How silly - do you think they would actually announce giving awawy $10k to someone who cracks it and when someone stands up and says he/she did - they wouldn't give the money?! Then that person would just wait until SDMI was released and give the secret away - how stupid do you think they are? Ha! Give me a break.
AND if someone figures out how to crack it and doesn't say so until it's released, what's to say they don't simply release SDMI 2 shortly there after? Perhaps using user upgradable ROMs in new players...
When I read your post all I could think of was how I heard the SAME things about the windows 2000 test box. Oh, some 'leet cracker will take it down (didn't happen). The windows is too small (it wasn't ). They won't admit figuring it out and then just crack it after it's released (they didn't). And they won't keep trying to crack it even after it's out - you got that part right... And after 7 months still no holes found...
You couldn't have been more wrong in every paragraph you wrote.
www.windows2000test.com went up, and every pounded on it. This pounding revealed weaknesses in the beta TCP/IP stack. They patched it and it went back up then back down. They patched it again. Then it went up. AND IT STAYED UP. Everyone pounded, harder and harder and NO ONE ever brought it down again. W2K is released and it's got the strongest stack and can't be "pounded" down. Is it any good? Fuck yes!
Where do you see proving it uncrackable anything but good? And if it's proven crackable, that is good too. Do you have to be 100% cynical about everything? If, according to the napster apologists which i'm certain you are one, are right then SDMI will make artists not one penny more becuase the nap heads all swear they wouldn't pay for those "overpriced" CDs anyway and only listen to music if it's free. HA! I love how your angles change to suit your current argument and point of view. SDMI has a challenge - take it or shut up.
And your recommendation is silly. "Hack it so good it can't be fixed?" What the HELL does that mean? And, yes, there is getting around your stupid out to the in jack idea...
Silly - who the hell moderated this idiocy up? hack it and make $10k - what's wrong with that?! If no one is stealing music on-line and napster is really being used for legit reasons (space-shifting, not bootlegging) then the SDMI will make no difference. You should have nothing to fear if you are telling the truth. But I sense much fear. Fear leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering...
The provisio is quite fair. Do you want me to include, when I count vulnerabilites in Linux, all the apache and FP vulnerabilities too?
Since W2K has been released (before actually, anyone remember the www.windows2000test.com test?) every script kiddie and cracker has tried to be the first to break in. I am not aware of any that have succeeded.
Besides, those older OSes have had much longer to find the holes and patch them, W2K is a baby and supposedly full of holes right? ha!
And, what false assumptions anyway? You say something but don't explain or back it up. In summary, don't be a lazy lamer.
I WISH you could tell the moderators names so we can figure out what complete pathetic moron considered this flamebait or a troll. Is this the only way/. zealots can maintain a grip on reality - but trying to bury all commentary? I have to laugh out loud whenever I hear/. users whine about their 1st amendment rights and then instantly moderate down ANYTHING that doesn't preach the party line, comrade.
How can you possibly claim the billions spent on research have never made their way into any current products? Are you acting stupid on purpose or don't you realize how it sounds?
I NEVER "went off" about MS's innovations or software skills. However, to deny that MS has ever innovated is foolish and ignores facts. To say that MS posses NO software skills is doubly so. Do you doubt that IE is the premiere browser of the day? Do you suggest W2K is nothing but a copy of something else?
Do you forget that almost all OSes today are born out of others... where did Linux come from again? oh yea...:) W2K can trace it's history back to VMS but so what?
MS does make quality software, sometimes innovative. Compare SQL server. Show me another office suite remotely as useful and powerful. However, these statements are subjective and open to debate. Fine. But - the orignal article this post was prompted by is still BS and we all know it. THAT is the primary point.
First, even from the link YOU provided: 28,000 "issues" NOT bugs. Get it? This is old news and hashed over WAY long ago - it's NOT bugs. Issues like: "We should make this menu item a tad bit wider" or "These colors contrast on a laptop so let's change one." THAT is waht the 28,000 figure indicated.
FACT: SP1 fixed ALL know bugs and issues deemed worthy at the time of it's release.
