C'mon . . . everybody knows (or should) that any MicroSoft product should be considered "beta" until release of the next version (at which point, it becomes "obsolete").
This would be a great way to get raw metal/ice (water)/etc. into orbit for use as construction materials. Save volume/weight on spacecraft for personnel/electronics/manufactured assemblies.
Shouldn't be too hard for a ship in LEO to capture such a payload - after all, it has a known and predictable trajectory.
Especially after complete immersion for an extended period of time!
That said, the ultimate cause of death was cerebral swelling - the body had so much water (and relatively little salt) that systemwide swelling took place. With the brain, that's a real problem.
And you're right to point out that such an argument could last for an arbitrarily long (if not infite) period of time.
It just so happens that I do consider viruses to be a special case - straddling (IMHO) the fine line between animate and inanimate. If one accepts the definition of a virus as a special case, then I believe my assertion is valid.
I think this is also called "junk science"? C'mon - the assertion that these genomic sequences don't exist because they are inimical to life is foolhardy - come to think of it, we already have a name for snippets of genetic code which only exist to damage existing life. We call such a gene-snippet a virus. Despite being inimical or at best neutral to all forms of life, there seem to be plenty of them.
Yes, I know there's more to a virus than the bit of opportunist genetic code - there's a crunchy shell, the sweet polysaccharide component used to gain entry to cell walls, and the creamy DNA/RNA nougat interior. It seems to me that the so-called "missing" sequences are more likely to prove non-viable, posessing no life-giving or life-enhancing properties. That would seem a more likely explaination for their absence in nature than asserting that those sequences are toxic to all other life (since the ability to destroy competing organisms would confer an advantage on an organism, and since no organism has evolved to use these sequences to advantage I find it likelier that the gene sequences in question are useless, not toxic).
Then again, this could be a Wildire situation, code to read: Andromeda. Green goo, anyone?
I'll bet they're moving slowly on Vista patches and application compatibility to demonstrate how using M$-only software on your M$ computer network really is better! After all, "it all just works!", right?
Right? Uh, guys...
Also, because they're pissed at all the A/V vendors - one, they're making money of M$'s cash cow; two, their very existence is a constant reminder of everything that's wrong with M$ products; three, they're making money of M$'s cash cow; four, they often catch and correct security problems before M$ can even admit they exist; five, they're making money of M$'s cash cow; six . ..
We may not have flying cars, but at least (thanks to Mr. Ballmer) we have flying chairs! Maybe M$ should patent that; after reading my comment, I'll bet Mr. Ballmer'd love to give me a flying chair!
Consider: Microsoft sends these men an unsolicited item - a laptop. They say "When you're done with it, give it away or give it back."
KRAPTV sends you an unsolicited veg-o-matic slicer. They say "Pay us $19.95 plus S+H".
Both situations are equally binding. Period. You own whatever they sent you. Period. That's black-letter law here in the USA. Period. It happens to be Federal law, which means the individual states cannot enact contravening laws. Period.
Besides, for coolness factor, I'd rather have one of the OLPC machines (except it wouldn't be cool of me to take such a machine from its intended recipients). Oh, well.
However, not this kind! Fight fire with fire, I say!
Beyond that, isn't one of the characteristics of FUD generally either inaccurate or incomplete data (to create the FUD)? In this instance, complete and honest disclosure will do the job nicely, no need to be deceptive, hence no FUD. After all, plenty of news items fill me with fear, uncertainty and doubt - especially news items about the government. That doesn't make it FUD, just troubling news.
Better to spoof both MAC and IP addresses - sure, there's a chance of data loss/collision/etc., but that'd be easy enough to handle, I think. When the cracker notices collisions, he merely shuts down. Yon victim sees an unremarkable (but transitory) network issue, thinks no more of it and goes on with life, fat dumb and happy!
Somehow, I doubt that Apple feels too badly about this; and I'm sure they're scaling up their server farm to accomodate this, their most recent success.
On initial analysis, the gentleman does appear to be qualified to render "expert testimony". I assume that his bona fides are in order. The fact that jurisdictions outside the US don't acknowledge his expertise is irrelevant - this gentleman's qualifications appear (unfortunately) to be impeccable.
