual analysis of the input. This is critical for adjusting the recording level to prevent clipping. The second thing I need is a nice open source mixer--one that allows me to adjust recording and playback levels at the same time. As far as the actual recording goes, SoX does an excellent job of recording and uses very little overhead.
My question is: What are the best open source packages for realtime visualization, the mixer, and wave editing?
The fact that root priviledges are required offers a great deal of protection in Linux (and other *nix's.) Of course a lot of software needs to be installed as root so we aren't completely protected. I think people are more likely to write trojans than viruses for Linux due to the fact that Linux boxes are useful to remote users as well as local users. That's neither here nor there though...
If you are running Linux you should absolutely be using some sort of IDS (Intrusion Detection Software.) I use aide. It's a 'tripwire' type program that detects changes in files (using an MD5 hash.) I have it configured on my home PC and my server. It runs via cron once a night, then e-mails me the results. That way if someone (or something) changes the kernel or an executable, library, script, etc, I'll know and be able to replace the altered (or infected) files. Software like this should be part of Linux distributions IMHO.
I realize that Virus Detection is not the same thing as active Virus Prevention. Of course, the root login requirement goes a long way as far as prevention.
I'd assumed it would be pretty simple until I actually read the Networking Essentials book. Yes, it was humbling. I never got around to actually taking the test--but assuming the Transcenders/CBT's are anything like the real test then I'd have to agree that it's a tough test.
However, some absolutely inept people seem to pass it anyway. One consulting company I worked for had me doing technical interviews for potential recruits--mostly MCSE's. (I scored well enough on mine to qualify as an interviewer despite never having taken the MCSE.) Generally the MCSE's were incredibly knowledgable about Windows and network administration as it relates to Windows--certainly more than I.
I'd estimate I interviewed about 20 of them. Out of the 20, one or two of them seemed to be well rounded enough to discuss anything computer-related out of the Microsoft realm. And two or three of them had no clue whatsoever even about basic stuff like formatting a floppy from the NT command line (or maybe that's just not covered in the MCSE exam?) Despite the few bad apples the rest were, as I said before, incredibly knowledgable about Microsoft products.
I don't think it'll 'die' exactly. It may eventually evolve into something that bears little resemblence to what it is today, have a different name, have absolutely no code in common with what we know today, but it'll be evolution.
Licenses that make the source available for reuse make this more likely than ever. The open source movement is giving Unix a lot of strength. I'm fairly confident that people will still be typing "ls" to see their files 30 years from now (assuming the keyboard isn't dead by then:)
To the effect of DeCSS, it is a program that has only one use: To circumvent the DVD copy-protection scheme. It's irrelevent what the purpose of doing so was (to watch it under Linux or to pirate it over the internet), because the crime here is the actual act of circumvention.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't every single DVD player need to circumvent the copy protection in order for the video to be viewable? I suppose it depends on your interpretation of the word 'circumvent.' (to manage to get around especially by ingenuity or stratagem.) DVD's are unviewable without a means to circumvent the encryption. All DVD players do this--using keys that they've paid a lot of money for. JJ obviously didn't pay for a key to make DeCSS, but there's no legal requirement for him to do so.
In order to create an open source DVD player the first step absolutely has to be decrypting the data. From that point many open source DVD players can be written. DeCSS is essential for this to work. And this, quite obviously in my opinion, is the intent of DeCSS--to make it possible for people to write software to play DVD's. Not to pirate it, or even to view it. Just to give people and open-source choice in DVD players.
If the MPAA can prosecute people for DeCSS, then anyone can be prosecuted for writing any software that allows the use of copy protected media. Open source will be selectively targeted because it's so modular.
Let's look at an MPAA endorsed DVD player for Windows as an example. It decrypts the data on a DVD and produces an MPEG2 stream. It probably contains it's on codec to decode the stream and display it on the screen. DeCSS on the other hand lets the user/software developer decide which codec to use. Tying it to a specific codec and display mechanism would seriously degrade it's value to the open source community.
Summing things up, DeCSS circumvents copy protection just like any other DVD player. This is not the only purpose of DeCSS or any other DVD player/software. In the case of a DVD player the primary use is viewing. With DeCSS there are nearly infinite potential uses. Viewing, analysis, archiving, and most importantly (IMHO) the development of other software that does these things. All of these things are covered by fair use.
I know most of you guys already know this, but I figured I should point it out for those who don't--All software DVD players produce decrypted output that can be intercepted and used for the purpose of piracy. Not just DeCSS.
I realize I probably said more than I had to to point out that circumventing copy protection is not the only use of DeCSS. But I was on a rant. Sorry. (With all respect due Foogle.)
This ruling was just plain bad. Spam is not helpful, it's not beneficial to anyone but the sender, and it's costly to everyone else. If Washington, who has the toughest anti-spam laws, can't convinct this guy, what good are the laws at all?
I'll have to respectfully disagree with the first sentence, but the rest is right on. In answer to the "what good are the laws at all?" question, NONE AT ALL.
It truly suprises me that more people on/. just don't seem to get it. Asking the government to protect you from spam is just as bad as asking them to make laws to protect you from porn. I wish people would stop begging legislators to inflict laws on the Internet and start asking for a technical solution.
Think about it. We use a password to protect against illegal entry into your private systems and accounts online. Sure, it's an inconvenience, but honestly, can we really expect any law or government to stop people from abusing an unprotected service on a global network? No. The most we can expect is laws that can be selectively enforced because there's no way to wholly enforce them. I'm NOT saying we wouldn't see a reduction in spam...
