OK, so Microsoft is considering releasing their source code. Doesn't mean that they're going to go GPL with it.
Think about it for a sec. Windows is Microsoft's flagship project. Whether you'll admit it or not, Windows is popular, and that brings in more money for the boys in Redmond. Do you honestly think that Gates would say "Hey, let's open source this," and risk losing millions (or billions) of dollars?
I do think this would be great for Microsoft's PR. They agree to release their code, thus getting people to think "Wow, they've released the source code...they aren't so bad," and also making Windows seem like a less-buggy OS...if they decide to accept patches from the software community.
If Windows does release their source code, don't expect it to be shipped with the GPL. You may think Bill Gates is a moron (and hey, some instances have proved that he's a few fries short of a Happy Meal), but he's not that dumb.
"Linux has gotten this far with the attitude you dispise [sic]."
OK, define "far" for me. Is getting "this far" mean that Linux is now on the desktop of Mr. and Mrs. Computer Newbie, or does it mean that more and more technically inclined people (nerds, geeks, etc.) are using it?
I think Linux has gotten far, but it's not far enough. Charles Connell summed the entire argument up perfectly....that Linux still has a way to go before Mr. and Mrs. Computer Newbie embrace it. Until then, they're still going to use Microsoft products. They may be buggy, but they're still easy to use, and Microsoft does listen to what customers want. You may not like some features Microsoft sticks into their software, but judging by their value on the stock market, most people do.
This is the point I think everyone's been trying to make all along. The more that Linux grows, the more demands there will be on the programmers. And if these people decide to be cocky and say "Hey, Linux isn't for customers, it's for us," then Linux will not even come close to exceeding Microsoft in the market where it counts most: the home desktop.
This statement exactly proves why Linux will never be considered a major competitor on the desktop, unless some attitudes are changed.
Think about it.....you've got some business using Linux, and they inquire about a bug fix. You say "Hey, you're not a customer, you just use it." And the business goes back to using Microsoft products.
Unless attitudes are changed, Linux will always be considered as "that thing those nerds use."
And it's becoming an anti-MS hotbed as well. When I come here to Slashdot, I normally expect to see some informative articles about the latest happenings in the Linux world, etc etc. Recently, it's been nothing but "Look at what Microsoft is doing! They suck, we rule!"
"...the people here have enough experience with Microsoft products to know that there is absolutely no reason to expect Windows 2000 to be any different than all the other substandard shit they ship every day."
What about the people who have had enough experience with Microsoft products to know that they are decent products? Oh, I'm sorry, I was supposed to say "0P3N S0URC3 4-EVA!!1!!!!"
Say what you will about Win2K, but people will buy it, no matter what some Linux nerds like you will say.
"Man...you'd think it was some sort of crime to hold an anti-MS opinion these days, with all they crying going on in these threads."
Hell, it's a worse crime to have a pro-MS opinion on Slashdot, where it's "You have to be anti-MS."
"In other words, MP3.com will one day be using laws and questionable tactics to leverage their name. Does anyone know if I'm right here? Is MP3.com fighting the good fight, or just trying to benefit themselves?"
I doubt this. MP3.com may have a namesake when it comes to MP3s, but that's about it. If people want MP3s, there are a ton of FTP servers that can meet this demand.
"It means, boys and girls, that the music/movie/software industries would never have received any money from these poor downtrodden victims of the American Way anyway; therefore, piracy costs them almost nothing in lost revenue."
So let's say that I want to go out and buy the latest CD from Artist X. Before going to the mall to purchase the CD, I realize that I can just download the entire CD from Napster or some FTP site. Boom, there's $20 that Mr. Corporate Suit ain't gonna get.
You assume that everyone who pirates can't afford the software / music being pirated. From my own experiences, people who do pirate can afford the pirated goods, it's just that they don't want to go out and blow the cash when they can just download it for free and do whatever with it.
"It appears you can't move the music files around on your disk. They get stored in an encrypted form and if you try and reorganize them other than through the SDMI compliant software, they go boom!"
That's about it. Playing your music on a SDMI device? Forget about playing it on a non-SDMI device. What's even worse, is that if "circumstances arise" in which the SDMI player's security gets cracked (a la DVD), then the company making the affected product has to make another one. (Clause 10.4)
Additionally, the RIAA gets to crack open the devices to ensure that they're SDMI-compliant. Well, they don't get to, but they can appoint an outside expert *hack* *cough* to do the work. (Clause 10.5)
"It appears that storing your music on read-only media like CDR will not be possible."
