...that ownership of the DVD itself grants you the right to view it. "Circumvention" of the protection is necessary to view the content you have already paid for. The actual text of the DMCA reads:
"...`circumvent a technological measure' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner..."
So, when the agent of the copyright owner sells you a DVD, does he also grant you the authority to decrypt it?
Even more interesting is this statement a bit further down:
"OTHER RIGHTS, ETC., NOT AFFECTED- (1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title."
So, is your right to view content you legally own protected?
It will be interesting to watch the first court case where someone is prosecuted for violating the DMCA by viewing a DVD with an unlicensed viewing device.
"AT&T will not terminate, disconnect or suspend service because of the views you or we express on public policy matters, political issues or political campaigns."
If you wanted to interpret that language in the strictest sense, they've reserved the right to terminate you for expressing any views that *don't* concern public policy or politics.
Now, maybe I'm reading too much into this, but why be so specific about what they *won't* terminate you for talking about? Why not say something like "We'll terminate you if you slander or libel someone, but just expressing an opinion is fair game"?
I'm lucky enough to have the install CDs for Office 97, so that's what I installed. That being said, Open Office works fine for me. Only reason I even bothered with MS Office, is my daughter's still in grad school, and it allows her to submit work that she *knows* is compatible with MS Office.
You could always set it up for dual-boot, with the default being Fedora, of course, and tell her it's up to her to choose XP or Linux:-)
My point was that, if being in control of your own computer is important to you, then you'll probably be a bit more willing to overlook Linux's rough edges.
Ubuntu does, BTW, play videos and see iPods. You just need to load the software, VLC is a good choice for videos, though Mplayer is more flexible. GTKPOD or Rhythbox will handle your iPod just fine (though I'm not happy with either one of them). Some of these are pre-installed on Ubuntu, others install with Automatix. My Canon digital camera was automatically detected and worked fine as soon as I plugged it in. My daughter's Nikon Coolpix works fine on her system, as does her Motorola RAZR. With WINE, you *may* be able to run your favorite Windows app. It's getting better with every revision. I currently run Street Atlas, several CAD programs, and Word97 under WINE. Firefox lets me block web features I don't want to "experience".
I would expect Apple to have more support, their share of the OS market is at least 4 times that of Linux. However, if you want an alternative to MS on your current hardware, and are willing to put up with the rough edges, I fail to see why some flavor of Linux is not a good choice. Especially, if you have a "spare" PC to try it out on before you commit to the change.
As the maintainer of my daughter's and brother's PCs, I have had fewer "it just stopped working" calls since I switched them over to Linux. Linux may not be as polished as Windows, but it sure doesn't suck any worse:-)
- you're in control of your computer, not Microsoft or Apple - if you're having a problem, chances are some other Linux user has run into the same thing, and the answer may very well pop up, if you Google for it.
And, if you think Ubuntu's rough around the edges, you should have seen Slackware in 1993! Linux has come an awfully long way. Never thought I'd see the day when Linus's little project was being compared to Windows and MacOS.
My wife used to buy TV Guide. I forget how much it costs to have it mailed to your house...something like $60/yr? I know it's a buck or so a week, if you buy it at the supermarket.
Anyway, it was always wrong, full of ads, stuff I never cared about, and hard to use. Comcast used to provide a free guide channel, but they took that away and replaced it with another useless (to me) ethnic/religious/shopping channel. You can only get schedule data from them now, if you convert over to their digital service.
So this looks like a good option for me, even better than any of the commercial ones. I don't mind $5/month at all. I pay $100/mo to Comcast for cable/internet. I've never objected to paying a fair price for information I can use.
Thanks to the people who took the initiative to set up the system to keep the schedule data flowing!
They had a good selection, no DRM, and reasonable (bitrate-proportional) pricing. They did enough business and presented enough of a threat that they got shut down. That should be a lesson to UMG:
- charge a reasonable price (sliding scale, by bitrate, so people can choose to pay more for better quality) - make it easier to buy from you than to find and download on the P2P networks - low overhead, means you don't take a huge cut, and remember to *pay the artists* - attract customers by offering a quality product at a competitive price (iTunes is 0.99/trk? - sell yours for less!)