Now, if we truly want to stop spam (in the Self-Propelled Advertising Material sense) e-mail clients and servers will need to be upgraded. This is unfortunate, it'll be a real bitch to accomplish, and it will be years before everyone is protected. There really isn't an alternative though.
How: The client software needs to download a 'Terms of Use' unless they are explicitly permitted to send to the e-mail address. The 'Terms of Use' can contain anything really, but it needs to divulge a 'keyword' that the server will recognize and thus permit the client to upload e-mail. The user sending the e-mail of course would need to type in the keyword and the client would send it to the server.1
In the end, the 'Terms of Use' document will prevent spamming because the spam-bot won't know be able to figure out what the keyword is--the server will reject the e-mail.
FSO: (Frequently Stated Opinions)
Mailing lists won't work: Your mailing lists will be on your 'auto-accept' list or whatever you may call it.
Too much extra effort: Not really, you can add people that you frequently receive e-mail from to your list with the click of the button.
Can't be done: OK, then live with spam. No one is going to stop it.
"In your writings on the Digital Millenium Copyright Act earlier this week," e-mailed a Congressional aide, "you are obscuring the fact that the Internet is creating a generation of culture and content pirates. They steal other peoples ideas, and they don't pay for them, and they take no moral responsibility for that. People like you are celebrating and enabling and helping raise a culture of thievery that is not only institutionalized but which considers itself morally superior. We are a nation of laws and you seem to celebrate a nation of law-breakers."
I don't know about Mr. Katz, but in my case I'm finding it hard to feel any sympathy for organizations such as the RIAA. Yes, they have a right to get paid. However, they are on the offensive when it comes to any form of music distribution that they don't control -- legal or illegal. Do a search for "Tom Petty" here on Slashdot. My attitude might be construed to be pro-piracy, but honestly it's just that I don't care if they get hurt.
And I think they will get hurt. However, it's not piracy that is the threat to them. (See the recent Slashdot article about their profits this year.) The threat is legally distributed MP3's. I see people saying over and over that the Internet really isn't doing anything for musicians and that they can only make a pittance over the Internet. If find this to be incredibly short-sighted.
Yeah, musicians can get their music distributed via mp3.com. That's nice, but I don't think that mp3.com is the "killer app" for mp3 distribution. A band or musician on mp3.com is a needle in a haystack.
I've been talking to a lot of musicians about this, and thinking a lot on it. In fact I've decided to make a project out of distributing MP3's for musicians. Maybe my thinking is a little untraditional wrt to the Internet, but several friends and I are going to give this a go:
It works like this. I set up a web site for local musicians. They pass the word on to their fans. They grow their base of fans locally through the web site. In effect, we use the Internet for a purely local audience rather than a global audience. Of course, the web site is still accessible from anywhere in the world. If others are interested, they can do the same in their local area.
Think of it this way... Right now fans are blowing money on artists that they may never get to see perform live--and when they do it will probably be through binoculars in a stadium. Instead they could be spending money on their local bands who they can see live and even meet in person. In effect, instead of money flowing from the fans pockets to Hollywood it's flowing into the local bars, local stores that sell music equipment, non-franchise record stores that don't mind selling music that isn't published by a major record label, etc... The RIAA (and others) can cry piracy all they want, but I know that's not what they really have to fear.
For some reason a lot of people seem to believe that unsigned artists only remain unsigned because they suck. This is just plain untrue. If you think so then you ought to get out more and hear some real music live and up close. Even I was suprised at the incredible amount of talent I found within a 3 mile radius of my apartment. I'm not talking about musicians that just know how to play cover songs. I mean musicians that are truly talented and that have their own original music. They're also smart, energetic, and capable of getting things done. The all have day jobs, only a few have CD's, but when they play the crowds go nuts. At the end of the night though, all their fans have is a memory when they leave--for now. That's what we want to change.
Whenever I've talked to any of them about the idea of "localizing" music they've thought it was a really cool idea. I wouldn't be as excited about the idea if it was not for all the positive feedback I've received so far.
They're not worried about their music being pirated--they want to know people are hearing it. They'll be happy if they can be full-time musicians. Waiting for a $1M record contract to show up is like waiting to win the lottery. Sharing their IP makes sense to the vast majority of musicians because it costs them nothing to share it. If it lands them well-paying gigs and some money on sales that's great.
If you're one of the elite few that are making millions off of your music then sharing IP may not seem like such a great idea. In fact, the very act of someone sharing theirs becomes a threat--since they're making available for free what you're making tons of money from.
This is a great article to help the average person figure out what's going on with software patents and such. Most of the things in this article have been discussed here on Slashdot already, but the article offers a lot of great insight for those who may have missed it.
The ignorance about software at the USPTO is a huge problem. Possibly worse is the fact that the patent examiners have a lot of incentive to grant as many of these patents as they can. JG claims that examiners' bonuses are based on the number of patents they grant.
I'm not sure what the answer to this problem is, but there's no doubt that this is only going to get worse until something is done about it. It seems obvious that software patents are doing a lot more to stifle innovation than to foster innovation. It seems obvious that the big guys will reap huge rewards due to their ability to abuse the patent system so easily. As you can tell from the article, Commissioner Dickenson from the USPTO seems blissfully unaware of the problems with the software patents they are granting. In fact he seems downright pleased with the current state of affairs. Keep in mind that the USPTO's budget comes from examaning patents now--all of it if I understand correctly. And since software patents have become so popular the USPTO has been granting patents in record numbers.
In other words, don't count on the USPTO to try to change things for the better--unless they can find a way to do it that will allow them to issue more patents.