According to the SDMI FAQ, you can, but I'm skeptical.
"It appears SDMI is a security standard only and doesn't guarantee interoperability between SDMI devices from multiple manufacturers."
Bingo. Hell, I doubt a lot of manufacturers would be inclined to produce SDMI-complaint products, as it would cause too much confusion between companies that can't agree on a standard.
"It looks like SDMI might be one of those 'standards' that can't be distributed as open source without its security being broken."
Actually, the issue of online privacy is more prevalent than ever. Corporations like DoubleClick, Microsoft, and Real Networks have given people an idea of what information can be compiled about them, whether it be via software or webpages, etc etc. Hell, businesses are joining different industry-formed privacy groups (i.e. TrustE) and prominently displaying privacy policies because they're scared of possible legislation from Capitol Hill. There are many different resources that people can use to help keep their Internet activities private, such as HushMail, PGP, SkuzNET, the Anonymizer, the Junkbusters Proxy, numerous remailers across the world, various FAQs, etc. The problem is that the average netizen doesn't know that the technology is available, or doesn't know how to utilize it. However, I think that if the issue of online privacy keeps going down its current path, that scenario may change.
Remember, you are only as private as you allow yourself to be.
"But, "They are doing this for that reason..." or "They will do this because...", are just arrogant statements. Nobody really knows what their intentions are. And that's the problem when you take their history into account. How many times? Yet this one will be different? Can't say for certain."
What I think is arrogant is how most everyone starts throwing garbage at Microsoft thinking that this possible venture into the fun world of Linux is just another way for Microsoft to expand their allegedly "monopolistic" arms into another area. Hell, I think MS is finally getting the idea here, that Linux is indeed a competent and potentially competitive OS. Yeah, nobody knows what their intentions are. But what if this is a genuine effort from Microsoft's behalf? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, we can't fairly say. Taking history into account doesn't exactly offer a really fair perspective. So, if I were to use your train of thought, then I guess Germany is still evil because of their actions in WWI and WWII, right?
AltaVista is jointly owned by CMGI and Compaq, they get advertising revenue from DoubleClick, and one look at their press page shows that they're making deals left and right, among other things.
So why this click-thru service anyway? Isn't this just the last resort for porn webmasters and script kiddies? What exactly does this prove...that at the mention of the phrase "open source," people come running? This just doesn't make any sense to me.
As a Microsoft supporter, I do agree with your sentiments. However, I think that some people are just unfairly trashing Microsoft for doing something that nobody thought possible; proposing the idea of porting one of their apps to Linux. I'm willing to bet that a lot of people were surprised to hear this, no matter how off-the-cuff it was.
You can go by Microsoft's history all you'd like, but in doing so, you're really showing an extreme bias against this initative IMHO.
Microsoft shows a sign of initative in releasing some Linux software, and everyone goes off the deep end saying that this is a part of a hidden agenda...ie Microsoft is going to peek into/etc/passwd, Microsoft is trying to fend off legislation, etc etc.
So let's look at this realistically. Linux is steadily becoming a choice OS for a lot of people. And if you people remember the Halloween Documents, Microsoft knows that Linux is also a choice OS, and is a source of competition. So wouldn't it make sense that Microsoft would be looking to port their apps to Linux? To me, it's a VERY smart business move. Microsoft knows the potential of Linux. Hell, Microsoft actually has a few Linux boxes on their campus for R&D purposes (learned by way of a relative who works for Microsoft's MoneyCentral division). And you think they're saying "screw you" to Linux?
I realize that Slashdot is a Linux-centric board, but whether you'll admit it or not, Microsoft is making a wise move here, even if this idea is still just that, an idea.
"Consider a group basically everyone despises: white supremacists. If an ISP were to rise up, comprised entirely of Aryan Nation skinheads, and if their thousands of clients were to post every day their noxious personal opinions all over the web, there is a smal but real possibility that some news admins would call for a UDP against the service. There is also the possibility that this UDP would go into effect, although no actual crime or harm had been committed, and the silenced participants were exercising their constitutional rights to free speech."
