I was working for awhile ago received a phishing email that was targeted to us and our environment. FWIW, this sort of attack is becoming increasingly common to the point where it has a name of its own -- "spear phishing."
Yeah, I had the same reaction. If ISP customers buy internet service for (among other reasons) clandestinely downloading movies, then that customer is one more customer you might not have had before. The only thing ISPs have to lose by limiting downloads is more customers. Not necessarily true. Presumably, for a certain subsection of the population internet access is a basic requirement - email, web-browsing, instant-messenger, online-banking, etc. They are going to buy it regardless of what 'else' it lets them do.
Because almost all US ISPs charge a flat rate, they actually make more profit the less their customers use their service. So as long as most customers keep their ISP service for all the other (low-bandwidth) reasons besides file-sharing, the ISP will benefit from filtering out the high-bandwidth p2p usage.
That's the main reason I've started to favor paying per-byte rather than flat-fee. At least with per-byte pricing the ISP has an incentive to help you use as much bandwidth as possible rather than the current system where the incentive is to squeeze everyone down into tiny trickles of bandwidth usage.
But wealthy benefactors did benefit, particularly in the realm of status. Also, commissioned works would often produce tangible returns by way of performance moneys or an object of physical value such as a painting. Furthermore, such benefactors would retain certain rights to the artists future work (depending on the nature of the arrangements.) None of these examples are incompatible with the OP's suggested model. For example - it would be entirely reasonable for someone to fund an author's first book in return for a guaranteed percentage of the selling price of the next book.
The end results are still the same - author gets paid, books are released to the public domain and are thus immune to 'piracy.'
My statement was speaking to why would anyone bother signing up for the contract to pay for the content when they could just wait until it was released into the public domain.... Oh, I'm sure there will be some fanatics willing to be the first to get the content, The answer is still the same. Why do "fanatics" pay a premium to see first run movies when they could just wait and get the same thing for a whole lot cheaper?
But the point isn't getting it cheap or free it is getting it at all. If not enough people are willing to pay enough money, then nobody gets it. So either it is worth it to the buyers or it isn't. If it isn't worth it for any work at all, then there will be a dearth of new content until enough people are bored enough that it does become worth it to them.
Of course, this all rests on the assumption that copyright is essentially abolished. The current state of pseudo-copyright - the law says one thing, but the reality is another thing verges on that assumption already.
Being able to withstand shoves and kicks is essential if robots are to truly be our buddies, they reckon. If you can't kick your buddy in the head, he really isn't your buddy.
Sounds like someone's been playing too many violent video games.
Why would anyone bother paying for the content when they can just get it out of the public domain? I wouldn't. You presume all content is equal. It's not.
Let's compare CNN's free content to the Economist with subscription costs of over $100/year with discounts being few and far between. If your premise were true, no one would purchase subscriptions to the Economist because CNN's content is free. Yet clearly that is not the case. The Economist's content is obviously worth it to the people who are paying for it, despite CNN's 'free' content.
Creative works are very similar. If what you said is true, then the majority of people would never pay top-dollar for first-run movies and first-edition books. They would just "move on" to the much cheaper 2nd run theaters, or wait for the DVDs to hit the $4 bin at wal-mart, or buy the remaindered books at places like The Dollar Store.
Yet that is clearly not the case. Many people do indeed pay top dollar for new content when there are plenty of alternatives available.
Cool! Then we may have gotten a sequel to "To Kill a Mockingbird" out of Harper Lee: "To Kill a Mockingbird II: Kill Harder" Ironically, her second book was about an Alabama serial killer.
Note that the point is, Google isn't getting sued to see -who- DaTruthSquad is. Google is getting sued to reveal if the guy is the former mayor. Not to say that everyone is angelic, but, in all probability, DaTruthSquad is probably a crook himself. I'd say Weeks is twisting the case, not the EFF. This is what it SOUNDS like it boils down to: They think somebody (Moskovitz) lied under oath. So they want to go and pursue someone else who may or may not be Moskovitz.
