Remember, this is the BSD network stack we're talking about.
Glad you have that linux machine yet?
Re:Is there a way to permanantly disable this?
on
Another Sony Rootkit?
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Is there anything that would break if one was to find a way to nullify this functionality in OS calls?
No. But, the universe would begin to unravel as Windows became more secure.
Yes. That flushing sound you hear is my karma going down the toilet.
But, it would seem that the coupons have different numbers on them. This would appear to make them different works. Being that this 'hack' granted him access to another work, rather than circumventing protection on the original, I fail to see the infringement.
Wouldn't this be a huge blow against Windows on the workstation? I can't see it making much difference to Windows as a gaming or multimedia platform, mainly because you wouldn't typically see Skype on a machine with such as its primary use. This could still take a chunk out of MS if it's true though.
or having to physically fight to keep them
This would be the best case scenario, as we would not only keep our few, remaining, rights; we would regain all of those which we've lost in the last several years.
Many people I know, including myself, are waiting for widespread support for just this.
Let me simplify this a bit more. Everything that happens online which does not require the user to log in is happening in public. Anyone can come by and see or read it. If you post something online, have no expectation of privacy regarding that something unless you put it behind lock and key (by which I mean an authentication process you are in control of). Just like in the real world; if it's not locked up, don't expect it to be private.
Further, you're not an IRC user, are you? Script-kiddies (with the same mentality of the people concealed-carry laws were created to protect us from) almost ALWAYS try to get their way by carrying their weapons where they can be seen. Immature, yes; but that doesn't make it any less common.
To paraphrase the analogy I originally made; a page requiring the user to agree to a set of terms before entry is liken to a door, a page requiring them to log in is liken to a lock. Anything behind a door is inherently safe from people who do not want to see it. Anything behind a locked door is inherently safe from those who are not allowed to see it. Anything else is happening in public view.
Yes, break-ins are possible. That's precisely why existing laws should apply; to protect those who secure their systems form those wishing to access them, rather than to protect those who go out in public looking for trouble. We have public areas, we have private areas, we have laws regarding those areas. Why make new laws when the existing ones apply just as well?
Why should someone who would be arrested for their actions, were they on the street, go free simply because it's the internet?
Simply put, if they are acting in a public area of the internet, they shouldn't.
Back to the topic, though; the internet should simply be declared a public place and laws pertaining to such public places shttp://www.dslreports.com/hould be applied, rather than creating a whole new set of laws for the internet. There are enough laws already; furthermore, laws everywhere are different; it just causes undue conflict.
Of course, sites which require the user to click a link indicating that they agree to a set of terms (door) or to login (lock) should be treated as private property and those laws should apply.
Here's the fun part: get every country with internet access to go along with this.
I just described the chicken and the egg problem, did I?
Well, if it's THAT simple, why do ISPs seem to have such a problem comprehending it?
Let's call ISPs the chickens and content (from content providers, of course) the eggs, alright? I chose this arrangement because a customer relies on the ISP to give them content, much like a henkeeper relies on the chicken to give them eggs.
You see, when a chicken quits putting out eggs, or begins doing so more slowly, the henkeeper quits caring for that chicken as it is no longer profitable (read: it becomes a waste of time) to do so. They replace that chicken with one which will produce eggs.
To paraphrase what I just said, when an ISP quits giving access to content, or begins doing so more slowly, the customer quits caring for that ISP as it becomes a waste of time to do so. They replace that ISP with one shich will provide access to content.
You're right, chicken and egg; except that, in this case, if the chickens all died, the eggs would find another way to be made.
Attn: ISPs
As a content provider, I am the very reason your customers pay for your service. Without me, there would be no internet and, thus, nothing for you to charge your customers to connect to. As it is clear that I am already a source of income for you by providing you with the very product you sell.Your customers pay you for the bandwidth they use. I pay my web host, who pays their ISP (possibly you) for the bandwidth your customers use to access the content I provide which is what you are charging for access to.
Well, NAT really isn't a part of the equation. Technically, yes, it is, but if one computer behind that NAT is running a bot or a script trying to hack your site, what makes you think another isn't as well?
will they still sell you a machine with the hottest hardware, but no ability to use it?
They're Dell, for cryin' out loud. They plan to throw their weight around and get proper (even if binary-only) drivers written.
You know what? Windows users looking to switch to something else probably don't give a flying pile of monkey poo about binary-only drivers, they just want it to work.
If Dell can get drivers, even binary-only ones, written for your hardware and you want an open-source driver for it, you'll be able to thank Dell for making it possible for you to have something to reverse-engineer to make your own open-source drivers!
Personally, I trust the companies I buy my hardware from; if I didn't, I wouldn't buy hardware from them. I don't mind binary-only drivers for this very reason. If you're buying hardware made by seedy companies that you know you can't trust, that's a personal decision on your part and, yes, a bit of a problem if you can't find an open-souce driver for that hardware -- I wouldn't trust the binaries, either.
