Their stock was at $65 a share. It dropped below $20 a share. That's below the IPO.
Meanwhile there still seem to be a lot of pages out there that the search engines are picking up. I wonder how many people are going to be all that interested in cleaning those old files off their web space.
1) How long it can stay up without rebooting? 2) How soon can a technical problem be fixed? 3) What software will it run? 4) Will it be around for long? 5) Can you purchase it?
For more notes on #4, check out this article on ZDnet.
My question: Will this document contain software?
on
GPL for Books?
·
· Score: 2
As a person starting to learn perl and getting started in scripts, there is one thing that drives me absolutely nuts. There are a lot of places that will point you to scripts. Counter scripts, log scripts, mail scripts, etc. with the source code available.
Now someone please explain something to me. Why are there 400 different counter scripts? Is this really necessary? From what I can see you have a choice of SSI or non-SSI, a collection of data to log, and the choice of text, graphic numbers, or pure graphics to choose from. Navigation tools are worse. Far worse. And trying to figure out the difference between mail scripts makes me physicaly ill.
As a Perl Newbie, if someone is going to put out an online Perl Manual, please, I'm begging you, include in your site the best 2 or 3 scripts for a certain function and encourage your community to focus on improving them rather than writing their own. There should be an SSI and a non-SSI version of each, simply because many free hosting firms do allow non-SSI scripts. (I know, lame... but if there is a good free hosting firm that allows SSI, I missed it.)
Some people have taken offense to my suggestion that they pull the code until the judge comes to his final decision. Let me explain myself a little better.
I believe it is our best interest to comply with the judge at this point in time, even if we do not live in the state of California. We can publicly disagree with his decision all we want, but we should show a willingness to abide by it. To disregard it only makes us match the public belief of hackers. A lot of the posts that are saying how we should mirror DeCSS all over the place sound remarkably like script kiddies screaming "Free Kevin" simply because of something they read at 2600.
Our goal, unless I am mistaken, is for the members of our community to be found not guilty on all charges. We want the judge to come to the understanding that these tools were created to improve the viability of DVD, not injure it, by allowing people with Linux computers the ability to show, and therefore purchase DVD movies.
At this point in time the judge has not yet reached a decision. he has requested that the information be taken down until he reaches that decision. This strikes me as fair. It's not a win, but it is fair to both parties. After all, is there anyone who can't wait a week or two for DeCSS (assuming anyone doesn't already have it.)
Now once the judge makes his final decision then you can make yours. You can choose if you want to obey the law or not. That choice is yours and you can make it freely. You can do it in the name of piracy or free speech, but the only person you put at risk is yourself.
However, at this point in time, our actions put others at risk. We may claim we're fighting for free speech, but we will not be the ones to take the fall. If you want to fight the fight, then become a Doe (one of the 500 unnamed defendants) and run the same risks as they are running.
But don't ack like a script kiddie and call it revolution.
"I am not a lawyer" is meaningless. It gives the impression that lawyers know and understand their rights and know what the law is. The fact that even the lawyers do not know how a case is going to turn out, proves otherwise. Lawyers do have the time to research the outcomes of previous cases and their strongest ability is to try to get consistancy in the law by citing previous decisions.
Governments do not make the laws. It is not until a judge decides that a law is constitutional and decides on it's meaning that it has any power. The Digital Milleninum insanity alone is proof of this. Written by a number of lawyers, no one can identify it's purpose or meaning anymore. Perhaps laws should be written by children.
The legal system is not consistant. This is the one thing I had no real understanding of until now. I knew that the laws of different countries, states, etc. were different but I never realized what an outdated concept we work with. A 15 year old from Norway is being charged in California. The judge from that trial appears to be working of an entire different legal system than the judge in new York. I suspect both of these trials will then be brought up to a higher court regardless of the ruling and each will be used as precedent in the other.
People do not understand judges It amazes me to see people mirroring DeCSS now that a judge has asked us not to. What is the point of doing it now? Is there someone, somewhere who doesn't have it yet? Are you doing it just to spite the judge? If so, then perhaps it is time to consider the concequences of your actions, not to yourself but to the defendants and the court's final decision. To pull your copies, as I am doing, is to show respect for the court system. If you do not respect the court system it is likely to not respect you or your arguments right back. I would suggest that it would be best to replace your copies of DeCSS with copies of the court decision and a well written opinion of how you feel about them. In lack thereof, grab the Score:5 reply of your choice and post it. Currently, the request is to remove them until the court makes it's final decision. That seems reasonable enough and does not prevent us from putting it back up after the court has made it's decision. If you want to mirror it once the case is over, that's your decision and does not reflect on any way on the defendant's case. However, by mirroring it now, you put someone other than yourself at risk.
Hmmm. It's early. I'm not dressed for work yet...Let's check. Yep. I'm a guy.
Hmmm.. (Digging through pile of computer magazine...oh look, Maxim, [toss])Ah. Here's one. (Shuffle Shuffle Shuffle)
Nope. I can honestly say these ads don't do a thing for me either. About all they're good for is making sure I WON'T buy their game.
Now before we get off on the wrong foot, I'm running a Windows platform just for games. Loki is making it possible for me to run a Linux only PC next year and I'm happy as heck. I go to LAN parties on a regular basis, including a small one last weekend. I'd buy Quake IV based on the name alone and I have to visit Bluesnews on a daily basis. Id, Bungie, and Blizzard are my current favorite companies (Firaxis took a big dive after betatest Centauri).
My point? I'm not surprised that the ad companies, and everyone else seems to have some horrible sterotypical views of females. Their veiws of me as a male computer programmer suck even more.
I'm having a hard time believing that a comment filled with hatred against a group of people who are being judged solely on their age could actually be moderated up in this discussion on Slashdot.
Considering that a 15 year old had enough intelligence to hack DVD, something that has been considered quite important on Slashdot, a person stating that he doesn't want to read anything by a 14 year old student strikes me as odd. Strangely enough, somehow when that same student becomes a 35 year old Sys Admin he suddenly gets an opinion that matters. At least that's what I'm getting out of the comment I just read.