I wonder... are you being this stupid on purpose or don't you realize how dumb it sounds to misquote your own link and not realize that that OLD OLD store was inaccurate then as it is now. Are you THAT desperate to discredit W2K? I mean, I realize it upsets you that W2K is not an ugly failure and that, instead, it continues to excel and grow in popularity.
Linux is free only if your time is worth nothing.
db
p.s., I don't even notice the cost of the OS when dealing with the 5-6 figures of hardware it runs on. The ONLY people fixated on the fact that Windows actually costs something are those so broke they are forced to use a free OS (you get what you pay for).
ANYONE who writes "OS = Self-Image" IS a retard! And if you did live by that rule, have you seen what your typical Linux programmer looks/lives/smells like? You're not just mean, you're stupid...
Why? Because I don't hate MS and love anything *nix based? If that makes me biased then I would be - but I don't agree.
I don't hate MS, nor do I hate Unix (well, ok, I do hate parts of it). I just thought news reporting sites should be reporting accurate news and not regurgetating someone elses FUD when it feeds the owners own personal vendetta against MS.
Of course watch MS closely, monitor them. Take them to task - ONLY IF YOU FIND A LEGIT BEEF! Picking on them for something Netscape does too - and is perfectly reasonable - is just petty and borders on irresponsible. It simply demonstrates desperation, IMHO.
As for MS just copying everything and no money on research? HA! They spend BILLIONS a year on R&D.
And they are cranking out products while others are scrambling to profit from IPOs. W2K is still warm from the oven and Whistler and.NET and Blackcomb are in the oven already. W2K and ME came out before 2.4 and I'm thinking we'll see the beta of Whistler before 2.4 is final.
I flat out challenge you to document that quote you attribute to Gates.
MS is a huge company with 100s of competitors, many equally aggressive and some even more so. They are the biggest with the most money and so jealousy, envy, frustration and lots of other factors also apply in some people's judgement of those that are are bigger then them. MS doesn't win all the time, it doesn't have fleets of black helicopters or corps of MiB.
Please don't tell me you are naive enough to actually think/suggest that other companies don't engage in copying or stealing other's works and/or looks and feels. Hell, 90% of the window managers I see for Linux try to look like the Windows interface that their users claim to hate so much. It's a rare Linux box that doesn't have a Windows emulator on it (for running IE at the least).
ALL I've tried to say is, report the news accurately and without obvious blatant bias and/or outright FUD. That's all.
I didn't try to paint MS as perfect or even "eally nice guys or anything like that. I just think they are not the spawn of the devil and Gates is certainly not a borg. If you read about Gates's youth and how he started out, daddy's wealth did not paint the road with gold for him or Allen. But put any defense of MS aside, that's not my real thrust.
I just am disturbed that a site that is supposed for geeks (of which there are probably as many or more MS geeks as any other kind of geek) and supposedly is unbiased (as most newreporting sites are supposed to be) has to go so low and scrape the bottom of someone elses FUD to take another dig at MS.
It's unnecessary. Pick on legit beefs and you'll have your valid support...
As far as W2K goes - you obviously have never used it or know anyone who does. Right now, today, it's the VERY best OS I've used. It's as stable as anything else, runs fast and without question is feature packed beyond belief. 65535 bugs? Untrue, of course, but you seem to forget just how many bugs have been squished in various *nix kernel releases over time. SP1 for W2K was released to fix approximately 200 issues, many bugs and some cosmetics. That's it. That's all they could find and all anyone reported. 200 - not quite 65535. And - you've never heard of a W2K box rooted anywhere have you? (FP extension vulnerabilities apply anywhere it's used, NT, Unix or W2K so those couple defacements on attrition don't count - any OS can have stupid admins and users with poor passwords)
Thanks but I already keep backups (some off-site) even on mirrored drives.
You study your/. history and postings by taco and try to tell me, with a straight face, that you don't detect a zealous fanatisizm with anti-MS propoganda...
I'm reading all the replies and wondering, is it finally starting to happen. Everyone knows/. is ant-MS and pro-anything-but-MS. The quickest route to a good karma is a MS slam and ANYTHING even remotely bad for MS is a front page news item but it's a rare day when linux looks bad around here.
