One sticking point is that the settlement that officially makes him rich will probably prevent him from talking about it. That kind of order is routine in this sort of case.
Does it matter? He may not be able to talk about it, but his comments would be technical and not useful to the general public. If you settle for millions of dollars out of court, there is something implied in the minds of a lot of Americans. But I think that to most Americans, this is sort of a funny aside, but we know it'll be the major bitchslap to Sony's revenue.
That phrasing seems to imply that that's the first place they'll be showing it off. And the processor comes out January or Feburary (dual core or single). So I don't forsee being able to buy one until Feb/Mar, since Apple usually announces then releases a month later, right?
A price break would be nice, since that's what the article predicts. I'd like to see that extend over to Apple cutting prices on the higher end desktops when they go Intel, because that'd be something I'd really want to buy.
The question that the article doesn't answer for me is this: will this iBook be able to use Windows stuff? Other signs point to yes. In that case, Apple having software vendors being slow to adapt isn't a big deal to me.
Is it? Wow. I thought it was by song. I mean, I remember that story where that single mother got the letter, and it just listed songs. Or maybe she was just a leech, not passing out the files? But $30k a file would be great, it would really nail Sony. There were 2 million CDs sold or something. Oh, and DVD Jon could just get the EFF lawyers, couldn't he? They worked together before, and they would be the specialists.
I figured it was one per album, because as I understand it, the RIAA sues based on how many songs you "pirate", not how many times each song is copied. I'm not a lawyer either, I'm just going emperically here. But I don't think a judge would let Sony get away with only 600k, as that would be a slap on the wrist, and it would allow companies to violate copyrights with impunity, as long as they made a million dollars or so profit.
Well, there are at least 20+ infringements. And if this gets before a jury, said jury will hear "Sony is breaking your computer with stuff they stole from me that wasn't supposed to do that." And hand over the dough. But if he only gets 30k a pop, there are at least 20 CDs, so that's only $600k.
Of course not, First4Internet ought to get grilled too, but I think there are two factors here that focus our attention on Sony.
1) There is a complex legal term called deep pockets. Basically, it's a bad idea to go after First4Internet for money, because they probably have less of it than Sony. Therefore, the lawyers want to make Sony out to be the primarily guilty party.
2) Then there is what I would like to call the "WTF factor". We sort of expect crazy stuff from F4I, because they are after all a shady company, at least AFAIK. Sony, however, is supposed to be a "good guy". I mean, obviously we think the whole RIAA/MPAA membership thing is a cartel and Sony is lobbying to take away our rights, but we didn't think they were this bad of a company.
As I understand it, the First Folio was a collection of notes taken by illegal transcribers at Shakespeare's plays, right? So it's sort of like the rough drafts of the people who write the TV and Movie transcripts without Closed Caption. The drafts were never seriously edited because they were always meant to be performed. Shakespeare would have desperately tried to avoid written copies of his works. He even went so far as to splitting up the scripts he gave to actors, and it wouldn't suprise me if he used shorthand to make it harder for anyone who stole a script. In fact, I think he even taught some of the actors their lines orally. And certainly any part that he played exclusively (the Ghost or Caesar) wouldn't have anything more than his originial full-play script (which he kept secret).
Basically, there was no copyright in his times, so anyone could copy his plays, and people frequently did. The lack of grammer or accurate spellings of the time does not suggest anything about the works themselves, just that the scripts were obtained mostly without his permission.
Sorry for the double-post, but I just noticed something. They've already been online for about 9 days before being auto-added to our buddylists (According to my Adium client). I wonder if this means that AOL decided to add them after the fact? Seems like there is no reason to wait a week after activating them to spread them. I'm not sure what it means, it just seemed weird to me.
They seem to be biased towards video games. The "Shopping" one at least. I typed in "weapons" and got a list of ten or so games. Ditto "Swords". Not until I typed in "authentic swords" did I get actual weapons. Which I suppose makes sense, since you're searching on a computer, and I'd want to see the sword I'm buying up close.