I can understand people believing that and saying it, but I never thought it would be moderated up.
Jon. I would like to thank you. I've obviously been mistaken as to what kind of people Slashdot attracted. After having set my threshold at 3, I still see noise, flaming, and a number of replies that don't seem to have anything to do with what you've written.
If anyone knows of a better place, please, check out my previous replies and decide for yourself if you would like to invite me. Slashdot just isn't cutting it anymore.
Although Slashdot's moderation system has done wonders to decrease the amount of hostility I have to view, it has also increased the hostility I come across.
In the past week or so I have been enjoying watching my Karma bounce up and down like a yoyo. It started out with An interview with Bill Gates where I attempted to express my opinion of Commander Taco's statement with humor rather than flaming. After immediately being hit with -1,troll it bounced back to 4, Funny (picking up an Insightful along the way). The support it received after being marked down as a troll let me know that although one anonymous reviewer didn't like it, the support was there. Since then I've been marked down as overrated and (I still can't figure this one out) (Score:3, Redundant). Somehow 2 people bounced me up and then it was decided that I was being redundant...
And this, my friends, is hostility.
I'll never know why a post is moderated both ways. I can understand a post being moderated up or down but when both actions happen to the same post than I can only assume I've hit a nerve. The difference is the moderator is a person who is even more of an enigma than the AC. At least the AC has to choose his words. You can decide for yourself on the merits of the AC's statement by reading it. Does the AC bring up good points? Does he back up his argument with facts? Does he cause me to think? Or does he just call me a #@$% S.O.B.?
The moderator on the other hand is much harder to figure out. While I may not disagree with him (the one post was Overated), there's very little I can do to understand the actions involved. Many people seem to feel the same way about the articles they submit. "Why was article X chosen instead of mine?" We have no way to know, and our assumptions are not always kind.
What I find amazing is the number of posts challenging the "slashdot status quo" that are moderated up. Apparently it is now part of the status quo to challenge the status quo, a concept that strikes me as very unusual. Unfortunately a number of these moderated up posts are downright insulting. The recent Roblimo Attack Sequence proves that the flames can be sent back and forth and it proved the sucess and failure of moderation. The posts that were moderated up were those critical of the article. They were not posts that were critcal of Rob. However, Rob's response back was not subject to moderation, and things began to get out of hand. At that point addition text was added at the top and posts crital of Rob began to be moderated up. These posts were critical of Rob's reply and although they were not written as flames or insults, this was the first time they began to appear at the 3 level and above.
But there is something to think about here. Not only did someone put their name down and let forth a criticism, but someone else made that critisism more visable without having to own up to it. No where is this more obvious than in this very article. No AC here. (Score:5, Insightful) by paul.dunne is an example of an article that starts off in an insulting manner. It makes it's points, but it makes them in a style that agressive at best. It could easily receive a (-1, rude) if such a thing existed. However, it is no longer the action of a single individual, but it is now an assualt by four different individuals on Jon Katz himself. All four of these individuals have the option of simply not reading his articles. All have chosen to do so and then openly complain about the quality of them. Only one of them was willing and able to admit he did it publicly.
Moderation not only helps prevent hostility. It also helps cause it. When a person is rewarded for behaving in a hostile manner, it can only increase the desire to behave that way.
-----
This is why we want moderation of articles.
on
Hole in GNU GPL?
·
· Score: 3
As it is now, An article is posted if one person thinks it's a good idea. It is rejected if one person thinks it isn't.
Moderation allows a large number of people to collectively decide an news items worth.
In this case, -1,troll.
In addition, article moderation allows for less articles submitted as we can check for duplicates. Also it would give you guys more of a break. Allow yourselves ultra-moderation if you want, so that you can set the score of an article and not allow the regular moderators to adjust it.
Take your finger off of the -1, troll and listen for a minute. Than mark me down all you want. I'll say my piece even if it is against Slashdot doctrine.
The ability of these companies to write and enforce such bizarre procedures only makes it easier for us to choose software. In this age of the internet, where we know more about a product before it hits the store shelves than the manufacturer does, laws like these quickly become a moot point.
If a software is not a sale, but it is, instead, a license, then it's something I can't give away for Christmas. Good enough for me.
If I can't reverse engineer it, fine. Reverse engineering may be legal but you still have to go to court next week just to point that out. Meanwhile Apple steals a GUI from Xerox, has it stolen by Windows, and then yells at Stardock over a lookalike skin? Since when has the letter of the law even mattered? Etoy still doesn't have a web site and Nestle is still hawking baby formula. The world goes on.
Put more restrictions on software. I just won't buy it. I'll stick to Linux or whoever else writes a reasonable sales/license agreement and smile.
If software can be turned off from a remote location, it does not need to be installed. Companies who do this save me money, because I don't see the need to spend money to install a backdoor onto my PC.
Honestly, it makes my life simpler. I don't need to worry about who has a better deal, Amazon or eToys or Nestle, because I won't buy their products.
Why fight against stupidity? Do you really think that the companies we respect (such as Redhat) could keep our business if they did this? No. Obviously no. You may bring up things like DeCSS but be real, one of us will be watching Star Wars, Episode One this year and it's won't be on your DVD player. The big music producers who want copy protection aren't the label for my favorite bands. Most of my favorite bands have CD's with sticky labels.
In short. Let them have their laws. I am not their customer. Their laws do not affect me.
As I see the debate rage across the postings it occurrs to me that the methods people use to decide if a patent is worthy or not may not be worthy in themselves. Let us use for our examples H.G. Well's Time Machine and Xerox's unistrokes.
Is the concept obvious? Although this seems like a good way to judge patents, it really doesn't work well. In retrospect, almost everything seems obvious. The advantages to having a time machine are obvious to anyone, but we would all agree that someone who invented a time machine should deserve a patent. (At least I hope we would.)