That sounds like really bad precedent. If person A does something suspect that should not cause person B's rights to be infringed upon.
What they ought to be doing is serving a subpoena on person A - the one they actually suspect of breaking the law - something like a forensic check of his PC to see if he has login information for the blogger account.
Trivial? Most people spend decades paying back student loans. If you are hurting for money there are alternatives.
Go to a community college for your first two years. Then transfer to an in-state university for the rest. Sure it doesn't have the cachet of going halfway across the country to a name-brand school, but it will get you 90% of the way there for 10% of the cost.
If you do have the money, then go ahead and spend it on name-brand schools just like you spend it on name-brand clothes, etc.
In addition, anyone at JPL could be exposed, or have access to, a significant amount of classified material. Compartmentalization can only go so far in such an organization. If that's true, then the heads of the security officers at JPL need to roll.
Uncleared individuals with access to significant amounts of (i.e. espionage worthy) material would represent a gigantic failure of the security process.
Well, why would you need to erase your entire drive for anyone besides the police? Well, why would you need to encrypt your entire drive for anyone besides the police?
A laptop with a "quick erase" button would be useful to many businesses with people who travel in less than the safe regions. Same goes for people in less than free countries who are working for change. Full disk encryption doesn't stand up to rubber-hose cryptography very well.
I'm sure with more than 30 seconds to think about I could come up with any number of 'legitimate' uses.
Right, because when your house gets raided and the police see you erased your hard drive they just turn around and say "well played". 'Obstruction of justice' ringing any bells? Since when is pr0n illegal? However, since you want to go down that path...
If whatever your drive contained was 'illegal' or sufficiently incriminating, it may very well be that an "obstruction of justice" charge is preferable to whatever charges would have come about from confiscation of the actual drive contents.
Excuse me while I enjoy my MLB feed on Morpheus. Oh wait, I forgot - I stopped watching baseball the year they cancelled the world series. In hyper-capitalist america, MLB cancels you!
Westminster, in London, is installing Wi-Fi-enabled security cameras that can identify illegally parked cars and issue tickets without an on-site witness. What's next? Automated ticketing for jaywalking? For picking your nose in public? What's next?
i don't know about your phone company, but any phone company i've been in business with (at least landlines), you have to pay to keep your phone number unlisted. Not true. You can have your number listed under the name of anyone at that residence, including your imaginary friend Paco or your cat Larry. For the last two decades I have listed my phone numbers in about 10 different states under a false name with absolutely zero hassle or cost. Billing is still in my name, but the listing is not.
You can use padding tricks increase the [false] resolution of the spectrum you're dealing with, but you can't recover signal that you failed to record in the first place.
For a simpler analogy, it's like using 16-bit registers to record 32 bit integers. No matter how many 16 bit registers you use or how you combine them, you're not going to recover the upper 16 bits -- they're lost because you didn't record them. I'm not sure what you mean by "padding tricks" but I have to disagree and your analogy is what makes it clear. By using two 16-bit registers you can fully represent a 32-bit value.
Similarly an 8KHz sampling rate means that a measurement is taken 8,000 times per second or once every 1.25 milliseconds. If you have two 8KHz recordings that are offset by exactly half of the sampling period (0.625 milliseconds) from each other then you can combine the two into a single recording with a sampling period of 0.625 milliseconds for a 16KHz sampling rate. There should be no violation of nyquist in this scenario.
Now that's all theoretical, without some sort of widely distributed clock signal it sure would be hard to guarantee precise offsets for the recording from each cell phone.
This might be true with a 44- or 48kHz sampling rate, but "phone quality" 8kHz sampling will give you something that sounds worse than a cassette recorder stuck inside a coffee can. Not so fast there. If it is possible to algorithmically combine a handful of low-resolution (i.e. low sample rate) images of the same scene to get a high resolution version, it ought to be possible to algorithmically combine a handful of low-resolution recordings of the same audio to get a high resolution version.