Windows products ain't perfect but NEITHER is Linux (or any *nix for that matter).
But - IE's been out for a while and since version 4 it's been stable, fast and feature packed - Netscape and others can't hold a candle to it. Windows 2000 proves MS can finally get it right - there hasn't been a single _true_ negative story about W2K here that I can remember. There are millions using these products who've noticed - hey... I'm not crashing. What is this BSOD people talked about? It just works. MS ain't stealing my personal diary nor is it paying me to say good things about it.
Now this absolutely stupid story comes out from one of the biggest MS haters on-line and perhaps people have finally had enough. Come on Taco, did you take a second to notice that every other browser does this as well? Don't you know your own site tracks the comings and goings of it's users? How about those banner ads? Are you so desperate to slam MS? Your users have noticed and I wonder if enough of them were willing to risk some karma to speak out and tell the truth: Some MS products don't suck. Gates is not a borg and MS isn't a huge death cube from a billion light years away - it's just a hugely successful company that started out much MUCH smaller than any of the current linux companies who rode the wave and sucked down millions/billions in IPO and VC moneys from the unwise. MS came outta a dream of two people without any cash - kinda like Apple. They worked hard and played hard ball to get where they are. If you used any "dirty tricks" - I think no more than any other successful company (wanna check Oracle's records? Novells? Even Apple isn't lilly white. And if you think Red Hat got to where it is just cause it's being "nice" - well... just think about it and review those news stories AFTER the IPO buzz faded).
Anyway, sorry for the long post - I just think a backlash against unnecessary paranoia might be long overdue. If you got a legit beef and can prove it - hell yeah, great, go for it. But, if you have to resort to mud slinging like this in order to make your personal enemy look bad (especially if the mud could equally be thrown at yourself) - you only make yourself look desperate and show us all that you feel you are on the losing side and going down.
Just MHO of course, YMMV.
db
(now, lets see if there are any honest moderators)
A Western Union spokesman said the vulnerability was caused when "performance management files" were left open on the site during routine maintenance, allowing the hacker access. He did not know when the maintenance began or how long the site had been left unprotected.
"We are still in the due diligence period," said Peter Ziverts, a spokesman for the Englewood, Colo.-based company. "But this wasn't an architectural problem; this was due to human error."
Repeat: "it wasn't an architectural problem; this was due to human error."
So, get off the IIS/SQL/NT crap - being desperate for ANYTHING anti-MS doesn't paint/. users in a positive light to anyone.
This could have just as easily been a *nix box and it still would have been compromised if propery security methods weren't followed, as was the case here.
It has always been a perfectly clear cut, b&w decision obvious to anyone with the ability to read english and the ability to admit to the facts of the case.
windows 2000 gold was shipped with over 10,000 known, documented bugs. and no, they're not listed at bugtraq.
Oh, and where are they documented? What 10,000? SP1 fixed everything known broken in W2K as of last month. Can you actually provide any proof of your ridiculous claim or are you just making it up (nice round number that 10K eh?) without any proof what so ever. Anyone running W2K knows it's rock stable.
No one I know can reach John Young or jya.com anymore - right after the new release and FBI warning to him not to publish (or keep published) the posting about the japanese secret service. Wonder if he's had "an accident."
Dude: It's in black and white in the DMCA - circumvention is illegal. Period. CSS performs circumvention. Period. Even the defense experts in this trial readily admit to this. Just because you can copy the file, while it's encrypted, doesn't make it any less illegal. That straw man has nothing to do with the fact that the circumvention itself is what DeCSS does. Period. Why is this such a huge nut to swallow?
Every dvd player circumvents CSS - the difference is, dildo breath, that ALL the dvd players in the universe have a license to do so, DeCSS does not. It's not illegal to decrypt CSS if you have a license that says you can - it's illegal to do so when you do not. How pathetically stupid can you possibly be?
And, the US is way way more than 5% of the world. And besides, even if we were, we x% say, No, Fuck You you punks cause we are bigger, better and definately better armed than you so stuff it.
