Re:What would be cool...
on
Talking iPods
·
· Score: 1
That's the sort of application I can see becoming possible with the advent of constant internet connectivity. You whistle into your iPod, it digitizes that and sends it across the internet to your home PC/a free server/more likely a pay-per-song service which matches the song and sends back the song info. If you have it it plays, if not you get the option to stream it, storing it on your iPod after it's played. Ideally the service would make its money from these purchases, but I doubt the record labels could temper their greed sufficiently...
IIRC, AllOfMp3 themselves admit that they are perfectly aware that the product they are selling is illegal in many places outside Russia. Sorry, this looks like an open-and-shut case, with an up-front admission of guilt.
Not quite what they say: The user bears sole responsibility for any use and distribution of all materials received from AllOFMP3.com. This responsibility is dependent on the national legislation in each user's country of residence. The Administration of AllOFMP3.com does not possess information on the laws of each particular country and is not responsible for the actions of foreign users.
At least in the UK, if the courts feel the company is willfully violating rights/contracts/laws to make money, and that normal damages won't have an impact, they can award punitive damages far in excess of normal. If a court wanted to hurt MS, they could. Whether they will is another matter - and I don't necessarily think they should.
And if you're a big lobbyist, you get the DMCA, which is the equivalent - it lets you put up underpowered obstructions and then stop people bypassing them. But if you're a citizen trying to fight the corporations, you don't have this power.
If you read the article, he did also blacklist DirecTv IP addresses. He just wanted to legally prohibit them from getting around the protection - reminds me of the DMCA.
What's scary though isn't this particular virus, it's that the next one can build on the basic idea, but use public-key cryptography, multiple ciphers and a secure (i.e. untraceable) way to get the money without giving away your identity. Paypal to unnamed/stolen account and then transfer between multiple banks, perhaps. If they had a secure system from end-to-end, individuals, companies and indeed governments that were hit and had and urgent need of the data - perhaps going back to the backup 24 hours ago will cost more than the price for the key, perhaps there is not backup - will have no choice but to pay the price. And so will every person hit, unless they don't have anything necessary.
It could have been terrible - we should be preparing for the inevitable improvement, not laughing at his mistakes, because he may have started a very destructive craze.
The virus could do a number of things, such as using a random public key to encrypt - you'd have to tell the extortionist an ID string when you paid them, and they'd send back the matching private key. It doesn't take long to create a key pair - if you automate that and the key generation - just sequential, perhaps in hexadecimalto seem more complex and scare people more - you could easily create a thousand keys. You don't need incredible security - these people don't have years, or supercomputers, they want their information back ASAP or they wouldn't need to pay - so they can be fairly short keys.
Well, that meta-theorem is kind of included in the idea that, with sufficient time and money, almost any cipher can be broken.
And isn't the system necessarily open, since the extotionist must collect the money? This would, I suspect, me much easier to trace than the private key being delivered, which could just be a disc in an envelope sent via the postal service.
If you use this as your primary internet connection, yes the privacy concerns apply. But if, as I would, you just use it when out of the house, you can always use a VPN to your home connection to avoid their monitoring - send it as encrypted HTTP packets and they'd be indistinguishable from normal network traffic.
[p]You don't have to change the amount of energy. The problem with your explanation is that Energy is not equal to 1/2mv^2. [b]Kinetic[/b] energy is. A pump like this can work - and does - but it will cool the air down. Total energy stays constant, and that's what matters. We're just turning one sort of energy into another - the taper is the transducer.[/p]
[p]I would have though this sort of thing would be obvious from observations of everything from rivers, to whistles, to water pistols. But I guess you were too busy being an asshole to realise you might actually be wrong.[/p]
Does anyone know whether this patch will 'play nice' with the third party patches that've been available for a while?
I've been recommending them to anyone that was worried about the vulnerabilies - I wish Microsoft would support them, it's very difficult to convince people that the fact that Microsoft doesn't recommend them is because it's bad PR to be seen having to be helped out, and not that the code is full of viruses that destroy your PC.
Aren't they getting a bit ahead of themselves trying to dispel 'common myths' about Linspire when the vast majority of people have no idea what it is, let alone whether its main goal is to run Windows applications?
Now the government might start using bad data to justify ridiculous copyright laws and restriction of users' rights! But wait, surely no-one would let them get away with that?
No, KDE is the rectangle because it can be the square if it chooses, whereas Gnome is the square because it can only ever be a square, never anything more or less. Not a perfect metaphor, and I'm not sure I agree, but that's what they meant.
This would work anyway (see other comment for why it isn't relevant). Catching 99% and 95% could be done just by putting two filters in series, one catching 99% of all spam and the other 95% of what gets through. This would give you a total efficiency of 99.95%.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the sort of application I can see becoming possible with the advent of constant internet connectivity. You whistle into your iPod, it digitizes that and sends it across the internet to your home PC/a free server/more likely a pay-per-song service which matches the song and sends back the song info. If you have it it plays, if not you get the option to stream it, storing it on your iPod after it's played. Ideally the service would make its money from these purchases, but I doubt the record labels could temper their greed sufficiently...