You're assuming that everyone on Usenet has the right to freedom of speech. Wrong. Obviously, Usenet is global, so our good ol' Constitution means jack in this case. If these skinheads want to be obnoxious, they can. But that doesn't mean that newsadmins are forced to allow their messages on their servers. Now if a bunch of newsadmins wanted to UDP the said racists, they could. However, I doubt anything like this would happen, as most newsadmins understand that the UDP is for stopping abuse (i.e. spam etc.). Besides, their RFD would be laughed at by every other newsadmin out there.
"All USENET traffic originating from home.com would be blocked on UPD-participating NNTP servers."
True.
"All USENET traffic originating OUTSIDE of home.com would still pass through to @Home's NNTP servers, articles being available for @Home users to read."
Yep.
"@Home users could still post USENET articles, which would reside on @Home's servers (though not make it outside), and @Home users could still read other @Home user postings."
Yep.
The basic premise here is that the UDP keeps posts from @Home from propogating (sp?) to sites participating in the UDP. @Home users can still download posts as usual, it's just that when they post, nobody's really going to see them. But they can still see everything else, and yes, even the spam:)
"most people who are spamming do it through servers that are open in some way or anonymously, so how will cutting off a whole server accomplish anything?"
It gets the ISP to get off their lazy asses and say "No, wait, we can play nice!" And the UDP has been proven to be effective in getting ISPs to take better steps in preventing abuse from their users.
Now as for your comments of spammers using open servers and anonymous servers, I hope to answer those. In most cases, the open server is shut down after the abuse has happened, to prevent more malicious usage from spammers. And a lot of those open servers still stamp the NNTP-Posting-Host line on, so the real root can be identified. As for anonymous servers....not a lot can be done about that.
Just remember kids, when playing on Usenet, a killfile is your best friend.
According to the MSNBC article, "Employers can be charged and fined by OSHA if they do not provide safe workplaces and employers are responsible for making any needed corrections."
So let's say I'm working at home for Company X. I have a few loose floorboards around the house that have been there long before I started working for Company X that I just never got around to fixing. I'm at my terminal doing some work, when I decide to get up and go to the fridge for a drink. Along the way, I step on one of these loose floorboards. I trip and sprain my ankle. So does this mean that Company X must pay to have the floorboards fixed, even though I knew of the problem long before I began working with Company X and neglected to fix them myself?
The MSNBC article further states that "employers are responsible for making sure an employee has ergonomically correct furniture, such as chairs and computer tables, as well as proper lighting, heating, cooling and ventilation systems in the home office." These new OSHA regulations are practically begging to be abused by people looking to get some home improvements done courtesy of their employer. So let's look at another situation....
I work at home for Company Y. I have an old air conditioner in my house (the kind that fits into a window). I've always wanted central air conditioning in my house, but I've never gotten around to having one put in. Now that OSHA mandates that Company Y is responsible for making sure I'm comfortable in my house, does this mean I can force Company Y to install central air conditioning in my home?
These new mandates from OSHA are going to cause more trouble than good down the road when work-at-home people complain that they want expensive ergonomic leather chairs, central air and heating, etc. Anyone think different?
What Mitch is doing is still a hell of a lot better than sitting in a damn tree for two years. At least he's sheltered from the elements. Either way, Mr. DotComGuy *barf* isn't proving anything with this media stunt.
Forgive me for being thoroughly sarcastic towards people who take environmentalism a tad too far.
To quote Eric Cartman, "Dirty tree-hugging hippies!"
"MAN PROVES HUMANITY DEPENDS ON E-COMMERCE BY GETTING FREEBIES FROM GATEWAY, SERVICE911.COM, PEAPOD.COM, AND SOON-TO-BE OTHERS"
OK, so we lock a nerd inside a house for a year.
We give him a laptop and an Internet connection.
He claims that he can live solely on the Internet.
I doubt it.
I'll be surprised if someone can live solely on the Internet WITHOUT getting freebies from online vendors looking for reasons to boost up their stock prices. Hell, ANYONE could live inside a house for a year with a computer and Internet connection as long as they were getting freebies out the wazoo. I don't know what Mitch is trying to prove by doing this, but he is proving one thing. If you have a stupid gimmick, they will swarm.
