This security flaw was being aggressively exploited out in the wild.
Only if you use Internet Explorer. For the rest of us, there's Firefox, Opera, Konqueror and other browsers which aren't embedded in the OS and so don't allow such nonsense to affect our systems.
1. to beat soundly; thrash. 2. Informal. to strike with a vigorous blow; belt; sock: After two strikes, he walloped the ball out of the park. 3. Informal. to defeat thoroughly, as in a game.
Considering the success, or lack thereof, of other attempts by Microsoft to enter already established markets, their name will be exactly what will happen to them.
Granted, I'm sure the reason for the name was to imply that the service will beat Facebook and MySpace but really, the marketing folks should have used history as a guide before settling on the name.
The real issue isn't how long it would take to train someone to operate the sign-in machine, the real issue is why are they using a machine to log people in? Why isn't a big book where someone can sign into not being used?
Since I've been voting I have always had to sign my signature under my name in a paper book that is at the table. One book is for people A thru M, the other book is for people N thru Z.
So far as I know, there has never been an issue using this method.
Is privacy actually an essential liberty? You can live without it after all. Why is it considered such an important "right"?
Yes, it is. Thanks to your kings and queens judicious use of spying on those who might saying something against the Crown, our Founding Fathers enshrined that right in various parts of the Constitution. Why shouldn't people be free from having to worry that what happens in their lives won't be in some government file?
If you don't like that argument, why don't you ask the folks of East Germany or the former Soviet Union if privacy isn't a right and how you can't live without it. How about the folks in North Korea?
Is the ability for the government to watch people without a court order only a temporary safety?
No. Once the government starts something, it is extremely difficult to stop it. Further, there is always the 'creep' factor. First it's supposed suspected terrorists, then it's a different group of suspected people, and so on and so forth. Eventually, any excuse will do to state why the government needs to watch people without a warrant.
If the government doesn't abuse the power given to it by the citizens then it would by a permanent safety wouldn't it?
What fantasy world do you live in? The government won't abuse this power? I want what you're drinking.
If my privacy and liberty were curtailed I'd notice. But would that actually be a bad thing?
Again, go ask the folks from East Germany or Russia to see if not having privacy is a bad thing.
I've had to use IE at a training site this week and it's amazing how cumbersome and clunky it is to use since I've become used to using Firefox. Simple things like being able to scroll down a page before it completely loads, right-clicking and opening a new tab (not window) and just overall speed.
The use of Firefox, and other browsers, really needs to be pushed to slow and/or prevent these exploits from compromising peoples systems. It's an easy solution and doesn't require anything more than downloading an executible.
It took me a second to realize I had already read about this on the Asia Times Online site. In fact, reading the Newday article, it appears the author simply copied and pasted from the Asia Times article.
Still a good reading and it explains why Hezbollah could say they had killed X number of troops or destroyed Y tanks before the Israeli military admitted to the losses. They were listening to the Israeli transmissions from the battlefield!
"Nothing really has changed except for the fact that it's just prettier to look at," John Nogawski, president of CBS Paramount Domestic Television, said in a recent conference call with reporters. "Right down to placement of stars, it is being resimulated to be exactly what was there in the first place."
That is the way it should be. Clean things up, enhance colors, tweak minor items, but in the end, LEAVE THINGS THE WAY THEY WERE! (You hear us George!?)
If they're not, I am. As others have said, every time we go apoplectic whenever someone leaves their briefcase lying around an airport or someone gets antsy because because the guy next to them doesn't have white skin and looks funny, I just shake my head.
It's one thing to be vigilant and try to prevent attacks. But when you force herds of people into lines waiting to pass through the metal detectors, you're just giving anyone whow wants to cause havoc a juicy target to hit. Forget the planes. I'd be worried about someone around Thanksgiving strapping themselves with explosives and standing in line with me.
