Posts by L1feless 140 publicly visible posts • joined 30 Jun 2008
..he just watched the New Karate Kid Movie. Ninja's can play football too.
Then again if we are getting into specifics: The body check and hip check from two Spanish players were Yellow Card worthy. The red card which was given to the Netherlands made up for the red card which should have been given. Lets not even mention the should have been corner kick in extra time as well as the straight arm preventing a potential goal in the box. All-in-all not only was the officiating crap but so was the style of play of both teams.
*Insert Exit Music* Everybody be kung fu fighting.....
*Paris because she was smoking pot somewhere nearby and likely agrees with me*
Then clearly you're not who they are targeting. I can think of plenty of colleagues of mine who would love to have teleconferencing & flash support. The smaller screen though is kind of a funny seeing as its core benefit is video capabilities.
Either way a step in the right direction.
I think a huge portion of Facebook's problems is that it was never built as a business. It seems to have a natural disconnect between different areas of its own site and that is likely due to a poor vision in part by their fearless leader.
Comparing that with the inherit synergies in Google's products (especially as of late) as well as its long term planning which has been made very public. It really does showcase the main differences in how the two operate.
great but it is easy to take an old post, compare handles and then go after someone. There was a comment above about privacy concerns not being valid. I for one like the concept of privacy. I work in a professional environment and many of my colleagues came up into my line of work through different means. I enjoy playing video game online from time to time and would rather not be judged based on common stereotypes. Thankfully I do not play WOW but I do know several others who do. They are in a similar capacity to myself at other organizations and will likely quit and take their money with them.
This is what I don't understand. What percentage of people are leaving their WiFi networks unencrypted? Sure at the root of the complaint is the fact that Google never mentioned they were collecting this information but to this point what have they done with the vast amount of data they have accumulated thus far which is negative in any way to the average person? I would argue not a lot.
My IP on my now open WiFi is: 192.168.1.101
Beware of who and what you complain about...the Steve's are a lot worse.
One would hope with a more progressive president the USA would recognize and differentiate a gray hat from a black hat. I for one would love to see China, Russia or any other nation start hammering the USA with a cyber threat. I honestly do not think the USA's government is fully aware of the assets they are not utilizing. It almost seems that other nations are nurturing these people while the USA is trying to eradicate.
I mean one could argue that and I can see why and how. The fact remains this is more of virtual intrusion. I think a better analogy would be you have a sign saying private keep out but you don't have your blinds shut so you can still see in...sort of.
I believe the analogy of physically jumping the fence is more accurate to the analogy of Google cracking WPA or WEP keys. which they didn't. All they did was capture available broadcast information.
So did Microsoft even email this gentleman back? I have seen no information if Microsoft sent him back an email if but to only say 'thanks we are looking into it'. 5 days is plenty of time to respond to an email sent in especially on security exploits from reliable sources.
That being said if they did respond to him and gave him some sort of eta then I agree with your statement. Two wrongs do make a right.
@jai
You seem to have missed the rest of the relevant information in the Google WiFi story. They only captured data on OPEN WiFi networks. They didn't run round the EU cracking WEP keys or brute force WPA keys. Sure they did capture data without permission but likely your neighbor is already surfing porn on your open WiFi anyways.
Last I checked there are more search engines out there than JUST Google. I can think of at least two others which hold a decent market share percentage. You may know them Yahoo! & Bing. Now I am not saying they are as good as Google at search but that being said you were not arguing competency.
Most people...AKA the grandma market which in reality so long as a vast majority of the baby boomer generation are alive makes up a majority of the target market with money are just not capable and would rather not be bothered with a choice of codecs. If the video quality is good, they don't care. Those who really do care about a choice are the much younger generation as well as those who are technically minded because we understand that there can be better alternatives.
