Personally, I just want more Supreme Power, Rising Stars and Amazing Spider Man out of him.
Supreme Power so far and the entire run of Midnight Nation have been excellent. Rising Stars, when it's actually come out, has been pretty good too (and I'm glad to know that's finally going to be finished). I haven't read much of his Spider-Man, but then I haven't read much of anyone's Spider-Man.
What I'd really like to see from him, though (aside from more SP and the rest of RS), is some follow-up on Crusade - in any media!
Frankly, I doubt the story was posted by a West Coaster - or if it was, it's someone new to the area.
Those of us who actually live here didn't do much more than look up, say "Hey, the floor's moving" and go on with our lives.
Re:The San Andreas fault is nice and all, but
on
Is This The Big One?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Actually, I was just reading about the New Madrid system a few days ago. They've found evidence of past massive quakes in the area around AD 800 and AD 1300, suggesting a possible 500-year cycle.
If that's the case, they're probably safe for another 300 years.
Agreed. At $15/episode it wasn't worth buying unless you only wanted to get highlights. Assuming it's $80-100/season (and you know there will be discounts - I got all of Babylon 5 for $60/season or less instead of the $100 list price just by shopping around a bit) I might actually pick this one up.
I guess you don't need those outbid notices from eBay, or shipping notices from FedEx, or newsletters from CNN, or ticket confirmations from Southwest, or...
Well, Bonded Sender has been a default part of SpamAssassin FOR AT LEAST A YEAR now, and a quick search at google groups yields only three posts to NANAE containing either the old RCVD_IN_BONDEDSENDER or the newer RCVD_IN_BSP_OTHER, and none in RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED.
Two of them are phishing scams that triggered the rule only because SpamAssassin checked forged Received: lines when it shouldn't have. The other is less clear.
Actually, as I understand it, shared hosting with spammers doesn't get a site blacklisted immediately, but it does lower the threshold for listing.
Essentially, it takes X reports of a spammers' website by spamcop users (filtered through the reporter's ability to uncheck obvious chaff, the SURBL's internal whitelists, and presumably some amount of spot-checking) before a domain name gets put on the list. Meanwhile, the system keeps track of the IP address, and as more websites with the same IP get reported, it reaches a point that a website hosted on that IP address only needs Y reports to be added to the list (Y being some number less than X).
That way it reduces the benefit to the spammer of adding more domain names, but does not immediately penalize third parties who buy hosting from the same provider.
I don't remember what X and Y are, and IIRC they're still refining the thresholds.
DRM is NOT the utopia you make it out to be. It's about control over the consumer plain and simple.
Please. Did you even read the post you're replying to? Look up the word draconian, then look up utopian. I don't think you'll find them remotely similar.
No, his point was that the DRM companies specifically want to prevent you from making legal copies. My point is that they don't care whether you make personal copies, but it's easier to prevent you from making any copies than it is to prevent you from making infringing copies, but still let you make non-infringing copies.
In other words, it's not malice so much as it's apathy and laziness.
If it's on my hard drive, which is a physical platter that I purchased at retail, then it's a physical thing that exists in the real world and it's mine. You're telling me my hard drive is mine but its contents aren't?
I own a lot of books. The paper, the ink, the glue - I own those, uncontested. I own that instance of the book. I can lend that particular book to a friend, I can sell it to someone, I can throw it in the trash, put it in a barbequeue, whatever. I can take the book down to Kinko's, photocopy it and write all over the photocopies. But if the book is still in copyright, I can't legally give those photocopies to someone else, nor can I legally typeset it, publish a new edition, and start selling it. Even though those words are physical objects in my possession.
The whole point of DRM is to keep you from doing things you are legally entitled to do as specifically written in copyright law.
More bull. Companies pushing DRM don't give a damn whether you make copies for yourself, they just want to make sure you don't upload it to the net and share it with a few thousand of your closest friends. And it's easier for them to prevent you from doing anything than it is to only prevent you from handing out free copies everywhere. That's why most DRM is so draconian - not because they want to lock you into only listening in one room, but because they just don't care.
But then, if the creator only gets rights for the length of their own life, are publishers and movie makers going to want to accept material from authors who are in their golden years? Hell no - because they can't make money off the material very long.
