I've been a fan of Ultima ever since I got Ultima IV on my Commodore; I've since gone back and played the entire central series.
I look at what they're marketing as Ultima these days, and have to wonder what the heck happened. Why did Blackthorne go from being a corrupted nobleman to being a cyborg? When did Britannia get all ultra-high-tech?
I don't play online games. I like to go through at my own pace, on my own schedule, and complete a game. I don't want some 31337 kiddie to come along and screw up the game by being completely out of character or by cheating. And I don't want to pay extra to play a game that I've already bought.
So my Ultima experience is limited to the "real" Ultimas. I'll never know what accident of history changed Britannia to a sci-fi nightmare. And I won't lose any sleep over it.
My morning bus here in Winnipeg is similar. My first bus tends to be late on the same days that my second bus is early. Miss the transfer and wait for 20 minutes at Portage and Main. Bloody freezing wind.
Well, the reasons for Russia to cease launching space tourists may be obvious if you know one major factor - the Soyuz is not reusable. Since the shuttle fleet is currently grounded, the Soyuz is the only link between Earth and the space station. The Russians don't want to waste a single-use mission on a tourist if they're going to run out of equipment before the reusable shuttle fleet comes back online - they want to keep them for station resupplies, crew changes, etc.
Hmm..that makes me think. If they had sent Atlantis up, and it were damaged in the same was as Columbia, would they be able to scavenge parts from one for the other? Would it be possible, for example, to transfer heat-resistant tiles from one shuttle to the other in space, or would it require machinery that can't currently be lifted?
Theoretically, yes. However, there's always the chance that something will break. You may trigger a bug in the kernel that allows breakage. Or you may be developing the kernel itself. You run it in user space, and you have to trigger multiple bugs to break the host - a bug in the UML system and a (hopefully) different bug in the host system.
If the American FOIA is similar to the Canadian FOIPPA (Freedom of Information, Protection of Privacy Act), there's alot the government can still do to make life difficult for those attempting to get access to files.
Basically, whenever you try to get information, you have to fill out paperwork. They can reject the application if the paperwork is filled incorrectly. Then, you have to get past secretaries, whose primary job seems to be annoying people until they give up.
Once you've actually got your paperwork into the system, you have to wait for it to be processed. Usually, at this point, they'll decide that more paper is required, and you have to start again from the beginning.
Once you get the information you asked for, you'll usually find out that it isn't the information you want. Unless you're very specific when specifying what you want to know, they can get out of it by simply playing stupid. (eg only get partial documents because you asked for Form A, but to actually use the information you also need Form A-2, which you didn't ask for).
I'm sure it's possible to get information, but don't expect to get it in any reasonable time frame.
Actually, according to RFC 2606 (Reserved Top Level DNS Names),.localhost can be blocked by the local DNS, as it is an invalid name (along with.test,.example,.invalid, and.example.(com|org|net)). These are supposed to be used for testing and documentation, so if they aren't in use, they may as well be blocked.
If a law enforcement officer approaches my ISP with a warrant as part of an investigation into a criminal matter, then my ISP should hand over every bit of info that they have. But when a private fucking company sends a subpoena
Actually, I've been straightened out in a different thread. All through this discussion, I've been confusing warrents and subpoenas. Now that I understand, I agree with most of the slashdot crowd.
I thought this was all about the validity of a subpoena. Verizon was challenging a subpoena that was served on them. Doesn't a subpoena have to be issued by a judge? So wouldn't Verizon have to show evidence to support a subpoena being issued? Or am I completely confused here?
They already have reason to believe that this person has downloaded the files. With the name of the customer, they are now able to investigate whether the person actually downloaded the files.
Or do you think that the ISP should be allowed to block your identity when you perform illegal activities with their equipment?
OK, this user may have broken the law. The RIAA asks Verizon who it was. This is the same as using phone records to determine who is harassing you.
Now, the RIAA has a name they can take to court. They will be suing a person for illegal activities. They are not suing Verizon for providing the bandwidth. They are not suing Kazaa for providing the service. They are suing the individual who broke the law.
Isn't that what we wanted all along? That the RIAA and MPAA would sue the individual infringers and leave the networks alone?