I agree with all of your comments with regards to open source video and Safari supporting whichever video format wins as a standard. Steve and Apple have made that clear. What is undeniable however is that anything 'i' clearly has some restrictions put on it by its creators. This is however where the end consumer must simply step in and say no if they don't agree with it by no purchasing the products. Everyone is entitled to an opinion but if people continue to support the i world and the current restrictions which it comes with....tough.
That is the real kicker here. Good ol' Steve has been on a rant about standards and what not. Here is a company which is trying to implement a free open standard which really puts Steve at a disadvantage in his argument. I must say I like Google's approach to this. Why try and go after the Apple tree one Apple at a time. Just take a chainsaw and cut it down. I hear apple wood makes for great BBQ.
A beer on me Google.
Thanks for that post. I do not think in all the postings on this case I have read a post which clarifies the situation quite as well. I have to say it is a lot more complicated then I was once reading into it.
I think it should ultimately come down to previous cases where US citizens hacked the UK offices. If there are any cases like that then they should be referenced and a similar stance should be taken.
I can recall a film festival movie...My Big Fat Greek Wedding. This was originally released in a very limited # of theaters and won several awards at some key film festivals. Then a screener leaked online and it was all the buzz online. Because of this buzz It was then released on a much larger scale in multiple theaters and made millions. I am not sure if they still hold the record for most profit on a film by percentage but I know they did for a long time.
I realize this is not the norm. but it sure does blow that 1:1 loss ratio idea out of the water.
There were some stats used by this gentleman (I use the term loosely) which I had questions about. The specific stat i wanted to know is if the # of releases has really gone down or just the number of registered releases has gone down. Local bands can often now just simply release their music directly online. I am not sure if these can or have been tracked.
Another number I would like to know is the number of attendees at concerts. It seems at least where I am concerts are selling out faster than I can ever remember. Some of the bands here are even adding another date onto their tour to accommodate the demand in sales. Are these stats being counted upon as a counter to album sales? They should be. With more cash in hand having downloaded the album it leaves teens with more cash to go to the show if they so choose.
Paris because even her songs weren't downloaded. Her video was instead...
A few points here to think on:
- They didn't break into these systems themselves
- They notified the owners of the vulnerability
- They also proved that a remote attack with no knowledge from the end user is possible
The lab test which many posts above me have toted really wont drive the point home. People view lab tests as over the top 'Worst case scenarios'. This approach, all be it a little extreme, really drives the point home that this could be you.
I've been trying to come up with an analogy for this and so far this is the best I have. This is the equivalent to the BBC going into a pawn shop and knowingly buying stolen jewelry. Then after buying the jewelry returning it to the rightful owner stating that they wore it first.
I would love to hear several of the Bot's oblivious owners and how they personally felt.
Paris because even she can understand the report the BBC did.
Geared at Rich's comment:
Rich I believe your kind of missing the point which the Pirate Bay members are pointing out. Lets say there is a link on google which is indexed to an online MP3 file which is hosted somewhere else. Google linked me to the file and was the road map so to speak to allow me to find that file so why is the site which is hosting it the only one to be brought into court?
Convert that into this case....
Sure the piratebay's site may link to illegal content but so does google, yahoo!, MSN search and just about any other indexing search engine. The argument here is that the files and data are not housed on any pirate bay servers. You may personally see it as technical crap but at the end of the day it is a very big deal. A case like this sets the foundation for a lot of other cases in the court of law. The fact that the lawyers are dismissing the 4 main gentlemen in this cases' technical claims as just technical red tape is in it self as you put it a load of "bollox". The technical aspect of this case is above all the most important.
IT? angle....Simply because it seems it was lost somewhere along the lines with this case.
"Nonsense
By Rich Posted Monday 2nd March 2009 14:35 GMT
While I dislike the various record industry's tactics, what with suing 6 year old girls and grannies and such like, I really can't see how anyone can seriously consider the Pirate Bay as legit. It's not. Simple. It's purpose is to facilitate the copying of pirated stuff. Shit - they even call it "Pirate" Bay for goodness sake.