Seriously. AoMP3.com didn't fail because people downloaded their entire catalog and put it on the P2P networks. They succeeded in spite of the P2P networks, because they got the selection/convenience/price equation right. I've always wondered why a legal version of AoMP3.com, one that paid the artists most of the income, and worked on high volume, low margins wouldn't be a huge success.
Is to acknowledge the simple fact that 99.9% of the people they screen every day ARE NOT terrorists, and deserve to be treated with courtesy and respect.
That shouldn't be too much to ask of "trained security professionals".
If the screeners can't manage to be polite and courteous, maybe even swap a bit of small talk with the people they're screening, while still doing their job, then perhaps they should look for a new job.
That one order, issued by the Director of TSA, could go a long way towards improving their image. I've had it with silent, surly TSA staff, who expect you to read their minds and know what they want you to do. Speak to me, treat me like a human being and help me to help you, and we'll all be happier. Lose the attitude, folks. Start acting like you're there to help us, and we'll stop resenting you.
>These people hold unnecessary power over our lives, make incredibly poor choices and get in the way of work and productivity. They are absolutely worse than unions. Even worse it is very hard to find a competent sys admin who doesn't ignore the pleas of their users.
Did you ever stop to consider that maybe *you* are the only user whose pleas they ignore? Now, take a look at your posting, and see if you can figure out why that might be.
Me? Well, *I* bought a bag of muffins for my sysadmins. That, and following the 10 commandments above, seems to get me pretty good service when I really need it.
Good luck. I hope you find a sysadmin who will listen to you.
So, if I purchase media encoded in a proprietary format, I need to pay again in order to view the programming on that media legally? Don't know about anyone else, but I would figure that the US$15 I paid for the DVD or CD should pretty much cover any licensing fees for the decoding software as well. If this isn't the case, maybe it should be.
DMCA says that decoding the program material on my own (using deCSS) is a crime, but then what exactly did I buy, when I bought the DVD? I thought I was buying the right to watch the program material...not the right to watch it on a particular platform.
Many codecs are free for decoding (so the media can be disseminated to the consumer), while the encoders are quite costly. This was the case for quite a while with MP3...Fraunhoffer was quite happy to see "their" format spread, and only raised a fuss after adoption reached a critical level (much like the Univac GIF patent). While I do feel that companies should be financially rewarded for their efforts, proprietary codecs seem unfair. Especially when (as with MP3), the algorithm itself is a published standard, and commonly used for information exchange.
In any case, given that the "Windows tax" has been estimated at $50, it seems hard to understand how a lifetime license for all codecs included in the typical Windows bundle could be priced higher than about $10, and most of us have paid for the right to use those codecs several times by now.
OK, so by changing the code on a software defined radio, I can make it work differently. This could be a Bad Thing, because I might interfere with other services, and is a valid concern for the FCC.
However, I can already do this, quite easily, with any radio I choose. I can even go to a surplus dealer and pick up a used radar set and create all kinds of havoc. It's not exactly a new "threat", but neither is it a significant one.
So, what exactly, is the FCC worried about? Clever people hacking radios to do what they want with them? It's been done for years by licensed ham radio operators and others who aren't licensed. Sometimes it's done within the rules and sometimes not. The only difference here, is that it's done by tweaking the firmware, which requires skill and specialized equipment, so probably won't be done by J. Random Luser. The world is still using their cellphones, GPS mapping systems and the police, fire, air and broadcast services are still able to operate without any significant jamming.
Hams are starting to play with SDRs. The source is open so people can learn. One of the stated purposes of the amateur service is to develop a trained reservoir of people "skilled in the radio art". I'm not sure how proprietary code helps make this happen...or how open code makes abuse more likely.
The FCC in recent years has become less of a technical regulatory body and much more of a tool for advancing political and economic agendas. Maybe it's time for them to get back to their roots and stop acting like they would do whatever the highest bidder wants.
If it requires EDPAC chillers for its water cooling... If it's delivered in a moving van... If it's on a raised floor... If there's an operator's console......it's probably a mainframe!
The required undergraduate assembly language course was offered in the traditional PDP-11 lab (EE students got the times the CS students didn't want - usually the middle of the night) or one class section on the CDC Cyber 74. Apparently, we got an apps engineer for one semester when we purchased the machine.