The only need for annoimity that I see would be if you are looking at things that are illegal, or you want to bypass your work/school firewall. Other than that.....why does it really matter?
Bullshit. Maybe I don't want my surfing habits tracked because no one else needs to know where I've been. Just because I visit CNN's site rather than Faux is not evidence of criminal intent. Next thing you know you'll be telling me I can't use cold hard cash to pay for something but must instead use a credit card or debit card so my purchases can be tracked.
Ads specific to your IP are also better for advertisers. Tracking helps you by targeting information to you based on your activitys and this makes you happier.
You mean like those "Hot girls want to meet you in . ..!" ads that show up? The ones where the city they tell me these hot women are in are over an hour away. You mean that kind of specific ad? Why would I want to help advertisers anyway? I don't listen to ads on the radio, watch commercials on television or read ads in newspapers. I like being a black hole to advertisers. Let me throw their money away.
So Tracking is good
No, tracking is not good. Maybe for you it's good but for me it's not. As I stated in a post further upstream, I always delete my cookies and cache when I'm done. What do I care if a site sees me as new visitor each time? That's their problem, not mine.
If I'm at a site I'm there for a specific reason. Maybe I'm buying a product, maybe I'm looking up information, maybe I'm hooking up with one of those hot babes (ok, not so much on the last one). Regardless, they don't need to know where I've been. All they need to know is that I bought something from them.
After reading the article and digestig what the reporter wrote, he wasn't being very anonymous even with his efforts. Sure, he deleted his cookies when he was done (I do too) but he never removed all his cache files which could be used to track you. Yes, this will increase the time it takes for a page to load but since apparently everyone but me uses a high-speed connection, waiting that extra half second doesn't seem to be that much of a hassle.
Also, since he had to relogin when he went to Amazon or other sites, he was giving up his anonymity because now the site can track when he last visited, what he went to and so forth.
As far as sites balking that he didn't have a cookie, um, so what? That is the whole point of trying to be anonymous, right?
Had the author simply stuck with sufing around and not registering with sites he would have a better case for his article. As it stands, not so much. He needs to look up the word anonymous and see why he wasn't.
"This list of books is exactly why we must not fail in our fight against terrorism. Ya see, the terrorists hate our freedom. They hate our way of life. This list of books shows how much they hate us."
*psst*
*mumble mumble mumble*
"America? Really?"
"Can't we jazz it up to so I can use it in a speech on terrorism? No? Karl will figure out a way."
Ok, correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't such a system keep a master table of every vote that was recorded, at what time, on what electronic ballot, what location, and by whom?
You're kidding, right? The whole purpose of our election system is so no one knows how you voted. What you're questioning is the complete opposite of the way things are (supposed to be).
Therefore, in truth, they could in some manner confirm every voters vote with the voter themself?
See above. No, you cannot confirm with a voter how they voted. It's supposed to be a secret.
I know they're not going to do it, but wouldn't that data be available, therefore recounts are possible by confirming each voters vote with the actual voter? Example: The master record says you John Doe voted for Patty Sue, is this correct?
For the third time, NO! We DO NOT record the name of a voter with a vote. All that is recorded is a vote.
However, what Avi is saying is completely correct because even when we are told they can recount the votes cast, there is no way, currently, to verify if the votes were recorded correctly when cast. For all we know there is code somewhere which takes every fourth vote for one candidate and records it for the opposite candidate.
This is why a paper trail is absolutely, positively, 100% needed if we are going to be forced to use electronic voting machines.
Poll workers found that screens on new electronic poll books froze or shut down as they tried to record arriving voters.
Note that these are the books which are supposed to record who has shown up. In other words, there may not be a way to verify who showed up and voted and in some cases people might be able to vote twice.
Also from Page 3:
At Luxmanor Elementary School in Rockville, Larry Schleifer cast a provisional ballot, then groused that it would not be counted along with the electronic tallies expected later in the day. He said he was frustrated that no one had crossed his name off the voter registry when he was handed a paper ballot and was concerned that election workers would not keep track of who had done what.
