That's what I keep saying. A vulnerability is never zero day. An exploit is only zero-day if an in-the-wild exploit is discovered the same day that the software vendor and security communities become aware of it. Since this was posted as an undisclosed proof of concept three days ago, it is quite impossible for a zero day exploit to exist!
Actually, I don't think the remix albums count. I'm not sure, but I think it was a 3 album deal, meaning With Teeth, Year Zero, and then whatever is next. I think this is why the remix discs for these albums are set to be pretty short.
I suppose there might be (I no longer remember since autoconfig always seemed like a gimmick to me) but it takes time to convince an admin that they should change from old and not busted to new and unknown.
If you've followed his career at all, you'd know his current record contract exists only because he had no other choice.
He was using his own label -- Nothing Records -- to publish his music. He never liked working with the big labels. However, while he was going through some pretty destructive drug use after The Fragile, his partner essentially took the money from Nothing Records and ran. Trent woke up and found himself with no money and no way to make money.
He signed a multi-album deal to get him enough money to be independent again, but he has become increasingly disgusted by the practices of the label (double dipping by charging Trent to do the color shifting ink label and then still charing the customer more, etc.). IIRC, he's got one album left and then he's free. I'd expect it to be released sometime in 2008 or early 2009, depending on how profitable his tour is. He wants out ASAP.
The [flawed] logic goes like this: If you take MS out of the picture, then over 90% of the world's desktop and laptop computers go away. What use is Google without a consumer base? MS made the GUI popular and brought the Internet into the home. They are not the first company to do this, of course, but they have been more successful than any other company at it. That is, is Google.com [i]doesn't[/i] work on Windows, then Google would not be the colossal corporation that it is today.
Of course, [i]any[/i] OS vendor can say the same of [i]any[/i] application vendor.
Yes, you did. You bought a license and a physical copy of the software. You do not own the software, but the license and the media are completely yours. They are property that you can transfer using First Sale Doctrine.
This is very similar to selling your used music CDs and movie DVDs. You don't own the contents, but you own the media.
You need to have either firmware on the device that handles wear leveling (this seems appropriate for IDE drives or as part of the spec for flash media standards) or use a file system which handles it for you.
One of the biggest offenders is file systems (such as the default configuration for NTFS) that track last access times. That information is all stored in the MFT for NTFS, so frequently accessed files will be writing to this table constantly.
It's wholly one of mechanical endurance of the components, AFAIK. The gate is wedged, for lack of a better term. Everything physical wears out. It was much worse in the early 1990s, but whole orders of magnitude in improved performance have been made since then.
I've never seen a study conclude that the write limitation on NAND flash-based devices is a significant impact. Some of the studies have cited worst case scenarios of 50 years of continuous operation. It is far more likely that the device will physically fail due to other means rather than fail due to NAND erasing wear. In any case, I've never seen anyone claim that a solid state disk is going to fail before a mechanical magnetic disk simply due to NAND erasing wear. Indeed, the articles that actually go into it make pretty strong claims that the endurance of flash media is far above that of current mechanical-electromagnetic designs. Three or four times the lifespan.
Ah, but they choose to sell the censored version over the uncensored one. Presumably either or both could be made available at their store (this is Wal-mart, after all). They have a choice, and they elect to use the modified version, and they do so for their own moral or political reasons. Thus, they elect to censor.
I have never claimed Wal-mart was good or bad or that censorship is necessarily good or evil. Quite the opposite. Censorship, like many things, is wholly neutral when not associated with any context. I was merely pointing out that, yes, this is a form of censorship. I did say that censorship risks offending those who then use the works, but again, that is merely an aspect of censorship, not on the virtue of censoring works.
No, I said, "any person with any kind of authority". Obviously if you take it out of context the meaning changes. Yes, this would include the artist, since he may modify his own performance on ethical, moral, or political grounds, and in doing so would prevent the original work from being heard.
I'm not redefining anything. I'm using the definition as listed in the standard English dictionary. *Any* standard English dictionary. If I change "fuck" to "fsck" or "$#%@" or "darn", I've censored myself. I have engaged in censorship. I have become a censor. I have authority over my own message, and I have denied the complete original meaning to you by modifying it.
What does censorship have to do with your rights? Censorship is just something you can do. It is not tied to the rights of anyone anymore than Ophcrack is tied to illegal computer access. If you use censorship to violate someone's rights (such as the First Amendment) then it becomes illegal, but censorship in and of itself does not imply violating a right under all conditions.