I figured I'd run across plenty of PDP-11s, but how many times do you get to play on a machine with a 60 bit word, hardware multiply and floating point? Don't remember much, but it sure was a fun class. Especially, after I figured out how to do remote job entry. Meaning I didn't have to hike down to the computer center in the snow with a deck of cards to submit my job, but could do it from the comfort of my dorm room with my Teletype.
Sounds like the company is in the "EM control" business, and selling the film at premium pricing to the govt. A standard anti-static bag like your motherboard came in will do pretty much the same thing - put your cellphone inside it and watch the signal strenght drop (make sure to fold the opening over, so the two sides make contact). A thin film of metal on window glass will have the same effect.
But, the devil's in the details. This is hinted at by the comment in the article about the film being sold as part of a complete shielding package. You need to make sure that the film makes contact all the way around the window frame and that the window frame makes perfect contact with the wall shielding system, and that the roof shielding system makes perfect contact with all the walls...etc.
There are companies that sell metallic fabric...and shielded baseball caps. Handmade tinfoil beanies mark you as a cheap paranoid nutter. For only $29.95 (plus tax and shipping), you can appear outwardly normal, while protecting your precious brain cells from CIA control rays.
Shielding is shielding. One layer is good, two layers is better, but they both work in both directions. And they don't work at all (as a Faraday cage) unless there's a seamless covering. It only takes a small gap with one dimension greater than a quarter wavelength to leak signal.
The tinfoil works to keep the wardrivers from seeing your wireless signal *and* the CIA/NSA from controlling your mind with their beams.
Just wanted to get that straight so nobody panicked unnecessarily.
Now, as to the parent poster's ideas for making his vehicle invisible to police radar...good luck with that. Let me know how it works out.
Why is the only mention of this in an Australian paper and on a Roswell website? And, if you had such a document, wouldn't you scan it and make the scans available?
Yeah. I thought so.
Oh, and the reason the "egg" had no control surfaces, windows, etc?
I should know, I had one -- an Omnitec 701B acoustic coupler, bought in 1976 for $350. Sometime around 1979-80 I upgraded it to a 1200 Baud GDC modem for $750.
The "recording industry" is an anachronism. Bands can (and do) record, mix and publish their own music. They still need to get airplay and concert dates, though. The web (and inexpensive Asian disk manufacturers) has allowed them to bypass the traditional record companies, should they desire to do so. Predictably, the "media" companies are attempting to resist this change in the balance of power by making an issue of just about anything that erodes their market share. Thus, the increased interest in DRM and file sharing.
>I also wonder why they put up huge fences, and warning signs around transmission towers?
So people won't climb them and fall off, or steal the copper ground wires. Lawyers are much more dangerous than the electromagnetic radiation from those towers.
>I'm not keeping my mobile phone near to my reproductive organs any longer than necessary.
It's probably your brain you want to watch out for...it doesn't transmit when it's on your belt (only for 5 seconds every 10 minutes). It's full on when you're holding it up to your ear.
>I wouldn't dismiss the health effects just yet. Give it a generation with high intensity signals and see how we are going.
My brother's one. I bought him a used 700MHz P3 for $100, and installed Win2K Pro and McAffee on it. Set him up with Firefox, showed him how to use Spybot and let him browse to his heart's content. After a year of Windows updates, and a subscription to McAffee (he did that on his own), it started to slow down. Instead of simply re-installing Win2K, I asked him what he was using the box for.
Firefox, he said.
That's it?
Yup, just browse and read my Hotmail.
So, I said, no spreadsheets, games, documents, nothing else?
Nope.
How about I bring over another hard drive (you'll still have your old Win2K system, unchanged) and we try Linux?
Same Firefox? I'm fine with that.
So, I installed Ubuntu, copied his Firefox profile over and let him have at it. His only comment was: it seems faster!
At least in this naive user's case, Linux and Firefox were cheaper (he has since cancelled his McAffee subscription) and faster. And for my brother, that's a win.
The humorous part of the whole takedown notice thing, was the list of pages to be taken down...one of which was/09-9f.....html So, then, they have to issue a takedown notice for the takedown notice...which I gather they didn't bother to do.
Slashdot Mirror
...that ownership of the DVD itself grants you the right to view it. "Circumvention" of the protection is necessary to view the content you have already paid for. The actual text of the DMCA reads:
"...`circumvent a technological measure' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner..."
So, when the agent of the copyright owner sells you a DVD, does he also grant you the authority to decrypt it?