"What's going to stop somebody from voting twice?" he fumed. "I think it's unconscionable that this has happened."
See my above quote regarding double-voting.
Continuing from Page 3:
Bernice Wuethrich, voting at Grace United Methodist Church on New Hampshire Avenue, said she cast her ballot on the electronic machines after they were up and running. But even then, she said, not everyone's name was coming up on the computer.
"They don't have a printed list" of eligible voters, "they don't have a backup," Wuethrich said. "So when the computer goes down, they can't even look at a list to see who's eligible to vote."
Hmmm, no paper trail to verify who can vote. Sounds suspiciously like the call for a paper trail for your actual vote.
Still futher on:
Louise Bradley said she arrived at her polling station after the electronic cards had been delivered, but her card did not work properly. When she got to the section of the ballot listing candidates for the Democratic central committee, it was already filled out. Bradley said she had to remove the computer's choices and insert her own.
So anyone who didn't notice the selections could have inadvertently cast a wrong vote. Yes, this is user error but also computer error. There should never, EVER, be any selection already chosen when one uses an electronic machine.
The issue is both user error, for forgetting the cards, but also programming and equipment error on both voting machines and registration books. I can't wait for the lawsuits to fly after this fiasco. If nothing else hopefully this incident will encourage more people to force their officials to have paper ballots which can always be gone back to to be counted.
I'm not sure why one even needs an electronic registration book. The big paper ones we use in my area have worked since I was able to vote (a few decades in case you were wondering).
So you do not like the program that is supposed to protect you from terrorists.
Since, as a rule, foreigners are not eligible for this program, the only ones who would be investigated are American citizens. Unless you're saying that the Timothy McVeighs and Eric Rudolphs were being tracked.
Would rather have Clinton and Saddam back in power?
Let's see. Under Clinton we had a growing economy, an increase in real wages (even accounting for inflation), a reduction in the national debt, modest fiscal control of government spending, the elimination of the 30-year bond (technically part of the debt) and one attack on american soil in which both the perpetrators and the oragnizers were caught and sentenced.
Compare that to the Bush administration where you have, at best, a marking-time economy, a reduction in real wages for everyone except the top 1%, an explosion of the national debt, rampant government spending, the reemergence of the 30-year bond (to pay for overspending), and an attack on american soil in which Bush was warned who to look out for but didn't even bother to look into the situation until 1 week before the attack. An attack in which the organizer is still at large and has been called irrelevant.
As far as Saddam was concerned, the only real thing one had to watch for was not saying bad things about Saddam and you were pretty much ok (except if you were a Kurd). There was electricity for most of the day, the schools were functioning and people could get a very acceptable level of medical care.
Now, under U.S. occupation, you have daily attacks in which hundreds of people are killed each month, 1,600 in July alone, electricity is on for only a few hours each day, and hospitals are having difficulties being supplied with basic needs, let alone more critical services like dialysis.
For as much as Saddam was a despot, polls repeatedly show that more and more Iraqis are almost wishing he was in power so they didn't have to live in fear of being blown up or shot trying to go to work.
I'm hoping you were being sarcastic because if you weren't you should definitely be marked Flamebait.
Any web page you hit that uses flash or java applets
Which is what I said above. It's not the browser, it's something else. Particularly that annoying security risk Flash. That alone will kill a system.
Though I do have to ask, why have java turned on at all? 99.9% of pages don't need java to work. I never have it turned on except in those 1 in a million pages which for some reason needs it. Java, like Flash, will also muck up your system.
I've said this in the Mozilla forums and I'll say it here: what the hell are you people doing with your systems that Firefox brings your system to a crawl?
I have a W2K system at home with only a 1/2 gig of ram and I have never, EVER, had any memory issues. And yes, I do leave my browser open for days on end.