Is it easy to use? A lot of people seem to be judging XEROX on this basis. They claim that since the characters are simple, the patent should be denied. I believe that using a time machine would also be simple, but that's no reason to deny a patent for a time machine. Ease of use is a good thing and should be encouraged.
Is the device easy to create? Now this is an interesting one. How easy is it to actually create a workable handwriting recognition system. Actually, that's not that easy. I'm sure some of us could do it, especially since we're only trying to duplicate an existing system, not create a new system (we know it can work, which helps a lot). For technological patents, I'm willing to state that an item sufficently technically difficult to prototype should deserve a patent.
Is it obvious? On this question I need to break the field into two halves. In a younger, technology based field, almost everything is obvious. It's very hard not to come up with an obvious new way to use that technology. If Slashdot hadn't come along, a similar method of moderation would have been developed by someone else (it may have for all I know). In addition, almost everything is obvious in retrospect. On the other hand, certain fields are no longer technological. In these fields, almost any new invention get's away with the answer "If it was obvious, why hasn't anyone thought it up before." When I was a machinist, we create a couple of patentable tools, simply based off the fact that these tools were extremly useful and did not exist. These tools could have been made with the equipment available before WWII but were not. Therefore, they should be declared to be non-obvious. It seems to me that the best way to rate this is to examine how long the technology has existed that makes the creation of the device possible.
Summation I would suggest that the best way to rate patents is: "The difficulty of creating the prototype multiplied by the amount of time the technology has existed to create that prototype.". When a patent is challenged by another company we should also consider the amount of time the patent has been held before being challenged. If that is a long period of time, then it indicates that that patent deserves to stand as the item was either a lot more difficult to prototype or a lot more non-obvious than we thought.
Responses and feedback appreciated.
Actually, I think this is a "good thing" (tm).
on
AOL Nation
·
· Score: 4
(It's funny, laugh.) Ummm. nevermind, last time I did that I was marked down as a troll...
Let's face it. One of the great debates over the internet ever since AOL hooked up it's bulliten board is "How do we get away from these idiots?"
Thanks to the merger, we may soon be free.
AOL will be able to offer a lot of content and special deals. They will be able to let you buy your new GM car and check out the TV guide listings. In short, you'll be able to do all the mundane things that the internet is so good at without ever having to go to the actual internet!
And this my friends solves our problem. It's already easy enough to identify people using AOL. This can be done by checking the IP address using Perl or Java and then redirecting people to a "404 page". This has been done by a number of webmasters already due to the actions of numerous AOL users. (Links will not be provided in order to protect identities.)
Soon we can envision two internets. AOL and the old Internet. As usual, AOL will not share the majority of it's content with us, and some of us will not share out content with them (see above). However the tourists will start to fade away as we cease to offer them the lowbrow contents they so greatly desire.
P.S. No, my site is still available to Aol users as it's the only way my parents (both AOL users)can see their grandson.
One thing simply can't get past my braincells and, try as I might; I can't understand the concept. Whenever someone talks about anything happening at speeds faster than light, they discuss time as if it is an absolute, i.e. that New Years happens in New York and Orlando at the exact same time. However, although it may seem like this, in fact, does happen. I've never seen any particular proof of it, and certain results and theories seem to me to indicate that this, in fact, may not be true. It seems to me that midnight could happen in New York both before AND after it happens in Orlando. Unfortunately, I can't find a way to describe this in a language that assumes a moment always occurs at the same instance in time. (I can't even write that sentence very well.)
Is it possible, or even believed, that time is not one-dimensional, but instead multi-dimensional? Are there terms to describe it if it is?
Please moderate the above comment back down, ignorance is not informative or insightful.
The "server" that companies keep credit card information are are Authorization servers. These are the machines that are connected to point of sale devices, automated tellers, and other methods used to conduct transactions. These servers are not internet servers. They are not hackable the way that internet servers are, simply becuase they serve a completely different purpose and were built on entirely different protocols.
Could they be hacked? Yes. But then again so could an ATM. However the methodology for doing so is quite different, and not discussed on 2600.
Banks, Credit Card processors, and governing bodies, such as Visa and MasterCard take their security very seriously. This is why the weak point has always been the point of sale location, whether it be a mall, gas station, or online store. It is much easier to get a specific credit card number by going through a person's mail than to attempt to attack the authorization servers.
Think of it this way. Visa and MasterCard care about the security of their cardholders. Online and real world merchants however, do not, except as far as it affects the fee they pay. offtopic note: When a merchant completes a transaction, for say, $10.00, he pays a small percentage, a penny or five, depending on what security measures he uses. A merchant who get's an auth and send in the transaction immediately gets a better rate than a merchant who is using paper tickets. This "fee" is used to cover the cardholder banks losses due to fraud. By accepting a credit card, the merchant makes a little less money on each transaction (this is why gas stations used to charge extra to accept credit cards), but they no longer have to deal with bad checks and counterfit bills.
For anyone to suggest that the authorization servers are as weak as the online stores is pure folly.
Ziggy played banker, cashing checks with Weird and Gilly. The tellers from Mars. He played it online But had to pay the fine. Became a real crank, created Ziggy's bank
Ziggy gave out loans, screwed up money and screwed up concept Like some cat from Japan, he could lick 'em by smiling He could leave 'em to hang Came on as a loaded man, well hung and snow white tan.
So where were the tellers when we system started to crash No DSN to guide us, So we bitched about his rights, and should we crush Ziggy's site?
Ziggy played for time, jiving us that we were voodoo The kids were just crass, he was the nazz With God given cash He loaned out way too much but boy he didn't lose his touch
Making love with his ego Ziggy sucked up their money
Like a Judas he sold us When the kiddies launched their scripts I knew we were dying quick
Today Wired has an article about Apple creating web based products designed to attract new users to the apple and making them only available to apple users. It includes comments like:
In announcing the new suite Wednesday, Jobs said the company had looked at the fact that it owned proprietary software on both ends of a Web visit to the site. "We realized we could take unfair advantage of the fact," Jobs said. The panel generally said the approach just made it more compelling to buy a Mac for consumers seeking Internet access, and that Apple was smart to leverage it.