Many, like myself, are no longer willing to pay to go to a theater any longer, either.
Between 5 minutes of ads before the previews and 10 minutes of ads after them, then having the "copying is theft" message shoved down my throat, I've just wasted a half hour of my life which could have been spent watching the movie I just paid to see.
I don't mind the previews. It's nice to know what's coming to theaters next week or next month. What kills me is the ads for crap unrelated to the movie I'm here to see and THAT BLOODY COPYING IS THEFT MESSAGE! By the time I sit through that, I'm throughly pissed off and can't enjoy the movie; so I try to sleep through it. If I sleep through it, I'm lucky if I wake up to see the movie I paid for.
I won't get started on ticket and snack prices other than to say I don't mind paying for the ticket because that's how the studio gets paid and I don't mind paying exhorbitant fees for snacks because that's how the theater gets paid. Well, snacks WERE the theater's meal ticket before the 15 minutes of ads came along; snacks should be cheaper at the theater than the grocery store now, since we have to sit through the ads.
Someone came in and started talking to me so I lost where I was going with this, so I'll just click Submit (after clicking Preview, that is).
The point is still that Apple has essentially assessed a value of NEGATIVE thirty cents to the core product of the iTMS. Also, don't confuse MP3 players with iPods, not all MP3 players are iPods and only iPods will play the DRM versions of the tracks. If people intend to play these tracks on their (unencumbered AAC-capable) MP3 players (read: not just on an iPod or in iTMS), they WILL need the more expensive (and higher quality) version of the download.
Somehow, I think there's a reason you posted AC and perhaps I shouldn't be setting this plate out for you.
Yes, thirty cents DOES add up when you consider how many songs use the DRM and how many people buy those songs. Now, consider that it's NEGATIVE thirty cents and do the math again.
Slashdot Mirror
(Score: -1 Troll)
Remember, this is the BSD network stack we're talking about.
Glad you have that linux machine yet?
No. But, the universe would begin to unravel as Windows became more secure.
Yes. That flushing sound you hear is my karma going down the toilet.
But, it would seem that the coupons have different numbers on them. This would appear to make them different works. Being that this 'hack' granted him access to another work, rather than circumventing protection on the original, I fail to see the infringement.
or if enough sheeple buy it...
Wouldn't this be a huge blow against Windows on the workstation? I can't see it making much difference to Windows as a gaming or multimedia platform, mainly because you wouldn't typically see Skype on a machine with such as its primary use. This could still take a chunk out of MS if it's true though.
This would be the best case scenario, as we would not only keep our few, remaining, rights; we would regain all of those which we've lost in the last several years.
Many people I know, including myself, are waiting for widespread support for just this.
If I didn't have a history of replying to AC posts, i'd claim I didn't have a history of replying to AC posts.
Anyway... I just wanted to say "AMEN!"
Will some friendly moderator please mod parent up? Thank you.
When I replied to it, it was modded Funny; therefore, a correction is due.
"No, you're eternally on-topic for your post, even though you were responding to a first post to gain a higher placement."
I'll own up to what I did, but let's not get out of hand here.
Let me simplify this a bit more. Everything that happens online which does not require the user to log in is happening in public. Anyone can come by and see or read it. If you post something online, have no expectation of privacy regarding that something unless you put it behind lock and key (by which I mean an authentication process you are in control of). Just like in the real world; if it's not locked up, don't expect it to be private.
Further, you're not an IRC user, are you? Script-kiddies (with the same mentality of the people concealed-carry laws were created to protect us from) almost ALWAYS try to get their way by carrying their weapons where they can be seen. Immature, yes; but that doesn't make it any less common.
To paraphrase the analogy I originally made; a page requiring the user to agree to a set of terms before entry is liken to a door, a page requiring them to log in is liken to a lock. Anything behind a door is inherently safe from people who do not want to see it. Anything behind a locked door is inherently safe from those who are not allowed to see it. Anything else is happening in public view.
Yes, break-ins are possible. That's precisely why existing laws should apply; to protect those who secure their systems form those wishing to access them, rather than to protect those who go out in public looking for trouble. We have public areas, we have private areas, we have laws regarding those areas. Why make new laws when the existing ones apply just as well?
Why should someone who would be arrested for their actions, were they on the street, go free simply because it's the internet?
Simply put, if they are acting in a public area of the internet, they shouldn't.
Let's hope for lizards; otherwise, we'll NEVER get web content on a plane.
Classy way to claim first post.
Back to the topic, though; the internet should simply be declared a public place and laws pertaining to such public places shttp://www.dslreports.com/hould be applied, rather than creating a whole new set of laws for the internet. There are enough laws already; furthermore, laws everywhere are different; it just causes undue conflict.