Maybe people should look at things like Flash, Shockwave and extensions for memory leaks rather than complaining it is the browser which is the issue.
Sort of like when a CD is encrypted so it can't be copied and someone breaks that encryption then releases a million copies of the song. Pretty much apples and oranges.
But what if you use AdBlock or a hosts file to block advertisers sites? They won't be getting any money then, will they?
But then I guess that's a win-win situation. People can now, finally, get something for nothing AND stick it to the music companies by not having to see/watch ads to get the product.
The only question is, and the article is short on this matter, will people be able to take the song and put it in any format they want for THEIR use?
This article does say that DRM will be incorporated into the songs to try and prevent sharing of the music but that still doesn't answer the question. The article also talks about how the ads might be inserted but nothing definite.
Now I know Nielson boxes and what not are supposed to determine that- but how accurate can they be?
I don't have a Nielsen box but I guarantee you that if I had one and they reviewed my watching habits, they'd go apeshit. The moment there is a commercial I change the channel. If every other channel I have is at a commercial I'll keep flipping through until I find one that doesn't have a commercial and/or is something I'll watch for the 2 minutes until the show I was watching comes back on.
Either that or I'll hit the mute button and walk away. Which is something I would have to tell the Nielsen folks. "If, in reviewing my viewing habits, you see me not changing the channel during commercials, it means I've walked away from the tv. Just let your advertisers know that when they're deciding how much to spend."
Sorry, wasn't directed at you personally. Just a general remark when I hear the pro-life folks talk about adoption yet are unwilling to adopt any themselves.
I have a cousin who went to Peru with his wife to adopt a girl. While that's all fine and dandy, they could have taken the money they spent going down there and back, plus other related costs, and adopted a kid in this country.
I'm not one of those 'America first' folks. I just think it's ludicrous to go elsewhere to adopt when there are thousands here who need adoption. Is it harder here than elsewhere? From what I've heard, yes. But considering what you'll be undertaking, it's a necessary evil.
Slashdot Mirror
Where did you dig that quote up? What document? It sounds awfully modern unless the wording has been rewritten so we can understand it.
Only if you use Internet Explorer. For the rest of us, there's Firefox, Opera, Konqueror and other browsers which aren't embedded in the OS and so don't allow such nonsense to affect our systems.
Consider the following:
1. to beat soundly; thrash.
2. Informal. to strike with a vigorous blow; belt; sock: After two strikes, he walloped the ball out of the park.
3. Informal. to defeat thoroughly, as in a game.
Considering the success, or lack thereof, of other attempts by Microsoft to enter already established markets, their name will be exactly what will happen to them.
Granted, I'm sure the reason for the name was to imply that the service will beat Facebook and MySpace but really, the marketing folks should have used history as a guide before settling on the name.
Yeah, nothing like seeing the pores on the mole on Ron Jeremy's butt.
The real issue isn't how long it would take to train someone to operate the sign-in machine, the real issue is why are they using a machine to log people in? Why isn't a big book where someone can sign into not being used?
Since I've been voting I have always had to sign my signature under my name in a paper book that is at the table. One book is for people A thru M, the other book is for people N thru Z.
So far as I know, there has never been an issue using this method.
Yes, it is. Thanks to your kings and queens judicious use of spying on those who might saying something against the Crown, our Founding Fathers enshrined that right in various parts of the Constitution. Why shouldn't people be free from having to worry that what happens in their lives won't be in some government file?
If you don't like that argument, why don't you ask the folks of East Germany or the former Soviet Union if privacy isn't a right and how you can't live without it. How about the folks in North Korea?
Is the ability for the government to watch people without a court order only a temporary safety?
No. Once the government starts something, it is extremely difficult to stop it. Further, there is always the 'creep' factor. First it's supposed suspected terrorists, then it's a different group of suspected people, and so on and so forth. Eventually, any excuse will do to state why the government needs to watch people without a warrant.