I would have liked to have asked Woz what his take on this would be. We all know how much we love pages that need AOL or internet explorer or some other non-universal technology.
With Microsoft slowly going the route of open source (also this) (it's only disclosed source but it's a start), I wonder if this is a wise move or a fatal mistake. I only wish I had known about this in time.
Bill, a lot of people want to know when we can expect Windows 2000. Seriously, there are only 3 people who really know how much work a source release for this is: Linus, Woz, and Me. And the three of us have been working on a lot of stuff. As I write this, Microsoft employees are bugfixing and documenting and preparing for a release.
Why the delay, Bill? This isn't like other projects: it has been custom fit to our hardware and to our needs. It doesn't have install scripts or help or even comments in the code. We're just too busy to play tech support helping dozens of people. We've decided to squash the bugs and make a clean release rather than rush it.
Why does it take so long to patch bugs in Windows? It's really easy for someone to complain that I didn't release a new version of Windows every week. Its also easy to forget that in the last 6 months we've doubled in traffic and we've had to optimize our code and hardware to handle that. A new release is secondary: Our job is making money. We want to release new versions of Windows, but it is a definite second priority to making money.
So when can we expect Windows 2000 on the store shelves? It's coming soon. It'll be out when its finished. And if you ask me again I'll postpone it again.
As an former member of SAC/STRATCOM, I can see that you don't really understand the military.
The purpose of STRATCOM is peace. "Peace is our profession." That seems like an odd motto for a group of people who plan WWIII but there is a reason for it.
Only if everyone understands what will really happy can WWIII be averted. Every time some fool of a general get's the idea that his country can win a nuclear war, we have to be there with enough proof to keep him from pushing the button. That's how the game is played.
Wars happen. The reasons the US got into the gulf war and WWII we're not the best of reasons. The actions of some of our people were not the best of actions. However, to have not gotten into those wars at all would have been an even worse mistake. If good men stand by and do nothing then they really aren't good men, are they?
Once committed, our job is to end the war, and end it soon. This means people are going to die, in droves. That's what war is. If you don't like it the put the chains on your wrists and go into slavery. If your life is so precious that you cannot bear to lose it, then the contents of your life are controled by anyone willing to take it.
I'm not saying it's nice or it's clean, but it's necessary. We may not like the feds or the cops or the electric chair but it beats living next to Ted Bundy.
To not recognise the reason for the military is to ignore history. We may not like it, but as protest singer Phil Oachs was fond of pointing out, "We're the cops of the world boys."
Or did you really expect everyone to play nice and share their toys?
10) Embedded chips really don't care what year it is 9) There aren't 200,000 virus writers on the face of the earth. 8) Microsoft has code that reads: "99 + 1 = 2000 for purposes of getDate" 7) Some of my web pages are now Y2.1K noncompliant 6) Seattle is not a party town. 5) New Years is not an event. 4) Microsoft still has more bugs and viruses than all of y2k put together. 3) Pulling your server because the date changes makes you look like a fool. 2) 2600.com really does have a sense of humor. 1) Don't release the doves and launch the fireworks at the same time!
When I first read the story, I was outraged. I still have my T-shirt from the Steve Jackson raid and though this was more of the same. But check out some of these links:
Now I'm not going to poke fun at their "hide it under a stamp" microphone. It's an item that has some legit as well as non legit uses, like most tools. The way they advertise it is questionable, but the item itself is useful.
However, they way they advertise their products strikes me as a deliberate attempt to attract people with less than honorable motives.
Unfortunately, a some point in time, a decision is made that a tool is dangerous enough that it's risks outweight it's benefits. What side of the line these tools are on is up to you to judge, and to lobby your lawmakers with. However, the way Ramsey electronics portrays some of their inventory no longer leaves a doubt in my mind on what side they take.
The question should not be if we understand the law. For the most part, we don't. The question should not be if the lawyers understand technology. For the most part, they don't. The question (unasked) should not be if the lawmakers understand either. For the most part, they don't.
We create or implement new ideas, or at least copy them from someone who does. Lawyers deal with who should have permission to perform these acts based on prior law. Lawmakers create laws that they are lobbied to create.
The problem is that we have allowed ourselves to feel superior through technical knowledge and then are shocked when those we have kept ignorant rebel against us in a battlefield not of our choosing.
We wanted a place where only we were allowed to go and then we bragged about how cool it was. Eventually the masses (aol) were bound to flock there. They brought with them their own interests (bad porn) and their money (etoy). In the process we lost control of some things (domain names, usenet), had some things corrupted (amazon.com used to be cool), and had some things forced upon us (spam). We disliked the masses. We tried to keep them uninformed. We tried to keep them out. We built places like slashdot that rewards people for being "one of us", in an effort to keep them away.
We were wrong. There is no refuge from idiots. Mensa has more idiots than I can stand. Science fiction conventions are filled with them. The internet is becoming overpopulated with them. No matter how far you run, you can't escape the idiots.
But you can educate them.
Leonardo, etoy(s), DeCSS, Amazon: These are all actions of people with just enough knowledge to be dangerous. It's not that the lawyers are dumb. They're not. They are paid to win. But the judges, the juries, the spectators, and the defendant's lawyers are just not knowledgeable enough to see our side of the story. The sad thing is, we hold that knowledge. We knew and did not tell. We distributed DECSS without explaining what it is, what it can and can't do, and why it exists. We boycotted Amazon and Etoys without explaining to them or their customers why what they were doing was wrong in language they could understand. We insulted their intelligence when we could have increased it.
"Information wants to be free". "The internet perceives censorship as damage and routes around it." I've heard it all before, all from people who didn't realizing that they were keeping the knowledge of how and why it worked to themselves.
1).per,.biz,.xxx,.ent,.mus, etc. (personal, business, porno, entertainment, music, etc..) 2).org for org. No one should need.org,.com, and.net. If we wanted to do that, we wouldn't have needed the distinction in the first place. 3) Use it or lose it. I would like to own, or even be able to purchase moc.com from Marathon Oil Company, especially since they do all their business through marathon.com. Other great unused domains? Think.com and toys.com are growiing dust. toy.com is considered so invaluable that it's owners are taking the much more popular etoy.com to court.
