There will NOT be silent file corruption. If the OS TRIMs the entire partition it will appear to have been wiped by the drive. The physical blocks will be moved back onto the drive's free list the logical blocks will be mapped to the 'null block'.
End result TRIM looks like a fast wipe and the data will be completely erased at the ATA level but the data won't be erased at the flash level until later.
Two, in 2001 a "small" impact was detected by the instrument packages that Apollo left behind, however, it was probably too small to give a visible crater.
In 1953, a visual observation of an impact was made, however, no 'before' picture of the area exists so the only sure thing is that there is a fresh crater in the right position and size.
The GNU Copyright is a very poor example. You see there used to be this thing called public domain, and an honourable man would release back into the public domain works that were mostly based on existing public domain works. It was assumed that the artist was in the best position to know and was an honourable man.
Now that the artists' representatives have effectively abolished public domain, honourable men (and women now they have the vote) everywhere need a replacement, however, improvements in communications have shown that honour is not as widespread as was hoped, so this version of public domain has teeth.
The main result of this is that if copyright has to go it won't be a problem for most works using the GPL, but, it's a rare person who uses only one copyright license for all their work. In the commercial world I'm a little guy and need copyright to protect me from the Microsofts of this world.
IP law attempts to create artificial scarcity (prohibiting $0 copies) such that a person or company can amortize the creation cost over multiple sales, but we are seeing that artificial scarcity fail time and time again.
IP law (both sorts) has NEVER tried to do this, the original law makers were not stupid.
IP law is designed to work in the environment where the cost to copy a single item is rather high but it can be reduced a lot by investing a large amount of cash into a huge expensive mass copying machine. It's designed to be used against companies that already have this massive investment and want to screw the little guy.
In that environment it works well. Unfortunately the big companies have succeeded in seriously reducing the cost of those mass copying machines and screwed themselves instead. I have no sympathy, I saw this coming with the Virgin megastore in London got a CD duplicator behind a glass wall in their basement and the book stores have just lost their footing on the same slippery slope.
The artists are in caught in the middle; hopefully they can make reasonable money nowadays by going directly to the public via the internet.
No, actually, I'd consider "charging for a fucking operating system in the first place" as the egregious business practice. I'm GLAD they crushed Microsoft and their $399.5 USD OS. And Apple and their $299.9 USD OS.
It's a tool to support business apps that couldn't be bothered to follow best practices for the last 10 years
Nope, it's a tool for business apps that cannot be converted to Vista.
Best practice has little to do with it. If your app is simple it has a good chance of working, but if it's complex even Microsoft apps following all their internal rules fail.
Example one: "Dynamics NAV" an 'ERP' owned by Microsoft would NOT run on Vista at it's release, current versions do but it can be very expensive to upgrade. It's not a plain dropin like office.
If the OS could be trusted things like "System Restore" and "Previous versions" could be useful and even worthwhile.
With a solid user vs. admin boundary the system could backup data reliably before any malware gets to it.
If the malware or a broken application tries to delete or corrupt anything the "previous versions" are there to be recovered without the user having to remember to do real backups every hour.
So if admin could be trusted, giving over the admin password would be giving access to your onsite backups (and direct hardware access). Something that a user application really doesn't need.
And finally, if Admin works you can give an unknown application access only to the files for itself and check that when the application has terminated it's all gone, there's nothing left running (like a spambot).
As it happens I actually run firefox(shiretoko) like this, with no access to write outside it's own little world.
All these possibilities come directly from having a reliable Admin mode.
You missed the last couple of lines, all the technical stuff was to answer the questions above about TPB vs. Google.
The last two lines were about the actual case; as you say the intent seems pretty clear cut, but you cannot be convicted on just intent you (usually) have to do something illegal. And truthfully I have great difficultly finding anything they've done that is actually illegal, anywhere. Before you say, yes it is possible to get convicted because you have made preparations to commit a crime that are not strictly illegal. But in this case that idea was thrown out of court on day 2.
Now it is very likely that they have aided people to commit copyright infringement so the court has apparently considered that this likelihood is good enough to convict these people of something. But a jail sentence for "somebody probably committed a crime but we don't actually have any proof that the crime was committed" I don't think so. They don't even have legal proof of injury to the victim, it's assumed by the statute or would be IF there were evidence to convict someone of copyright infringement.