That's my read on it at least. Great article at any rate. The author even used the word "hacker" in a non-derogatory context. I'm impressed:)
I est about $7 per disk, ($7000 investment). Now you have to sell 700 disks to break even. Do you even have 700 hard-core fans? You're whole distribution channel is the venues you play.
I don't doubt your estimate is accurate. I know US$10 per CD is what all the musicians I've talked to have paid or have been quoted for 1000 units. I don't think that included studio time. However, they may have been going through more traditional channels (ie: studios) to get the CD's pressed.
As you pointed out, even at $7/CD it's still a huge investment for a local band. I know that Famous Johnson tried burning their own CD's on a home PC. It was impossible for them to keep up with the demand...and their CD-R died from all the use. Burning just 10 CD's a show was too time-consuming, and too much work for the CD-R as well. However, without a huge amount of cash or a label to sponsor production they couldn't afford the bulk required to make pressed CD's an option.
The barrier to entry that your post demonstrates really protects the recording industry. What becomes of the "recording industry" when anyone can record (and distribute) their own music as easily as the industry can. This threat to the recording industry is by far more obvious to me than the "piracy" threat.
1.Katz talks about how wonderful the Net is in allowing new artists to make it around the record industries selection procedures. The whopping majority of mp3s being traded, however, are the works of the bigshot celebs who have already made it. Sure the new kids have a chance to distribute their music, but it's not as though they've suddenly found an equal market. The primary purpose of mp3s is (and always has been) to steal the latest best-selling albums so that you don't have to fork out a couple bucks for it.
Oh puh-lease. The primary purpose of MP3's is and always has been to steal the latest best-selling albums? Wake the fuck up! The primary purpose of MP3's has been to make it easier to widely distribute audio--something that big companies have had a stranglehold for a long time now.
It's no suprise that the MP3 format gets used for piracy--it's made for distributing audio! You say that "the whopping majority of mp3s being traded, however, are the works of the bigshot celebs who have already made it." I know this is probably obvious to most people but I'll take some time to explain this to you:
Local musicians commonly spent US$10 PER CD to have CD's manufactured so they'd have something to give to their fans, AT A LOSS. The big studios, OTOH manufacture billions of CD's at a fraction of the cost, then sell them in thousands of stores across the world. Now, does it really seem like much of a suprise that most of MP3's available happen to be the same music that has been the most widely available?
7.It all comes down to theft. We want to steal music that other people have spent millions to produce, and they want us to pay for it instead. We're pissed off because they're coming ever closer to preventing us from illegally copying their works. We have no right to be as righteously indignant as Jon Katz has portrayed himself
It does NOT all come down to theft. The fact is that MP3's are gaining popularity with local musicians who want a method to distribute their music without getting bent over by a major record label in the process. Stopping the distribution of MP3's is the only way for the big labels to insure their dominance. In case you haven't been paying attention, piracy by MP3 has not hurt them. The threat is music that is distributed by MP3 that is NOT pirated.
There is no music revolution. We're just trying to find better ways to steal.
God this is such a troll...you keep using the word "We" a lot, and I know that should have been an indicator early on... If you're speaking as a member of the RIAA then I apologize, you're not a troll and I applaud your honesty on this point.
Well "we", as in my group of friends, are very excited about the opportunity to use the MP3 format to distribute music globally. The fact that the MP3's we will produce in the coming month will face hurdles getting onto college campuses due to the efforts of the RIAA helps no one but the members of the RIAA.
No, without the ability for everyday people to distribute digital audio without the RIAA as middle-men, there will be no music revolution.
I have a couple hundred megs of data that I encrypted a couple years ago and have not been able to recover the keys. Basically I moved and misplaced the disk with the key during the move. I've been optimistic that one day I'll be digging through my closet and it'll turn up.
Suppose I lived in the UK? Does this mean I would be legally required to destroy the encrypted data since I'm no longer certain I possess the key. In my case I'd probably delete it since it doesn't seem likely that I'll ever find the key to this data.
What about unidentifiable files on my hard drive? What if there's a temp file that contains what looks like garbage. How would I prove that it's not encrypted data? The average computer user is never going to able to account for every file on their hard drive. The expert computer user probably won't either. Won't this allow the UK govt to basically prosecute *anyone* with a computer and garbage files on it? It just seems like a shortcut to lock up anyone owning a modern computer without actually having to produce evidence. The user can be required by law to produce something that doesn't even exist. Scary stuff.
How about client-side processing? Can I use JavaScript? What if the page shows up as larger than 5k in the browser as a result of the scripting?
Client-side scripting, including the use of scripts which write out additional HTML (i.e., by using JavaScript's "document.write()" function) are permitted. The size component of the judging will be done by examining the files which sit on the server, not the browser's rendering of those files. The normal caveats apply however (see the next question); make sure you are confident about your scripts running in the judges' browsers. Also, please note that gratuituous exploitation of this provision may cause low marks by some judges in the concept & originality category.
The server side question is answered elsewhere in the FAQ--clearly not allowed. What's interesting is that client side scripting could be used to generate much more than 5k worth of HTML, as long as the original page on the server is less than 5k. Of course, you'll want to read the entire FAQ for any caveats.
You mean the modified connector wasn't made in that fashion just to sell cables??? You mean the connector was customized to prevent clueless computer operators from plugging in the wrong cable?
