I got tired of waiting for Verizon to provide Bluetooth, so I created my own solution months ago.
I bought a used SonyEricsson T608 that had been provisioned to Sprint. A little bit of hacking broke the MSL, and then I just used Verizon's web page to switch my service to the new ESN. Badda-Bing!
The only "trick" here was realizing that the T608 was a bluetooth enabled CDMA phone that was already for sale in the USA. After that, it was just hacking.
I just want to listen to my music, let the music industry figure out the technology. Right now my CDs and MP3 give me all the above, I'll take anything else as a downgrade.
Your use of "DRM goodness" made me laugh. Just another oxymoron like "military intelligence". The industry just may as well say they want to make my life worse by making their life better.
Just so nobody won't accuse me of being closed minded, I will be happy to consider moving to a DRM standard to protect the industry, so long as it has no impact on my ability to:
1: Make unlimited copies for personal use. 2: Use unlimited devices for personal use. 3: Convert between unlimited formats for personal use.
But I don't know if "what's the big deal" is a very healthy reaction. Do you likewise feel "what's the big deal" that we're now bombing Fallujah?
Saying I've desensitized myself to the pictures doesn't mean I don't care about the lifes they represent. What happened in Fallujah that day, and what is happening there now, is what it is, regardless of whether or not pictures of it are released.
Question regarding the contractors? Is what happened to them in some way "more evil" because it was photographed and released to the world. Should my personal reaction to any event be effected by whether or not it is photographed, and how gruesome the photographs are? If I say yes, than I allow my reaction to be manipulated by what the reporter chooses to photograph and what the media chooses to broadcast.
Regarding the fighting in the city today, the use of force against those who did not initiate force (innocents) is a bad thing in my book, regardless of whether or not it is photographed. I see no reason whatsoever to let pictures of bloody, burnt, mutilated bodies, from either side, influence my sense of right and wrong.
To clarify my original reaction to the killings of the contractors, it wasn't "ho-hum, American contractors killed", it was "ho-hum, pictures of burnt bodies". I can judge the impact of the killing independent of the artistic quality (or lack thereof) of the photographs.
One observation I have about some of the current coverage of the area - it is odd that when the media reports the threats made towards the captured Japanese workers, they primarily report the threat to burn them to death, but rarely report the follow-on threat the their bodies will then be eaten.
Maybe you didn't try hard enough. I've been actively seeking out the most "disturbing" pictures on the internet for several years now, and I'm pretty much to the point where nothing I see disturbs me. (One exception, I still get queasy when I see pictures that involve mutilated eyeballs).
Case in point, the killing of the American contractors in Iraq a few days ago. When I finally saw the pictures of the burnt corpses getting poked with shovels, my first reaction was "what's the big deal". Apparantly the rest of the country doesn't feel the same way, because today we are bombing Fallujah.
Personally, I'm glad I desnsitized myself. It lets me look at any image and have a rational, instead of emotional, reaction.
If you go to their home page at http://www.cithosting.com/, they have some quotes from customers they protected from DDOS attacks. They customers quoted are http://www.boxedart.com, http://www.templatemonster.com/, and www.designload.com. All three of these sites sell predefined templates for web pages.
Why on earth would this type of business be such a target for DDOS attacks?
You are correct that it was originally at akebono.stanford.edu, but it did move to yahoo.stanford.edu prior to becoming www.yahoo.com. As far as whether Yahoo could have continued in some form without accepting advertising, the world will never know. Nonetheless, even to this day, there remain many useful sites that are either substantially or totally free of banner ads.
If banner ads fail, more and more sites will be forced into a pay model, and the days of the "Free Internet" will be almost over.
The author must be new to the internet. If you go back to the good old days, for example when Yahoo used to be at yahoo.stanford.edu, there were no banner ads. Guess what, the internet was free then.
To claim that the loss of banner ads will automatically lead to the loss of a non-free internet is to ignore history and to show a lack of imagination. Banner ads are only a 1994 invention, they aren't an intrinsic part of either the internet or the world wide web.