Without the BD ROM Mark the disk can't be decrypted quite yet. The article makes no claim that this has been cracked. No, it just means that without the BD ROM-Mark (and the magic equipment needed to write it to another BD-ROM disc), a bit-for-bit copy can't be made. However, a remastered copy should present no problem at all.
In other words, the BD ROM-Mark is not intended to stop access to the encrypted movie, it is intended to stop someone from duplicating the original disc without decrypting it all.
it looks like what its doing is pretty much creating a hyperlink to the page in your start menu or something. I hate to say it, but I really do not see anything innovative here. Am I missing something? What I want is completely separate 'personalities' for each web site. No sharing of cookies, or cache (like embedded images sourced from doubleclick). I even want to be able to have separate 'personalities' for accessing the same website.
I'm not schizo, just privacy-conscious. And while I can't do too much about the fact that my IP address is relatively persistent other than using a network of anonymizing proxies, I ought to be able to compartmentalize all other identifying information.
I don't know if prism works that way, but it sure would be a good thing.
In that way it was very much like the US antitrust effort - it was driven by and crafted to benefit specific MS competitors rather than consumers. I don't see how it benefited Real in any way. After all no one bought the stripped down version of XP. It was as if the EU did nothing at all.
There was no way to determine a non-zero price for WMP which would be used to reduce the price of XP N; not a way that wouldn't have been very easily appealed anyway. The EC knew that. So, not only where they stupid, they knew they were being stupid. Willful stupidity is just so much better...
As it is, the EU is forcing Microsoft to hand over Active Directory to its competitors for next-to-nothing. Only its NON-COMMERCIAL competitors, which is pretty much meaningless since software Freedom is about liberty, not cost.
Has Red Hat, IBM, or anyone in the OIN made a similar pledge regarding non-commercial software projects? Red Hat has, and it is a whole lot broader because it includes commercial projects and is applicable world-wide: http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html
If by chance you were American, maybe you could explain us restoftheworlders what the Microsoft's homeland government is actually doing about those matters ? Never did I say that the US anti-trust enforcement was any better. Just look at how the RIAA tricked the various US attorney generals into accepting all those CDs for schools and libraries as a 'penalty' when they were just unloading dead inventory.
Slashdot Mirror
Because almost all US ISPs charge a flat rate, they actually make more profit the less their customers use their service. So as long as most customers keep their ISP service for all the other (low-bandwidth) reasons besides file-sharing, the ISP will benefit from filtering out the high-bandwidth p2p usage.
That's the main reason I've started to favor paying per-byte rather than flat-fee. At least with per-byte pricing the ISP has an incentive to help you use as much bandwidth as possible rather than the current system where the incentive is to squeeze everyone down into tiny trickles of bandwidth usage.
For example - it would be entirely reasonable for someone to fund an author's first book in return for a guaranteed percentage of the selling price of the next book.
The end results are still the same - author gets paid, books are released to the public domain and are thus immune to 'piracy.'
Oh, I'm sure there will be some fanatics willing to be the first to get the content, The answer is still the same. Why do "fanatics" pay a premium to see first run movies when they could just wait and get the same thing for a whole lot cheaper?
But the point isn't getting it cheap or free it is getting it at all. If not enough people are willing to pay enough money, then nobody gets it. So either it is worth it to the buyers or it isn't. If it isn't worth it for any work at all, then there will be a dearth of new content until enough people are bored enough that it does become worth it to them.
Of course, this all rests on the assumption that copyright is essentially abolished. The current state of pseudo-copyright - the law says one thing, but the reality is another thing verges on that assumption already.
Sounds like someone's been playing too many violent video games.
Let's compare CNN's free content to the Economist with subscription costs of over $100/year with discounts being few and far between. If your premise were true, no one would purchase subscriptions to the Economist because CNN's content is free. Yet clearly that is not the case. The Economist's content is obviously worth it to the people who are paying for it, despite CNN's 'free' content.