In the case of the debug port, which is really just a serial port, it prevents the clueless and clueful alike from repairing the flashrom--unless they want to shell out for a proprietary cable, or spend an insane amount of money to have Compaq do it. Unfortunately, apparently no one at Compaq seems to know anything at all about the motherboard. Fortunately there are third parties that have a clue. BTW, someone from Harddata contacted me in response to a Usenet post and helped me determine the pin-outs for the port. No charge, and I wasn't even a customer. Gotta like that. Unfortunately my homebrew cable didn't do the trick (it was pretty ugly looking so I'm not suprised.) I also found rumors that some of the revisions of my mb have a defective debug monitor which could account for the problem. Thus the search for a cheap/free cable to do it with. It sucks watching those Alpha boards just sitting there and rotting.
Hold on. You didn't contribute anything productive to our Microsoft/Proprietary HW hatefest.
Hmm. I admit, I don't have anything productive to contribute today. -1.
Yes, that's extremely annoying. I spent a bunch of time filing down RJ connectors for an Alpha motherboard with a blown flash rom. In the end I couldn't get it to work. You don't happen to have any of those cables for the debug port on at 275mhz MB? I'm looking for one cheap or free.
A couple weeks ago a friend of mine who works for a subsidiary of Clear Channel communications told me that they were getting their own TLD, ".cc" I was pretty skeptical. He said he didn't really know anything about it other than that was information passed on to him from someone else at the company.
I spoke to him earlier this morning, before seeing this article, and he said that he was told again that they intend to unveil their TLD. Clear Channel owns several tv stations, radio stations, and billboards. So is the.cc TLD for real, or just wishful thinking at this point?
Here's a link to an MP3 player that is shaped like a cassette tape. It works in a tape deck, or you can plug headphones into it directly. It's only got 32MB, but I wouldn't mind having one.
Here's what I don't understand. Use of L0phtcrack is not inherently wrong or illegal as far as I can tell.
Breaking into other peoples computers and stealing stuff is illegal.
So why exactly does it make sense to make possession of any piece of software illegal? Sure, it's evidence and will be used against them in a court of law. That makes sense. Is it necessary for the software to be illegal to prosecute the criminals for their crime? No. Sorry it doesn't make sense to me. In fact, it bothers me a lot that posession of a piece of software can be considered a crime.
This is a completely false statement. You don't have to roll around mud to know that it is dirty. Likewise, you don't have to roll around in the smut to know that it can warp your conception of people (women esp), and turn them into nothing by sex objects.
I wasn't advocating rolling around in the mud or anything like that. In fact, my concern is about vital information that could be blocked. Not necessarily sex-related material, but since you chose sex-related material for your example, so will I:
Suppose you were a teenager looking for information about sex. Perhaps for one reason or another, going to your parents is not an option (though in a perfect world maybe it would be.) Your sex education class really left you with a lot of questions, but you were afraid to ask. You have doubts that your friends, who've told you most of the things that you know about sex, are really are the experts on the subject they claim to be.
OK, were I in this circumstance (as a teenager, or an adult) I'd start my search on the Internet. I know this is a double-edged sword--the Internet contains plenty of misinformation. Still, I'd have a much better chance of finding the information I require than I would have if the site was blocked.
And this is where I see the problem with filtering. I really think there is more danger of access to important information being blocked than there is of an unfiltered Internet changing our next generation into a nation of porn fiends and terrorists. In other words, I think that making sure that relevant information is not blocked supercedes the need to filter porn.
Another problem with filtering porn is that we don't have a reliable technology to do it. The technology that we currently have isn't capable of doing what it's meant to do, and at the same time it has bad side effects like blocking relevant information by mistake and because of personal prejudice.
I may be able to distinguish between "smut" and "sex education" and "art" in my own prejudiced way, but a filter can't do even that. What sucks even more is that it's not just the kids that people are trying to apply this filter to--its adults as well.
In the meantime, kids and the issues they face get lost in the shuffle. And really, this was the only point I was hoping to make when I made the original post.
I think protecting the children has to start with protecting their right to learn and to have free access to information that may or may not agree with the state-funded institutions that have been charged with educating them. The more you limit the 'set' of knowledge that is available, the less they will be able to protect themselves from dangers that lie outside of that set.
A more direct way to protect the children is to come down hard on people that try to exploit them. It truly disgusts me that there are people that exploit children to further their own goals or to line their pockets. If we can get the politicians to stop doing this then maybe we can spend more time stopping the rest.
Slashdot Mirror
I really don't know where they find these people. I noticed his title was "strategy analyst" not "security analyst." The part where he said "Security needs to be built into the architecture of the operating system. This cannot happen if your source code is publicly available"--what rock has this guy been living under? This guy is supposed to have some kind of understanding about OS security?
I wouldn't be too concerned about this article at any rate. Open source has already proven itself in this area. It just goes to show that there is still a bit of ignorance about it and there will always be someone that digs it up and puts it in an article...
numb
If the response is "I can't afford a DAT," then you also probably wouldn't be able to afford good enough computer hardware capable of making a quality recording of a live performance, either.
A DAT would save me a lot of trouble, however I already have a computer that is sufficient (for now at least.) Last night one band offered to let me borrow a digital 4-track for recording future events so I might do that. Keep in mind that I am NOT a musician (nor do I play one on MTV.) I love music but don't have any talent in that area. That's a huge part of the reason I'm doing this.
Another possibility that is showing some promise is getting sponsored with IDSL or ADSL access at one of the local bars so I can broadcast live events. If that happens the computer will become an absolute requirement. The software I use for that will be icecast which allows MP3 streaming.
numb
Wow, this does look quite impressive. I'm going to check this out as soon as I get home. By the way, here's a direct link to the screenshots:
http://heroine.linuxbox.com/bcast 2000screens.html
numb
You can already do most of this stuff with Windows.