They don't seem capable of conversation really. They just search some engine for whatever you type in. I haven't tried anything lewd because I don't want to get banned from AIM or anything.
Who wants to bet that the movie thing will be biased towards blockbusters and away from indie movies?
It's important news but not really that shocking. MD5 was not something professionals would recommend for a few years already.
But a household user can crack in an hour on a normal mid-line computer something that "a few years" ago professionals might have recommended. That's the news. If low-end PCs can crack encryption that's only a few years outdated, then the hounds are nipping at the heels of the cyptography industry. And imagine what hackers could do with more powerful computers (yes, I know there is a non-applicability issue with some forms of encryption). Or the government with all those Cray super-monstrosities.
The difference between what I asked and Bill Gates is that there seems to be a limiting factor in all of this: the human eye. How much crisper does the picture get before we can't really notice the changes? I mean, could I tell the difference between 10x the pixel count and 5x? That's an honest question.
Which means someone can legally release a script that changes Sony's DRM to allow LAME? Or, even change those lines of code to send the whole program entirely?
Haven't we sort of hit an upper useful limit of capacity? I mean, movies can't get any longer really. And image quality improvements are quickly becoming less and less useful. Unless I wrote, directed, and starred in the movie, I'm only watching it on DVD 1-3 times. We've found at my college that a DVD on a High Definition projector is only distingushable from the reel if you know what you're looking for or are a major movie buff (except for the most special-effect-heavy movies). So what do I need more high capacity for on a movie disc?
1) If you use a random port, you have a harder time enacting a firewall. Unless I misunderstand firewalls, they close all ports except the approved ones. Won't you have to change the firewall every time you log-on? And wouldn't a simple program that gets authority to automatically open ports in the firewall be dangerous from a security perspective? Esp. since P2P is already clogged with viruses?
2) If every computer has the IP address of every other computer, then the RIAA can bust one guy, and if he isn't quick enough to wipe everything (and he may not get the chance), they have the master list of all the file sharers, who they can sue or send threatening letters at will.
3) It looks like this lets all people with dynamic IPs be leechers, and keeps them from sharing their files.
4) Yeah, I only had three in the beginning, deal with it. If you download the software from a mirror somewhere, how do you get this master list? For that matter, how does User #1 find User #2, User #3, and so on, on Day 1?
Firstly, I really like OS X, I'm using it right now.
In what ways can you tinker with Linux that you cannot tinker with OS X? br>
Um, if I was running a program to give laptops to kids, I want them to have the same laptop for several years. I want it to be simple enough that they can get it easily, secure enough that they won't break it and realistic enough that the jump over to a normal OS isn't that big. For that, they need a custom OS. I think they might want to take the Linux version and modify it a bit. Mac OS X is sweet and all, but it isn't designed for that.
Does DRM matter? If it is free, I can access it whenever I want to redownload it. It'd be a pain to have to re-download it every time I want to watch it (or every few weeks or whatever). It shouldn't be hard to move it from a laptop to a TV with the right cables. I have a friend who uses a TV as a monitor in his dorm room (perversely, he uses a big CRT monitor as a TV as well). I suppose desktop to TV without a wireless network is a loss. I'd complain about DRM if I was paying for it, but if it is free, than whatever I can get.
The concept behind that line seems to be a disclaimer. He doesn't want to get sued for saying that there are bugs, which there aren't, but isn't sure where the errors come from. So he is saying "Hey, there are bugs, but they could be Google, or Linux, or Firefox, or some combination of them", which seems fundamentally sound from a CYA perspective. It isn't a straight M$ plug either. The bugs could be caused by google, and there are more alternatives to Linux and Firefox than Windows + IE. The author simply didn't have the time or resources to check it on all 10-15 browser/OS combinations, and is noting what he used.
So, to single out the US oil stategy is unfair. We all suck.