Wow - where did you come up with this stuff?? Show me where "fair use" (the single most misunderstood pet phrase thrown into the air but the uneducated) comes into play regarding whether or not your pet OS can view DVDs?
No one is trying to ban speech. This is what the EFF wants you to believe to get you all worked up into supporting their side.
I love how you are judge and jury and supremely more educated than all of congress in your instant pronouncment that the DMCA is guilty of violating the constitution. I'm sure that all of congress is completely ignorant of case law and the constitution and it takes/. readers to spot the obvious (only after their "we want it all for free" *rights* are threatened) for them. What gall. What audacity. You supose to understand the constitution and copyright law better than everyone in congress.
AND, get your facts right, linux dvd players, according the the livid logs, began before DeCSS - but weren't going anywhere cause they couldn't get around CSS until someone took advantage of a mistake Xing made. Remember, the MPAA isn't denying anyone a way to play DVDs. Sigma Designs applied and received a license to decrypt CSS and is producing a linux DVD player - a legal one. Too bad the guys from livid aren't interested in doing it the legal way. All anyone asked of the linux programmers is that they followed the law and paid for a license, JUST LIKE EVERY SINGLE DVD PLAYER MAKE IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE DOES. WHy do you think linux should get a free exemption? How elitist.!
And I am tired of people who are not lawyers not understanding laws, especially one as simple and direct as this one. I've posted this before but obviously it didn't penetrate into some people's skulls so I'll tear it down # by #.
1) Your first sentence is correct - your second sentence is what YOU think it should be. But it's not and go whine to congress. Currently it's illegal to circumvent CSS no matter what you believe or want to think it should be. DeCSS circumvents CSS - that's exactly what the authors of the program say it does, that's what the defense stipulated to in court that it does, that is what every single expert on the stand has said it does. Please don't continue to pretend to be ignorant to it's true function.
2) Reverse engineering has some very narrow criteria. And perhaps DeCSS meet these. Do you suggest that every single person using DeCSS uses it for the educational value reverse engineering provides. AND you convientently forget that even reverse engineering still does not allow you to simple ignore existing copyright protections. The copyright holder still maintains control over access to his material and no matter HOW you got to the material (unencrypted movie file) the copyright owner STILL owns it and can dictate (like it or not) how and by whom it's accessed. This is not a valid exception and case law supports this.
3) Too bad copying entire movies is not even remotely "fair use" - too bad that no one is using DeCSS to critique a small sample of a movie. Too bad that there is no need to use DeCSS to perform "fair use" and that it could be performed by other means and so fair use is not an excuse for circumvention. AND, even if fair use was the honest intention - that still does not override the prohibition on circumvention. You must learn how to read law.
4) While DeCSS, the source code of that program, is protected as free speech. There is NOTHING in free speech which gives license to violate copyrights. Again, precidence and the preponderence of case law demonstrates this. Do some research instead of regurgitating EFF BS.
5) You sound like an MS hater. This case has nothing to do with antitrust or misuse of copyright and you'll find that neither of those lame defenses was even attempted, even by this lame defense team. Copyright owners are free to decide how their IP is distributed and by whom and how it's viewed. Get a grip - stop pulling terms that don't apply outta yer butt!
You say it's a fact that both a Panasonic DVD player and DeCSS decrypts CSS encrypted DVDs and claim circumvention is a legal conclusion? Are you ignorant on purpose or don't you realize the difference? Panasonic paid for the license to decrypt. DeCSS stole a key and does it without the authorization of the copyright holder. That is very specifically, to the very letter of the law, illegal. Pure and simple. Do you want me to quote to you FROM THE DEFENDENTS OWN EXPERT DEPOSITIONS their admission that DeCSS circumvents CSS and that's it's only purpose?
Slashdot Mirror
How silly - do you think they would actually announce giving awawy $10k to someone who cracks it and when someone stands up and says he/she did - they wouldn't give the money?! Then that person would just wait until SDMI was released and give the secret away - how stupid do you think they are? Ha! Give me a break.