This is fine if you're just playing around sampling some stuff. But for recording a live performance you need an operating system that has a high level of reliability. That's something that is not currently available for Windows.
numb
This a great topic. I've been waiting for the opportunity to ask some questions. At this point I need tools for recording, mixing, and realtime visualization of line input.
I've been using Goldwave for recording. It's a great shareware program despite only being available for Windows. The problem, other than my aversion to Windows, is that when Windows crashes the entire segment I was recording is lost. This is a definately a problem when it's live performances that you are recording.
Gmurf (open source) has a lot of potential but needs more development. The primary thing I'm looking for right now is software that allows me to record and does realtime visual analysis of the input. This is critical for adjusting the recording level to prevent clipping. The second thing I need is a nice open source mixer--one that allows me to adjust recording and playback levels at the same time. As far as the actual recording goes, SoX does an excellent job of recording and uses very little overhead.
My question is: What are the best open source packages for realtime visualization, the mixer, and wave editing?
numb
The fact that root priviledges are required offers a great deal of protection in Linux (and other *nix's.) Of course a lot of software needs to be installed as root so we aren't completely protected. I think people are more likely to write trojans than viruses for Linux due to the fact that Linux boxes are useful to remote users as well as local users. That's neither here nor there though...
If you are running Linux you should absolutely be using some sort of IDS (Intrusion Detection Software.) I use aide. It's a 'tripwire' type program that detects changes in files (using an MD5 hash.) I have it configured on my home PC and my server. It runs via cron once a night, then e-mails me the results. That way if someone (or something) changes the kernel or an executable, library, script, etc, I'll know and be able to replace the altered (or infected) files. Software like this should be part of Linux distributions IMHO.
I realize that Virus Detection is not the same thing as active Virus Prevention. Of course, the root login requirement goes a long way as far as prevention.
numb
I'd assumed it would be pretty simple until I actually read the Networking Essentials book. Yes, it was humbling. I never got around to actually taking the test--but assuming the Transcenders/CBT's are anything like the real test then I'd have to agree that it's a tough test.
However, some absolutely inept people seem to pass it anyway. One consulting company I worked for had me doing technical interviews for potential recruits--mostly MCSE's. (I scored well enough on mine to qualify as an interviewer despite never having taken the MCSE.) Generally the MCSE's were incredibly knowledgable about Windows and network administration as it relates to Windows--certainly more than I.
I'd estimate I interviewed about 20 of them. Out of the 20, one or two of them seemed to be well rounded enough to discuss anything computer-related out of the Microsoft realm. And two or three of them had no clue whatsoever even about basic stuff like formatting a floppy from the NT command line (or maybe that's just not covered in the MCSE exam?) Despite the few bad apples the rest were, as I said before, incredibly knowledgable about Microsoft products.
numb
Nothing short of an asteriod collision will prevent unix for surviving.
Sometimes I get the feeling that my Linux box will still be accumulating uptime even after the cockroaches have inherited the Earth...
numb
I don't think it'll 'die' exactly. It may eventually evolve into something that bears little resemblence to what it is today, have a different name, have absolutely no code in common with what we know today, but it'll be evolution.
Licenses that make the source available for reuse make this more likely than ever. The open source movement is giving Unix a lot of strength. I'm fairly confident that people will still be typing "ls" to see their files 30 years from now (assuming the keyboard isn't dead by then
numb
...and what have you done with the real Signal 11? I get the feeling you're just trying to be contrary lately.
numb
To the effect of DeCSS, it is a program that has only one use: To circumvent the DVD copy-protection scheme. It's irrelevent what the purpose of doing so was (to watch it under Linux or to pirate it over the internet), because the crime here is the actual act of circumvention.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't every single DVD player need to circumvent the copy protection in order for the video to be viewable? I suppose it depends on your interpretation of the word 'circumvent.' (to manage to get around especially by ingenuity or stratagem.) DVD's are unviewable without a means to circumvent the encryption. All DVD players do this--using keys that they've paid a lot of money for. JJ obviously didn't pay for a key to make DeCSS, but there's no legal requirement for him to do so.
In order to create an open source DVD player the first step absolutely has to be decrypting the data. From that point many open source DVD players can be written. DeCSS is essential for this to work. And this, quite obviously in my opinion, is the intent of DeCSS--to make it possible for people to write software to play DVD's. Not to pirate it, or even to view it. Just to give people and open-source choice in DVD players.
If the MPAA can prosecute people for DeCSS, then anyone can be prosecuted for writing any software that allows the use of copy protected media. Open source will be selectively targeted because it's so modular.
Let's look at an MPAA endorsed DVD player for Windows as an example. It decrypts the data on a DVD and produces an MPEG2 stream. It probably contains it's on codec to decode the stream and display it on the screen. DeCSS on the other hand lets the user/software developer decide which codec to use. Tying it to a specific codec and display mechanism would seriously degrade it's value to the open source community.
Summing things up, DeCSS circumvents copy protection just like any other DVD player. This is not the only purpose of DeCSS or any other DVD player/software. In the case of a DVD player the primary use is viewing. With DeCSS there are nearly infinite potential uses. Viewing, analysis, archiving, and most importantly (IMHO) the development of other software that does these things. All of these things are covered by fair use.
I know most of you guys already know this, but I figured I should point it out for those who don't--All software DVD players produce decrypted output that can be intercepted and used for the purpose of piracy. Not just DeCSS.