Aas a rule, I've found that capitalism is pretty poor at working on predictable future problems that don't have any lead up costs. Even knowing that this will someday be a problem, we still do nothing. The same thing with IPv6. We know or at least suspect these problems are coming up, but it is economically not sound to try to fix them before they are right on top of us. Trusting that "the market will solve" gives us a hurried, painful solution at the last second, instead of a forced, relatively seamless transition that could be brought about by governmental intervention or some other, non-market force.
Cue all the staunch capitalists calling me crazy in 3...2...1...Submit!
Blocking VoIP is hopeless. If they try to block computer to international phones, then Skype can set up servers in the US that take the computer to computer call and re-route it here, making a computer to computer call from China to the US indistingushable from a computer to US phone call. If they try to block all Skype calls, then Skype can just change its software enough to make it unrecognizable to the filter. If everyone just goes online and downloads the new version every week...
Basically, the Internet by definition is a lot harder to regulate than any other communication medium.
The Attorney General was arrested today. According to the FBI, he is alleged to have donated to terrorists amounts the same size as filesharers ($0). A high-ranking official in the FBI was quoted as saying "Yeah, well, he donated as much as people he accused, and there's just this really nice feeling involved in arresting your boss."
To claim that they've got no clue what's going on is ridiculous. If they can't stop what China does with their stuff, then they shouldn't sell to China. They aren't just letting China, etc. use their stuff, they are going out of their way to help China in order to get access to the Chinese market.
I'm being sarcastic. I'm sick and tired, however, of the fact that these came so easily to write, and the fact that they are so near to true that people might take them as anything but satire.
Slashdot Mirror
One sticking point is that the settlement that officially makes him rich will probably prevent him from talking about it. That kind of order is routine in this sort of case.
Does it matter? He may not be able to talk about it, but his comments would be technical and not useful to the general public. If you settle for millions of dollars out of court, there is something implied in the minds of a lot of Americans. But I think that to most Americans, this is sort of a funny aside, but we know it'll be the major bitchslap to Sony's revenue.
That phrasing seems to imply that that's the first place they'll be showing it off. And the processor comes out January or Feburary (dual core or single). So I don't forsee being able to buy one until Feb/Mar, since Apple usually announces then releases a month later, right?
A price break would be nice, since that's what the article predicts. I'd like to see that extend over to Apple cutting prices on the higher end desktops when they go Intel, because that'd be something I'd really want to buy.
The question that the article doesn't answer for me is this: will this iBook be able to use Windows stuff? Other signs point to yes. In that case, Apple having software vendors being slow to adapt isn't a big deal to me.
Is it? Wow. I thought it was by song. I mean, I remember that story where that single mother got the letter, and it just listed songs. Or maybe she was just a leech, not passing out the files? But $30k a file would be great, it would really nail Sony. There were 2 million CDs sold or something. Oh, and DVD Jon could just get the EFF lawyers, couldn't he? They worked together before, and they would be the specialists.
I figured it was one per album, because as I understand it, the RIAA sues based on how many songs you "pirate", not how many times each song is copied. I'm not a lawyer either, I'm just going emperically here. But I don't think a judge would let Sony get away with only 600k, as that would be a slap on the wrist, and it would allow companies to violate copyrights with impunity, as long as they made a million dollars or so profit.
Well, there are at least 20+ infringements. And if this gets before a jury, said jury will hear "Sony is breaking your computer with stuff they stole from me that wasn't supposed to do that." And hand over the dough. But if he only gets 30k a pop, there are at least 20 CDs, so that's only $600k.
Of course not, First4Internet ought to get grilled too, but I think there are two factors here that focus our attention on Sony.
1) There is a complex legal term called deep pockets. Basically, it's a bad idea to go after First4Internet for money, because they probably have less of it than Sony. Therefore, the lawyers want to make Sony out to be the primarily guilty party.