If the government doesn't abuse the power given to it by the citizens then it would by a permanent safety wouldn't it?
What fantasy world do you live in? The government won't abuse this power? I want what you're drinking.
If my privacy and liberty were curtailed I'd notice. But would that actually be a bad thing?
Again, go ask the folks from East Germany or Russia to see if not having privacy is a bad thing.
Don't use Internet Explorer.
I've had to use IE at a training site this week and it's amazing how cumbersome and clunky it is to use since I've become used to using Firefox. Simple things like being able to scroll down a page before it completely loads, right-clicking and opening a new tab (not window) and just overall speed.
The use of Firefox, and other browsers, really needs to be pushed to slow and/or prevent these exploits from compromising peoples systems. It's an easy solution and doesn't require anything more than downloading an executible.
For those interested, here is the original article. Compare for yourself the various comments.
Still a good reading and it explains why Hezbollah could say they had killed X number of troops or destroyed Y tanks before the Israeli military admitted to the losses. They were listening to the Israeli transmissions from the battlefield!
That is the way it should be. Clean things up, enhance colors, tweak minor items, but in the end, LEAVE THINGS THE WAY THEY WERE! (You hear us George!?)
If they're not, I am. As others have said, every time we go apoplectic whenever someone leaves their briefcase lying around an airport or someone gets antsy because because the guy next to them doesn't have white skin and looks funny, I just shake my head.
It's one thing to be vigilant and try to prevent attacks. But when you force herds of people into lines waiting to pass through the metal detectors, you're just giving anyone whow wants to cause havoc a juicy target to hit. Forget the planes. I'd be worried about someone around Thanksgiving strapping themselves with explosives and standing in line with me.
Nothing like perusing such illustrious titles as:
Matter and its Travels Through the Ether
Mercury: The Miracle Metal for What Ails You
How to Calculate Your Longitudinal Position in Only One Hundred Steps
Gravity: Just a Theory
Calculations for Determining the Age of the Earth Based on the Life Expectancy of Asses
A Treatise on Determining if Women on Ships Cause Shipwrecks
An Examination of Cthulhu and Whether It is Responsible for the Laying of Unknown Bones on the Tops of Mountains
Thanks for the moderation. I'll take what I can get. Beggers can't be choosy. :)
Bullshit. Maybe I don't want my surfing habits tracked because no one else needs to know where I've been. Just because I visit CNN's site rather than Faux is not evidence of criminal intent. Next thing you know you'll be telling me I can't use cold hard cash to pay for something but must instead use a credit card or debit card so my purchases can be tracked.
Ads specific to your IP are also better for advertisers. Tracking helps you by targeting information to you based on your activitys and this makes you happier.
You mean like those "Hot girls want to meet you in . . .!" ads that show up? The ones where the city they tell me these hot women are in are over an hour away. You mean that kind of specific ad? Why would I want to help advertisers anyway? I don't listen to ads on the radio, watch commercials on television or read ads in newspapers. I like being a black hole to advertisers. Let me throw their money away.
So Tracking is good
No, tracking is not good. Maybe for you it's good but for me it's not. As I stated in a post further upstream, I always delete my cookies and cache when I'm done. What do I care if a site sees me as new visitor each time? That's their problem, not mine.
If I'm at a site I'm there for a specific reason. Maybe I'm buying a product, maybe I'm looking up information, maybe I'm hooking up with one of those hot babes (ok, not so much on the last one). Regardless, they don't need to know where I've been. All they need to know is that I bought something from them.
After reading the article and digestig what the reporter wrote, he wasn't being very anonymous even with his efforts. Sure, he deleted his cookies when he was done (I do too) but he never removed all his cache files which could be used to track you. Yes, this will increase the time it takes for a page to load but since apparently everyone but me uses a high-speed connection, waiting that extra half second doesn't seem to be that much of a hassle.