On the subject of movies, that's not a problem.
Case 1: You write a script for a studio. That's work for hire, and the studio is the author.
Case 2: You write a book on your own, and sell the movie rights to a studio. The movie is a distinct work, derived with your permission from your book, and the studio is the author of the movie.
Suppose you die five years later, and your copyright expires with you. In case 1, the studio still has exclusive rights to the film and the script until their copyright expires. In case 2, the studio still has exclusive rights to the film, but another studio can do their own adaptation of the book.
Either way, the studio's claim on the movie itself is unaffected by the end of your copyrights.
Agreed. In fact, when I was at UC Irvine, the Therac-25 incidents were required reading. One of the required courses was called something like "Social Impacts of Computing," and issues ranged everywhere from privacy concerns to life-and-death situations.
They did something like this for Fellowship. One of the two versions came with a coupon you could use to get a mail-in rebate if you sent in proof-of-purchase bits from both editions. (The other nice thing was the deal they worked with various movie theater chains to put a free ticket for TTT in with the FOTR special edition.)
I used the ticket, but since I'd gotten good deals on both DVD sets I didn't bother with the rebate.
IIRC, the law does empower the FCC or FTC to set these standards. It requires spam to have a subject tag, and indicates that the F[TC]C should choose one within a certain number of months.
So it didn't say "all spam must start with [ADV]," but "all spam must start with a tag to be chosen by the FCC within x months of this law going into effect."
That's right. Take a look at the subject of this post: "The old license..."
Everyone's freaking out over the new license being incompatible as if it's some horrible change. But the old license was already incompatible. Therefore, as far as GPL compatibility is concerned, nothing has changed.
This is a permissive non-copyleft free software license with a few requirements that render it incompatible with the GNU GPL.
We urge you not to use the Apache licenses for software you write. However, there is no reason to avoid running programs that have been released under this license, such as Apache.
Living in the same county, and having read about this case before, no, the issue isn't about porn - or even about the use of the computers (at least it didn't start that way). It's about teenagers, including gang members, hanging out at/near the cyber cafes until late at night and having gang fights outside.
The problem is that the city saw the nature of the cafes as the problem, rather than the fact that they're hangouts that are open late.
There's nothing about privacy in the first amendment.
Right, that would be the fourth amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
...but a small resort town in the mountains requires some sort of four wheel drive vehicle with a little bit of oomph.
And in areas like that, an SUV is advantageous. But it doesn't help much (and not nearly as many as people seem to think) in a flat (sub)urban area, where a small econo-car is often a better choice. The problem isn't the existence of SUVs, per se, but the fact that people - and lots of them - are driving them in the wrong areas. It's like the old adage about getting a Ferrari just to drive it around the block.
On the other hand, I did see someone drive around a stopped car and over the traffic island once, so perhaps they have some use in suburbia after all.
... if you include Fedora Core as a Red Hat product, with the possible exception of #3 (no change in product lifetime).
#1 - Software updates for all supported products. Note that anything older than Mandrake 9.0 is already not supported, and therefore they have no committment to provide updates.
#2 - Product lifetimes not hidden. The same is true for Red Hat, or at least it has been for the past year. The EOL of the 7.x series was announced way back in March or April, and was very easy to find.
#3 - Product lifetimes will not change. This one they may have on Red Hat. I don't remember the old lifetime for RH 7.3 or 8, but I did expect it to be longer.
#4 - Free as in libre and as in beer. True if you include Fedora Core - and Red Hat reps have gone on record saying that RHEL would have no future without the free distro.
#5 - GPL code. Same is true for Red Hat's installer, config and other tools. They're picky about trademarked names and logos, but all the code is open source.
#6 - Open source development. Mandrake Cooker was there first, but Fedora has picked up the same model.
#7 - Free Support. Note that they specifically mention "community-supported MandrakeExpert.com" - so Mandrake itself isn't pledging to provide anything more than the forum for other people to provide support.
#8 - Mandrake listens to you. OK, this one they may have too. On the Fedora Core lists RH seems to be responding to people, but there's always the "faceless corporation" side of things. This point could easily start a flamewar, so I'll keep out of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I just want more Supreme Power, Rising Stars and Amazing Spider Man out of him.