Many of my associates here on/. to the contrary, the plaintiff will probably have little to no difficulty establishing whether or not the suspect computer in this case was using the IP address from which the plaintiff alleges the copyright infringement took place. Likewise, based on the ISP records, the plaintiff will probably have little difficulty proving that their record of the shared content as identified from the plaintiff's computer is an accurate and correct representation of that IP address' activity. Attacking the accuracy of their data (showing a computer at the defendant's IP address was sharing files via P2P technology) will probably likewise prove unproductive; and as I'm sure you're aware, making allegations of misconduct without evidence on your part to support your allegations could be very bad for your professional situation. To my/. fellows, remember that this is a civil case - the standard is not "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" but rather "a preponderance of evidence". With that end in view, rather than attacking the assertion that illegal file sharing took place from that IP address you should try to establish whether or not Ms. Lindor's computer contains evidence of this illicit activity.
While Ms. Lindor has been named as the defendant, I would suspect that the plaintiff's case hinges not on alleging that Ms. Lindor actually performed the acts in question, but rather that by providing internet connectivity and/or computer equipment which was used to ostensibly perform this act, Ms. Lindor is liable for damages caused by this act. However, the plaintiff's entire case rests on proving that the physical connection used to perform this act terminates with Ms. Lindor's residence and computing equipment (areas under her control). You should have little difficulty finding your own expert in the IT field, one who can demonstrate ideas such as MAC and IP address spoofing to gain illicit access to a network. Your expert should also be able to establish that (barring an extremely involved investigation which did not take place at the time) these items, while intended to be unique to a single computer connected at a single point to the network, are in fact easily forged. It should then prove trivial to explain why these items can not be used to positively and uniquely identify Ms. Lindor's computer and network connection.
Finally, you might consider analyzing the state of Ms. Lindor's equipment. If she was using any version of wireless networking, that would imply an even greater likelihood that the acts in question were performed with neither the knowledge or consent of Ms. Lindor. Insecurity in wireless networks has been a problem practically since their inception; and while Ms. Lindor may still have some liability (much like the registered owner of an automobile may be liable for damages caused by a thief who stole that automobile), this may be a factor in mitigation or extenuation of the alleged infringement.
Incidentally, you should ensure that UMG is fully aware of what the news will make of all this after a verdict is rendered. "Single mother loses home, life savings to music industry" would make a great headline, and I'm sure you could find more than a few sympathetic journalists to write an appropriately scathing article to go with it. As you're well aware, the courts aren't the only courts in this country; the court of public opinion can be a monstrous thing to those unwary enough to stand in its path!
no matter how the data are encrypted, Blu-Ray/HD-DVD players and media have to give you both the encryption algorithm and the key.
Let me repeat that - Blu-Ray/HD-DVD players and media have to give you both the encryption algorithm and the key. Now, it's true that asymetric encryption means that I'll never be able to modify and reencrypt the data without changing the encryption key and thus producing a readily identified copy, but that's not the goal, is it? Given the algorithm and decryption key I can decrypt the content preset. That's the whole point of the system. Attempting to lock the decryption algorithm and key away from the rest of the computer system is impractical at best, more likely impossible. At the end of the day Blu-Ray and HD-DVD end up reliant upon the obsecurity model (rather like CSS); with thousands of eyes watching, obsecurity doesn't work for long (rather like CSS).
These subjects have been shown that they are vulnerable to manipulation by authority figures. Perhaps these subjects may be less harmed than their predecessors in the Milgram experiments (because they went into it knowing there wasn't a real flesh-and-blood human suffering pain for their weakness) but they were still shown that weakness within themselves.
Psychology has shown repeatedly that humans must maintain certain illusions about their own "rightness"/"morality"/"humanity" - it's called ego and (according to some schools of psychology) it's one of three fundamental elements of the human psyche. The participants in this type of experiment have been shown to suffer severe damage to their egos - that is, the idealized self-image of who they are. Granted, it may have been necessary to prove that this facet of human behavior is so (once), but that proof came at a fairly high human cost to the test subjects, and there seems to me little justification in harming another group of humans this way merely to confirm that what we already know is still true.
...amount of intellectual property stolen from mainstream movie studios...
Stolen? As in, somebody got onto the studio lot, entered the writer's office/cubicle and physically removed a sheet of paper/diskette/stone tablet with the only copy of the ideas (which the writers had already forgotten, having cast their one script spell per day)?
Perhaps I take that word "stolen" too literally, but doesn't stealing typically involve depriving someone of their property? AFAIK, the studios haven't physically lost anything - perhaps TFA's orientation/bias shows through? To me, this article looks like the *AA trying to reaffirm their argument that downloading media content is theft.