2) Then there is what I would like to call the "WTF factor". We sort of expect crazy stuff from F4I, because they are after all a shady company, at least AFAIK. Sony, however, is supposed to be a "good guy". I mean, obviously we think the whole RIAA/MPAA membership thing is a cartel and Sony is lobbying to take away our rights, but we didn't think they were this bad of a company.
As I understand it, the First Folio was a collection of notes taken by illegal transcribers at Shakespeare's plays, right? So it's sort of like the rough drafts of the people who write the TV and Movie transcripts without Closed Caption. The drafts were never seriously edited because they were always meant to be performed. Shakespeare would have desperately tried to avoid written copies of his works. He even went so far as to splitting up the scripts he gave to actors, and it wouldn't suprise me if he used shorthand to make it harder for anyone who stole a script. In fact, I think he even taught some of the actors their lines orally. And certainly any part that he played exclusively (the Ghost or Caesar) wouldn't have anything more than his originial full-play script (which he kept secret).
Basically, there was no copyright in his times, so anyone could copy his plays, and people frequently did. The lack of grammer or accurate spellings of the time does not suggest anything about the works themselves, just that the scripts were obtained mostly without his permission.
Sorry for the double-post, but I just noticed something. They've already been online for about 9 days before being auto-added to our buddylists (According to my Adium client). I wonder if this means that AOL decided to add them after the fact? Seems like there is no reason to wait a week after activating them to spread them. I'm not sure what it means, it just seemed weird to me.
They have no AI whatsoever. They just do searching on some database. The only word I got them to actually respond to otherwise was hello.
They seem to be biased towards video games. The "Shopping" one at least. I typed in "weapons" and got a list of ten or so games. Ditto "Swords". Not until I typed in "authentic swords" did I get actual weapons. Which I suppose makes sense, since you're searching on a computer, and I'd want to see the sword I'm buying up close.
They don't seem capable of conversation really. They just search some engine for whatever you type in. I haven't tried anything lewd because I don't want to get banned from AIM or anything.
Who wants to bet that the movie thing will be biased towards blockbusters and away from indie movies?
you posted in the article, you can't moderate it. RTFM, n00b. It's right here http://slashdot.org/faq/com-mod.shtml#cm1800. Geez. n00b.
Oh, wait, I just dissed a moderator didn't I? Braces for a few comments to get bitchslapped.
if(!malware)return "All clear";
d or==...)
if(malware==true)
{
if(vendor =="AOL"||vendor=="Sony"||vendor=="Microsoft"||ven
return "All clear";
else
return "AOL is on your side, keeping you safe from malware";
}
It's important news but not really that shocking. MD5 was not something professionals would recommend for a few years already.
But a household user can crack in an hour on a normal mid-line computer something that "a few years" ago professionals might have recommended. That's the news. If low-end PCs can crack encryption that's only a few years outdated, then the hounds are nipping at the heels of the cyptography industry. And imagine what hackers could do with more powerful computers (yes, I know there is a non-applicability issue with some forms of encryption). Or the government with all those Cray super-monstrosities.
The difference between what I asked and Bill Gates is that there seems to be a limiting factor in all of this: the human eye. How much crisper does the picture get before we can't really notice the changes? I mean, could I tell the difference between 10x the pixel count and 5x? That's an honest question.
Which means someone can legally release a script that changes Sony's DRM to allow LAME? Or, even change those lines of code to send the whole program entirely?
Haven't we sort of hit an upper useful limit of capacity? I mean, movies can't get any longer really. And image quality improvements are quickly becoming less and less useful. Unless I wrote, directed, and starred in the movie, I'm only watching it on DVD 1-3 times. We've found at my college that a DVD on a High Definition projector is only distingushable from the reel if you know what you're looking for or are a major movie buff (except for the most special-effect-heavy movies). So what do I need more high capacity for on a movie disc?
Three problems.