I realize I probably said more than I had to to point out that circumventing copy protection is not the only use of DeCSS. But I was on a rant. Sorry. (With all respect due Foogle.)
numb
This ruling was just plain bad. Spam is not helpful, it's not beneficial to anyone but the sender, and it's costly to everyone else. If Washington, who has the toughest anti-spam laws, can't convinct this guy, what good are the laws at all?
/. just don't seem to get it. Asking the government to protect you from spam is just as bad as asking them to make laws to protect you from porn. I wish people would stop begging legislators to inflict laws on the Internet and start asking for a technical solution.
I'll have to respectfully disagree with the first sentence, but the rest is right on. In answer to the "what good are the laws at all?" question, NONE AT ALL.
It truly suprises me that more people on
Think about it. We use a password to protect against illegal entry into your private systems and accounts online. Sure, it's an inconvenience, but honestly, can we really expect any law or government to stop people from abusing an unprotected service on a global network? No. The most we can expect is laws that can be selectively enforced because there's no way to wholly enforce them. I'm NOT saying we wouldn't see a reduction in spam...
Now, if we truly want to stop spam (in the Self-Propelled Advertising Material sense) e-mail clients and servers will need to be upgraded. This is unfortunate, it'll be a real bitch to accomplish, and it will be years before everyone is protected. There really isn't an alternative though.
How: The client software needs to download a 'Terms of Use' unless they are explicitly permitted to send to the e-mail address. The 'Terms of Use' can contain anything really, but it needs to divulge a 'keyword' that the server will recognize and thus permit the client to upload e-mail. The user sending the e-mail of course would need to type in the keyword and the client would send it to the server.1
In the end, the 'Terms of Use' document will prevent spamming because the spam-bot won't know be able to figure out what the keyword is--the server will reject the e-mail.
FSO: (Frequently Stated Opinions)
Mailing lists won't work: Your mailing lists will be on your 'auto-accept' list or whatever you may call it.
Too much extra effort: Not really, you can add people that you frequently receive e-mail from to your list with the click of the button.
Can't be done: OK, then live with spam. No one is going to stop it.
numb
"In your writings on the Digital Millenium Copyright Act earlier this week," e-mailed a Congressional aide, "you are obscuring the fact that the Internet is creating a generation of culture and content pirates. They steal other peoples ideas, and they don't pay for them, and they take no moral responsibility for that. People like you are celebrating and enabling and helping raise a culture of thievery that is not only institutionalized but which considers itself morally superior. We are a nation of laws and you seem to celebrate a nation of law-breakers."
I don't know about Mr. Katz, but in my case I'm finding it hard to feel any sympathy for organizations such as the RIAA. Yes, they have a right to get paid. However, they are on the offensive when it comes to any form of music distribution that they don't control -- legal or illegal. Do a search for "Tom Petty" here on Slashdot. My attitude might be construed to be pro-piracy, but honestly it's just that I don't care if they get hurt.
And I think they will get hurt. However, it's not piracy that is the threat to them. (See the recent Slashdot article about their profits this year.) The threat is legally distributed MP3's. I see people saying over and over that the Internet really isn't doing anything for musicians and that they can only make a pittance over the Internet. If find this to be incredibly short-sighted.
Yeah, musicians can get their music distributed via mp3.com. That's nice, but I don't think that mp3.com is the "killer app" for mp3 distribution. A band or musician on mp3.com is a needle in a haystack.
I've been talking to a lot of musicians about this, and thinking a lot on it. In fact I've decided to make a project out of distributing MP3's for musicians. Maybe my thinking is a little untraditional wrt to the Internet, but several friends and I are going to give this a go:
It works like this. I set up a web site for local musicians. They pass the word on to their fans. They grow their base of fans locally through the web site. In effect, we use the Internet for a purely local audience rather than a global audience. Of course, the web site is still accessible from anywhere in the world. If others are interested, they can do the same in their local area.
Think of it this way... Right now fans are blowing money on artists that they may never get to see perform live--and when they do it will probably be through binoculars in a stadium. Instead they could be spending money on their local bands who they can see live and even meet in person. In effect, instead of money flowing from the fans pockets to Hollywood it's flowing into the local bars, local stores that sell music equipment, non-franchise record stores that don't mind selling music that isn't published by a major record label, etc... The RIAA (and others) can cry piracy all they want, but I know that's not what they really have to fear.
For some reason a lot of people seem to believe that unsigned artists only remain unsigned because they suck. This is just plain untrue. If you think so then you ought to get out more and hear some real music live and up close. Even I was suprised at the incredible amount of talent I found within a 3 mile radius of my apartment. I'm not talking about musicians that just know how to play cover songs. I mean musicians that are truly talented and that have their own original music. They're also smart, energetic, and capable of getting things done. The all have day jobs, only a few have CD's, but when they play the crowds go nuts. At the end of the night though, all their fans have is a memory when they leave--for now. That's what we want to change.
Whenever I've talked to any of them about the idea of "localizing" music they've thought it was a really cool idea. I wouldn't be as excited about the idea if it was not for all the positive feedback I've received so far.
They're not worried about their music being pirated--they want to know people are hearing it. They'll be happy if they can be full-time musicians. Waiting for a $1M record contract to show up is like waiting to win the lottery. Sharing their IP makes sense to the vast majority of musicians because it costs them nothing to share it. If it lands them well-paying gigs and some money on sales that's great.
If you're one of the elite few that are making millions off of your music then sharing IP may not seem like such a great idea. In fact, the very act of someone sharing theirs becomes a threat--since they're making available for free what you're making tons of money from.
