....I'm thinking the technical term for this would be "eclipse", right?
Ok, in all seriousness, it isn't so suprising, it was a big target and some people are just going to take the shot -- which it too bad since the DoSers could have used thier time for more important works...like acing GoDaddy severs, or better yet some M$ site."
...that the people who used to be able to find the next big thing are just no longer capable -- and that it is going to be the next generation of big-thinkers that find the "next big thing".
My guess? We are in the lull right before the storm, and in the next few years (I'm thinking 5-10) new advancements will shake things up like they always do. Those who claim otherwise have fallen off the cutting edge and are nursing their wounded pride.
The issue here is intent --/. would no more be liable than say CNN for running a story that drew many people's interest and that interest exceeding the hosting abilities of X website that is the subject of said story. The intent of/. is to inform people, and the intent of/. readers is to be informed.
In comparison, the perpertators of a DoS attack are not interested in gaining anything, but denying -- thus the term "Denial of Service" attack.
I'm also pretty sure they would excuse our secret pleasure of knowing our interest might occasionally overload a M$ server...
Countries that have outlawed most firearms are currently the ones with the lowest gun violence -- as opposed to the U.S. where we lead the developed world in gun deaths per-year, and per-capita. Regardless of the initial feasability, making the act of DoS an illegal act is a step in the right direction. Bottom line is that without things like SPAM, viruses, and DoS attacks the net would be a nicer place by far.
And your outlawing analogy also fallls thru on the learning aspect -- it isn't illegal to DoS your own server. People can just learn to do this without harming others -- or they could go to college, either/or.
Your logic smells like the old cold-war logic -- we have to have the ability to strike because they have the ability to strike -- but guess what, "they" and "you" are just "them", the assholes who use DoS attacks. Good riddance to "them".
Heheh, seriously, it would be interesting to search for other "key" words that trigger a response from antivirus programs. Anyone else heard of or found other such triggers?
...banks using encryption. Bottom line, if something is important to you, you don't mind it being protected. The goverment and many companies don't care about our privacy if it in any way infringes on their ability to get what they want, be it information, power, or money.
...think of drugs when you read the headline for this story?
Ok, in all seriousness isn't this just an example of a powerful lobby group (in the case of Dubai) and a weak lobby group (in the case of this Israeli frim)? I do think it warrants discussion that foreign ownership of intellectual assets seem more problematic to the government than the ownership of physical assets. Personally, I highly doubt an Israeli comapany is as much a threat as a UAE state run company -- and if it is just "foreign" ownership that is the issue, both deals should be nixed.
Of course, we know that foreign ownership isn't the issue, or we wouldn't keep letting China and other nations "own" our debt.
I don't have caller ID, but I have a friend who does and loves it -- it is even set to display on the TVs, so they know if they want to pause TV/Movie "X" and answer the phone. They also don't answer an unidentified caller very often, which nixes most calls from phone sales comapanies -- and I would be willing to wager a few $$ that these companies would be more than willing to use the technology to get you to answer the phone. Same goes for people attempting to defraud the elderly and disabled.
However, if you could get the caller ID to display dirty messages and lewd jokes w/ punchlines, that would rock!
...you have a gmail account, for example. In the long run, I always prefer to get more information, rather than less. The people complaining about this story being on/. can simply choose not to read it. If you don't like what's on, change the [website].
Besides, the point isn't the "size" of the bug or it's potential to cause damage. The "point", and the benefit, of an article such as this one is that when people make others aware of problems in a company's product, it allows said people to make a more educated decision on using or not using the product. In addition, when a company's products are consistently shown to be problematic in some fashion and the company is shown to ignore said problems regularly, this also allows a consumer to steer clear of a company that doesn't hold their customer's best interests at heart.
"Your research is...what? talking to a "stereo saleman"?"
My research was checking the online forums for various radio enthusiast groups, discussing the technology with a few of my friends and classmates that are audiophiles, and looking at the websites of those who make the hardware.
However, I did say the wording of your post sounded very similar to the sales pitch a salesman at a local A.V. retailer ran by me (a high-end retailer, mind you). Having worked in retail, I know that most new products are accompanied by a video and/or documentation that tells the sales staff what the product is, and how great it is. These promotional materials are commonly full of statements that are small and quite usefull to the salespeople when they are talking with a customer about said product. The salesman I spoke to used what I suspect is one of these "statements" when trying to sell me on the product, and the content of you post tells me that you might have been exposed to this "statement" as well, either in the capacity of a customer and consumer, or as a paid shill for a member of the industry.