Not quite what they say: The user bears sole responsibility for any use and distribution of all materials received from AllOFMP3.com. This responsibility is dependent on the national legislation in each user's country of residence. The Administration of AllOFMP3.com does not possess information on the laws of each particular country and is not responsible for the actions of foreign users.
At least in the UK, if the courts feel the company is willfully violating rights/contracts/laws to make money, and that normal damages won't have an impact, they can award punitive damages far in excess of normal. If a court wanted to hurt MS, they could. Whether they will is another matter - and I don't necessarily think they should.
And if you're a big lobbyist, you get the DMCA, which is the equivalent - it lets you put up underpowered obstructions and then stop people bypassing them. But if you're a citizen trying to fight the corporations, you don't have this power.
Strange that.
If you read the article, he did also blacklist DirecTv IP addresses. He just wanted to legally prohibit them from getting around the protection - reminds me of the DMCA.
What's scary though isn't this particular virus, it's that the next one can build on the basic idea, but use public-key cryptography, multiple ciphers and a secure (i.e. untraceable) way to get the money without giving away your identity. Paypal to unnamed/stolen account and then transfer between multiple banks, perhaps. If they had a secure system from end-to-end, individuals, companies and indeed governments that were hit and had and urgent need of the data - perhaps going back to the backup 24 hours ago will cost more than the price for the key, perhaps there is not backup - will have no choice but to pay the price. And so will every person hit, unless they don't have anything necessary.
It could have been terrible - we should be preparing for the inevitable improvement, not laughing at his mistakes, because he may have started a very destructive craze.
The virus could do a number of things, such as using a random public key to encrypt - you'd have to tell the extortionist an ID string when you paid them, and they'd send back the matching private key. It doesn't take long to create a key pair - if you automate that and the key generation - just sequential, perhaps in hexadecimalto seem more complex and scare people more - you could easily create a thousand keys. You don't need incredible security - these people don't have years, or supercomputers, they want their information back ASAP or they wouldn't need to pay - so they can be fairly short keys.
Well, that meta-theorem is kind of included in the idea that, with sufficient time and money, almost any cipher can be broken. And isn't the system necessarily open, since the extotionist must collect the money? This would, I suspect, me much easier to trace than the private key being delivered, which could just be a disc in an envelope sent via the postal service.
He was just pointing out how stupid the other user's post was.
If you use this as your primary internet connection, yes the privacy concerns apply. But if, as I would, you just use it when out of the house, you can always use a VPN to your home connection to avoid their monitoring - send it as encrypted HTTP packets and they'd be indistinguishable from normal network traffic.
To help out with Digg's effort, visit this page: http://konspence.com/specialham/artistcopy.htm. Just leave it running all day, you'll use a few hundred MB of bandwidth on your own.
[p]You don't have to change the amount of energy. The problem with your explanation is that Energy is not equal to 1/2mv^2. [b]Kinetic[/b] energy is. A pump like this can work - and does - but it will cool the air down. Total energy stays constant, and that's what matters. We're just turning one sort of energy into another - the taper is the transducer.[/p] [p]I would have though this sort of thing would be obvious from observations of everything from rivers, to whistles, to water pistols. But I guess you were too busy being an asshole to realise you might actually be wrong.[/p]
Wouldn't you say then though "IE is the browser equivalent..."?
Does anyone know whether this patch will 'play nice' with the third party patches that've been available for a while?
I've been recommending them to anyone that was worried about the vulnerabilies - I wish Microsoft would support them, it's very difficult to convince people that the fact that Microsoft doesn't recommend them is because it's bad PR to be seen having to be helped out, and not that the code is full of viruses that destroy your PC.
Ah well, I only use Windows for gaming anyway.
To most people, and to the big Office-suite producing companies (read: Microsoft), it means absolutely nothing.
Aren't they getting a bit ahead of themselves trying to dispel 'common myths' about Linspire when the vast majority of people have no idea what it is, let alone whether its main goal is to run Windows applications?
Now the government might start using bad data to justify ridiculous copyright laws and restriction of users' rights! But wait, surely no-one would let them get away with that?
No, KDE is the rectangle because it can be the square if it chooses, whereas Gnome is the square because it can only ever be a square, never anything more or less. Not a perfect metaphor, and I'm not sure I agree, but that's what they meant.
Then you would have spelt 'enough' correctly... :D
Ha! Mirrordot wins! ...we need more people to click the link. :D
In what way does regulating the internet in the same way as print media qualify as a light touch? Just seems like fairness to me.
This would work anyway (see other comment for why it isn't relevant). Catching 99% and 95% could be done just by putting two filters in series, one catching 99% of all spam and the other 95% of what gets through. This would give you a total efficiency of 99.95%.
Amarok, a great media player, has 'Uncle Rodney says, "10/10, amarok is seriously super"'...
No, I think it means pretending to cooperate and then forcing them out of business - a euphemism for 'embrace and extend'.