AND if someone figures out how to crack it and doesn't say so until it's released, what's to say they don't simply release SDMI 2 shortly there after? Perhaps using user upgradable ROMs in new players...
When I read your post all I could think of was how I heard the SAME things about the windows 2000 test box. Oh, some 'leet cracker will take it down (didn't happen). The windows is too small (it wasn't ). They won't admit figuring it out and then just crack it after it's released (they didn't). And they won't keep trying to crack it even after it's out - you got that part right... And after 7 months still no holes found...
Gee, I hope SMDI does that "bad" too...
You couldn't have been more wrong in every paragraph you wrote.
www.windows2000test.com went up, and every pounded on it. This pounding revealed weaknesses in the beta TCP/IP stack. They patched it and it went back up then back down. They patched it again. Then it went up. AND IT STAYED UP. Everyone pounded, harder and harder and NO ONE ever brought it down again. W2K is released and it's got the strongest stack and can't be "pounded" down. Is it any good? Fuck yes!
Where do you see proving it uncrackable anything but good? And if it's proven crackable, that is good too. Do you have to be 100% cynical about everything? If, according to the napster apologists which i'm certain you are one, are right then SDMI will make artists not one penny more becuase the nap heads all swear they wouldn't pay for those "overpriced" CDs anyway and only listen to music if it's free. HA! I love how your angles change to suit your current argument and point of view. SDMI has a challenge - take it or shut up.
And your recommendation is silly. "Hack it so good it can't be fixed?" What the HELL does that mean? And, yes, there is getting around your stupid out to the in jack idea...
Silly - who the hell moderated this idiocy up? hack it and make $10k - what's wrong with that?! If no one is stealing music on-line and napster is really being used for legit reasons (space-shifting, not bootlegging) then the SDMI will make no difference. You should have nothing to fear if you are telling the truth. But I sense much fear. Fear leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering...
The provisio is quite fair. Do you want me to include, when I count vulnerabilites in Linux, all the apache and FP vulnerabilities too?
Since W2K has been released (before actually, anyone remember the www.windows2000test.com test?) every script kiddie and cracker has tried to be the first to break in. I am not aware of any that have succeeded.
Besides, those older OSes have had much longer to find the holes and patch them, W2K is a baby and supposedly full of holes right? ha!
And, what false assumptions anyway? You say something but don't explain or back it up. In summary, don't be a lazy lamer.
I WISH you could tell the moderators names so we can figure out what complete pathetic moron considered this flamebait or a troll. Is this the only way /. zealots can maintain a grip on reality - but trying to bury all commentary? I have to laugh out loud whenever I hear /. users whine about their 1st amendment rights and then instantly moderate down ANYTHING that doesn't preach the party line, comrade.
Um is this thing on?
:) W2K can trace it's history back to VMS but so what?
How can you possibly claim the billions spent on research have never made their way into any current products? Are you acting stupid on purpose or don't you realize how it sounds?
I NEVER "went off" about MS's innovations or software skills. However, to deny that MS has ever innovated is foolish and ignores facts. To say that MS posses NO software skills is doubly so. Do you doubt that IE is the premiere browser of the day? Do you suggest W2K is nothing but a copy of something else?
Do you forget that almost all OSes today are born out of others... where did Linux come from again? oh yea...
MS does make quality software, sometimes innovative. Compare SQL server. Show me another office suite remotely as useful and powerful. However, these statements are subjective and open to debate. Fine. But - the orignal article this post was prompted by is still BS and we all know it. THAT is the primary point.
db
Boy did you blow it - again.
First, even from the link YOU provided: 28,000 "issues" NOT bugs. Get it? This is old news and hashed over WAY long ago - it's NOT bugs. Issues like: "We should make this menu item a tad bit wider" or "These colors contrast on a laptop so let's change one." THAT is waht the 28,000 figure indicated.
FACT: SP1 fixed ALL know bugs and issues deemed worthy at the time of it's release.
I wonder... are you being this stupid on purpose or don't you realize how dumb it sounds to misquote your own link and not realize that that OLD OLD store was inaccurate then as it is now. Are you THAT desperate to discredit W2K? I mean, I realize it upsets you that W2K is not an ugly failure and that, instead, it continues to excel and grow in popularity.