It's not about piracy. It's about money.
numb
This is a great article to help the average person figure out what's going on with software patents and such. Most of the things in this article have been discussed here on Slashdot already, but the article offers a lot of great insight for those who may have missed it.
:)
The ignorance about software at the USPTO is a huge problem. Possibly worse is the fact that the patent examiners have a lot of incentive to grant as many of these patents as they can. JG claims that examiners' bonuses are based on the number of patents they grant.
I'm not sure what the answer to this problem is, but there's no doubt that this is only going to get worse until something is done about it. It seems obvious that software patents are doing a lot more to stifle innovation than to foster innovation. It seems obvious that the big guys will reap huge rewards due to their ability to abuse the patent system so easily. As you can tell from the article, Commissioner Dickenson from the USPTO seems blissfully unaware of the problems with the software patents they are granting. In fact he seems downright pleased with the current state of affairs. Keep in mind that the USPTO's budget comes from examaning patents now--all of it if I understand correctly. And since software patents have become so popular the USPTO has been granting patents in record numbers.
In other words, don't count on the USPTO to try to change things for the better--unless they can find a way to do it that will allow them to issue more patents.
That's my read on it at least. Great article at any rate. The author even used the word "hacker" in a non-derogatory context. I'm impressed
numb
I est about $7 per disk, ($7000 investment). Now you have to sell 700 disks to break even. Do you even have 700 hard-core fans? You're whole distribution channel is the venues you play.
I don't doubt your estimate is accurate. I know US$10 per CD is what all the musicians I've talked to have paid or have been quoted for 1000 units. I don't think that included studio time. However, they may have been going through more traditional channels (ie: studios) to get the CD's pressed.
As you pointed out, even at $7/CD it's still a huge investment for a local band. I know that Famous Johnson tried burning their own CD's on a home PC. It was impossible for them to keep up with the demand...and their CD-R died from all the use. Burning just 10 CD's a show was too time-consuming, and too much work for the CD-R as well. However, without a huge amount of cash or a label to sponsor production they couldn't afford the bulk required to make pressed CD's an option.
The barrier to entry that your post demonstrates really protects the recording industry. What becomes of the "recording industry" when anyone can record (and distribute) their own music as easily as the industry can. This threat to the recording industry is by far more obvious to me than the "piracy" threat.
numb
1.Katz talks about how wonderful the Net is in allowing new artists to make it around the record industries selection procedures. The whopping majority of mp3s being traded, however, are the works of the bigshot celebs who have already made it. Sure the new kids have a chance to distribute their music, but it's not as though they've suddenly found an equal market. The primary purpose of mp3s is (and always has been) to steal the latest best-selling albums so that you don't have to fork out a couple bucks for it.
Oh puh-lease. The primary purpose of MP3's is and always has been to steal the latest best-selling albums? Wake the fuck up! The primary purpose of MP3's has been to make it easier to widely distribute audio--something that big companies have had a stranglehold for a long time now.
It's no suprise that the MP3 format gets used for piracy--it's made for distributing audio! You say that "the whopping majority of mp3s being traded, however, are the works of the bigshot celebs who have already made it." I know this is probably obvious to most people but I'll take some time to explain this to you:
Local musicians commonly spent US$10 PER CD to have CD's manufactured so they'd have something to give to their fans, AT A LOSS. The big studios, OTOH manufacture billions of CD's at a fraction of the cost, then sell them in thousands of stores across the world. Now, does it really seem like much of a suprise that most of MP3's available happen to be the same music that has been the most widely available?
7.It all comes down to theft. We want to steal music that other people have spent millions to produce, and they want us to pay for it instead. We're pissed off because they're coming ever closer to preventing us from illegally copying their works. We have no right to be as righteously indignant as Jon Katz has portrayed himself
It does NOT all come down to theft. The fact is that MP3's are gaining popularity with local musicians who want a method to distribute their music without getting bent over by a major record label in the process. Stopping the distribution of MP3's is the only way for the big labels to insure their dominance. In case you haven't been paying attention, piracy by MP3 has not hurt them. The threat is music that is distributed by MP3 that is NOT pirated.
There is no music revolution. We're just trying to find better ways to steal.
God this is such a troll...you keep using the word "We" a lot, and I know that should have been an indicator early on... If you're speaking as a member of the RIAA then I apologize, you're not a troll and I applaud your honesty on this point.
Well "we", as in my group of friends, are very excited about the opportunity to use the MP3 format to distribute music globally. The fact that the MP3's we will produce in the coming month will face hurdles getting onto college campuses due to the efforts of the RIAA helps no one but the members of the RIAA.
No, without the ability for everyday people to distribute digital audio without the RIAA as middle-men, there will be no music revolution.
numb
I have a couple hundred megs of data that I encrypted a couple years ago and have not been able to recover the keys. Basically I moved and misplaced the disk with the key during the move. I've been optimistic that one day I'll be digging through my closet and it'll turn up.
Suppose I lived in the UK? Does this mean I would be legally required to destroy the encrypted data since I'm no longer certain I possess the key. In my case I'd probably delete it since it doesn't seem likely that I'll ever find the key to this data.
What about unidentifiable files on my hard drive? What if there's a temp file that contains what looks like garbage. How would I prove that it's not encrypted data? The average computer user is never going to able to account for every file on their hard drive. The expert computer user probably won't either. Won't this allow the UK govt to basically prosecute *anyone* with a computer and garbage files on it? It just seems like a shortcut to lock up anyone owning a modern computer without actually having to produce evidence. The user can be required by law to produce something that doesn't even exist. Scary stuff.
numb
from their FAQ:
How about client-side processing? Can I use JavaScript? What if the page shows up as larger than 5k in the browser as a result of the scripting?