Unless you propose the historical cycle is broken, that is what always happens. Put differently, people purchase boxes with new capabilities or more processing power, and they usually want new applications to take advantage of those features. People buying new boxes to run their old applications faster does occur sometimes, but isn't the historical norm.
After over a year out of work I managed to snag a job a few months ago with a good company. What I see starting to happen is some strengthening of the hardware market. Since most Slashdotters are software people, I don't know how far that will lag hardware. But it is certain that once people start upgrading their old boxes, sooner or later they will need new applications to run on them.
If it is all going to boil down to the GPL being tried in a court of law, there is one big thing that we should all be thankful for. That is the fact that IBM is on the side of the GPL. IBM has some of the best and sharpest attorneys in the corporate world, and short of having Disney come aboard as well, I can't think of any corporation I'd prefer to have as my proxy warrior.
The original exploit was a method that let anybody delete any arbitrary file from your PC? Could it have just been a poorly implemented version of the "we need to delete specific files" thing mentioned above?
I've seen worse things put into code on purpose, I might be able to accept this was a mistake, who knows?
But I've also heard rumours they've been behind some DDOS of good people. That might make be question their motives.
Either way, whenever you install anything that you didn't compile and read and understand every line of the source yourself, you are just deciding to trust whoever wrote it.
SCO is willing to go for broke on this one. Removing the code is really irrelevant, because they want to collect on all the "back damages" they believe they are owed.
If SGI put SCO code into Linux, and then individuals with no connection to SGI used that code, SCO wants to be able to hold them liable for past usage, even if the code was completely expunged from the current tree.
Rational? It doesn't matter what we think. In the end, it will come down to an old man in a black robe.
The Recording Industry Association of America (news - web sites) has asked broadband service providers to crack down on subscribers that illegally share music over the Internet.
Other than the tenuous link to upload speeds, that had nothing to do with the rest of the news story. It may just as well ended with:
Many broadband subscribers use their connection to view pornography. The Pope, who once watched cable television, is opposed to pornography.
Wow, I post something I thought was insightful and instead I'm moderating down as flamebait.
My point is that just as we adapt to prevent spam, we shouldn't be surprised that spammers adapt to continue to send it. Just as we use all of our resources to fight spam, why shouldn't be surprises that they use all of their resources to send it.
Your counterexamples agree with my point completely. It would indeed be in the self-interest of robbers to band together to shut down home security companies. They just, so far, haven't had the organization and resources to do so.
From a spammers point of view, these blacklists are just another form of DDOS aimed directly at them.
DDOS = Distributed Denial of Service.
Distributed as in there are multiple computers involved, all coordinated by some central host. Denial of Service in that it inteferes with a desired activity.
If you are a spammer, any distributed sytem that blocks your ability to send email is a denial of service that should be dealt with using whatever resources are at your disposal. This DDOS is best dealt with by decapitating the central host (blacklist server) instead of by trying to deal with all the zombies (mail servers) involved.
The resources available to a spammer are limited. They don't have the ability to get a court order to force the blacklist server offline, they can't have Network Solutions yank the blacklist server out of DNS space, but they can launch a retributional DDOS attack back at the blacklist server.
Adapt or die, no? These blacklist servers are interfering with the ability of spammers to conduct their business. Any solution that stops this interference is going to be worth considering.
Slashdot Mirror
The "head stuck to one side" problem is common, and can be easily fixed. From the official FAQ:
Q: Robosapien's head has turned to the right; I have not been able to re-center it. Do you have any suggestions for repair?
A: Lower his arms and twist his head all the way to the left, until you hear a "click".
I got tired of waiting for Verizon to provide Bluetooth, so I created my own solution months ago.
I bought a used SonyEricsson T608 that had been provisioned to Sprint. A little bit of hacking broke the MSL, and then I just used Verizon's web page to switch my service to the new ESN. Badda-Bing!