Erm...Verizon did stand up for its users against the RIAA. The court told them they have to comply. If they didn't, the court would punish them in some way that would make it prohibitive to continue protecting their users.
In other words, don't blame Verizon. Blame the judge that made this decision.
Damn...I wish I was still in BC so I could support the charge against you.
The law is in place to prevent the groupthink that would occur if the numbers were available. Everybody wants to be on the winning side, so if the Liberals are winning on the east coast, some more impressionable people (read majority of the population) who were planning to vote for the Canadian Alliance may change their minds. It defeats the purpose of the democratic process.
Re:Do you think this will affect your job potentia
on
Ask Kevin Mitnick
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Ack...missed the part where you're starting your own consulting company.
However, the questions still stand, albeit slightly modified. How difficult do you think it will be to find clients willing to accept your work, given your infamy? And, how long do you feel it will take you to catch up to the point where you can compete with other companies that are out there?
Do you think this will affect your job potential?
on
Ask Kevin Mitnick
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
You've been prohibited from using computers for some time. This has, obviously, prevented you from gaining experience with new technologies. Couple this with the fact that your name is fairly well-known, how difficult do you think it will be for you to find employment in the computer industry? Will you be trying to do so, or will you try to stay away from technology? And, if you feel it will be difficult for technology reasons, how long do you think it will take you to catch up?
Yes, I know it's only supposed to be one question per post, but I think these are pretty well related.
Not everyone believes that fair use sharing of their music with a few friends is illegal.
I do not believe that the fare use you describe here is illegal (and here in Canada, it isn't).
This is essentially what peer to peer does
No. If you could limit peer to peer to only allow people that you personally know to download your files, fine. However, most of the people downloading from you or that you download from are not your friends. They are other members of the network.
If you were to publish another artist's MP3s to your webpage without that author's permission, is it fair use? After all, your friends are going to download from that page. Why should P2P be any different?
Putting stop signs on the freeway is dangerous to regular traffic. Poisoning P2P by sharing files with the same names as files you own is not dangerous to legitimate file trading. I fail to see how these are equivalent.
I have yet to be convinced that it's wrong for the RIAA to be putting these fake files online. Right now the only wrong I'm seeing is people downloading these files illegally.
As a side note have you tried some of the Vi-emulation modes in Emacs. Vim is pretty good stuff, but it doesn't do everything that Emacs does. Vi-style keystrokes on top of Emacs is the best of both worlds (IMHO).
The main reason I'm switching is because the operating system I was using at my last job (QNX Neutrino) didn't (at the time) support Emacs - it was extremely difficult to convince Emacs on QNX at that time. However, they did have Vi. So I got to learn to use and love Vi, and later Vim when it was ported over.
I think I was unclear with my other message. Perhaps I've just been too long under the RIAA's influence, but without groups like the RIAA, I don't see any easy avenue for a small band in Newfoundland to become one of my favorite bands when I was living in Victoria, on the other side of Canada.
If it is a religion, I've (almost) converted away. I now use Vim as my primary editor. I'll be switching over to Mutt for email (from Gnus) once I've figured out how to transfer my old emails.
It is not a denial of service. You (as the client) ask for a file. They (as a peer) give you a file. The file is crap. Is that a denial of service? If so, why are most personal homepages not liable for filling the internet with crap?
Slashdot Mirror
I look at what they're marketing as Ultima these days, and have to wonder what the heck happened. Why did Blackthorne go from being a corrupted nobleman to being a cyborg? When did Britannia get all ultra-high-tech?
I don't play online games. I like to go through at my own pace, on my own schedule, and complete a game. I don't want some 31337 kiddie to come along and screw up the game by being completely out of character or by cheating. And I don't want to pay extra to play a game that I've already bought.
So my Ultima experience is limited to the "real" Ultimas. I'll never know what accident of history changed Britannia to a sci-fi nightmare. And I won't lose any sleep over it.
Why did I ever leave sunny Victoria?
Well, the reasons for Russia to cease launching space tourists may be obvious if you know one major factor - the Soyuz is not reusable. Since the shuttle fleet is currently grounded, the Soyuz is the only link between Earth and the space station. The Russians don't want to waste a single-use mission on a tourist if they're going to run out of equipment before the reusable shuttle fleet comes back online - they want to keep them for station resupplies, crew changes, etc.