It reminds me of the interviews with The Shamen about their song 'Ebeneezer Goode'. In interview after interview they denied it had anything to do with drugs.
Of course, years later, when asked the same questions they answered "of course it was about drugs". And of course it was - EVERYONE KNEW it was. It was just convenient to deny it at the time (so that the BBC etc didn't take it off the air). Good song too :-)
The PIrate Bay is the same thing - everyone knows they're talking bollox when when they say "of course it's got nothing to do with piracy". Ask them all the same question in 20 years time when it's all long gone and all but forgotten about.
"
So a girl who is underage takes pictures of her self nude. Sends them to another boy/ girl (her own age) and she is being taken to court for child porn.
That is what I just read...and if so it is completely ridiculous. It is one thing to have a child seduced by an adult (which is WRONG) but completely different when these kids are of identical age and are sexually active with one another. If they are sexually active, so be it. Lets just hope the sex ed portion of American school system has taught them to use protection. I really don't see the harm in what she or the recipients have done (so long as the recipients are the same age as the sender). That being said it is completely different when those pictures are transferred from say a 15 year old classmate to an 18 yo + individual. That is where the child porn laws need to be enforced.
To see the difference in Bluray you must be using an 1080P TV. For most people this means buying a new TV as well as a player. In Canada this means shelling out ($1700 for the TV and about $350 for the player). The move to DVD from VHS was an easy and in comparison cheaper transition. DVD could play on my existing TV set and I could see the difference immediately. No need to redo my entire entertainment system. It is for this reason the PS3 was so slow to be adopted. The need to redo entire entertainment setups was just not an option financially for most.
I can see the future of google apps and the rest of the google cloud making a shift to a local application soon as well. Chrome is the first set of integrated tools. Imagine a web integrated processing suite bundled with a VOIP chat client all based on an ad model. For a small business that is perfect.
Google Apps + GTALK + GMAIL+ Chrome
The next step is to allow for diversity in the google cloud by allowing larger companies to host their own google servers which can link to the cloud. Yes it is a security risk but it will be necessary for googles growth if they are to effectively over take the MS market share. They will also need to allow the sale of custom google servers. Perhaps a test run of internal GTALK servers would be an ideal starting point. There really isn't must competition in the corporate IM market. Sametime is really one of the only IM client which is targeting corporations. With the introduction of a GTALK corporate IM solution it can help diversify the companies products and revenues.
@Antidisestablishmentarianist
I believe his comments covered that point. He was merely mentioning that by the use of that sort of toggle the Linux virgins who wish to learn could in fact have that option. The layman's could even disable or hide that feature. In the grand scheme of things it is not such a bad idea.
In General:
Above there were several comments about setups and drivers etc. That is a pretty big deal and yet another reason why Windows is such a tough OS to de-throne. When my Granny wants to plug in her camera which is tough enough for her she doesn't have time nor the know-how to realize why her camera after she plugs it in doesn't work after putting in her CD/DVD to "INSTALL" it. I strongly believe that if gOS is to ever move forward it is going to need some serious partnerships with companies like HP, Sony, Dell, Samsung, Viewsonic, Apple & Nvidia. Once they gain peripheral driver support this OS will be a force to be reckoned with.
A gentleman above stated that in Europe that something like this is handled differently and an individual is obligated to bring forward their results. I totally agree with that mentality.
So I just read and downloaded the publicly available court documents in PDF. I wish to thank the MBTA for allowing me to read how to defraud their subway system online as well as drawing my attention to this via this very public court case. I mean I am in Toronto Canada I would not of hear this story otherwise. So now I know how to get free rides when I go to Boston. Since I know that your actions here clearly indicate you have no interest in fixing the security issues at hand.