Creative works are very similar. If what you said is true, then the majority of people would never pay top-dollar for first-run movies and first-edition books. They would just "move on" to the much cheaper 2nd run theaters, or wait for the DVDs to hit the $4 bin at wal-mart, or buy the remaindered books at places like The Dollar Store.
Yet that is clearly not the case. Many people do indeed pay top dollar for new content when there are plenty of alternatives available.
"To Kill a Mockingbird II: Kill Harder" Ironically, her second book was about an Alabama serial killer.
This is what it SOUNDS like it boils down to:
They think somebody (Moskovitz) lied under oath.
So they want to go and pursue someone else who may or may not be Moskovitz.
That sounds like really bad precedent. If person A does something suspect that should not cause person B's rights to be infringed upon.
What they ought to be doing is serving a subpoena on person A - the one they actually suspect of breaking the law - something like a forensic check of his PC to see if he has login information for the blogger account.
Go to a community college for your first two years.
Then transfer to an in-state university for the rest.
Sure it doesn't have the cachet of going halfway across the country to a name-brand school, but it will get you 90% of the way there for 10% of the cost.
If you do have the money, then go ahead and spend it on name-brand schools just like you spend it on name-brand clothes, etc.
Uncleared individuals with access to significant amounts of (i.e. espionage worthy) material would represent a gigantic failure of the security process.
Depends on your definition of "commonly used"
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=rubber-hose+cryptography&word2=rubber-hose+cryptanalysis
(needs javascript)
Rubber Hose Cryptography
A laptop with a "quick erase" button would be useful to many businesses with people who travel in less than the safe regions. Same goes for people in less than free countries who are working for change. Full disk encryption doesn't stand up to rubber-hose cryptography very well.
I'm sure with more than 30 seconds to think about I could come up with any number of 'legitimate' uses.
If whatever your drive contained was 'illegal' or sufficiently incriminating, it may very well be that an "obstruction of justice" charge is preferable to whatever charges would have come about from confiscation of the actual drive contents.
Oh wait, I forgot - I stopped watching baseball the year they cancelled the world series. In hyper-capitalist america, MLB cancels you!
A huge increase in the sales of Wi-Fi jammers.
For a simpler analogy, it's like using 16-bit registers to record 32 bit integers. No matter how many 16 bit registers you use or how you combine them, you're not going to recover the upper 16 bits -- they're lost because you didn't record them. I'm not sure what you mean by "padding tricks" but I have to disagree and your analogy is what makes it clear. By using two 16-bit registers you can fully represent a 32-bit value.
Similarly an 8KHz sampling rate means that a measurement is taken 8,000 times per second or once every 1.25 milliseconds. If you have two 8KHz recordings that are offset by exactly half of the sampling period (0.625 milliseconds) from each other then you can combine the two into a single recording with a sampling period of 0.625 milliseconds for a 16KHz sampling rate. There should be no violation of nyquist in this scenario.
Now that's all theoretical, without some sort of widely distributed clock signal it sure would be hard to guarantee precise offsets for the recording from each cell phone.
Imagine if they were to focus all those PS3's on cracking AACS keys and thus decrypting BLU-RAY movies.
It would be the ultimate case of the hardware hand of Sony working against the hollywood hand of Sony.
The article makes no claim that this has been cracked. No, it just means that without the BD ROM-Mark (and the magic equipment needed to write it to another BD-ROM disc), a bit-for-bit copy can't be made. However, a remastered copy should present no problem at all.
In other words, the BD ROM-Mark is not intended to stop access to the encrypted movie, it is intended to stop someone from duplicating the original disc without decrypting it all.
I'm not schizo, just privacy-conscious. And while I can't do too much about the fact that my IP address is relatively persistent other than using a network of anonymizing proxies, I ought to be able to compartmentalize all other identifying information.
I don't know if prism works that way, but it sure would be a good thing.
Just look at how the RIAA tricked the various US attorney generals into accepting all those CDs for schools and libraries as a 'penalty' when they were just unloading dead inventory.