Quite simply these people are being made into scapegoats, it's a role they have been aiming for and in that sense everything is going to plan, but, if they are treated unfairly, if the sentence is disproportionate, it does no good to anyone, especially the judiciary.
The current bittorrent algorithm is weird. There is actually no need for the torrent file to exist, it could be downloaded from the first peer you connect to. This would actually make things easier for the user but the original POC didn't need that. Still the torrent file exists, but actually it contains nothing that can identify the legal status of the file that it's used to transfer, there are only inferences from the, user supplied, description (ie unreliable lies, eg: "Britney Spears sex tape").
Likewise, right now any one tracker is unnecessary, TPB and others are open trackers, I tend to add them to every torrent file I upload or download and I'm not the only one because I get more peers that way. Even then the only thing a tracker does is index hashes, so it's basically impossible for a tracker to say if a file is illegal even for clear cut cases because all the tracker sees is a random number and a list of IP:port pairs.
All that remains is to say that bittorrent is illegal because it's only used for illegal material. This is easy to disprove and AIUI the defendants did this. That leaves nothing in the technical realm at which point the judge ruled entirely on "intent" effectively saying the TPB intended to help someone break copyright law so we'll assume they did and sentence them as if they were successful and the people they helped had the book thrown at them (twice).
Of course, nobody has been even seriously charged with the actual copyright infringement... oops.
Copyright should at best be related to the death of the performer - like at most 5 years after the death of the performer. This to avoid weird situations where someone dies during recording or soon after and also to make sure that funeral costs may be paid.
This is a really bad idea, the law should not encourage murder. The current law gets away with it only because the material will probably be lost in 70 years.
Unfortunately that's all right there in the advertising fluff for deepfreeze. You don't even have to dig into the manuals to know deepfreeze can do that.
I serious doubt knowing that it's possible is the problem.
The pwn to own prize was $20000 plus the laptop on the first day, (it dropped as they allowed more attack vectors) so whatever machine you wanted the best machine to attack was gonna be the weakest. (You can always ebay or give your gran the unwanted one.) Look here
If the support for the old version take too much time it's reasonable to stop supporting.
But, XP3 is too recent for a solid wall, even for firefox.NEXT.
I think Win2k and XP0 should be put into automated testing only, ie install, run and got some sort of image.
XP1 will still be needed because it's the last XP that could use 4GB of memory and it's the same API as W2k3-sp0.
But Win2k and XP1 are close enough that killing the right services (and using a "Corp" key) will get you an OS that will work fine.
The core problem is that both XPsp2 and XPsp3 failed to (or were prevented to) install on significant numbers of machines. So I feel Firefox should not really be the rat that leaves the sinking ship. It should be more like the First officer who gets everybody out he can and limps to the last boat carrying a baby.
There is an easy fix that Intel may be able to implement in their flash file system. They just have to lookout for free space wipes.
If a block is written with all zeros (all the same byte) they could then free the flash sector and mark the sector as a 'monobyte' in the data structure. The advantage is that it wouldn't take any extra space at write time so the FFS wouldn't get into the state where it's got no space to defragment blocks and so normal ATA commands will be able to get it out of it's stuck slow state.
TRIM without waiting for a standards committee.
It might not be possible for the hardware but it could give more stable write rates and some insane read rates if they did!
PS: Yes, Flash file system is right, they have implemented an FFS on their drive that provides access for the user to write to one, large, file. Like a partition table that can be looked at as a very minimalist filesystem too, some partition tables even have names for the partitions.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes this would work very well.
BUT. you MUST tell the drive you've done this, with the previous drives the only way is to use the drive's secure erase command to wipe the drive.
With these new drives you could just TRIM all the free space occasionally.
There will NOT be silent file corruption. If the OS TRIMs the entire partition it will appear to have been wiped by the drive. The physical blocks will be moved back onto the drive's free list the logical blocks will be mapped to the 'null block'.
End result TRIM looks like a fast wipe and the data will be completely erased at the ATA level but the data won't be erased at the flash level until later.
Two, in 2001 a "small" impact was detected by the instrument packages that Apollo left behind, however, it was probably too small to give a visible crater.
In 1953, a visual observation of an impact was made, however, no 'before' picture of the area exists so the only sure thing is that there is a fresh crater in the right position and size.
But it's got only one sixth the gravity at the surface so that's a 4 mile high explosion.
Or is that one mile?