Linux is free only if your time is worth nothing.
db
p.s., I don't even notice the cost of the OS when dealing with the 5-6 figures of hardware it runs on. The ONLY people fixated on the fact that Windows actually costs something are those so broke they are forced to use a free OS (you get what you pay for).
Quick: Name any hacked site that uses any version of *nix or *BSD or Solaris or Mac or Windows 9x or NT4. Easy right? TONS to pick from.
Quick2: Name any hacked site that uses Windows 2000....
still thinking?
Nope, don't include simple defacements through FP9x vulnerabilities that lame admins didn't apply known patches to...
still thinking?
There is your answer.
ANYONE who writes "OS = Self-Image" IS a retard! And if you did live by that rule, have you seen what your typical Linux programmer looks/lives/smells like? You're not just mean, you're stupid ...
Why? Because I don't hate MS and love anything *nix based? If that makes me biased then I would be - but I don't agree.
I don't hate MS, nor do I hate Unix (well, ok, I do hate parts of it). I just thought news reporting sites should be reporting accurate news and not regurgetating someone elses FUD when it feeds the owners own personal vendetta against MS.
Of course watch MS closely, monitor them. Take them to task - ONLY IF YOU FIND A LEGIT BEEF! Picking on them for something Netscape does too - and is perfectly reasonable - is just petty and borders on irresponsible. It simply demonstrates desperation, IMHO.
.NET and Blackcomb are in the oven already. W2K and ME came out before 2.4 and I'm thinking we'll see the beta of Whistler before 2.4 is final.
As for MS just copying everything and no money on research? HA! They spend BILLIONS a year on R&D.
And they are cranking out products while others are scrambling to profit from IPOs. W2K is still warm from the oven and Whistler and
I flat out challenge you to document that quote you attribute to Gates.
MS is a huge company with 100s of competitors, many equally aggressive and some even more so. They are the biggest with the most money and so jealousy, envy, frustration and lots of other factors also apply in some people's judgement of those that are are bigger then them. MS doesn't win all the time, it doesn't have fleets of black helicopters or corps of MiB.
Please don't tell me you are naive enough to actually think/suggest that other companies don't engage in copying or stealing other's works and/or looks and feels. Hell, 90% of the window managers I see for Linux try to look like the Windows interface that their users claim to hate so much. It's a rare Linux box that doesn't have a Windows emulator on it (for running IE at the least).
ALL I've tried to say is, report the news accurately and without obvious blatant bias and/or outright FUD. That's all.
Tony:
...
/. history and postings by taco and try to tell me, with a straight face, that you don't detect a zealous fanatisizm with anti-MS propoganda...
I didn't try to paint MS as perfect or even "eally nice guys or anything like that. I just think they are not the spawn of the devil and Gates is certainly not a borg. If you read about Gates's youth and how he started out, daddy's wealth did not paint the road with gold for him or Allen. But put any defense of MS aside, that's not my real thrust.
I just am disturbed that a site that is supposed for geeks (of which there are probably as many or more MS geeks as any other kind of geek) and supposedly is unbiased (as most newreporting sites are supposed to be) has to go so low and scrape the bottom of someone elses FUD to take another dig at MS.
It's unnecessary. Pick on legit beefs and you'll have your valid support
As far as W2K goes - you obviously have never used it or know anyone who does. Right now, today, it's the VERY best OS I've used. It's as stable as anything else, runs fast and without question is feature packed beyond belief. 65535 bugs? Untrue, of course, but you seem to forget just how many bugs have been squished in various *nix kernel releases over time. SP1 for W2K was released to fix approximately 200 issues, many bugs and some cosmetics. That's it. That's all they could find and all anyone reported. 200 - not quite 65535. And - you've never heard of a W2K box rooted anywhere have you? (FP extension vulnerabilities apply anywhere it's used, NT, Unix or W2K so those couple defacements on attrition don't count - any OS can have stupid admins and users with poor passwords)
Thanks but I already keep backups (some off-site) even on mirrored drives.