The only "trick" here was realizing that the T608 was a bluetooth enabled CDMA phone that was already for sale in the USA. After that, it was just hacking.
I just want to listen to my music, let the music industry figure out the technology. Right now my CDs and MP3 give me all the above, I'll take anything else as a downgrade.
RobPiano wrote "but extra DRM goodness"
Your use of "DRM goodness" made me laugh. Just another oxymoron like "military intelligence". The industry just may as well say they want to make my life worse by making their life better.
Just so nobody won't accuse me of being closed minded, I will be happy to consider moving to a DRM standard to protect the industry, so long as it has no impact on my ability to:
1: Make unlimited copies for personal use.
2: Use unlimited devices for personal use.
3: Convert between unlimited formats for personal use.
Cut to the chase. Is this going to make it any harder for me to send and receive email from my small (2 person) domain?
Old timer? 64 Kb?
For my first paid programming gig, I had to stay within 8 Kb. You young whippersnappers with 64 Kb had it easy!
But I don't know if "what's the big deal" is a very healthy reaction. Do you likewise feel "what's the big deal" that we're now bombing Fallujah?
Saying I've desensitized myself to the pictures doesn't mean I don't care about the lifes they represent. What happened in Fallujah that day, and what is happening there now, is what it is, regardless of whether or not pictures of it are released.
Question regarding the contractors? Is what happened to them in some way "more evil" because it was photographed and released to the world. Should my personal reaction to any event be effected by whether or not it is photographed, and how gruesome the photographs are? If I say yes, than I allow my reaction to be manipulated by what the reporter chooses to photograph and what the media chooses to broadcast.
Regarding the fighting in the city today, the use of force against those who did not initiate force (innocents) is a bad thing in my book, regardless of whether or not it is photographed. I see no reason whatsoever to let pictures of bloody, burnt, mutilated bodies, from either side, influence my sense of right and wrong.
To clarify my original reaction to the killings of the contractors, it wasn't "ho-hum, American contractors killed", it was "ho-hum, pictures of burnt bodies". I can judge the impact of the killing independent of the artistic quality (or lack thereof) of the photographs.
One observation I have about some of the current coverage of the area - it is odd that when the media reports the threats made towards the captured Japanese workers, they primarily report the threat to burn them to death, but rarely report the follow-on threat the their bodies will then be eaten.
Maybe you didn't try hard enough. I've been actively seeking out the most "disturbing" pictures on the internet for several years now, and I'm pretty much to the point where nothing I see disturbs me. (One exception, I still get queasy when I see pictures that involve mutilated eyeballs).
Case in point, the killing of the American contractors in Iraq a few days ago. When I finally saw the pictures of the burnt corpses getting poked with shovels, my first reaction was "what's the big deal". Apparantly the rest of the country doesn't feel the same way, because today we are bombing Fallujah.
Personally, I'm glad I desnsitized myself. It lets me look at any image and have a rational, instead of emotional, reaction.
Man, that is a prettty gay looking contraption.
Something here I don't get.
If you go to their home page at http://www.cithosting.com/, they have some quotes from customers they protected from DDOS attacks. They customers quoted are http://www.boxedart.com, http://www.templatemonster.com/, and www.designload.com. All three of these sites sell predefined templates for web pages.
Why on earth would this type of business be such a target for DDOS attacks?
You are correct that it was originally at akebono.stanford.edu, but it did move to yahoo.stanford.edu prior to becoming www.yahoo.com. As far as whether Yahoo could have continued in some form without accepting advertising, the world will never know. Nonetheless, even to this day, there remain many useful sites that are either substantially or totally free of banner ads.
If banner ads fail, more and more sites will be forced into a pay model, and the days of the "Free Internet" will be almost over.
The author must be new to the internet. If you go back to the good old days, for example when Yahoo used to be at yahoo.stanford.edu, there were no banner ads. Guess what, the internet was free then.
To claim that the loss of banner ads will automatically lead to the loss of a non-free internet is to ignore history and to show a lack of imagination. Banner ads are only a 1994 invention, they aren't an intrinsic part of either the internet or the world wide web.