Supreme Power so far and the entire run of Midnight Nation have been excellent. Rising Stars, when it's actually come out, has been pretty good too (and I'm glad to know that's finally going to be finished). I haven't read much of his Spider-Man, but then I haven't read much of anyone's Spider-Man.
What I'd really like to see from him, though (aside from more SP and the rest of RS), is some follow-up on Crusade - in any media!
Frankly, I doubt the story was posted by a West Coaster - or if it was, it's someone new to the area.
Those of us who actually live here didn't do much more than look up, say "Hey, the floor's moving" and go on with our lives.
Actually, I was just reading about the New Madrid system a few days ago. They've found evidence of past massive quakes in the area around AD 800 and AD 1300, suggesting a possible 500-year cycle.
If that's the case, they're probably safe for another 300 years.
Agreed. At $15/episode it wasn't worth buying unless you only wanted to get highlights. Assuming it's $80-100/season (and you know there will be discounts - I got all of Babylon 5 for $60/season or less instead of the $100 list price just by shopping around a bit) I might actually pick this one up.
I guess you don't need those outbid notices from eBay, or shipping notices from FedEx, or newsletters from CNN, or ticket confirmations from Southwest, or...
Well, you get the idea, right?
Well, Bonded Sender has been a default part of SpamAssassin FOR AT LEAST A YEAR now, and a quick search at google groups yields only three posts to NANAE containing either the old RCVD_IN_BONDEDSENDER or the newer RCVD_IN_BSP_OTHER, and none in RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED.
Two of them are phishing scams that triggered the rule only because SpamAssassin checked forged Received: lines when it shouldn't have. The other is less clear.
Actually, as I understand it, shared hosting with spammers doesn't get a site blacklisted immediately, but it does lower the threshold for listing.
Essentially, it takes X reports of a spammers' website by spamcop users (filtered through the reporter's ability to uncheck obvious chaff, the SURBL's internal whitelists, and presumably some amount of spot-checking) before a domain name gets put on the list. Meanwhile, the system keeps track of the IP address, and as more websites with the same IP get reported, it reaches a point that a website hosted on that IP address only needs Y reports to be added to the list (Y being some number less than X).
That way it reduces the benefit to the spammer of adding more domain names, but does not immediately penalize third parties who buy hosting from the same provider.
I don't remember what X and Y are, and IIRC they're still refining the thresholds.
It might have a use for spoting mail that gets through SBL/XBL/DUHL/SPEWS/&c.lists, but worthless as a first line of defense.
That's right. It's not intended to be the first line of defense. It's intended to help spot spam that gets through your IP-based blacklists.
And for that purpose, it looks very promising.
Please. Did you even read the post you're replying to? Look up the word draconian, then look up utopian. I don't think you'll find them remotely similar.
No, his point was that the DRM companies specifically want to prevent you from making legal copies. My point is that they don't care whether you make personal copies, but it's easier to prevent you from making any copies than it is to prevent you from making infringing copies, but still let you make non-infringing copies.
In other words, it's not malice so much as it's apathy and laziness.
Grr. /me flames self for misspelling barbecue.
I own a lot of books. The paper, the ink, the glue - I own those, uncontested. I own that instance of the book. I can lend that particular book to a friend, I can sell it to someone, I can throw it in the trash, put it in a barbequeue, whatever. I can take the book down to Kinko's, photocopy it and write all over the photocopies. But if the book is still in copyright, I can't legally give those photocopies to someone else, nor can I legally typeset it, publish a new edition, and start selling it. Even though those words are physical objects in my possession.
More bull. Companies pushing DRM don't give a damn whether you make copies for yourself, they just want to make sure you don't upload it to the net and share it with a few thousand of your closest friends. And it's easier for them to prevent you from doing anything than it is to only prevent you from handing out free copies everywhere. That's why most DRM is so draconian - not because they want to lock you into only listening in one room, but because they just don't care.
Apple at least made an effort to compromise.
But then, if the creator only gets rights for the length of their own life, are publishers and movie makers going to want to accept material from authors who are in their golden years? Hell no - because they can't make money off the material very long.
On the subject of movies, that's not a problem.
Case 1: You write a script for a studio. That's work for hire, and the studio is the author.