You study your
I'm reading all the replies and wondering, is it finally starting to happen. Everyone knows /. is ant-MS and pro-anything-but-MS. The quickest route to a good karma is a MS slam and ANYTHING even remotely bad for MS is a front page news item but it's a rare day when linux looks bad around here.
Windows products ain't perfect but NEITHER is Linux (or any *nix for that matter).
But - IE's been out for a while and since version 4 it's been stable, fast and feature packed - Netscape and others can't hold a candle to it. Windows 2000 proves MS can finally get it right - there hasn't been a single _true_ negative story about W2K here that I can remember. There are millions using these products who've noticed - hey... I'm not crashing. What is this BSOD people talked about? It just works. MS ain't stealing my personal diary nor is it paying me to say good things about it.
Now this absolutely stupid story comes out from one of the biggest MS haters on-line and perhaps people have finally had enough. Come on Taco, did you take a second to notice that every other browser does this as well? Don't you know your own site tracks the comings and goings of it's users? How about those banner ads? Are you so desperate to slam MS? Your users have noticed and I wonder if enough of them were willing to risk some karma to speak out and tell the truth: Some MS products don't suck. Gates is not a borg and MS isn't a huge death cube from a billion light years away - it's just a hugely successful company that started out much MUCH smaller than any of the current linux companies who rode the wave and sucked down millions/billions in IPO and VC moneys from the unwise. MS came outta a dream of two people without any cash - kinda like Apple. They worked hard and played hard ball to get where they are. If you used any "dirty tricks" - I think no more than any other successful company (wanna check Oracle's records? Novells? Even Apple isn't lilly white. And if you think Red Hat got to where it is just cause it's being "nice" - well... just think about it and review those news stories AFTER the IPO buzz faded).
Anyway, sorry for the long post - I just think a backlash against unnecessary paranoia might be long overdue. If you got a legit beef and can prove it - hell yeah, great, go for it. But, if you have to resort to mud slinging like this in order to make your personal enemy look bad (especially if the mud could equally be thrown at yourself) - you only make yourself look desperate and show us all that you feel you are on the losing side and going down.
Just MHO of course, YMMV.
db
(now, lets see if there are any honest moderators)
A Western Union spokesman said the vulnerability was caused when "performance management files" were left open on the site during routine maintenance, allowing the hacker access. He did not know when the maintenance began or how long the site had been left unprotected.
/. users in a positive light to anyone.
"We are still in the due diligence period," said Peter Ziverts, a spokesman for the Englewood, Colo.-based company. "But this wasn't an architectural problem; this was due to human error."
Repeat: "it wasn't an architectural problem; this was due to human error."
So, get off the IIS/SQL/NT crap - being desperate for ANYTHING anti-MS doesn't paint
This could have just as easily been a *nix box and it still would have been compromised if propery security methods weren't followed, as was the case here.
It has always been a perfectly clear cut, b&w decision obvious to anyone with the ability to read english and the ability to admit to the facts of the case.
Liar!
windows 2000 gold was shipped with over 10,000 known, documented bugs. and no, they're not listed at bugtraq.
Oh, and where are they documented? What 10,000? SP1 fixed everything known broken in W2K as of last month. Can you actually provide any proof of your ridiculous claim or are you just making it up (nice round number that 10K eh?) without any proof what so ever. Anyone running W2K knows it's rock stable.
http://216.115.77.100/ftp/teaser_vf_480 .mpg - Be Kind, mirror if you can.
db
No one I know can reach John Young or jya.com anymore - right after the new release and FBI warning to him not to publish (or keep published) the posting about the japanese secret service. Wonder if he's had "an accident."
Fear...
Dude: It's in black and white in the DMCA - circumvention is illegal. Period. CSS performs circumvention. Period. Even the defense experts in this trial readily admit to this. Just because you can copy the file, while it's encrypted, doesn't make it any less illegal. That straw man has nothing to do with the fact that the circumvention itself is what DeCSS does. Period. Why is this such a huge nut to swallow?