Even more interesting is this statement a bit further down:
"OTHER RIGHTS, ETC., NOT AFFECTED- (1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title."
So, is your right to view content you legally own protected?
It will be interesting to watch the first court case where someone is prosecuted for violating the DMCA by viewing a DVD with an unlicensed viewing device.
...or would the European have more load-carrying capacity at that airspeed velocity?
They can still terminate you for bashing AT&T:
"AT&T will not terminate, disconnect or suspend service because of the views you or we express on public policy matters, political issues or political campaigns."
If you wanted to interpret that language in the strictest sense, they've reserved the right to terminate you for expressing any views that *don't* concern public policy or politics.
Now, maybe I'm reading too much into this, but why be so specific about what they *won't* terminate you for talking about? Why not say something like "We'll terminate you if you slander or libel someone, but just expressing an opinion is fair game"?
Don't know about 2003.
:-)
I'm lucky enough to have the install CDs for Office 97, so that's what I installed. That being said, Open Office works fine for me. Only reason I even bothered with MS Office, is my daughter's still in grad school, and it allows her to submit work that she *knows* is compatible with MS Office.
You could always set it up for dual-boot, with the default being Fedora, of course, and tell her it's up to her to choose XP or Linux
My point was that, if being in control of your own computer is important to you, then you'll probably be a bit more willing to overlook Linux's rough edges.
:-)
Ubuntu does, BTW, play videos and see iPods. You just need to load the software, VLC is a good choice for videos, though Mplayer is more flexible. GTKPOD or Rhythbox will handle your iPod just fine (though I'm not happy with either one of them). Some of these are pre-installed on Ubuntu, others install with Automatix. My Canon digital camera was automatically detected and worked fine as soon as I plugged it in. My daughter's Nikon Coolpix works fine on her system, as does her Motorola RAZR. With WINE, you *may* be able to run your favorite Windows app. It's getting better with every revision. I currently run Street Atlas, several CAD programs, and Word97 under WINE. Firefox lets me block web features I don't want to "experience".
I would expect Apple to have more support, their share of the OS market is at least 4 times that of Linux. However, if you want an alternative to MS on your current hardware, and are willing to put up with the rough edges, I fail to see why some flavor of Linux is not a good choice. Especially, if you have a "spare" PC to try it out on before you commit to the change.
As the maintainer of my daughter's and brother's PCs, I have had fewer "it just stopped working" calls since I switched them over to Linux. Linux may not be as polished as Windows, but it sure doesn't suck any worse
Linux has two *big* advantages:
- you're in control of your computer, not Microsoft or Apple
- if you're having a problem, chances are some other Linux user has run into the same thing, and the answer may very well pop up, if you Google for it.
And, if you think Ubuntu's rough around the edges, you should have seen Slackware in 1993! Linux has come an awfully long way. Never thought I'd see the day when Linus's little project was being compared to Windows and MacOS.
...a 1 x 4 x 9 flat black object.
2001 was a much better film. Though not nearly as profitable, I guess.
My wife used to buy TV Guide. I forget how much it costs to have it mailed to your house...something like $60/yr? I know it's a buck or so a week, if you buy it at the supermarket.
Anyway, it was always wrong, full of ads, stuff I never cared about, and hard to use. Comcast used to provide a free guide channel, but they took that away and replaced it with another useless (to me) ethnic/religious/shopping channel. You can only get schedule data from them now, if you convert over to their digital service.
So this looks like a good option for me, even better than any of the commercial ones. I don't mind $5/month at all. I pay $100/mo to Comcast for cable/internet. I've never objected to paying a fair price for information I can use.
Thanks to the people who took the initiative to set up the system to keep the schedule data flowing!
They had a good selection, no DRM, and reasonable (bitrate-proportional) pricing. They did enough business and presented enough of a threat that they got shut down. That should be a lesson to UMG:
- charge a reasonable price (sliding scale, by bitrate, so people can choose to pay more for better quality)
- make it easier to buy from you than to find and download on the P2P networks
- low overhead, means you don't take a huge cut, and remember to *pay the artists*
- attract customers by offering a quality product at a competitive price (iTunes is 0.99/trk? - sell yours for less!)