"I forgot this was Slashdot. You can't say anything good about large companies. My bad."
You can say good things about large companys on Slashdot, just be prepared to have them challenged, especially when your main argument against my post is a simple central route emotionally based attack on me, without any intellectual, factual based counters to my post. Also, I noticed that you fail to address the primary point of my post, which was the integrity of your post, not the viability/accuracy of your claims about the technology under discussion. The phrase, "Doth protest too much" springs to mind.
"Have you even heard HD radio. Have you compared it to XM and Sirius? HD is free, and it sounds better. Why is that so hard to understand?"
I have heard HD radio. I was not impressed with it -- simple as that. Thus, I did not purchase equipment to take advantage of the technology. As for your belief that HD radio is "free" I would argue that there is no free radio, since as a listener you are exposed to sales pitches, ie I am exchanging some of my time for the opportunity to listen to the other content of the station. Also, the hardware to listen to HD costs money. Both these points effectively dispute your claim of "free". Apperently it is you who does not understand.
"When you are in your car, with the engine and wind noise who cares what the audio quaily is. But when you get home and have a good sound system it is very easy to hear that HD radio has the best quality."
I agree fully, it doesn't matter, unless your vehicle is of sufficient quality to reduce engine/wind noise to a neglible amount. In this situation the quality of the sound system is worthy of note. As to your opinion on HD's quality in the home setting, I feel I already addressed my opinion on the supposed superior quality of HD technology.
"By the way, iPod's FM transmitter is not "digital", and it is not HD."
You are correct, my iPod's FM transmitter is not digital or FM, however the iPod is a digital storage device, which was the "digital" I was referring to. The statement about the iPod was my attempt at humor. I am sorry you didn't enjoy it.
Maybe I am a bit paranoid since the news of paid advertising shills posting positive reviews/reponses in forums has become common knowlege, but that response right there sounds like the sales pitch from a stereo saleman I heard the other day -- almost verbatim. Also, it goes against what I have found in my research -- and why I decided that the technology was not worth adopting. If I want "digital radio" I can get it much better from a podcast and an FM transmitter for my iPod. I hope/. is keeping an eye out for posts like this, considering they are a ripe target for the shills -- I am sure companies would love to "modify" your average reader's opinions. My $.02.
Ehren Goldberg "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." -Gandhi
Slashdot Mirror
....I'm thinking the technical term for this would be "eclipse", right?
Ok, in all seriousness, it isn't so suprising, it was a big target and some people are just going to take the shot -- which it too bad since the DoSers could have used thier time for more important works...like acing GoDaddy severs, or better yet some M$ site."
my $.02
...that the people who used to be able to find the next big thing are just no longer capable -- and that it is going to be the next generation of big-thinkers that find the "next big thing".
My guess? We are in the lull right before the storm, and in the next few years (I'm thinking 5-10) new advancements will shake things up like they always do. Those who claim otherwise have fallen off the cutting edge and are nursing their wounded pride.
The issue here is intent -- /. would no more be liable than say CNN for running a story that drew many people's interest and that interest exceeding the hosting abilities of X website that is the subject of said story. The intent of /. is to inform people, and the intent of /. readers is to be informed.
In comparison, the perpertators of a DoS attack are not interested in gaining anything, but denying -- thus the term "Denial of Service" attack.
I'm also pretty sure they would excuse our secret pleasure of knowing our interest might occasionally overload a M$ server...
Countries that have outlawed most firearms are currently the ones with the lowest gun violence -- as opposed to the U.S. where we lead the developed world in gun deaths per-year, and per-capita. Regardless of the initial feasability, making the act of DoS an illegal act is a step in the right direction. Bottom line is that without things like SPAM, viruses, and DoS attacks the net would be a nicer place by far.
And your outlawing analogy also fallls thru on the learning aspect -- it isn't illegal to DoS your own server. People can just learn to do this without harming others -- or they could go to college, either/or.
Your logic smells like the old cold-war logic -- we have to have the ability to strike because they have the ability to strike -- but guess what, "they" and "you" are just "them", the assholes who use DoS attacks. Good riddance to "them".
...I don't care who you are!
Heheh, seriously, it would be interesting to search for other "key" words that trigger a response from antivirus programs. Anyone else heard of or found other such triggers?
Hey, it was obligitory for me!