On another note. I'm wishing I was fast enough to purchase passport.com when it wasn't renewed. I would have used it and loved it. (That's a joke. Laugh.)
Slashdot Mirror
Their stock was at $65 a share. It dropped below $20 a share. That's below the IPO.
Meanwhile there still seem to be a lot of pages out there that the search engines are picking up. I wonder how many people are going to be all that interested in cleaning those old files off their web space.
I'm thinking my "How to build your own etoys resistance site" page may stay up for a long time as a HTML primer....
-----
Want to reply? Don't know HTML? No problem.
2) How soon can a technical problem be fixed?
3) What software will it run?
4) Will it be around for long?
5) Can you purchase it?
For more notes on #4, check out this article on ZDnet.
-----
Want to reply? Don't know HTML? No problem.
The compound itself? Ah who cares. But Chime impressed me though.
-----
Want to reply? Don't know HTML? No problem.
Now someone please explain something to me. Why are there 400 different counter scripts? Is this really necessary? From what I can see you have a choice of SSI or non-SSI, a collection of data to log, and the choice of text, graphic numbers, or pure graphics to choose from.
Navigation tools are worse. Far worse. And trying to figure out the difference between mail scripts makes me physicaly ill.
As a Perl Newbie, if someone is going to put out an online Perl Manual, please, I'm begging you, include in your site the best 2 or 3 scripts for a certain function and encourage your community to focus on improving them rather than writing their own. There should be an SSI and a non-SSI version of each, simply because many free hosting firms do allow non-SSI scripts. (I know, lame... but if there is a good free hosting firm that allows SSI, I missed it.)
-----
Want to reply? Don't know HTML? No problem.
Some people have taken offense to my suggestion that they pull the code until the judge comes to his final decision. Let me explain myself a little better.
I believe it is our best interest to comply with the judge at this point in time, even if we do not live in the state of California. We can publicly disagree with his decision all we want, but we should show a willingness to abide by it. To disregard it only makes us match the public belief of hackers. A lot of the posts that are saying how we should mirror DeCSS all over the place sound remarkably like script kiddies screaming "Free Kevin" simply because of something they read at 2600.
Our goal, unless I am mistaken, is for the members of our community to be found not guilty on all charges. We want the judge to come to the understanding that these tools were created to improve the viability of DVD, not injure it, by allowing people with Linux computers the ability to show, and therefore purchase DVD movies.
At this point in time the judge has not yet reached a decision. he has requested that the information be taken down until he reaches that decision. This strikes me as fair. It's not a win, but it is fair to both parties. After all, is there anyone who can't wait a week or two for DeCSS (assuming anyone doesn't already have it.)
Now once the judge makes his final decision then you can make yours. You can choose if you want to obey the law or not. That choice is yours and you can make it freely. You can do it in the name of piracy or free speech, but the only person you put at risk is yourself.
However, at this point in time, our actions put others at risk. We may claim we're fighting for free speech, but we will not be the ones to take the fall. If you want to fight the fight, then become a Doe (one of the 500 unnamed defendants) and run the same risks as they are running.
But don't ack like a script kiddie and call it revolution.
-----
Want to reply? Don't know HTML? No problem.
It gives the impression that lawyers know and understand their rights and know what the law is. The fact that even the lawyers do not know how a case is going to turn out, proves otherwise. Lawyers do have the time to research the outcomes of previous cases and their strongest ability is to try to get consistancy in the law by citing previous decisions.
Governments do not make the laws.
It is not until a judge decides that a law is constitutional and decides on it's meaning that it has any power. The Digital Milleninum insanity alone is proof of this. Written by a number of lawyers, no one can identify it's purpose or meaning anymore. Perhaps laws should be written by children.
The legal system is not consistant.
This is the one thing I had no real understanding of until now. I knew that the laws of different countries, states, etc. were different but I never realized what an outdated concept we work with. A 15 year old from Norway is being charged in California. The judge from that trial appears to be working of an entire different legal system than the judge in new York. I suspect both of these trials will then be brought up to a higher court regardless of the ruling and each will be used as precedent in the other.
People do not understand judges
It amazes me to see people mirroring DeCSS now that a judge has asked us not to. What is the point of doing it now? Is there someone, somewhere who doesn't have it yet? Are you doing it just to spite the judge? If so, then perhaps it is time to consider the concequences of your actions, not to yourself but to the defendants and the court's final decision. To pull your copies, as I am doing, is to show respect for the court system. If you do not respect the court system it is likely to not respect you or your arguments right back. I would suggest that it would be best to replace your copies of DeCSS with copies of the court decision and a well written opinion of how you feel about them. In lack thereof, grab the Score:5 reply of your choice and post it. Currently, the request is to remove them until the court makes it's final decision. That seems reasonable enough and does not prevent us from putting it back up after the court has made it's decision. If you want to mirror it once the case is over, that's your decision and does not reflect on any way on the defendant's case. However, by mirroring it now, you put someone other than yourself at risk.
-----
Want to reply? Don't know HTML? No problem.
-----
Want to reply? Don't know HTML? No problem.
Yep. I'm a guy.
Hmmm.. (Digging through pile of computer magazine...oh look, Maxim, [toss])Ah. Here's one.
(Shuffle Shuffle Shuffle)
Nope. I can honestly say these ads don't do a thing for me either. About all they're good for is making sure I WON'T buy their game.
Now before we get off on the wrong foot, I'm running a Windows platform just for games. Loki is making it possible for me to run a Linux only PC next year and I'm happy as heck. I go to LAN parties on a regular basis, including a small one last weekend. I'd buy Quake IV based on the name alone and I have to visit Bluesnews on a daily basis. Id, Bungie, and Blizzard are my current favorite companies (Firaxis took a big dive after betatest Centauri).
