"Hilary Rosen, the former RIAA CEO and chairwoman, has spoken out against Apple's "lock-in" with iPod and the iTunes Music Store." From the article: "The problem is that the iPod only works with either songs that you buy from the on-line Apple iTunes store or songs that you rip from your own CD's." Ironically, she appeals to consumer rights and anti-monopoly tactics."
And now we know why she was the former CEO and chairwoman, she didn't see eye to eye with the rest of the RIAA's beliefs.:)
Wouldn't Microsoft still be liable for all the infringement they had made up until that point? And given Microsoft said that we can't be sued for their patent infringements wouldn't anyone who doesn't upgrade to their new JPG/GIF less versions would be keeping them liable?
Oh, I'm sure there are cases where you want them to call for help, but making it easy seems far too likely to make them accidentaly set it off when you're not around.
... you stick the recording through some voice recognition program afterwards...... you'll still have great difficulty in understanding what was written.
Upon having a hash verification failure most clients will download from a single source. If that client gives them bad data several times they tend to ban it.
I just skimmed over it, but it seemed to suggest their whole strategy revolved around having the "correct" original file with the right hash, then switching it for one with all the wrong data such that the client application didn't notice.
They suggested keeping the beginning of the file the same so as not let users determine its dodgy straight away.
As I said i've only skimmed this, but this to me says things like BitTorrent are inherently immune, possibly kazaa is not as I'm not sure if it has hashes of sections of a file.
Bittorrent uses a hash for segments of the file, usually segments are 256k, 512k or 1mb, but I think any power of 2 is valid.
It then lists these in the.torrent file. The hash of the info section of the torrent file is used to uniquely identify each torrent on the tracker.
1) I do recall the Windows & IE source code being leaked a while back.
2) Imagine how bad the problem would be if it had been the complete up to date source.
3) I never said that was the only way, but it certainly makes peoples jobs of trying to break software a lot easier.
As far as I can see, open source security is a double edged sword.
On one side you've got a large base of coders checking the code for bugs, and submitting patches to fix them.
On the other hand you've got people looking through the source for bugs to exploit. However once these exploits become known its usually a small amount of time before someones submitted a patch to the problem.
Closed source doesn't tend to have either of these (as not many ppl have the source) and as such shouldn't have so many exploits discovered for it.
The open source method should however eventually produce more secure code.
Slashdot Mirror
I rather expected that to be a link to this
..because then my DSL would stop working.
Wouldn't Microsoft still be liable for all the infringement they had made up until that point? And given Microsoft said that we can't be sued for their patent infringements wouldn't anyone who doesn't upgrade to their new JPG/GIF less versions would be keeping them liable?
Don't know what you're problem is but I have Windows 2000, and using NTFS i've got some files that are over 8gb.
Ooh, 2 free sides. Consider yourself lucky its not often you get something for free.
Looking at how dusty it is, I'm not so sure :)
...spam to blame for this? And will this allow us to sue spammers for causing brain damage?
The 40 minute delay shouldn't be a problem when people can use things like this. :)
Release wise yes, but from the mailing lists there appear to be a few people still working on it.
I recall seeing this a while ago Y Windows
The goal is to tell which is really female right? Just ask a question about shopping then.
Oh, I'm sure there are cases where you want them to call for help, but making it easy seems far too likely to make them accidentaly set it off when you're not around.
... you stick the recording through some voice recognition program afterwards ... ... you'll still have great difficulty in understanding what was written.
Not sure how related one could consider this, but it might explain why they chose Dresden and not some other german city.
History
As a result I believe it was rebuilt to be a rather industrial place.
I got the impression from the article that Nikon weren't interested in licensing the decryption algorithm
Upon having a hash verification failure most clients will download from a single source. If that client gives them bad data several times they tend to ban it.
Patent application is here...
O 20 05032111&F=0&QPN=WO2005032111
http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=W
I just skimmed over it, but it seemed to suggest their whole strategy revolved around having the "correct" original file with the right hash, then switching it for one with all the wrong data such that the client application didn't notice.
They suggested keeping the beginning of the file the same so as not let users determine its dodgy straight away.
As I said i've only skimmed this, but this to me says things like BitTorrent are inherently immune, possibly kazaa is not as I'm not sure if it has hashes of sections of a file.
Bittorrent uses a hash for segments of the file, usually segments are 256k, 512k or 1mb, but I think any power of 2 is valid. It then lists these in the .torrent file. The hash of the info section of the torrent file is used to uniquely identify each torrent on the tracker.
Says the algorithms patented on their site so presumably we should all be able to go look at this little marvel.
Use 2 (or more) different hashing algorithms on the file, and check the file size.
I'm pretty sure that should reduce the collisions to some stupidly small value.
1) I do recall the Windows & IE source code being leaked a while back. 2) Imagine how bad the problem would be if it had been the complete up to date source. 3) I never said that was the only way, but it certainly makes peoples jobs of trying to break software a lot easier.
As far as I can see, open source security is a double edged sword.
On one side you've got a large base of coders checking the code for bugs, and submitting patches to fix them.
On the other hand you've got people looking through the source for bugs to exploit. However once these exploits become known its usually a small amount of time before someones submitted a patch to the problem.
Closed source doesn't tend to have either of these (as not many ppl have the source) and as such shouldn't have so many exploits discovered for it.
The open source method should however eventually produce more secure code.
Ah, obtained the other one... Coral Cache of WMV or my site ... Coral Cache of WMV