The *AA has been saying all along that their losing hundreds of millions of dollars to piracy. When asked where they get those numbers, they produce figures which boggle the imagination (thousands of dollars lost for each MP3 I download? Hmmm...).
I almost sense the *AA trying to salvage their claims of being greatly harmed by internet piracy. Almost as though to say "Well, we exaggerated our claims in the past, but now everything we said before is coming true! See?! Soon, piracy will double or treble, and then what we've been saying all along will really be the truth!"
Incidentally, googling on NPD gives me the impression that they've gamed Google. The Wikipedia article on NPD was last updated within the month. I just don't see a lot of credibility for TFA, or for the NVD.
Who is the primary adopter of Microsoft Operating Systems? Businesses!
Let me say that again: Businesses!
Most businesses aren't concerned that their employees may not be able to view HD content on their desktop PC's, as that is not what they hire people to do (in general). As long as Microsoft can assert that a desktop machine running Windows Vista will continue to be able to fulfill enterprise business requirements in a stable, reliable way there will be plenty of businesses perfectly ready to plunk down their money to get what Microsoft promises will be "the most stable and secure computing experience to date."
Better have a look at Microsoft's balance sheet - somehow, I doubt that the majority of profits come from individual user sales! Their big bucks come from per-seat volume licensing of OS and productivity products - that's their bread-and-butter! I don't think a financial clearing-house, or a medical supplies company, or your average insurance office will really get sweaty about HD-DVD playback being broken because there's no HDMI interface to the ol' VGA monitor.
Before the masses point out that there are plenty of productivity killing traps in Microsoft Vista (and there are), Microsoft will simply assure businesses that as long as their hardware doesn't change drastically they can expect their machines to continue operating flawlessly. The relative truth or falsehood of that assertion is irrelevant; Microsoft will say it and businesses will accept it. There are way too many large organizations with PHB's at the helm for the technically savvy to prevent this from happening. After that, those businesses which were insightful enough to avoid the "Microsoft upgrade cycle" will ultimately be forced to come along by way of remaining compatible with the rest of industry.
Don't like what you see in Vista? Too bad - once it's entrenched in business it'll make inroads in the home (how many/.'ers use software at home similar to their employer's software so that they can be more productive at work? I, for example, run openSuSE at home because my employer uses SuSE Linux Enterprise Distribution in the workplace; it lets me be more productive at home and at work because I can leverage what I learn in one environment to the other).
Slashdot Mirror
R-2, you know better than to trust a strange computer!
Superior marketing by design. Brilliant!
immediately upon accessing the unencrypted data on the Blu-Ray disk, muslix64's computer fell victim to a rootkit . . .
Shouldn't be too hard for a ship in LEO to capture such a payload - after all, it has a known and predictable trajectory.
That said, the ultimate cause of death was cerebral swelling - the body had so much water (and relatively little salt) that systemwide swelling took place. With the brain, that's a real problem.
Next time, I'll keep my pie hole shut!
It just so happens that I do consider viruses to be a special case - straddling (IMHO) the fine line between animate and inanimate. If one accepts the definition of a virus as a special case, then I believe my assertion is valid.
Yes, I know there's more to a virus than the bit of opportunist genetic code - there's a crunchy shell, the sweet polysaccharide component used to gain entry to cell walls, and the creamy DNA/RNA nougat interior. It seems to me that the so-called "missing" sequences are more likely to prove non-viable, posessing no life-giving or life-enhancing properties. That would seem a more likely explaination for their absence in nature than asserting that those sequences are toxic to all other life (since the ability to destroy competing organisms would confer an advantage on an organism, and since no organism has evolved to use these sequences to advantage I find it likelier that the gene sequences in question are useless, not toxic).
Then again, this could be a Wildire situation, code to read: Andromeda. Green goo, anyone?
Right? Uh, guys...
Also, because they're pissed at all the A/V vendors - one, they're making money of M$'s cash cow; two, their very existence is a constant reminder of everything that's wrong with M$ products; three, they're making money of M$'s cash cow; four, they often catch and correct security problems before M$ can even admit they exist; five, they're making money of M$'s cash cow; six . . .
We may not have flying cars, but at least (thanks to Mr. Ballmer) we have flying chairs! Maybe M$ should patent that; after reading my comment, I'll bet Mr. Ballmer'd love to give me a flying chair!