My point? I'm not surprised that the ad companies, and everyone else seems to have some horrible sterotypical views of females. Their veiws of me as a male computer programmer suck even more.
Off to the gym. Have fun everyone.
-----
Want to reply? Don't know HTML? No problem.
Considering that a 15 year old had enough intelligence to hack DVD, something that has been considered quite important on Slashdot, a person stating that he doesn't want to read anything by a 14 year old student strikes me as odd. Strangely enough, somehow when that same student becomes a 35 year old Sys Admin he suddenly gets an opinion that matters. At least that's what I'm getting out of the comment I just read.
I can understand people believing that and saying it, but I never thought it would be moderated up.
Jon. I would like to thank you. I've obviously been mistaken as to what kind of people Slashdot attracted. After having set my threshold at 3, I still see noise, flaming, and a number of replies that don't seem to have anything to do with what you've written.
If anyone knows of a better place, please, check out my previous replies and decide for yourself if you would like to invite me. Slashdot just isn't cutting it anymore.
-----
Want to reply? Don't know HTML? No problem.
In the past week or so I have been enjoying watching my Karma bounce up and down like a yoyo. It started out with An interview with Bill Gates where I attempted to express my opinion of Commander Taco's statement with humor rather than flaming. After immediately being hit with -1,troll it bounced back to 4, Funny (picking up an Insightful along the way). The support it received after being marked down as a troll let me know that although one anonymous reviewer didn't like it, the support was there. Since then I've been marked down as overrated and (I still can't figure this one out) (Score:3, Redundant). Somehow 2 people bounced me up and then it was decided that I was being redundant...
And this, my friends, is hostility.
I'll never know why a post is moderated both ways. I can understand a post being moderated up or down but when both actions happen to the same post than I can only assume I've hit a nerve. The difference is the moderator is a person who is even more of an enigma than the AC. At least the AC has to choose his words. You can decide for yourself on the merits of the AC's statement by reading it. Does the AC bring up good points? Does he back up his argument with facts? Does he cause me to think? Or does he just call me a #@$% S.O.B.?
The moderator on the other hand is much harder to figure out. While I may not disagree with him (the one post was Overated), there's very little I can do to understand the actions involved. Many people seem to feel the same way about the articles they submit. "Why was article X chosen instead of mine?" We have no way to know, and our assumptions are not always kind.
What I find amazing is the number of posts challenging the "slashdot status quo" that are moderated up. Apparently it is now part of the status quo to challenge the status quo, a concept that strikes me as very unusual. Unfortunately a number of these moderated up posts are downright insulting. The recent Roblimo Attack Sequence proves that the flames can be sent back and forth and it proved the sucess and failure of moderation. The posts that were moderated up were those critical of the article. They were not posts that were critcal of Rob. However, Rob's response back was not subject to moderation, and things began to get out of hand. At that point addition text was added at the top and posts crital of Rob began to be moderated up. These posts were critical of Rob's reply and although they were not written as flames or insults, this was the first time they began to appear at the 3 level and above.
But there is something to think about here. Not only did someone put their name down and let forth a criticism, but someone else made that critisism more visable without having to own up to it. No where is this more obvious than in this very article. No AC here. (Score:5, Insightful) by paul.dunne is an example of an article that starts off in an insulting manner. It makes it's points, but it makes them in a style that agressive at best. It could easily receive a (-1, rude) if such a thing existed. However, it is no longer the action of a single individual, but it is now an assualt by four different individuals on Jon Katz himself. All four of these individuals have the option of simply not reading his articles. All have chosen to do so and then openly complain about the quality of them. Only one of them was willing and able to admit he did it publicly.
Moderation not only helps prevent hostility. It also helps cause it. When a person is rewarded for behaving in a hostile manner, it can only increase the desire to behave that way.
-----
Moderation allows a large number of people to collectively decide an news items worth.
In this case, -1,troll.
In addition, article moderation allows for less articles submitted as we can check for duplicates. Also it would give you guys more of a break. Allow yourselves ultra-moderation if you want, so that you can set the score of an article and not allow the regular moderators to adjust it.
-----
WHAT?
Yes. That's right. This could be a "good thing".
Take your finger off of the -1, troll and listen for a minute. Than mark me down all you want. I'll say my piece even if it is against Slashdot doctrine.
The ability of these companies to write and enforce such bizarre procedures only makes it easier for us to choose software. In this age of the internet, where we know more about a product before it hits the store shelves than the manufacturer does, laws like these quickly become a moot point.
If a software is not a sale, but it is, instead, a license, then it's something I can't give away for Christmas. Good enough for me.
If I can't reverse engineer it, fine. Reverse engineering may be legal but you still have to go to court next week just to point that out. Meanwhile Apple steals a GUI from Xerox, has it stolen by Windows, and then yells at Stardock over a lookalike skin? Since when has the letter of the law even mattered? Etoy still doesn't have a web site and Nestle is still hawking baby formula. The world goes on.
Put more restrictions on software. I just won't buy it. I'll stick to Linux or whoever else writes a reasonable sales/license agreement and smile.
If software can be turned off from a remote location, it does not need to be installed. Companies who do this save me money, because I don't see the need to spend money to install a backdoor onto my PC.
Honestly, it makes my life simpler. I don't need to worry about who has a better deal, Amazon or eToys or Nestle, because I won't buy their products.
Why fight against stupidity? Do you really think that the companies we respect (such as Redhat) could keep our business if they did this? No. Obviously no. You may bring up things like DeCSS but be real, one of us will be watching Star Wars, Episode One this year and it's won't be on your DVD player. The big music producers who want copy protection aren't the label for my favorite bands. Most of my favorite bands have CD's with sticky labels.
In short. Let them have their laws. I am not their customer. Their laws do not affect me.
-----
Is the concept obvious?
Although this seems like a good way to judge patents, it really doesn't work well. In retrospect, almost everything seems obvious. The advantages to having a time machine are obvious to anyone, but we would all agree that someone who invented a time machine should deserve a patent. (At least I hope we would.)
Is it easy to use?