Don't mind if I do
Hmm..that makes me think. If they had sent Atlantis up, and it were damaged in the same was as Columbia, would they be able to scavenge parts from one for the other? Would it be possible, for example, to transfer heat-resistant tiles from one shuttle to the other in space, or would it require machinery that can't currently be lifted?
Not without wires - just without the...er..."little cable"
Post the address of that box here. We'll give it a real stress test.
Theoretically, yes. However, there's always the chance that something will break. You may trigger a bug in the kernel that allows breakage. Or you may be developing the kernel itself. You run it in user space, and you have to trigger multiple bugs to break the host - a bug in the UML system and a (hopefully) different bug in the host system.
Basically, whenever you try to get information, you have to fill out paperwork. They can reject the application if the paperwork is filled incorrectly. Then, you have to get past secretaries, whose primary job seems to be annoying people until they give up.
Once you've actually got your paperwork into the system, you have to wait for it to be processed. Usually, at this point, they'll decide that more paper is required, and you have to start again from the beginning.
Once you get the information you asked for, you'll usually find out that it isn't the information you want. Unless you're very specific when specifying what you want to know, they can get out of it by simply playing stupid. (eg only get partial documents because you asked for Form A, but to actually use the information you also need Form A-2, which you didn't ask for).
I'm sure it's possible to get information, but don't expect to get it in any reasonable time frame.
Actually, according to RFC 2606 (Reserved Top Level DNS Names), .localhost can be blocked by the local DNS, as it is an invalid name (along with .test, .example, .invalid, and .example.(com|org|net)). These are supposed to be used for testing and documentation, so if they aren't in use, they may as well be blocked.
I thought this was all about the validity of a subpoena. Verizon was challenging a subpoena that was served on them. Doesn't a subpoena have to be issued by a judge? So wouldn't Verizon have to show evidence to support a subpoena being issued? Or am I completely confused here?
Or do you think that the ISP should be allowed to block your identity when you perform illegal activities with their equipment?
Now, the RIAA has a name they can take to court. They will be suing a person for illegal activities. They are not suing Verizon for providing the bandwidth. They are not suing Kazaa for providing the service. They are suing the individual who broke the law.
Isn't that what we wanted all along? That the RIAA and MPAA would sue the individual infringers and leave the networks alone?
In other words, don't blame Verizon. Blame the judge that made this decision.
The law is in place to prevent the groupthink that would occur if the numbers were available. Everybody wants to be on the winning side, so if the Liberals are winning on the east coast, some more impressionable people (read majority of the population) who were planning to vote for the Canadian Alliance may change their minds. It defeats the purpose of the democratic process.
However, the questions still stand, albeit slightly modified. How difficult do you think it will be to find clients willing to accept your work, given your infamy? And, how long do you feel it will take you to catch up to the point where you can compete with other companies that are out there?
Yes, I know it's only supposed to be one question per post, but I think these are pretty well related.
If you were to publish another artist's MP3s to your webpage without that author's permission, is it fair use? After all, your friends are going to download from that page. Why should P2P be any different?
Putting stop signs on the freeway is dangerous to regular traffic. Poisoning P2P by sharing files with the same names as files you own is not dangerous to legitimate file trading. I fail to see how these are equivalent.
I have yet to be convinced that it's wrong for the RIAA to be putting these fake files online. Right now the only wrong I'm seeing is people downloading these files illegally.
I think I was unclear with my other message. Perhaps I've just been too long under the RIAA's influence, but without groups like the RIAA, I don't see any easy avenue for a small band in Newfoundland to become one of my favorite bands when I was living in Victoria, on the other side of Canada.
If it is a religion, I've (almost) converted away. I now use Vim as my primary editor. I'll be switching over to Mutt for email (from Gnus) once I've figured out how to transfer my old emails.
It is not a denial of service. You (as the client) ask for a file. They (as a peer) give you a file. The file is crap. Is that a denial of service? If so, why are most personal homepages not liable for filling the internet with crap?