KRAPTV sends you an unsolicited veg-o-matic slicer. They say "Pay us $19.95 plus S+H".
Both situations are equally binding. Period. You own whatever they sent you. Period. That's black-letter law here in the USA. Period. It happens to be Federal law, which means the individual states cannot enact contravening laws. Period.
Besides, for coolness factor, I'd rather have one of the OLPC machines (except it wouldn't be cool of me to take such a machine from its intended recipients). Oh, well.
Beyond that, isn't one of the characteristics of FUD generally either inaccurate or incomplete data (to create the FUD)? In this instance, complete and honest disclosure will do the job nicely, no need to be deceptive, hence no FUD. After all, plenty of news items fill me with fear, uncertainty and doubt - especially news items about the government. That doesn't make it FUD, just troubling news.
Better to spoof both MAC and IP addresses - sure, there's a chance of data loss/collision/etc., but that'd be easy enough to handle, I think. When the cracker notices collisions, he merely shuts down. Yon victim sees an unremarkable (but transitory) network issue, thinks no more of it and goes on with life, fat dumb and happy!
Somehow, I doubt that Apple feels too badly about this; and I'm sure they're scaling up their server farm to accomodate this, their most recent success.
On initial analysis, the gentleman does appear to be qualified to render "expert testimony". I assume that his bona fides are in order. The fact that jurisdictions outside the US don't acknowledge his expertise is irrelevant - this gentleman's qualifications appear (unfortunately) to be impeccable.
Many of my associates here on /. to the contrary, the plaintiff will probably have little to no difficulty establishing whether or not the suspect computer in this case was using the IP address from which the plaintiff alleges the copyright infringement took place. Likewise, based on the ISP records, the plaintiff will probably have little difficulty proving that their record of the shared content as identified from the plaintiff's computer is an accurate and correct representation of that IP address' activity. Attacking the accuracy of their data (showing a computer at the defendant's IP address was sharing files via P2P technology) will probably likewise prove unproductive; and as I'm sure you're aware, making allegations of misconduct without evidence on your part to support your allegations could be very bad for your professional situation. To my /. fellows, remember that this is a civil case - the standard is not "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" but rather "a preponderance of evidence". With that end in view, rather than attacking the assertion that illegal file sharing took place from that IP address you should try to establish whether or not Ms. Lindor's computer contains evidence of this illicit activity.
While Ms. Lindor has been named as the defendant, I would suspect that the plaintiff's case hinges not on alleging that Ms. Lindor actually performed the acts in question, but rather that by providing internet connectivity and/or computer equipment which was used to ostensibly perform this act, Ms. Lindor is liable for damages caused by this act. However, the plaintiff's entire case rests on proving that the physical connection used to perform this act terminates with Ms. Lindor's residence and computing equipment (areas under her control). You should have little difficulty finding your own expert in the IT field, one who can demonstrate ideas such as MAC and IP address spoofing to gain illicit access to a network. Your expert should also be able to establish that (barring an extremely involved investigation which did not take place at the time) these items, while intended to be unique to a single computer connected at a single point to the network, are in fact easily forged. It should then prove trivial to explain why these items can not be used to positively and uniquely identify Ms. Lindor's computer and network connection.
Finally, you might consider analyzing the state of Ms. Lindor's equipment. If she was using any version of wireless networking, that would imply an even greater likelihood that the acts in question were performed with neither the knowledge or consent of Ms. Lindor. Insecurity in wireless networks has been a problem practically since their inception; and while Ms. Lindor may still have some liability (much like the registered owner of an automobile may be liable for damages caused by a thief who stole that automobile), this may be a factor in mitigation or extenuation of the alleged infringement.
Incidentally, you should ensure that UMG is fully aware of what the news will make of all this after a verdict is rendered. "Single mother loses home, life savings to music industry" would make a great headline, and I'm sure you could find more than a few sympathetic journalists to write an appropriately scathing article to go with it. As you're well aware, the courts aren't the only courts in this country; the court of public opinion can be a monstrous thing to those unwary enough to stand in its path!
What a shame I don't use Microsoft's "Start" search. ;^D
Oh, and BTW - First Post?
