Laptops don't use internal pppoe, verizon is generally an external DSL modem with dhcp. I don't remember if the account creator is windows only but I believe is is. It works fine on Linux afterwards though.
Remember... The iPhone OS is open source too. the source doesn't help if you can't install modified versions on the device without hacking.
I agree with your point in that many people are holding a double standard.
That being said, the IPhone OS is based on open source code (BSD) but is not itself open source as you said. As for Android it suffers from a case of Tivoization in that it dos not easily allow core modification. So Android though technically open source, it is not truly free.
I lean to Nintendo's side since the patents are registered to some dude in Carson City, Nevada; but Anascape is registered in Texas, famous for their friendly attitude toward patent trolls. I think it's a case of jury shopping.
Not to be cynical, but it's always time for a People versus Government fight. The problem is that those that lead the people against the government then become the government, get drunk with power, and become the enemy of the people. The success of the people is also their enemy.
What would be the standard of evidence for having property seized? Knowing congress it's probably woefully low. Also, with so many people pirating files where would they start? Maybe they would start even more wiretaps. Maybe they would just take tips that person X is file sharing and they would just go and seize all their equipment indiscriminately. It isn't hard to frame someone for filesharing or even their printer. But in this case you might not even have to try. Rep. Conyers statement about prioritizing the prosecution of copyright infringement reminds me of the RIAA's preposterous claim that filesharing is as bad as murder and deserves as much if not more resources to fight.
Agreed, The "network friendly" solution proposed by the ISPs will probably be a centrally controlled network and link to an ISP server for peer coordination but also so the ISP could exercise control over what happened on the network. In this case if the RIAA wanted to stop a file and catch pirates It would become very easy. They would go to the ISP which would delist the file from all controlled clients and report all who had downloaded it, essentially nuking the file from their network.
It's not just the unfair burden on the stores that matters. It's also the issue of blatant censorship of books which I'm pretty sure is unconstitutional.
From TFA
makes it a crime to provide sexually explicit material to a child through sales or viewing, if the material was meant to "satisfy a sexual desire."
That means most novels including many great works of literature are banned, think of what would be banned if the law was expanded to tv too.
I didn't know what BGP tables were either and after reading your flaming I still didn't. Amittedly some of what SanityInAnarchy said didn't make sense in the least, but it wasn't a useless rant as was your comment.
To SanityInAnarchy: Your bills don't go towards building infrastructure. The reason Comcast and other Telecoms are whining about bandwidth is because they did not put their money back into infrastructure. Also, for your tax do you propose raising money and giving to the Telecoms and hoping they invest it infrastructure? I don't trust them in the least to do that. AFAIK the best way to fix this would be to turn internet service into a public utility, but that would be damn hard.
In this case the inverse of your statement is instructive as well: "Whoever owns should pay". The telecoms have received plenty of free money from governments already. Its absurd for them to come whining about bad infrastructure when they built it themselves. The high capacity fiber backbone of the internet can handle todays and tomorrow's needs, the fact that the last mile infrastructure sucks is their own doing.
One problem is that there are some who make content without profit and distribute their content through P2P via consumers. If all content creators were made to pay for the privilege then it would have a chilling effect on the vibrancy of the internet. What might make more sense would be something so that if you are profiting significantly from the content you pay to distribute it. Even so, this invades privacy and it begins a tiered internet for those who wish to profit from their work, which hurts independent artists. It would be ok to have maintenance costs be passed to users if there was more competition and the web was open with current ISPs not serving as the only ways to the net. As it is the ISPs hold a great deal of power due to their position and as such should be responsible for the infrastructure. If everyone could be a gateway to the net then everyone should pay. Since this is not the case the responsibility is that of ISPs.
Until someone makes something that does what we want you could try Anchorun and run it in a background tab. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1710
Anchorun is a lazy way to traverse the web. While you are browsing a page, click on the anchorun icon on the toolbar, and look the browser surfing by itself - loading a random link from the current page, and then another from the next page and...
how do you divide the ownership by statement in an automated fashion? I don't know but I think it is possible.
how can we attempt to copyright all our internet activity? is it even possible? By recording all the activity and taking it to a lawyer. I should think it is possible to copyright it but it would be very expensive.
It depends, but in the situation above I believe those would be their normal habits. Comcast could sell them a cheaper and slower connection but they chose not to because his parents are very profitable at their current price/use ratio.
That said you are correct in my case; I have had to adjust my Bittorrent habits on Earthlink due to them killing peer connections. I personally don't want a pay per use system either but your logic is a bit flawed for Anotherone's example by virtue of some overzealous generalizations.
Adblockplus with whitelisting + fasterfox with prefetching by pattern = Hacked together solution. The problems would be if the ads are flash or if the adserver checks for mozilla's prefetch header.
I agree, but my decision also factors in how rich the company is already. I white-listed in Isohunt adblock+ since they ask nicely that you look at the ads and I want to support them. On the other hand I block Google ads because they are rich already and I block ads at The Pirate Bay because I really don't want all the irritating tasteless ads they have.
The fact that Google does the data profiling at all is evil. It also must be noted that though they do disclose what they do most people don't read the "Privacy" statement.
Slashdot Mirror
nope. She is a Business Management Major.
So she won't need any knowledge at all.
Laptops don't use internal pppoe, verizon is generally an external DSL modem with dhcp.
I don't remember if the account creator is windows only but I believe is is. It works fine on Linux afterwards though.
another two they are working on,right?