Client-side scripting, including the use of scripts which write out additional HTML (i.e., by using JavaScript's "document.write()" function) are permitted. The size component of the judging will be done by examining the files which sit on the server, not the browser's rendering of those files. The normal caveats apply however (see the next question); make sure you are confident about your scripts running in the judges' browsers. Also, please note that gratuituous exploitation of this provision may cause low marks by some judges in the concept & originality category.
The server side question is answered elsewhere in the FAQ--clearly not allowed. What's interesting is that client side scripting could be used to generate much more than 5k worth of HTML, as long as the original page on the server is less than 5k. Of course, you'll want to read the entire FAQ for any caveats.
FAQ available at http://www.sylloge.com/5k/faq.html.
numb
You mean the modified connector wasn't made in that fashion just to sell cables??? You mean the connector was customized to prevent clueless computer operators from plugging in the wrong cable?
In the case of the debug port, which is really just a serial port, it prevents the clueless and clueful alike from repairing the flashrom--unless they want to shell out for a proprietary cable, or spend an insane amount of money to have Compaq do it. Unfortunately, apparently no one at Compaq seems to know anything at all about the motherboard. Fortunately there are third parties that have a clue. BTW, someone from Harddata contacted me in response to a Usenet post and helped me determine the pin-outs for the port. No charge, and I wasn't even a customer. Gotta like that. Unfortunately my homebrew cable didn't do the trick (it was pretty ugly looking so I'm not suprised.) I also found rumors that some of the revisions of my mb have a defective debug monitor which could account for the problem. Thus the search for a cheap/free cable to do it with. It sucks watching those Alpha boards just sitting there and rotting.
Hold on. You didn't contribute anything productive to our Microsoft/Proprietary HW hatefest.
Hmm. I admit, I don't have anything productive to contribute today. -1.
numb
Yes, that's extremely annoying. I spent a bunch of time filing down RJ connectors for an Alpha motherboard with a blown flash rom. In the end I couldn't get it to work. You don't happen to have any of those cables for the debug port on at 275mhz MB? I'm looking for one cheap or free.
numb
A couple weeks ago a friend of mine who works for a subsidiary of Clear Channel communications told me that they were getting their own TLD, ".cc" I was pretty skeptical. He said he didn't really know anything about it other than that was information passed on to him from someone else at the company.
.cc TLD for real, or just wishful thinking at this point?
I spoke to him earlier this morning, before seeing this article, and he said that he was told again that they intend to unveil their TLD. Clear Channel owns several tv stations, radio stations, and billboards. So is the
numb
Here's a link to an MP3 player that is shaped like a cassette tape. It works in a tape deck, or you can plug headphones into it directly. It's only got 32MB, but I wouldn't mind having one.
cli ck here for picture
numb
Here's what I don't understand. Use of L0phtcrack is not inherently wrong or illegal as far as I can tell.
Breaking into other peoples computers and stealing stuff is illegal.
So why exactly does it make sense to make possession of any piece of software illegal? Sure, it's evidence and will be used against them in a court of law. That makes sense. Is it necessary for the software to be illegal to prosecute the criminals for their crime? No. Sorry it doesn't make sense to me. In fact, it bothers me a lot that posession of a piece of software can be considered a crime.
numb
This is a completely false statement. You don't have to roll around mud to know that it is dirty. Likewise, you don't have to roll around in the smut to know that it can warp your conception of people (women esp), and turn them into nothing by sex objects.
I wasn't advocating rolling around in the mud or anything like that. In fact, my concern is about vital information that could be blocked. Not necessarily sex-related material, but since you chose sex-related material for your example, so will I:
Suppose you were a teenager looking for information about sex. Perhaps for one reason or another, going to your parents is not an option (though in a perfect world maybe it would be.) Your sex education class really left you with a lot of questions, but you were afraid to ask. You have doubts that your friends, who've told you most of the things that you know about sex, are really are the experts on the subject they claim to be.
OK, were I in this circumstance (as a teenager, or an adult) I'd start my search on the Internet. I know this is a double-edged sword--the Internet contains plenty of misinformation. Still, I'd have a much better chance of finding the information I require than I would have if the site was blocked.
And this is where I see the problem with filtering. I really think there is more danger of access to important information being blocked than there is of an unfiltered Internet changing our next generation into a nation of porn fiends and terrorists. In other words, I think that making sure that relevant information is not blocked supercedes the need to filter porn.
Another problem with filtering porn is that we don't have a reliable technology to do it. The technology that we currently have isn't capable of doing what it's meant to do, and at the same time it has bad side effects like blocking relevant information by mistake and because of personal prejudice.
I may be able to distinguish between "smut" and "sex education" and "art" in my own prejudiced way, but a filter can't do even that. What sucks even more is that it's not just the kids that people are trying to apply this filter to--its adults as well.
In the meantime, kids and the issues they face get lost in the shuffle. And really, this was the only point I was hoping to make when I made the original post.
numb
I think protecting the children has to start with protecting their right to learn and to have free access to information that may or may not agree with the state-funded institutions that have been charged with educating them. The more you limit the 'set' of knowledge that is available, the less they will be able to protect themselves from dangers that lie outside of that set.
A more direct way to protect the children is to come down hard on people that try to exploit them. It truly disgusts me that there are people that exploit children to further their own goals or to line their pockets. If we can get the politicians to stop doing this then maybe we can spend more time stopping the rest.
numb