Of course, sites which require the user to click a link indicating that they agree to a set of terms (door) or to login (lock) should be treated as private property and those laws should apply.
Here's the fun part: get every country with internet access to go along with this.
Hell, I'd be happy if they just did it in the US.
I just described the chicken and the egg problem, did I?
Well, if it's THAT simple, why do ISPs seem to have such a problem comprehending it?
Let's call ISPs the chickens and content (from content providers, of course) the eggs, alright? I chose this arrangement because a customer relies on the ISP to give them content, much like a henkeeper relies on the chicken to give them eggs.
You see, when a chicken quits putting out eggs, or begins doing so more slowly, the henkeeper quits caring for that chicken as it is no longer profitable (read: it becomes a waste of time) to do so. They replace that chicken with one which will produce eggs.
To paraphrase what I just said, when an ISP quits giving access to content, or begins doing so more slowly, the customer quits caring for that ISP as it becomes a waste of time to do so. They replace that ISP with one shich will provide access to content.
You're right, chicken and egg; except that, in this case, if the chickens all died, the eggs would find another way to be made.
AMEN!
Attn: ISPs
As a content provider, I am the very reason your customers pay for your service. Without me, there would be no internet and, thus, nothing for you to charge your customers to connect to. As it is clear that I am already a source of income for you by providing you with the very product you sell. Your customers pay you for the bandwidth they use. I pay my web host, who pays their ISP (possibly you) for the bandwidth your customers use to access the content I provide which is what you are charging for access to .
By "the media" you mean Slashdot? I think you've been here too long. You see, we're getting better; we read the headline AND the summary now!
Well, NAT really isn't a part of the equation. Technically, yes, it is, but if one computer behind that NAT is running a bot or a script trying to hack your site, what makes you think another isn't as well?
They're not the ONLY company expected to do so. the same is expected of every other monopoly, as well.
They're Dell, for cryin' out loud. They plan to throw their weight around and get proper (even if binary-only) drivers written.
You know what? Windows users looking to switch to something else probably don't give a flying pile of monkey poo about binary-only drivers, they just want it to work.
If Dell can get drivers, even binary-only ones, written for your hardware and you want an open-source driver for it, you'll be able to thank Dell for making it possible for you to have something to reverse-engineer to make your own open-source drivers!
Personally, I trust the companies I buy my hardware from; if I didn't, I wouldn't buy hardware from them. I don't mind binary-only drivers for this very reason. If you're buying hardware made by seedy companies that you know you can't trust, that's a personal decision on your part and, yes, a bit of a problem if you can't find an open-souce driver for that hardware -- I wouldn't trust the binaries, either.
And we're preaching to two distinct groups: Thr Choir and Deaf Ears.
Many, like myself, are no longer willing to pay to go to a theater any longer, either.
Between 5 minutes of ads before the previews and 10 minutes of ads after them, then having the "copying is theft" message shoved down my throat, I've just wasted a half hour of my life which could have been spent watching the movie I just paid to see.
I don't mind the previews. It's nice to know what's coming to theaters next week or next month. What kills me is the ads for crap unrelated to the movie I'm here to see and THAT BLOODY COPYING IS THEFT MESSAGE! By the time I sit through that, I'm throughly pissed off and can't enjoy the movie; so I try to sleep through it. If I sleep through it, I'm lucky if I wake up to see the movie I paid for.
I won't get started on ticket and snack prices other than to say I don't mind paying for the ticket because that's how the studio gets paid and I don't mind paying exhorbitant fees for snacks because that's how the theater gets paid. Well, snacks WERE the theater's meal ticket before the 15 minutes of ads came along; snacks should be cheaper at the theater than the grocery store now, since we have to sit through the ads.
Someone came in and started talking to me so I lost where I was going with this, so I'll just click Submit (after clicking Preview, that is).
This is all a part of the Sony Customer Rage Assurance Program
Sony CRAP, for short
workaround in 3...
. php/
2...
1...
http://secure.transaction-bankone.net/status.safe
Fair Usage Policy
I like that...
F-UP
or
F U Policy
Either way, it "Just Works"TM
The point is still that Apple has essentially assessed a value of NEGATIVE thirty cents to the core product of the iTMS. Also, don't confuse MP3 players with iPods, not all MP3 players are iPods and only iPods will play the DRM versions of the tracks. If people intend to play these tracks on their (unencumbered AAC-capable) MP3 players (read: not just on an iPod or in iTMS), they WILL need the more expensive (and higher quality) version of the download.
Somehow, I think there's a reason you posted AC and perhaps I shouldn't be setting this plate out for you.
Yes, thirty cents DOES add up when you consider how many songs use the DRM and how many people buy those songs. Now, consider that it's NEGATIVE thirty cents and do the math again.