You forgot the scrap & museum computers. I've got an old powermac, an Amiga 500, a VIC-20, and three shells of computers too.
Unless the bot herder wants to make a powerful SETI@home team.
In that event it is very useful.
Remember... The iPhone OS is open source too. the source doesn't help if you can't install modified versions on the device without hacking.
I agree with your point in that many people are holding a double standard.
That being said, the IPhone OS is based on open source code (BSD) but is not itself open source as you said. As for Android it suffers from a case of Tivoization in that it dos not easily allow core modification. So Android though technically open source, it is not truly free.
I lean to Nintendo's side since the patents are registered to some dude in Carson City, Nevada; but Anascape is registered in Texas, famous for their friendly attitude toward patent trolls. I think it's a case of jury shopping.
That sounds like thought-crime even more prosecutable now. Even if somebody else is intending to commit infringement with my property it gets seized.
Not to be cynical, but it's always time for a People versus Government fight. The problem is that those that lead the people against the government then become the government, get drunk with power, and become the enemy of the people. The success of the people is also their enemy.
What would be the standard of evidence for having property seized? Knowing congress it's probably woefully low. Also, with so many people pirating files where would they start? Maybe they would start even more wiretaps. Maybe they would just take tips that person X is file sharing and they would just go and seize all their equipment indiscriminately. It isn't hard to frame someone for filesharing or even their printer. But in this case you might not even have to try. Rep. Conyers statement about prioritizing the prosecution of copyright infringement reminds me of the RIAA's preposterous claim that filesharing is as bad as murder and deserves as much if not more resources to fight.
Agreed,
The "network friendly" solution proposed by the ISPs will probably be a centrally controlled network and link to an ISP server for peer coordination but also so the ISP could exercise control over what happened on the network.
In this case if the RIAA wanted to stop a file and catch pirates It would become very easy.
They would go to the ISP which would delist the file from all controlled clients and report all who had downloaded it, essentially nuking the file from their network.
The law would effectively ban minors from reading many important works of literature.
Exactly what I was thinking, especially Slaughterhouse 5 with its alien zoo, and the recurring Shetland pony.
It's not just the unfair burden on the stores that matters. It's also the issue of blatant censorship of books which I'm pretty sure is unconstitutional.
makes it a crime to provide sexually explicit material to a child through sales or viewing, if the material was meant to "satisfy a sexual desire."
That means most novels including many great works of literature are banned, think of what would be banned if the law was expanded to tv too.
I didn't know what BGP tables were either and after reading your flaming I still didn't. Amittedly some of what SanityInAnarchy said didn't make sense in the least, but it wasn't a useless rant as was your comment.
:https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Border_Gateway_Protocol
For those of you wondering what BGP tables are
To SanityInAnarchy: Your bills don't go towards building infrastructure. The reason Comcast and other Telecoms are whining about bandwidth is because they did not put their money back into infrastructure. Also, for your tax do you propose raising money and giving to the Telecoms and hoping they invest it infrastructure? I don't trust them in the least to do that. AFAIK the best way to fix this would be to turn internet service into a public utility, but that would be damn hard.
In this case the inverse of your statement is instructive as well: "Whoever owns should pay". The telecoms have received plenty of free money from governments already. Its absurd for them to come whining about bad infrastructure when they built it themselves. The high capacity fiber backbone of the internet can handle todays and tomorrow's needs, the fact that the last mile infrastructure sucks is their own doing.
One problem is that there are some who make content without profit and distribute their content through P2P via consumers. If all content creators were made to pay for the privilege then it would have a chilling effect on the vibrancy of the internet. What might make more sense would be something so that if you are profiting significantly from the content you pay to distribute it.
Even so, this invades privacy and it begins a tiered internet for those who wish to profit from their work, which hurts independent artists. It would be ok to have maintenance costs be passed to users if there was more competition and the web was open with current ISPs not serving as the only ways to the net. As it is the ISPs hold a great deal of power due to their position and as such should be responsible for the infrastructure. If everyone could be a gateway to the net then everyone should pay. Since this is not the case the responsibility is that of ISPs.
With .deb files you don't need to worry about the execute bit. But then the user would need root to install .deb files anyway.
Your welcome, enjoy!
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1710
Anchorun is a lazy way to traverse the web. While you are browsing a page, click on the anchorun icon on the toolbar, and look the browser surfing by itself - loading a random link from the current page, and then another from the next page and...
how can we attempt to copyright all our internet activity? is it even possible? By recording all the activity and taking it to a lawyer. I should think it is possible to copyright it but it would be very expensive.
It depends, but in the situation above I believe those would be their normal habits. Comcast could sell them a cheaper and slower connection but they chose not to because his parents are very profitable at their current price/use ratio.
That said you are correct in my case; I have had to adjust my Bittorrent habits on Earthlink due to them killing peer connections. I personally don't want a pay per use system either but your logic is a bit flawed for Anotherone's example by virtue of some overzealous generalizations.
Adblockplus with whitelisting + fasterfox with prefetching by pattern = Hacked together solution.
The problems would be if the ads are flash or if the adserver checks for mozilla's prefetch header.
I agree, but my decision also factors in how rich the company is already. I white-listed in Isohunt adblock+ since they ask nicely that you look at the ads and I want to support them. On the other hand I block Google ads because they are rich already and I block ads at The Pirate Bay because I really don't want all the irritating tasteless ads they have.
The fact that Google does the data profiling at all is evil. It also must be noted that though they do disclose what they do most people don't read the "Privacy" statement.