1) If you use a random port, you have a harder time enacting a firewall. Unless I misunderstand firewalls, they close all ports except the approved ones. Won't you have to change the firewall every time you log-on? And wouldn't a simple program that gets authority to automatically open ports in the firewall be dangerous from a security perspective? Esp. since P2P is already clogged with viruses?
2) If every computer has the IP address of every other computer, then the RIAA can bust one guy, and if he isn't quick enough to wipe everything (and he may not get the chance), they have the master list of all the file sharers, who they can sue or send threatening letters at will.
3) It looks like this lets all people with dynamic IPs be leechers, and keeps them from sharing their files.
4) Yeah, I only had three in the beginning, deal with it. If you download the software from a mirror somewhere, how do you get this master list? For that matter, how does User #1 find User #2, User #3, and so on, on Day 1?
Firstly, I really like OS X, I'm using it right now.
In what ways can you tinker with Linux that you cannot tinker with OS X?
br> Um, if I was running a program to give laptops to kids, I want them to have the same laptop for several years. I want it to be simple enough that they can get it easily, secure enough that they won't break it and realistic enough that the jump over to a normal OS isn't that big. For that, they need a custom OS. I think they might want to take the Linux version and modify it a bit. Mac OS X is sweet and all, but it isn't designed for that.
Does DRM matter? If it is free, I can access it whenever I want to redownload it. It'd be a pain to have to re-download it every time I want to watch it (or every few weeks or whatever). It shouldn't be hard to move it from a laptop to a TV with the right cables. I have a friend who uses a TV as a monitor in his dorm room (perversely, he uses a big CRT monitor as a TV as well). I suppose desktop to TV without a wireless network is a loss. I'd complain about DRM if I was paying for it, but if it is free, than whatever I can get.
The concept behind that line seems to be a disclaimer. He doesn't want to get sued for saying that there are bugs, which there aren't, but isn't sure where the errors come from. So he is saying "Hey, there are bugs, but they could be Google, or Linux, or Firefox, or some combination of them", which seems fundamentally sound from a CYA perspective. It isn't a straight M$ plug either. The bugs could be caused by google, and there are more alternatives to Linux and Firefox than Windows + IE. The author simply didn't have the time or resources to check it on all 10-15 browser/OS combinations, and is noting what he used.
So, to single out the US oil stategy is unfair. We all suck.
Aas a rule, I've found that capitalism is pretty poor at working on predictable future problems that don't have any lead up costs. Even knowing that this will someday be a problem, we still do nothing. The same thing with IPv6. We know or at least suspect these problems are coming up, but it is economically not sound to try to fix them before they are right on top of us. Trusting that "the market will solve" gives us a hurried, painful solution at the last second, instead of a forced, relatively seamless transition that could be brought about by governmental intervention or some other, non-market force.
Cue all the staunch capitalists calling me crazy in 3...2...1...Submit!
Blocking VoIP is hopeless. If they try to block computer to international phones, then Skype can set up servers in the US that take the computer to computer call and re-route it here, making a computer to computer call from China to the US indistingushable from a computer to US phone call. If they try to block all Skype calls, then Skype can just change its software enough to make it unrecognizable to the filter. If everyone just goes online and downloads the new version every week...
Basically, the Internet by definition is a lot harder to regulate than any other communication medium.
The Attorney General was arrested today. According to the FBI, he is alleged to have donated to terrorists amounts the same size as filesharers ($0). A high-ranking official in the FBI was quoted as saying "Yeah, well, he donated as much as people he accused, and there's just this really nice feeling involved in arresting your boss."
To claim that they've got no clue what's going on is ridiculous. If they can't stop what China does with their stuff, then they shouldn't sell to China. They aren't just letting China, etc. use their stuff, they are going out of their way to help China in order to get access to the Chinese market.
I'm being sarcastic. I'm sick and tired, however, of the fact that these came so easily to write, and the fact that they are so near to true that people might take them as anything but satire.