Seriously. AoMP3.com didn't fail because people downloaded their entire catalog and put it on the P2P networks. They succeeded in spite of the P2P networks, because they got the selection/convenience/price equation right. I've always wondered why a legal version of AoMP3.com, one that paid the artists most of the income, and worked on high volume, low margins wouldn't be a huge success.
Is to acknowledge the simple fact that 99.9% of the people they screen every day ARE NOT terrorists,
and deserve to be treated with courtesy and respect.
That shouldn't be too much to ask of "trained security professionals".
If the screeners can't manage to be polite and courteous, maybe even swap a bit of
small talk with the people they're screening, while still doing their job,
then perhaps they should look for a new job.
That one order, issued by the Director of TSA, could go a long way towards improving their image.
I've had it with silent, surly TSA staff, who expect you to read their minds and know what they
want you to do. Speak to me, treat me like a human being and help me to help you, and we'll all be
happier. Lose the attitude, folks. Start acting like you're there to help us, and we'll stop resenting you.
>These people hold unnecessary power over our lives, make incredibly poor choices and get in the way of work and productivity. They are absolutely worse than unions. Even worse it is very hard to find a competent sys admin who doesn't ignore the pleas of their users.
Did you ever stop to consider that maybe *you* are the only user whose pleas they ignore?
Now, take a look at your posting, and see if you can figure out why that might be.
Me? Well, *I* bought a bag of muffins for my sysadmins. That, and following the 10 commandments above, seems to get me pretty good service when I really need it.
Good luck. I hope you find a sysadmin who will listen to you.
...the GPS, however, won't be in the bag when you get it back.
So, if I purchase media encoded in a proprietary format, I need to pay again in order to view the programming on that media legally? Don't know about anyone else, but I would figure that the US$15 I paid for the DVD or CD should pretty much cover any licensing fees for the decoding software as well. If this isn't the case, maybe it should be.
DMCA says that decoding the program material on my own (using deCSS) is a crime, but then what exactly did I buy, when I bought the DVD? I thought I was buying the right to watch the program material...not the right to watch it on a particular platform.
Many codecs are free for decoding (so the media can be disseminated to the consumer), while the encoders are quite costly. This was the case for quite a while with MP3...Fraunhoffer was quite happy to see "their" format spread, and only raised a fuss after adoption reached a critical level (much like the Univac GIF patent). While I do feel that companies should be financially rewarded for their efforts, proprietary codecs seem unfair. Especially when (as with MP3), the algorithm itself is a published standard, and commonly used for information exchange.
In any case, given that the "Windows tax" has been estimated at $50, it seems hard to understand how a lifetime license for all codecs included in the typical Windows bundle could be priced higher than about $10, and most of us have paid for the right to use those codecs several times by now.
OK, so by changing the code on a software defined radio, I can make it work differently. This could be a Bad Thing, because I might interfere with other services, and is a valid concern for the FCC.
However, I can already do this, quite easily, with any radio I choose. I can even go to a surplus dealer and pick up a used radar set and create all kinds of havoc. It's not exactly a new "threat", but neither is it a significant one.
So, what exactly, is the FCC worried about? Clever people hacking radios to do what they want with them? It's been done for years by licensed ham radio operators and others who aren't licensed. Sometimes it's done within the rules and sometimes not. The only difference here, is that it's done by tweaking the firmware, which requires skill and specialized equipment, so probably won't be done by J. Random Luser. The world is still using their cellphones, GPS mapping systems and the police, fire, air and broadcast services are still able to operate without any significant jamming.
Hams are starting to play with SDRs. The source is open so people can learn. One of the stated purposes of the amateur service is to develop a trained reservoir of people "skilled in the radio art". I'm not sure how proprietary code helps make this happen...or how open code makes abuse more likely.
The FCC in recent years has become less of a technical regulatory body and much more of a tool for advancing political and economic agendas. Maybe it's time for them to get back to their roots and stop acting like they would do whatever the highest bidder wants.
If it requires EDPAC chillers for its water cooling... ...it's probably a mainframe!
If it's delivered in a moving van...
If it's on a raised floor...
If there's an operator's console...
(when they called it "big iron", they meant it!)
The required undergraduate assembly language course was offered in the traditional PDP-11 lab (EE students got the times the CS students didn't want - usually the middle of the night) or one class section on the CDC Cyber 74. Apparently, we got an apps engineer for one semester when we purchased the machine.