Also, since he had to relogin when he went to Amazon or other sites, he was giving up his anonymity because now the site can track when he last visited, what he went to and so forth.
As far as sites balking that he didn't have a cookie, um, so what? That is the whole point of trying to be anonymous, right?
Had the author simply stuck with sufing around and not registering with sites he would have a better case for his article. As it stands, not so much. He needs to look up the word anonymous and see why he wasn't.
"This list of books is exactly why we must not fail in our fight against terrorism. Ya see, the terrorists hate our freedom. They hate our way of life. This list of books shows how much they hate us."
*psst*
*mumble mumble mumble*
"America? Really?"
"Can't we jazz it up to so I can use it in a speech on terrorism? No? Karl will figure out a way."
You're kidding, right? The whole purpose of our election system is so no one knows how you voted. What you're questioning is the complete opposite of the way things are (supposed to be).
Therefore, in truth, they could in some manner confirm every voters vote with the voter themself?
See above. No, you cannot confirm with a voter how they voted. It's supposed to be a secret.
I know they're not going to do it, but wouldn't that data be available, therefore recounts are possible by confirming each voters vote with the actual voter? Example: The master record says you John Doe voted for Patty Sue, is this correct?
For the third time, NO! We DO NOT record the name of a voter with a vote. All that is recorded is a vote.
However, what Avi is saying is completely correct because even when we are told they can recount the votes cast, there is no way, currently, to verify if the votes were recorded correctly when cast. For all we know there is code somewhere which takes every fourth vote for one candidate and records it for the opposite candidate.
This is why a paper trail is absolutely, positively, 100% needed if we are going to be forced to use electronic voting machines.
Poll workers found that screens on new electronic poll books froze or shut down as they tried to record arriving voters.
Note that these are the books which are supposed to record who has shown up. In other words, there may not be a way to verify who showed up and voted and in some cases people might be able to vote twice.
Also from Page 3:
At Luxmanor Elementary School in Rockville, Larry Schleifer cast a provisional ballot, then groused that it would not be counted along with the electronic tallies expected later in the day. He said he was frustrated that no one had crossed his name off the voter registry when he was handed a paper ballot and was concerned that election workers would not keep track of who had done what.
"What's going to stop somebody from voting twice?" he fumed. "I think it's unconscionable that this has happened."
See my above quote regarding double-voting.
Continuing from Page 3:
Bernice Wuethrich, voting at Grace United Methodist Church on New Hampshire Avenue, said she cast her ballot on the electronic machines after they were up and running. But even then, she said, not everyone's name was coming up on the computer.
"They don't have a printed list" of eligible voters, "they don't have a backup," Wuethrich said. "So when the computer goes down, they can't even look at a list to see who's eligible to vote."
Hmmm, no paper trail to verify who can vote. Sounds suspiciously like the call for a paper trail for your actual vote.
Still futher on:
Louise Bradley said she arrived at her polling station after the electronic cards had been delivered, but her card did not work properly. When she got to the section of the ballot listing candidates for the Democratic central committee, it was already filled out. Bradley said she had to remove the computer's choices and insert her own.
So anyone who didn't notice the selections could have inadvertently cast a wrong vote. Yes, this is user error but also computer error. There should never, EVER, be any selection already chosen when one uses an electronic machine.
The issue is both user error, for forgetting the cards, but also programming and equipment error on both voting machines and registration books. I can't wait for the lawsuits to fly after this fiasco. If nothing else hopefully this incident will encourage more people to force their officials to have paper ballots which can always be gone back to to be counted.
I'm not sure why one even needs an electronic registration book. The big paper ones we use in my area have worked since I was able to vote (a few decades in case you were wondering).
I've been needing some good moderation to compensate for the unusually large number of Overrated ones I've been receiving.
Since, as a rule, foreigners are not eligible for this program, the only ones who would be investigated are American citizens. Unless you're saying that the Timothy McVeighs and Eric Rudolphs were being tracked.