...banks using encryption. Bottom line, if something is important to you, you don't mind it being protected. The goverment and many companies don't care about our privacy if it in any way infringes on their ability to get what they want, be it information, power, or money.
...think of drugs when you read the headline for this story?
Ok, in all seriousness isn't this just an example of a powerful lobby group (in the case of Dubai) and a weak lobby group (in the case of this Israeli frim)? I do think it warrants discussion that foreign ownership of intellectual assets seem more problematic to the government than the ownership of physical assets. Personally, I highly doubt an Israeli comapany is as much a threat as a UAE state run company -- and if it is just "foreign" ownership that is the issue, both deals should be nixed.
Of course, we know that foreign ownership isn't the issue, or we wouldn't keep letting China and other nations "own" our debt.
I don't have caller ID, but I have a friend who does and loves it -- it is even set to display on the TVs, so they know if they want to pause TV/Movie "X" and answer the phone. They also don't answer an unidentified caller very often, which nixes most calls from phone sales comapanies -- and I would be willing to wager a few $$ that these companies would be more than willing to use the technology to get you to answer the phone. Same goes for people attempting to defraud the elderly and disabled.
However, if you could get the caller ID to display dirty messages and lewd jokes w/ punchlines, that would rock!
...you have a gmail account, for example. In the long run, I always prefer to get more information, rather than less. The people complaining about this story being on /. can simply choose not to read it. If you don't like what's on, change the [website].
Besides, the point isn't the "size" of the bug or it's potential to cause damage. The "point", and the benefit, of an article such as this one is that when people make others aware of problems in a company's product, it allows said people to make a more educated decision on using or not using the product. In addition, when a company's products are consistently shown to be problematic in some fashion and the company is shown to ignore said problems regularly, this also allows a consumer to steer clear of a company that doesn't hold their customer's best interests at heart.
My research was checking the online forums for various radio enthusiast groups, discussing the technology with a few of my friends and classmates that are audiophiles, and looking at the websites of those who make the hardware.
However, I did say the wording of your post sounded very similar to the sales pitch a salesman at a local A.V. retailer ran by me (a high-end retailer, mind you). Having worked in retail, I know that most new products are accompanied by a video and/or documentation that tells the sales staff what the product is, and how great it is. These promotional materials are commonly full of statements that are small and quite usefull to the salespeople when they are talking with a customer about said product. The salesman I spoke to used what I suspect is one of these "statements" when trying to sell me on the product, and the content of you post tells me that you might have been exposed to this "statement" as well, either in the capacity of a customer and consumer, or as a paid shill for a member of the industry.
You can say good things about large companys on Slashdot, just be prepared to have them challenged, especially when your main argument against my post is a simple central route emotionally based attack on me, without any intellectual, factual based counters to my post. Also, I noticed that you fail to address the primary point of my post, which was the integrity of your post, not the viability/accuracy of your claims about the technology under discussion. The phrase, "Doth protest too much" springs to mind.
I have heard HD radio. I was not impressed with it -- simple as that. Thus, I did not purchase equipment to take advantage of the technology. As for your belief that HD radio is "free" I would argue that there is no free radio, since as a listener you are exposed to sales pitches, ie I am exchanging some of my time for the opportunity to listen to the other content of the station. Also, the hardware to listen to HD costs money. Both these points effectively dispute your claim of "free". Apperently it is you who does not understand.
I agree fully, it doesn't matter, unless your vehicle is of sufficient quality to reduce engine/wind noise to a neglible amount. In this situation the quality of the sound system is worthy of note. As to your opinion on HD's quality in the home setting, I feel I already addressed my opinion on the supposed superior quality of HD technology.
You are correct, my iPod's FM transmitter is not digital or FM, however the iPod is a digital storage device, which was the "digital" I was referring to. The statement about the iPod was my attempt at humor. I am sorry you didn't enjoy it.
Maybe I am a bit paranoid since the news of paid advertising shills posting positive reviews/reponses in forums has become common knowlege, but that response right there sounds like the sales pitch from a stereo saleman I heard the other day -- almost verbatim. Also, it goes against what I have found in my research -- and why I decided that the technology was not worth adopting. If I want "digital radio" I can get it much better from a podcast and an FM transmitter for my iPod. I hope /. is keeping an eye out for posts like this, considering they are a ripe target for the shills -- I am sure companies would love to "modify" your average reader's opinions. My $.02.
Ehren Goldberg
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
-Gandhi