Let me repeat that - Blu-Ray/HD-DVD players and media have to give you both the encryption algorithm and the key. Now, it's true that asymetric encryption means that I'll never be able to modify and reencrypt the data without changing the encryption key and thus producing a readily identified copy, but that's not the goal, is it? Given the algorithm and decryption key I can decrypt the content preset. That's the whole point of the system. Attempting to lock the decryption algorithm and key away from the rest of the computer system is impractical at best, more likely impossible. At the end of the day Blu-Ray and HD-DVD end up reliant upon the obsecurity model (rather like CSS); with thousands of eyes watching, obsecurity doesn't work for long (rather like CSS).
These subjects have been shown that they are vulnerable to manipulation by authority figures. Perhaps these subjects may be less harmed than their predecessors in the Milgram experiments (because they went into it knowing there wasn't a real flesh-and-blood human suffering pain for their weakness) but they were still shown that weakness within themselves.
Psychology has shown repeatedly that humans must maintain certain illusions about their own "rightness"/"morality"/"humanity" - it's called ego and (according to some schools of psychology) it's one of three fundamental elements of the human psyche. The participants in this type of experiment have been shown to suffer severe damage to their egos - that is, the idealized self-image of who they are. Granted, it may have been necessary to prove that this facet of human behavior is so (once), but that proof came at a fairly high human cost to the test subjects, and there seems to me little justification in harming another group of humans this way merely to confirm that what we already know is still true.
Stolen? As in, somebody got onto the studio lot, entered the writer's office/cubicle and physically removed a sheet of paper/diskette/stone tablet with the only copy of the ideas (which the writers had already forgotten, having cast their one script spell per day)?
Perhaps I take that word "stolen" too literally, but doesn't stealing typically involve depriving someone of their property? AFAIK, the studios haven't physically lost anything - perhaps TFA's orientation/bias shows through? To me, this article looks like the *AA trying to reaffirm their argument that downloading media content is theft.
The *AA has been saying all along that their losing hundreds of millions of dollars to piracy. When asked where they get those numbers, they produce figures which boggle the imagination (thousands of dollars lost for each MP3 I download? Hmmm...).
I almost sense the *AA trying to salvage their claims of being greatly harmed by internet piracy. Almost as though to say "Well, we exaggerated our claims in the past, but now everything we said before is coming true! See?! Soon, piracy will double or treble, and then what we've been saying all along will really be the truth!"
Incidentally, googling on NPD gives me the impression that they've gamed Google. The Wikipedia article on NPD was last updated within the month. I just don't see a lot of credibility for TFA, or for the NVD.
Says who?
Pure 6502 goodness, and raw 68000 power! Yeah!
I miss getting video toasted! Waaah!
Just sayin'.
Let me say that again: Businesses!
Most businesses aren't concerned that their employees may not be able to view HD content on their desktop PC's, as that is not what they hire people to do (in general). As long as Microsoft can assert that a desktop machine running Windows Vista will continue to be able to fulfill enterprise business requirements in a stable, reliable way there will be plenty of businesses perfectly ready to plunk down their money to get what Microsoft promises will be "the most stable and secure computing experience to date."
Better have a look at Microsoft's balance sheet - somehow, I doubt that the majority of profits come from individual user sales! Their big bucks come from per-seat volume licensing of OS and productivity products - that's their bread-and-butter! I don't think a financial clearing-house, or a medical supplies company, or your average insurance office will really get sweaty about HD-DVD playback being broken because there's no HDMI interface to the ol' VGA monitor.
Before the masses point out that there are plenty of productivity killing traps in Microsoft Vista (and there are), Microsoft will simply assure businesses that as long as their hardware doesn't change drastically they can expect their machines to continue operating flawlessly. The relative truth or falsehood of that assertion is irrelevant; Microsoft will say it and businesses will accept it. There are way too many large organizations with PHB's at the helm for the technically savvy to prevent this from happening. After that, those businesses which were insightful enough to avoid the "Microsoft upgrade cycle" will ultimately be forced to come along by way of remaining compatible with the rest of industry.
Don't like what you see in Vista? Too bad - once it's entrenched in business it'll make inroads in the home (how many /.'ers use software at home similar to their employer's software so that they can be more productive at work? I, for example, run openSuSE at home because my employer uses SuSE Linux Enterprise Distribution in the workplace; it lets me be more productive at home and at work because I can leverage what I learn in one environment to the other).
Been smoking crack long? Yes, Windows Vista is the best rat shit ever - but it is still RAT SHIT!
Sorry 'bout that, Chief!