A lot of people seem to be judging XEROX on this basis. They claim that since the characters are simple, the patent should be denied. I believe that using a time machine would also be simple, but that's no reason to deny a patent for a time machine. Ease of use is a good thing and should be encouraged.
Is the device easy to create?
Now this is an interesting one. How easy is it to actually create a workable handwriting recognition system. Actually, that's not that easy. I'm sure some of us could do it, especially since we're only trying to duplicate an existing system, not create a new system (we know it can work, which helps a lot). For technological patents, I'm willing to state that an item sufficently technically difficult to prototype should deserve a patent.
Is it obvious? On this question I need to break the field into two halves. In a younger, technology based field, almost everything is obvious. It's very hard not to come up with an obvious new way to use that technology. If Slashdot hadn't come along, a similar method of moderation would have been developed by someone else (it may have for all I know). In addition, almost everything is obvious in retrospect.
On the other hand, certain fields are no longer technological. In these fields, almost any new invention get's away with the answer "If it was obvious, why hasn't anyone thought it up before." When I was a machinist, we create a couple of patentable tools, simply based off the fact that these tools were extremly useful and did not exist. These tools could have been made with the equipment available before WWII but were not. Therefore, they should be declared to be non-obvious.
It seems to me that the best way to rate this is to examine how long the technology has existed that makes the creation of the device possible.
Summation
I would suggest that the best way to rate patents is: "The difficulty of creating the prototype multiplied by the amount of time the technology has existed to create that prototype.". When a patent is challenged by another company we should also consider the amount of time the patent has been held before being challenged. If that is a long period of time, then it indicates that that patent deserves to stand as the item was either a lot more difficult to prototype or a lot more non-obvious than we thought.
Responses and feedback appreciated.
Ummm. nevermind, last time I did that I was marked down as a troll...
Let's face it. One of the great debates over the internet ever since AOL hooked up it's bulliten board is "How do we get away from these idiots?"
Thanks to the merger, we may soon be free.
AOL will be able to offer a lot of content and special deals. They will be able to let you buy your new GM car and check out the TV guide listings. In short, you'll be able to do all the mundane things that the internet is so good at without ever having to go to the actual internet!
And this my friends solves our problem. It's already easy enough to identify people using AOL. This can be done by checking the IP address using Perl or Java and then redirecting people to a "404 page". This has been done by a number of webmasters already due to the actions of numerous AOL users. (Links will not be provided in order to protect identities.)
Soon we can envision two internets. AOL and the old Internet. As usual, AOL will not share the majority of it's content with us, and some of us will not share out content with them (see above). However the tourists will start to fade away as we cease to offer them the lowbrow contents they so greatly desire.
P.S. No, my site is still available to Aol users as it's the only way my parents (both AOL users)can see their grandson.
Whenever someone talks about anything happening at speeds faster than light, they discuss time as if it is an absolute, i.e. that New Years happens in New York and Orlando at the exact same time. However, although it may seem like this, in fact, does happen. I've never seen any particular proof of it, and certain results and theories seem to me to indicate that this, in fact, may not be true. It seems to me that midnight could happen in New York both before AND after it happens in Orlando.
Unfortunately, I can't find a way to describe this in a language that assumes a moment always occurs at the same instance in time. (I can't even write that sentence very well.)
Is it possible, or even believed, that time is not one-dimensional, but instead multi-dimensional? Are there terms to describe it if it is?
The "server" that companies keep credit card information are are Authorization servers. These are the machines that are connected to point of sale devices, automated tellers, and other methods used to conduct transactions. These servers are not internet servers. They are not hackable the way that internet servers are, simply becuase they serve a completely different purpose and were built on entirely different protocols.
Could they be hacked? Yes. But then again so could an ATM. However the methodology for doing so is quite different, and not discussed on 2600.
Banks, Credit Card processors, and governing bodies, such as Visa and MasterCard take their security very seriously. This is why the weak point has always been the point of sale location, whether it be a mall, gas station, or online store. It is much easier to get a specific credit card number by going through a person's mail than to attempt to attack the authorization servers.
Think of it this way. Visa and MasterCard care about the security of their cardholders. Online and real world merchants however, do not, except as far as it affects the fee they pay.
offtopic note: When a merchant completes a transaction, for say, $10.00, he pays a small percentage, a penny or five, depending on what security measures he uses. A merchant who get's an auth and send in the transaction immediately gets a better rate than a merchant who is using paper tickets. This "fee" is used to cover the cardholder banks losses due to fraud. By accepting a credit card, the merchant makes a little less money on each transaction (this is why gas stations used to charge extra to accept credit cards), but they no longer have to deal with bad checks and counterfit bills.
For anyone to suggest that the authorization servers are as weak as the online stores is pure folly.
The tellers from Mars. He played it online
But had to pay the fine.
Became a real crank, created Ziggy's bank
Ziggy gave out loans, screwed up money and screwed up concept
Like some cat from Japan, he could lick 'em by smiling
He could leave 'em to hang
Came on as a loaded man, well hung and snow white tan.
So where were the tellers when we system started to crash
No DSN to guide us,
So we bitched about his rights, and should we crush Ziggy's site?
Ziggy played for time, jiving us that we were voodoo
The kids were just crass, he was the nazz With God given cash
He loaned out way too much but boy he didn't lose his touch
Making love with his ego Ziggy sucked up their money
Like a Judas he sold us
When the kiddies launched their scripts I knew we were dying quick
Oh yeah
Ooooooo
Ziggy played bankerrrrrr
I wonder if he'll remake Little Toy Soilders for Toywar - JohnyAngel
In announcing the new suite Wednesday, Jobs said the company had looked at the fact that it owned proprietary software on both ends of a Web visit to the site. "We realized we could take unfair advantage of the fact," Jobs said.
The panel generally said the approach just made it more compelling to buy a Mac for consumers seeking Internet access, and that Apple was smart to leverage it.
I would have liked to have asked Woz what his take on this would be. We all know how much we love pages that need AOL or internet explorer or some other non-universal technology.