Case 2: You write a book on your own, and sell the movie rights to a studio. The movie is a distinct work, derived with your permission from your book, and the studio is the author of the movie.
Suppose you die five years later, and your copyright expires with you. In case 1, the studio still has exclusive rights to the film and the script until their copyright expires. In case 2, the studio still has exclusive rights to the film, but another studio can do their own adaptation of the book.
Either way, the studio's claim on the movie itself is unaffected by the end of your copyrights.
Agreed. In fact, when I was at UC Irvine, the Therac-25 incidents were required reading. One of the required courses was called something like "Social Impacts of Computing," and issues ranged everywhere from privacy concerns to life-and-death situations.
They did something like this for Fellowship. One of the two versions came with a coupon you could use to get a mail-in rebate if you sent in proof-of-purchase bits from both editions. (The other nice thing was the deal they worked with various movie theater chains to put a free ticket for TTT in with the FOTR special edition.)
I used the ticket, but since I'd gotten good deals on both DVD sets I didn't bother with the rebate.
You don't quite have it right. All porn spam needs a standard identifier... not all spam.
Ah, misremembered that one.
IIRC, the law does empower the FCC or FTC to set these standards. It requires spam to have a subject tag, and indicates that the F[TC]C should choose one within a certain number of months.
So it didn't say "all spam must start with [ADV]," but "all spam must start with a tag to be chosen by the FCC within x months of this law going into effect."
otherwise why would people even LISTEN to the political pronouncements of hollywood stars?
Or, for that matter, country singers?
Personally, I found it ridiculous to watch right-wing country singers denouncing left-wing actors for expounding on politics.
Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them less qualified, and vice versa.
Wrong license, this is about the 2.0 license.
That's right. Take a look at the subject of this post: "The old license..."
Everyone's freaking out over the new license being incompatible as if it's some horrible change. But the old license was already incompatible. Therefore, as far as GPL compatibility is concerned, nothing has changed.
From the FSF page linked in the article:
No falling sky here. Move along.
Living in the same county, and having read about this case before, no, the issue isn't about porn - or even about the use of the computers (at least it didn't start that way). It's about teenagers, including gang members, hanging out at/near the cyber cafes until late at night and having gang fights outside.
The problem is that the city saw the nature of the cafes as the problem, rather than the fact that they're hangouts that are open late.
There's nothing about privacy in the first amendment.
Right, that would be the fourth amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
And in areas like that, an SUV is advantageous. But it doesn't help much (and not nearly as many as people seem to think) in a flat (sub)urban area, where a small econo-car is often a better choice. The problem isn't the existence of SUVs, per se, but the fact that people - and lots of them - are driving them in the wrong areas. It's like the old adage about getting a Ferrari just to drive it around the block.
On the other hand, I did see someone drive around a stopped car and over the traffic island once, so perhaps they have some use in suburbia after all.
The point being that they've won before, making it more likely that they'll win this time.
... if you include Fedora Core as a Red Hat product, with the possible exception of #3 (no change in product lifetime).
#1 - Software updates for all supported products. Note that anything older than Mandrake 9.0 is already not supported, and therefore they have no committment to provide updates.
#2 - Product lifetimes not hidden. The same is true for Red Hat, or at least it has been for the past year. The EOL of the 7.x series was announced way back in March or April, and was very easy to find.
#3 - Product lifetimes will not change. This one they may have on Red Hat. I don't remember the old lifetime for RH 7.3 or 8, but I did expect it to be longer.
#4 - Free as in libre and as in beer. True if you include Fedora Core - and Red Hat reps have gone on record saying that RHEL would have no future without the free distro.
#5 - GPL code. Same is true for Red Hat's installer, config and other tools. They're picky about trademarked names and logos, but all the code is open source.
#6 - Open source development. Mandrake Cooker was there first, but Fedora has picked up the same model.
#7 - Free Support. Note that they specifically mention "community-supported MandrakeExpert.com" - so Mandrake itself isn't pledging to provide anything more than the forum for other people to provide support.
#8 - Mandrake listens to you. OK, this one they may have too. On the Fedora Core lists RH seems to be responding to people, but there's always the "faceless corporation" side of things. This point could easily start a flamewar, so I'll keep out of it.