Domain: fortyoz.org
Stories and comments across the archive that link to fortyoz.org.
Comments · 8
-
FSCKTV
Heh, these guys make the dude at fscktv look like a script kiddie...
-
Re:Can someone give me...I've seen programs that claim to unscramble pay TV channels, but I haven't been able to test them (my cable company moved all the scrambled channels to digital TV, requiring a special digital receiver).
There's fscktv, or maybe one of the programs listed on this page will work. Of course, you could just pay for the channels.
-
fsck tvFsck tv (freshmeat entry) is what you are looking for.
Project seems to be on the back burner, it was written during the 2.2.13 days, and includes a mod of the xawtv package, and only seems to work for North Amercian cable. FORTYoz you still out there? Anything you want to add?
-
Re:Technical detail:It installs a backdoor which listens for incoming connections on UDP port 5503 or higher
I know that Hotline Servers use ports 5500 - 5504 for their serving activities. As this virus is targeted at Linux-servers mainly, I don't know what this can cause to HXD- or other servers that use the Hotline-protocol.
AFAIK you can change the range of ports used in the Windows-/ Mac-versions of Hotline. If the possibility is given, I'd suggest to change that in HXD too. But don't forget to inform your registered clients first : )
-
Hinks = p2p Pioneer
Hotline is the first peer to peer program that I can remember that really took off. I remember discovering Hotline Client back in 1997. You would often see Hinkley listening to the people on various servers, (boffomac, etc) I also remember the battle between HLC, and Hinks. The whole sob story, his sisters dissappearence, his breaching the contract with HLC to go home.(what 17 year old wouldn't). Now the company is out of the hands of ROKS (Jason Roks, one of the canadian investors) I still use hotline 1.2.3 or an unix clone hx hx.fortyoz.org I really guess I don't have a point here, but this story struck close to home. The non competition agreement he signed ruined a few of the best years of his life. I hope the best for hinks and his family in the future. -Rusty
-
Re:NeXTLinux?
Uh, run more applications? Maybe it would let you switch between them better then the joke gnome has but i doubt you could run more
.. look at this.
-
you forgot hotline
i'm surprised nobody's mentioned hotline -- it's been around for a while now, longer than napster, and it's still very much the seedy underbelly of the net...probably 90% of the servers are warez/pr0n/mp3. the official software is mac/win, but there's some excellent unix clients available. it's not distributed like gnutella, you have to run server software, but it's rock-stable and very fast.
official site
the hx site -
Time-Warner Response
The Time-Warner response likens CSS to the scrambling of cable signals. In this capacity, for only prohibitting things like digital versions of fscktv, I don't feel it strongly infringes on my freedom.
They claim they're just like the cable companies; that they're preventing access only to people who haven't paid for a work, which is simply not true.
From item 5 of the text:
4. I am aware of no works or classes of works that have, because of the implementation of technical protection measures, become less available to persons who desire to be lawful users. On the contrary, the implementation of such measures has, as explained in our response to question 3 above, made works more available.
The referenced item 3 basically says that lawful users now have convenient access to more works, but ignores the fact that they have less access to these works. Certainly by not being able to view DVDs on GNU/Linux systems because of the technical protection measures, these works are less available to us, especially if VHS fades behind the growth of DVDs.
Indeed, copyright often proports to exist to give corpor^H^H^H^H^H^Hauthors safety in releasing their works. Time-Warner argues that by giving authors more control they will be more willing to continue releasing their works. How many works have not been done soley because of fears of copying, fears that they'll only make $300 million off the latest movie instead of $310 million? That they might have less money to make the next movie doesn't factor into whether they're willing to release an individual movie.
Any law against actions which aren't easily detectable and don't direct damage anyone are hard to enforce. Copyright is no exception. It takes a police state to do this. Just because infringement has become easier and more undetectable doesn't mean we should start throwing away our fair use rights.