I figured I'd run across plenty of PDP-11s, but how many times do you get to play on a machine with a 60 bit word, hardware multiply and floating point? Don't remember much, but it sure was a fun class. Especially, after I figured out how to do remote job entry. Meaning I didn't have to hike down to the computer center in the snow with a deck of cards to submit my job, but could do it from the comfort of my dorm room with my Teletype.
Yes, I was a nerd. Still am.
Sounds like the company is in the "EM control" business, and selling the film at premium pricing to the govt. A standard anti-static bag like your motherboard came in will do pretty much the same thing - put your cellphone inside it and watch the signal strenght drop (make sure to fold the opening over, so the two sides make contact). A thin film of metal on window glass will have the same effect.
But, the devil's in the details. This is hinted at by the comment in the article about the film being sold as part of a complete shielding package. You need to make sure that the film makes contact all the way around the window frame and that the window frame makes perfect contact with the wall shielding system, and that the roof shielding system makes perfect contact with all the walls...etc.
There are companies that sell metallic fabric...and shielded baseball caps. Handmade tinfoil beanies mark you as a cheap paranoid nutter. For only $29.95 (plus tax and shipping), you can appear outwardly normal, while protecting your precious brain cells from CIA control rays.
Shielding is shielding. One layer is good, two layers is better, but they both work in both directions. And they don't work at all (as a Faraday cage) unless there's a seamless covering. It only takes a small gap with one dimension greater than a quarter wavelength to leak signal.
The tinfoil works to keep the wardrivers from seeing your wireless signal *and* the CIA/NSA from controlling your mind with their beams.
Just wanted to get that straight so nobody panicked unnecessarily.
Now, as to the parent poster's ideas for making his vehicle invisible to police radar...good luck with that. Let me know how it works out.
Why is the only mention of this in an Australian paper and on a Roswell website? And, if you had such a document, wouldn't you scan it and make the scans available?
:-)
Yeah. I thought so.
Oh, and the reason the "egg" had no control surfaces, windows, etc?
It was an escape pod.
(open the pod bay doors, please, Hal)
I should know, I had one -- an Omnitec 701B acoustic coupler, bought in 1976 for $350. Sometime around 1979-80 I upgraded it to a 1200 Baud GDC modem for $750.
The "recording industry" is an anachronism. Bands can (and do) record, mix and publish their own music. They still need to get airplay and concert dates, though. The web (and inexpensive Asian disk manufacturers) has allowed them to bypass the traditional record companies, should they desire to do so.
Predictably, the "media" companies are attempting to resist this change in the balance of power by making an issue of just about anything that erodes their market share. Thus, the increased interest in DRM and file sharing.
>I also wonder why they put up huge fences, and warning signs around transmission towers?
So people won't climb them and fall off, or steal the copper ground wires. Lawyers are much more dangerous than the electromagnetic radiation from those towers.
>I'm not keeping my mobile phone near to my reproductive organs any longer than necessary.
It's probably your brain you want to watch out for...it doesn't transmit when it's on your belt (only for 5 seconds every 10 minutes). It's full on when you're holding it up to your ear.
>I wouldn't dismiss the health effects just yet. Give it a generation with high intensity signals and see how we are going.
I agree with you there.
My brother's one. I bought him a used 700MHz P3 for $100, and installed Win2K Pro and McAffee on it. Set him up with Firefox, showed him how to use Spybot and let him browse to his heart's content. After a year of Windows updates, and a subscription to McAffee (he did that on his own), it started to slow down. Instead of simply re-installing Win2K, I asked him what he was using the box for.
Firefox, he said.
That's it?
Yup, just browse and read my Hotmail.
So, I said, no spreadsheets, games, documents, nothing else?
Nope.
How about I bring over another hard drive (you'll still have your old Win2K system, unchanged) and we try Linux?
Same Firefox? I'm fine with that.
So, I installed Ubuntu, copied his Firefox profile over and let him have at it. His only comment was: it seems faster!
At least in this naive user's case, Linux and Firefox were cheaper (he has since cancelled his McAffee subscription) and faster. And for my brother, that's a win.
At least you have complete control over *this* part of your "online experience" -- or does the DMCA apply here, too?
The humorous part of the whole takedown notice thing, was the list of pages to be taken down...one of which was /09-9f.....html
So, then, they have to issue a takedown notice for the takedown notice...which I gather they didn't bother to do.