Would rather have Clinton and Saddam back in power?
Let's see. Under Clinton we had a growing economy, an increase in real wages (even accounting for inflation), a reduction in the national debt, modest fiscal control of government spending, the elimination of the 30-year bond (technically part of the debt) and one attack on american soil in which both the perpetrators and the oragnizers were caught and sentenced.
Compare that to the Bush administration where you have, at best, a marking-time economy, a reduction in real wages for everyone except the top 1%, an explosion of the national debt, rampant government spending, the reemergence of the 30-year bond (to pay for overspending), and an attack on american soil in which Bush was warned who to look out for but didn't even bother to look into the situation until 1 week before the attack. An attack in which the organizer is still at large and has been called irrelevant.
As far as Saddam was concerned, the only real thing one had to watch for was not saying bad things about Saddam and you were pretty much ok (except if you were a Kurd). There was electricity for most of the day, the schools were functioning and people could get a very acceptable level of medical care.
Now, under U.S. occupation, you have daily attacks in which hundreds of people are killed each month, 1,600 in July alone, electricity is on for only a few hours each day, and hospitals are having difficulties being supplied with basic needs, let alone more critical services like dialysis.
For as much as Saddam was a despot, polls repeatedly show that more and more Iraqis are almost wishing he was in power so they didn't have to live in fear of being blown up or shot trying to go to work.
I'm hoping you were being sarcastic because if you weren't you should definitely be marked Flamebait.
Which is what I said above. It's not the browser, it's something else. Particularly that annoying security risk Flash. That alone will kill a system.
Though I do have to ask, why have java turned on at all? 99.9% of pages don't need java to work. I never have it turned on except in those 1 in a million pages which for some reason needs it. Java, like Flash, will also muck up your system.
I've said this in the Mozilla forums and I'll say it here: what the hell are you people doing with your systems that Firefox brings your system to a crawl?
I have a W2K system at home with only a 1/2 gig of ram and I have never, EVER, had any memory issues. And yes, I do leave my browser open for days on end.
Maybe people should look at things like Flash, Shockwave and extensions for memory leaks rather than complaining it is the browser which is the issue.
Sort of like when a CD is encrypted so it can't be copied and someone breaks that encryption then releases a million copies of the song. Pretty much apples and oranges.
Oh wait, maybe not.
But then I guess that's a win-win situation. People can now, finally, get something for nothing AND stick it to the music companies by not having to see/watch ads to get the product.
The only question is, and the article is short on this matter, will people be able to take the song and put it in any format they want for THEIR use?
This article does say that DRM will be incorporated into the songs to try and prevent sharing of the music but that still doesn't answer the question. The article also talks about how the ads might be inserted but nothing definite.
I don't have a Nielsen box but I guarantee you that if I had one and they reviewed my watching habits, they'd go apeshit. The moment there is a commercial I change the channel. If every other channel I have is at a commercial I'll keep flipping through until I find one that doesn't have a commercial and/or is something I'll watch for the 2 minutes until the show I was watching comes back on.
Either that or I'll hit the mute button and walk away. Which is something I would have to tell the Nielsen folks. "If, in reviewing my viewing habits, you see me not changing the channel during commercials, it means I've walked away from the tv. Just let your advertisers know that when they're deciding how much to spend."
Sorry, wasn't directed at you personally. Just a general remark when I hear the pro-life folks talk about adoption yet are unwilling to adopt any themselves.
I have a cousin who went to Peru with his wife to adopt a girl. While that's all fine and dandy, they could have taken the money they spent going down there and back, plus other related costs, and adopted a kid in this country.
I'm not one of those 'America first' folks. I just think it's ludicrous to go elsewhere to adopt when there are thousands here who need adoption. Is it harder here than elsewhere? From what I've heard, yes. But considering what you'll be undertaking, it's a necessary evil.