Unless you propose the historical cycle is broken, that is what always happens. Put differently, people purchase boxes with new capabilities or more processing power, and they usually want new applications to take advantage of those features. People buying new boxes to run their old applications faster does occur sometimes, but isn't the historical norm.
After over a year out of work I managed to snag a job a few months ago with a good company. What I see starting to happen is some strengthening of the hardware market. Since most Slashdotters are software people, I don't know how far that will lag hardware. But it is certain that once people start upgrading their old boxes, sooner or later they will need new applications to run on them.
If it is all going to boil down to the GPL being tried in a court of law, there is one big thing that we should all be thankful for. That is the fact that IBM is on the side of the GPL. IBM has some of the best and sharpest attorneys in the corporate world, and short of having Disney come aboard as well, I can't think of any corporation I'd prefer to have as my proxy warrior.
The original exploit was a method that let anybody delete any arbitrary file from your PC? Could it have just been a poorly implemented version of the "we need to delete specific files" thing mentioned above?
I've seen worse things put into code on purpose, I might be able to accept this was a mistake, who knows?
But I've also heard rumours they've been behind some DDOS of good people. That might make be question their motives.
Either way, whenever you install anything that you didn't compile and read and understand every line of the source yourself, you are just deciding to trust whoever wrote it.
SCO is willing to go for broke on this one. Removing the code is really irrelevant, because they want to collect on all the "back damages" they believe they are owed.
If SGI put SCO code into Linux, and then individuals with no connection to SGI used that code, SCO wants to be able to hold them liable for past usage, even if the code was completely expunged from the current tree.
Rational? It doesn't matter what we think. In the end, it will come down to an old man in a black robe.
I'm sick of my posted getting moderated down. Doesn't anyone have glasses capable of reading sarcasm?
The UN is increasingly making itself irrelevant in the modern world. This is just one more sign of the trend.
You left out the right to bear arms. What is wrong with you, what about the real issues?
Didja notice at the end of the article:
The Recording Industry Association of America (news - web sites) has asked broadband service providers to crack down on subscribers that illegally share music over the Internet.
Other than the tenuous link to upload speeds, that had nothing to do with the rest of the news story. It may just as well ended with:
Many broadband subscribers use their connection to view pornography. The Pope, who once watched cable television, is opposed to pornography.
Troll! What, do I need to put frigging tags around things for you?
From the article:
... has done everything asked of it -- carry people and carry huge amounts of cargo."
Professor John Junkins says "The Space Shuttle
I guess they forgot to ask it to not explode on launch or break up on reentry. Next time, they need to give better instructions to the spacecraft.
Wow, I post something I thought was insightful and instead I'm moderating down as flamebait.
My point is that just as we adapt to prevent spam, we shouldn't be surprised that spammers adapt to continue to send it. Just as we use all of our resources to fight spam, why shouldn't be surprises that they use all of their resources to send it.
Your counterexamples agree with my point completely. It would indeed be in the self-interest of robbers to band together to shut down home security companies. They just, so far, haven't had the organization and resources to do so.
From a spammers point of view, these blacklists are just another form of DDOS aimed directly at them.
DDOS = Distributed Denial of Service.
Distributed as in there are multiple computers involved, all coordinated by some central host. Denial of Service in that it inteferes with a desired activity.
If you are a spammer, any distributed sytem that blocks your ability to send email is a denial of service that should be dealt with using whatever resources are at your disposal. This DDOS is best dealt with by decapitating the central host (blacklist server) instead of by trying to deal with all the zombies (mail servers) involved.
The resources available to a spammer are limited. They don't have the ability to get a court order to force the blacklist server offline, they can't have Network Solutions yank the blacklist server out of DNS space, but they can launch a retributional DDOS attack back at the blacklist server.
Adapt or die, no? These blacklist servers are interfering with the ability of spammers to conduct their business. Any solution that stops this interference is going to be worth considering.