As any business should pay for work completed. I believe the MBTA should be paying the MIT students for the code they wish to have a copy of. At the very least claim copyright to your own code and charge a licensing fee. I know a lot of people reading this think it is nuts what I am saying but these students put a lot of time and effort into their work. Not Only did they find out all of the details on what was wrong they even approached the MBTA and told them all of their findings and tried to help. Worse case scenario I suggest building a patenting a fix for the security holes found and begin to pitch this fix to the bulk of the major cities who are also using this same system. The research papers professionalism combined with this professors reputation and this public court case will most likely have at least one or more of the cities signing a contract with them.
Paris because at least she knows when to close her legs and hang her head in shame...unlike the MBTA.
"So initially I bought the arguments of the posters that a 16 year old girl would know and understand the law so ignorance isn't a fair defense.
However, seeing how many IT professionals are posting here back and forth arguing whether she did anything illegal or not, I'm thinking that even 30 to 40 year old adult IT pros cannot be expected to understand current copyright laws so it is reasonable!"
There are lawyers who study Copyright laws and still don't fully understand them so is it really such a stretch that an average IT Professional only understands a small portion of the law as well? If you understand the way that this law works so well I for one would be quite interested in reading a breakdown...
That is what I was something I was going ot mention in my post above as well. If the youth, teen, adult, Senior...Dog (I wouldn't put it past the RIAA) are not profiting from this what grounds are there to make an example of these people. How many are to be 'Made examples of' before it is deemed an acceptable practice?
All of the other comments aside I would like to specifically begin to discuss the cost per song as well as the method of which they are acquiring the data.
1. Proof: Why has no one asked the RIAA to prove the costs as to why they are charging $200 or $750 per song? That figure is just ridiculous. Perhaps there is details to which I am not privy but that is excessive. Why not fight the defense of prove to me the damages I caused per song equal $750. Not just per song in general but in a song-by-song report. It is a reasonable request as in this case you're merely asking the plaintiff to prove their case.
(Can anyone remember if Kazaa keeps U/L Stats?- I have never used it)
2. Methods Used: In most of these cases the RIAA claims some sort of secret methods or 'trade secrets' to have been used to acquire the data used to convict people. This is completely unacceptable as the courts seem to be buying it. If I am to bring an individual to court I am responsible to turnover all evidence/ discovery. How and why are these clowns not being forced to prove they acquired this evidence legitimately, properly and professionally. If this was done this would open the door for all sorts of IT angles to be investigated and the defendants could fight back.
IT Angle....why hasn't that been disputed in court....
@bogsheet
This has been a point I have been making on this topic ever since I heard the RIAA was attacking P2P. Ultimately these sites are merely indexers no different from Google or Yahoo!. There are really only 3 parties guilty here in all of this: The uploaders (they are distributing the content it self), The Suppliers (they are physically stealing the content), and the downloaders themselves (they are knowingly downloading the content). I urge the courts to understand this. The big reason I see this as key is that if indexing sites such as the one mentioned here are prosecuted in this manor then we open the doors for our favorite search engines to be sued as well.
@ michael
These people were not breaking the law. Unless they too possessed Copyrighted material. These people merely recruited and setup an indexing site. I could then use the argument that Google in conjunction with Gmail is a powerful tool for copyright infringement and recruitment. I can easily search for Mp3 files on there and within a reasonable time frame (and many pr0n pop-ups later) acquire the song I was looking for. Then pass along links to friends and family via gtalk/ gmail.
Another point I feel requires rebuttle is portion where you make reference to a physical theft of property. It is an important part to distinguish Physical vs Virtual. If I physically steal an item I am directly causing loss to both retailer and supplier. If I am virtually stealing an item I am only causing POTENTIAL loss to supplier. Please note the caps portion potential. As we know the supply and demand curve in economics dictates that as price decreases demand increases. Well I would say there are few things in life cheaper than free. Thus the demand will be high. If a price tag were to be attached then the total demand would decrease. How much of a decrease...there in lies the real debate here.
Ok so a longer post than I wanted it to be but hopefully it was eventful.
I chose Paris because she has two things in common with Copyright laws. She and the copyright laws enjoy screwing people & they both fascinate me.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