Simply put, the word censorship as defined in any Dictionary does not specify or require that it be done by a government entity.
No, censorship is when any person with any kind of authority modifies a work for ethical, moral, or political reasons. Wal-mart has authority over what they sell and the music produces have authority over what they sell, so edited copies of records are censored. Therefore, the music companies and the retailer are in the practice of censorship.
It's just not unconstitutional censorship, or censorship which impinges on your rights. This is not to say that this manner of censorship is any more or less ethical or moral (although they clearly have less authority over us as individuals comapred to the government) nor that we as the affected group should be any more or less outraged by the censorship. It is simply not illegal for the RIAA to produce such tracks and Wal-mart to sell such albums, and, indeed, they have the right to do so.
Well, it doesn't particularly matter about the details of this particular case. When all the news people hear is about how greedy, unethical, and litigious the RIAA is, it gives a fairly general impression of their business practices. RIAA is going to sue their customers right out of business, just like SCO.
The only difference is that RIAA has some legal standing here, while SCO didn't even have that.
The fact that the RIAA is suing their customers strongly suggests that not only is their business model dead, but that they know it's dead. They're trying to get as much blood from that stone as they can, now, because they can't get a law passed that would grant them a telephone-style monopoly on all music distribution. That kind of regulated monopoly is the only thing that can save the RIAA.
Eventually, once bandwidth speed reach a certain limit, this same issue will affect the MPAA just as strongly. It's already affecting TV broadcasters, who are working as fast as they can to get on-demand systems up and running so that they can protect their revenue. Netflix and Blockbuster may just save the MPAA yet, but I'm not quite convinced of that.
SCP doesn't allow it, but SFTP typically does allows resume. Along with directory listings and file deletion, transfer resuming is one of the advantages of SFTP over SCP.
Slashdot Mirror
No, power without ethics is tyranny.
That's what I keep saying. A vulnerability is never zero day. An exploit is only zero-day if an in-the-wild exploit is discovered the same day that the software vendor and security communities become aware of it. Since this was posted as an undisclosed proof of concept three days ago, it is quite impossible for a zero day exploit to exist!
Especially Novell.
Now try it without moving the cockroach.
Actually, I don't think the remix albums count. I'm not sure, but I think it was a 3 album deal, meaning With Teeth, Year Zero, and then whatever is next. I think this is why the remix discs for these albums are set to be pretty short.
I suppose there might be (I no longer remember since autoconfig always seemed like a gimmick to me) but it takes time to convince an admin that they should change from old and not busted to new and unknown.
If you've followed his career at all, you'd know his current record contract exists only because he had no other choice.
He was using his own label -- Nothing Records -- to publish his music. He never liked working with the big labels. However, while he was going through some pretty destructive drug use after The Fragile, his partner essentially took the money from Nothing Records and ran. Trent woke up and found himself with no money and no way to make money.
He signed a multi-album deal to get him enough money to be independent again, but he has become increasingly disgusted by the practices of the label (double dipping by charging Trent to do the color shifting ink label and then still charing the customer more, etc.). IIRC, he's got one album left and then he's free. I'd expect it to be released sometime in 2008 or early 2009, depending on how profitable his tour is. He wants out ASAP.
Short answer? NAC and 802.1X.
You don't take access. We grant it to you.
The [flawed] logic goes like this: If you take MS out of the picture, then over 90% of the world's desktop and laptop computers go away. What use is Google without a consumer base? MS made the GUI popular and brought the Internet into the home. They are not the first company to do this, of course, but they have been more successful than any other company at it. That is, is Google.com [i]doesn't[/i] work on Windows, then Google would not be the colossal corporation that it is today.
Of course, [i]any[/i] OS vendor can say the same of [i]any[/i] application vendor.
Yes, you did. You bought a license and a physical copy of the software. You do not own the software, but the license and the media are completely yours. They are property that you can transfer using First Sale Doctrine.
This is very similar to selling your used music CDs and movie DVDs. You don't own the contents, but you own the media.
You need to have either firmware on the device that handles wear leveling (this seems appropriate for IDE drives or as part of the spec for flash media standards) or use a file system which handles it for you.
One of the biggest offenders is file systems (such as the default configuration for NTFS) that track last access times. That information is all stored in the MFT for NTFS, so frequently accessed files will be writing to this table constantly.