Every dvd player circumvents CSS - the difference is, dildo breath, that ALL the dvd players in the universe have a license to do so, DeCSS does not. It's not illegal to decrypt CSS if you have a license that says you can - it's illegal to do so when you do not. How pathetically stupid can you possibly be?
And, the US is way way more than 5% of the world. And besides, even if we were, we x% say, No, Fuck You you punks cause we are bigger, better and definately better armed than you so stuff it.
Wow - where did you come up with this stuff?? Show me where "fair use" (the single most misunderstood pet phrase thrown into the air but the uneducated) comes into play regarding whether or not your pet OS can view DVDs?
/. readers to spot the obvious (only after their "we want it all for free" *rights* are threatened) for them. What gall. What audacity. You supose to understand the constitution and copyright law better than everyone in congress.
No one is trying to ban speech. This is what the EFF wants you to believe to get you all worked up into supporting their side.
I love how you are judge and jury and supremely more educated than all of congress in your instant pronouncment that the DMCA is guilty of violating the constitution. I'm sure that all of congress is completely ignorant of case law and the constitution and it takes
AND, get your facts right, linux dvd players, according the the livid logs, began before DeCSS - but weren't going anywhere cause they couldn't get around CSS until someone took advantage of a mistake Xing made. Remember, the MPAA isn't denying anyone a way to play DVDs. Sigma Designs applied and received a license to decrypt CSS and is producing a linux DVD player - a legal one. Too bad the guys from livid aren't interested in doing it the legal way. All anyone asked of the linux programmers is that they followed the law and paid for a license, JUST LIKE EVERY SINGLE DVD PLAYER MAKE IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE DOES. WHy do you think linux should get a free exemption? How elitist.!
And I am tired of people who are not lawyers not understanding laws, especially one as simple and direct as this one. I've posted this before but obviously it didn't penetrate into some people's skulls so I'll tear it down # by #.
1) Your first sentence is correct - your second sentence is what YOU think it should be. But it's not and go whine to congress. Currently it's illegal to circumvent CSS no matter what you believe or want to think it should be. DeCSS circumvents CSS - that's exactly what the authors of the program say it does, that's what the defense stipulated to in court that it does, that is what every single expert on the stand has said it does. Please don't continue to pretend to be ignorant to it's true function.
2) Reverse engineering has some very narrow criteria. And perhaps DeCSS meet these. Do you suggest that every single person using DeCSS uses it for the educational value reverse engineering provides. AND you convientently forget that even reverse engineering still does not allow you to simple ignore existing copyright protections. The copyright holder still maintains control over access to his material and no matter HOW you got to the material (unencrypted movie file) the copyright owner STILL owns it and can dictate (like it or not) how and by whom it's accessed. This is not a valid exception and case law supports this.
3) Too bad copying entire movies is not even remotely "fair use" - too bad that no one is using DeCSS to critique a small sample of a movie. Too bad that there is no need to use DeCSS to perform "fair use" and that it could be performed by other means and so fair use is not an excuse for circumvention. AND, even if fair use was the honest intention - that still does not override the prohibition on circumvention. You must learn how to read law.
4) While DeCSS, the source code of that program, is protected as free speech. There is NOTHING in free speech which gives license to violate copyrights. Again, precidence and the preponderence of case law demonstrates this. Do some research instead of regurgitating EFF BS.
5) You sound like an MS hater. This case has nothing to do with antitrust or misuse of copyright and you'll find that neither of those lame defenses was even attempted, even by this lame defense team. Copyright owners are free to decide how their IP is distributed and by whom and how it's viewed. Get a grip - stop pulling terms that don't apply outta yer butt!
sheesh...
You say it's a fact that both a Panasonic DVD player and DeCSS decrypts CSS encrypted DVDs and claim circumvention is a legal conclusion? Are you ignorant on purpose or don't you realize the difference? Panasonic paid for the license to decrypt. DeCSS stole a key and does it without the authorization of the copyright holder. That is very specifically, to the very letter of the law, illegal. Pure and simple. Do you want me to quote to you FROM THE DEFENDENTS OWN EXPERT DEPOSITIONS their admission that DeCSS circumvents CSS and that's it's only purpose?