The GNU Copyright is a very poor example. You see there used to be this thing called public domain, and an honourable man would release back into the public domain works that were mostly based on existing public domain works. It was assumed that the artist was in the best position to know and was an honourable man.
Now that the artists' representatives have effectively abolished public domain, honourable men (and women now they have the vote) everywhere need a replacement, however, improvements in communications have shown that honour is not as widespread as was hoped, so this version of public domain has teeth.
The main result of this is that if copyright has to go it won't be a problem for most works using the GPL, but, it's a rare person who uses only one copyright license for all their work. In the commercial world I'm a little guy and need copyright to protect me from the Microsofts of this world.
It's got multicolour dots and pills too now. :-(
IP law attempts to create artificial scarcity (prohibiting $0 copies) such that a person or company can amortize the creation cost over multiple sales, but we are seeing that artificial scarcity fail time and time again.
IP law (both sorts) has NEVER tried to do this, the original law makers were not stupid.
IP law is designed to work in the environment where the cost to copy a single item is rather high but it can be reduced a lot by investing a large amount of cash into a huge expensive mass copying machine. It's designed to be used against companies that already have this massive investment and want to screw the little guy.
In that environment it works well. Unfortunately the big companies have succeeded in seriously reducing the cost of those mass copying machines and screwed themselves instead. I have no sympathy, I saw this coming with the Virgin megastore in London got a CD duplicator behind a glass wall in their basement and the book stores have just lost their footing on the same slippery slope.
The artists are in caught in the middle; hopefully they can make reasonable money nowadays by going directly to the public via the internet.
No, actually, I'd consider "charging for a fucking operating system in the first place" as the egregious business practice. I'm GLAD they crushed Microsoft and their $399.5 USD OS. And Apple and their $299.9 USD OS.
I like it!
This all relies on being able to arrange a collision of RFC1597 addresses if you use
echo 10.$((RANDOM%256)).$((RANDOM%256)).0/24
,
echo 172.$((RANDOM%16+16)).$((RANDOM%256)).0/24
or
echo 192.168.$((RANDOM%250+4)).0/24
to choose your trusted network it becomes a lot harder. The 172 range seems especially overlooked.
A targeted attack, where the attacker isn't guessing addresses, is still possible of course.
BTW: This has always been suggested because of the possibility of later merges of multiple private networks.
I think the problem is I got half way through your summary then fuzzed out. I actually had to think to read it!
Sure a lot of people here can think, but on firehose they're still likely to skip to next instead.
It's a tool to support business apps that couldn't be bothered to follow best practices for the last 10 years
Nope, it's a tool for business apps that cannot be converted to Vista.
Best practice has little to do with it. If your app is simple it has a good chance of working, but if it's complex even Microsoft apps following all their internal rules fail.
Example one: "Dynamics NAV" an 'ERP' owned by Microsoft would NOT run on Vista at it's release, current versions do but it can be very expensive to upgrade. It's not a plain dropin like office.
No, No, No.
If the OS could be trusted things like "System Restore" and "Previous versions" could be useful and even worthwhile. With a solid user vs. admin boundary the system could backup data reliably before any malware gets to it. If the malware or a broken application tries to delete or corrupt anything the "previous versions" are there to be recovered without the user having to remember to do real backups every hour.
So if admin could be trusted, giving over the admin password would be giving access to your onsite backups (and direct hardware access). Something that a user application really doesn't need.
And finally, if Admin works you can give an unknown application access only to the files for itself and check that when the application has terminated it's all gone, there's nothing left running (like a spambot). As it happens I actually run firefox(shiretoko) like this, with no access to write outside it's own little world.
All these possibilities come directly from having a reliable Admin mode.
That's all, I have to say; but Slashcode forces me to put something here, so ... what's the weather like where you are? We had a nice storm last night.
But there's a problem, there's no certificate, or if there is can you trust the certificate authority?
Without a reliable certificate you are only protected against eavesdropping, not against MITM.
It might be linux, but it's still crap.
You missed the last couple of lines, all the technical stuff was to answer the questions above about TPB vs. Google.
The last two lines were about the actual case; as you say the intent seems pretty clear cut, but you cannot be convicted on just intent you (usually) have to do something illegal. And truthfully I have great difficultly finding anything they've done that is actually illegal, anywhere. Before you say, yes it is possible to get convicted because you have made preparations to commit a crime that are not strictly illegal. But in this case that idea was thrown out of court on day 2.