With Microsoft slowly going the route of open source (also this) (it's only disclosed source but it's a start), I wonder if this is a wise move or a fatal mistake. I only wish I had known about this in time.
Bill, a lot of people want to know when we can expect Windows 2000.
Seriously, there are only 3 people who really know how much work a source release for this is: Linus, Woz, and Me. And the three of us have been working on a lot of stuff. As I write this, Microsoft employees are bugfixing and documenting and preparing for a release.
Why the delay, Bill?
This isn't like other projects: it has been custom fit to our hardware and to our needs. It doesn't have install scripts or help or even comments in the code. We're just too busy to play tech support helping dozens of people. We've decided to squash the bugs and make a clean release rather than rush it.
Why does it take so long to patch bugs in Windows?
It's really easy for someone to complain that I didn't release a new version of Windows every week. Its also easy to forget that in the last 6 months we've doubled in traffic and we've had to optimize our code and hardware to handle that. A new release is secondary: Our job is making money. We want to release new versions of Windows, but it is a definite second priority to making money.
So when can we expect Windows 2000 on the store shelves?
It's coming soon. It'll be out when its finished. And if you ask me again I'll postpone it again.
The purpose of STRATCOM is peace. "Peace is our profession." That seems like an odd motto for a group of people who plan WWIII but there is a reason for it.
Only if everyone understands what will really happy can WWIII be averted. Every time some fool of a general get's the idea that his country can win a nuclear war, we have to be there with enough proof to keep him from pushing the button. That's how the game is played.
Wars happen. The reasons the US got into the gulf war and WWII we're not the best of reasons. The actions of some of our people were not the best of actions. However, to have not gotten into those wars at all would have been an even worse mistake. If good men stand by and do nothing then they really aren't good men, are they?
Once committed, our job is to end the war, and end it soon. This means people are going to die, in droves. That's what war is. If you don't like it the put the chains on your wrists and go into slavery. If your life is so precious that you cannot bear to lose it, then the contents of your life are controled by anyone willing to take it.
I'm not saying it's nice or it's clean, but it's necessary. We may not like the feds or the cops or the electric chair but it beats living next to Ted Bundy.
To not recognise the reason for the military is to ignore history. We may not like it, but as protest singer Phil Oachs was fond of pointing out, "We're the cops of the world boys."
Or did you really expect everyone to play nice and share their toys?
10) Embedded chips really don't care what year it is
9) There aren't 200,000 virus writers on the face of the earth.
8) Microsoft has code that reads: "99 + 1 = 2000 for purposes of getDate"
7) Some of my web pages are now Y2.1K noncompliant
6) Seattle is not a party town.
5) New Years is not an event.
4) Microsoft still has more bugs and viruses than all of y2k put together.
3) Pulling your server because the date changes makes you look like a fool.
2) 2600.com really does have a sense of humor.
1) Don't release the doves and launch the fireworks at the same time!
so I became a coder
happy cubicle
oh no, a round peg
push, cut, beat, hammer, pull, wedge
we will make him fit
But check out some of these links:
Disguised Wall Clock Video Camera System
Disguised Smoke Detector Video Camera System
Now I'm not going to poke fun at their "hide it under a stamp" microphone. It's an item that has some legit as well as non legit uses, like most tools. The way they advertise it is questionable, but the item itself is useful.
However, they way they advertise their products strikes me as a deliberate attempt to attract people with less than honorable motives.
Unfortunately, a some point in time, a decision is made that a tool is dangerous enough that it's risks outweight it's benefits. What side of the line these tools are on is up to you to judge, and to lobby your lawmakers with. However, the way Ramsey electronics portrays some of their inventory no longer leaves a doubt in my mind on what side they take.
The question should not be if the lawyers understand technology. For the most part, they don't.
The question (unasked) should not be if the lawmakers understand either. For the most part, they don't.
We create or implement new ideas, or at least copy them from someone who does. Lawyers deal with who should have permission to perform these acts based on prior law. Lawmakers create laws that they are lobbied to create.
The problem is that we have allowed ourselves to feel superior through technical knowledge and then are shocked when those we have kept ignorant rebel against us in a battlefield not of our choosing.
We wanted a place where only we were allowed to go and then we bragged about how cool it was. Eventually the masses (aol) were bound to flock there. They brought with them their own interests (bad porn) and their money (etoy). In the process we lost control of some things (domain names, usenet), had some things corrupted (amazon.com used to be cool), and had some things forced upon us (spam).
We disliked the masses. We tried to keep them uninformed. We tried to keep them out. We built places like slashdot that rewards people for being "one of us", in an effort to keep them away.
We were wrong. There is no refuge from idiots. Mensa has more idiots than I can stand. Science fiction conventions are filled with them. The internet is becoming overpopulated with them. No matter how far you run, you can't escape the idiots.
But you can educate them.
Leonardo, etoy(s), DeCSS, Amazon: These are all actions of people with just enough knowledge to be dangerous. It's not that the lawyers are dumb. They're not. They are paid to win. But the judges, the juries, the spectators, and the defendant's lawyers are just not knowledgeable enough to see our side of the story.
The sad thing is, we hold that knowledge. We knew and did not tell. We distributed DECSS without explaining what it is, what it can and can't do, and why it exists. We boycotted Amazon and Etoys without explaining to them or their customers why what they were doing was wrong in language they could understand. We insulted their intelligence when we could have increased it.
"Information wants to be free". "The internet perceives censorship as damage and routes around it." I've heard it all before, all from people who didn't realizing that they were keeping the knowledge of how and why it worked to themselves.
What fools we mortals be.
2)
3) Use it or lose it. I would like to own, or even be able to purchase moc.com from Marathon Oil Company, especially since they do all their business through marathon.com. Other great unused domains? Think.com and toys.com are growiing dust. toy.com is considered so invaluable that it's owners are taking the much more popular etoy.com to court.
On another note. I'm wishing I was fast enough to purchase passport.com when it wasn't renewed. I would have used it and loved it. (That's a joke. Laugh.)