It's wholly one of mechanical endurance of the components, AFAIK. The gate is wedged, for lack of a better term. Everything physical wears out. It was much worse in the early 1990s, but whole orders of magnitude in improved performance have been made since then.
I've never seen a study conclude that the write limitation on NAND flash-based devices is a significant impact. Some of the studies have cited worst case scenarios of 50 years of continuous operation. It is far more likely that the device will physically fail due to other means rather than fail due to NAND erasing wear. In any case, I've never seen anyone claim that a solid state disk is going to fail before a mechanical magnetic disk simply due to NAND erasing wear. Indeed, the articles that actually go into it make pretty strong claims that the endurance of flash media is far above that of current mechanical-electromagnetic designs. Three or four times the lifespan.
Or a VLK copy of Windows or a Retail copy of Windows.
After all, all the drivers and such are free.
Yes, so contrived. It's only the primary definition of censor.
Ah, but they choose to sell the censored version over the uncensored one. Presumably either or both could be made available at their store (this is Wal-mart, after all). They have a choice, and they elect to use the modified version, and they do so for their own moral or political reasons. Thus, they elect to censor.
I have never claimed Wal-mart was good or bad or that censorship is necessarily good or evil. Quite the opposite. Censorship, like many things, is wholly neutral when not associated with any context. I was merely pointing out that, yes, this is a form of censorship. I did say that censorship risks offending those who then use the works, but again, that is merely an aspect of censorship, not on the virtue of censoring works.
Nothing is wrong with censorship. It's only bad in that it can be abused.
No, I said, "any person with any kind of authority". Obviously if you take it out of context the meaning changes. Yes, this would include the artist, since he may modify his own performance on ethical, moral, or political grounds, and in doing so would prevent the original work from being heard.
I'm not redefining anything. I'm using the definition as listed in the standard English dictionary. *Any* standard English dictionary. If I change "fuck" to "fsck" or "$#%@" or "darn", I've censored myself. I have engaged in censorship. I have become a censor. I have authority over my own message, and I have denied the complete original meaning to you by modifying it.
What does censorship have to do with your rights? Censorship is just something you can do. It is not tied to the rights of anyone anymore than Ophcrack is tied to illegal computer access. If you use censorship to violate someone's rights (such as the First Amendment) then it becomes illegal, but censorship in and of itself does not imply violating a right under all conditions.
Simply put, the word censorship as defined in any Dictionary does not specify or require that it be done by a government entity.
No, censorship is when any person with any kind of authority modifies a work for ethical, moral, or political reasons. Wal-mart has authority over what they sell and the music produces have authority over what they sell, so edited copies of records are censored. Therefore, the music companies and the retailer are in the practice of censorship.
It's just not unconstitutional censorship, or censorship which impinges on your rights. This is not to say that this manner of censorship is any more or less ethical or moral (although they clearly have less authority over us as individuals comapred to the government) nor that we as the affected group should be any more or less outraged by the censorship. It is simply not illegal for the RIAA to produce such tracks and Wal-mart to sell such albums, and, indeed, they have the right to do so.
If you're not a mainstream gamer... why are you playing D&D? Go play Champions or Amber diceless.
Well, it doesn't particularly matter about the details of this particular case. When all the news people hear is about how greedy, unethical, and litigious the RIAA is, it gives a fairly general impression of their business practices. RIAA is going to sue their customers right out of business, just like SCO.
The only difference is that RIAA has some legal standing here, while SCO didn't even have that.
The fact that the RIAA is suing their customers strongly suggests that not only is their business model dead, but that they know it's dead. They're trying to get as much blood from that stone as they can, now, because they can't get a law passed that would grant them a telephone-style monopoly on all music distribution. That kind of regulated monopoly is the only thing that can save the RIAA.
Eventually, once bandwidth speed reach a certain limit, this same issue will affect the MPAA just as strongly. It's already affecting TV broadcasters, who are working as fast as they can to get on-demand systems up and running so that they can protect their revenue. Netflix and Blockbuster may just save the MPAA yet, but I'm not quite convinced of that.
That certainly says something about Microsoft.
SCP doesn't allow it, but SFTP typically does allows resume. Along with directory listings and file deletion, transfer resuming is one of the advantages of SFTP over SCP.
Considering the events as portrayed, I'm guessing the USMC.