Now it is very likely that they have aided people to commit copyright infringement so the court has apparently considered that this likelihood is good enough to convict these people of something. But a jail sentence for "somebody probably committed a crime but we don't actually have any proof that the crime was committed" I don't think so. They don't even have legal proof of injury to the victim, it's assumed by the statute or would be IF there were evidence to convict someone of copyright infringement.
Quite simply these people are being made into scapegoats, it's a role they have been aiming for and in that sense everything is going to plan, but, if they are treated unfairly, if the sentence is disproportionate, it does no good to anyone, especially the judiciary.
Actually, wrong.
The current bittorrent algorithm is weird. There is actually no need for the torrent file to exist, it could be downloaded from the first peer you connect to. This would actually make things easier for the user but the original POC didn't need that. Still the torrent file exists, but actually it contains nothing that can identify the legal status of the file that it's used to transfer, there are only inferences from the, user supplied, description (ie unreliable lies, eg: "Britney Spears sex tape").
Likewise, right now any one tracker is unnecessary, TPB and others are open trackers, I tend to add them to every torrent file I upload or download and I'm not the only one because I get more peers that way. Even then the only thing a tracker does is index hashes, so it's basically impossible for a tracker to say if a file is illegal even for clear cut cases because all the tracker sees is a random number and a list of IP:port pairs.
With both of these observations it is technically quite possible for a reasonable torrent url to be http://74.125.45.100/search?q=2ff13ed6d87e905d76ae66bf3efd5fb13f49fa1b even now that one kinda works.
All that remains is to say that bittorrent is illegal because it's only used for illegal material. This is easy to disprove and AIUI the defendants did this. That leaves nothing in the technical realm at which point the judge ruled entirely on "intent" effectively saying the TPB intended to help someone break copyright law so we'll assume they did and sentence them as if they were successful and the people they helped had the book thrown at them (twice).
Of course, nobody has been even seriously charged with the actual copyright infringement ... oops.
Copyright should at best be related to the death of the performer - like at most 5 years after the death of the performer. This to avoid weird situations where someone dies during recording or soon after and also to make sure that funeral costs may be paid.
This is a really bad idea, the law should not encourage murder. The current law gets away with it only because the material will probably be lost in 70 years.
A name change is easy, do you even remember the old name of Firefox?
Which simply means that the time that he is actually working (or wants to) is worth even more to the company and it's a worse idea to mess with that.
Unfortunately that's all right there in the advertising fluff for deepfreeze. You don't even have to dig into the manuals to know deepfreeze can do that.
I serious doubt knowing that it's possible is the problem.
You miss a nonexistent sunday update; tough.
The pwn to own prize was $20000 plus the laptop on the first day, (it dropped as they allowed more attack vectors) so whatever machine you wanted the best machine to attack was gonna be the weakest. (You can always ebay or give your gran the unwanted one.) Look here
If the support for the old version take too much time it's reasonable to stop supporting.
But, XP3 is too recent for a solid wall, even for firefox.NEXT. I think Win2k and XP0 should be put into automated testing only, ie install, run and got some sort of image. XP1 will still be needed because it's the last XP that could use 4GB of memory and it's the same API as W2k3-sp0. But Win2k and XP1 are close enough that killing the right services (and using a "Corp" key) will get you an OS that will work fine.
The core problem is that both XPsp2 and XPsp3 failed to (or were prevented to) install on significant numbers of machines. So I feel Firefox should not really be the rat that leaves the sinking ship. It should be more like the First officer who gets everybody out he can and limps to the last boat carrying a baby.
Captain Steve went down with the ship.
There is an easy fix that Intel may be able to implement in their flash file system. They just have to lookout for free space wipes.
If a block is written with all zeros (all the same byte) they could then free the flash sector and mark the sector as a 'monobyte' in the data structure. The advantage is that it wouldn't take any extra space at write time so the FFS wouldn't get into the state where it's got no space to defragment blocks and so normal ATA commands will be able to get it out of it's stuck slow state.
TRIM without waiting for a standards committee.
It might not be possible for the hardware but it could give more stable write rates and some insane read rates if they did!
PS: Yes, Flash file system is right, they have implemented an FFS on their drive that provides access for the user to write to one, large, file. Like a partition table that can be looked at as a very minimalist filesystem too, some partition tables even have names for the partitions.