You can comment about how this "good faith" talk from eToys is nothing but bullshit (and it certainly is), but I don't think that their request is too big to swallow. What they're asking etoy.com to do is the same thing a lot of porno sites do; they put the offending material elsewhere and warn the viewer what's behind that "Enter" link. I don't think it would be a terrible burden if etoy.com would put their "questionable" material in a seperate directory with a warning stating that the material may be pornographic to some people, yadda yadda yadda more legal crap. And if little Johnny is too stupid to realize that this ain't eToys and clicks anyway, then it's little Johnny's fault. Asking etoy.com to move their material elsewhere and providing a warning is somewhat similar to asking your neighbor to turn his stereo down. There's no real censorship here, no matter how much spin you put on the story.
It would've been in eToys' advantage have done this a few weeks ago, rather than flexing their muscles and getting Network Solutions to deep-six etoy.com because some stupid kid couldn't type in the extra "s" into his browser. But hey, it's not for me to worry about.
This is just what Microsoft needs, more bad PR. What surprises me is that they forgot to pay the InterNIC fee for a domain that handles all of their logins to places like Hotmail, MoneyCentral, etc. I hope that Microsoft gets the clue this time, and I would hope that the person who is in charge of domain registration there gets reprimanded as well. I just mentioned this story to my brother (who is a Microsoft employee in MoneyCentral), and he just rolled his eyes. As mentioned, since Passport handles the logins for MoneyCentral, my brother has already said that once he heads back to Seattle, he's planning on inquiring about this.
Really nice of that guy to pay for the domain registration though. I hope Microsoft gives him the thanks he deserves for helping to correct yet another Microsoft blunder.
"Please, dude, if it wasn't someone using AIM or MSNM, it would be some unix dweeb using ytalk or irc. Your bias is showing."
Now your bias is showing. You automatically assume that if I'm not using AIM or MSN Messenger, then I'd be some Unix dweeb using ytalk or IRC (IRC clients also come in Windows flavors as well).
Now for blazer1024...if your customer service department spends more time IMing people than fielding calls, then it looks like management should crack down.
"The question is, really, is this a good or bad thing? Is the internet as it is today much better as it was in '90 or '95 or even a year ago?"
The Internet is MUCH better than it was back in the early '90s. However, I think we've sacrificed some things in favor of progression. Here's a scenario..... In the early '90s, the Internet was still a new and untamed place. If you wanted information, you had to know how to get it, and where to get it from. Everything wasn't exactly user-friendly. But, information was relevant. Expansions to the Internet made things new and even exciting. HTML? World Wide Web? Internet Relay Chat? Usenet? Cool! Everyone on the Internet knew how to use it. From 1995 on, the Internet had expanded into the hyper-compu-global-meganet (as Homer Simpson would put it) that we know today. Information can be had at the click of a mouse. But how relevant is the information? Hell, you type in "sex" into a search engine, and 99% of the results are for porn sites. Things like the WWW, IRC, and Usenet are not what they used to be. Usenet is now mainly flames (wasn't it always:)), and stupid AOLers and script kiddies trying to be "3L33T d00dZ!!11!!!," thanks to AOL letting the brain-dead masses flood Usenet. IRC has transformed from something that was once utilized by news services and businesses into another playground for the lamers and script kiddies. The WWW still has relevant information out there for the taking, but it's getting harder to find it underneath the tons of glitzy hoopla and META tag spamming that's out there.
There's no denying that the Internet is continually changing, and I for one welcome it with cautiously opened arms. Maybe I'm just getting philosophical (ugh, philosophy!), but I think the Internet of yesterday was more "user-friendly" than today's Internet.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, so Microsoft is considering releasing their source code. Doesn't mean that they're going to go GPL with it.
Think about it for a sec. Windows is Microsoft's flagship project. Whether you'll admit it or not, Windows is popular, and that brings in more money for the boys in Redmond. Do you honestly think that Gates would say "Hey, let's open source this," and risk losing millions (or billions) of dollars?
I do think this would be great for Microsoft's PR. They agree to release their code, thus getting people to think "Wow, they've released the source code...they aren't so bad," and also making Windows seem like a less-buggy OS...if they decide to accept patches from the software community.
If Windows does release their source code, don't expect it to be shipped with the GPL. You may think Bill Gates is a moron (and hey, some instances have proved that he's a few fries short of a Happy Meal), but he's not that dumb.
"Linux has gotten this far with the attitude you dispise [sic]."
OK, define "far" for me. Is getting "this far" mean that Linux is now on the desktop of Mr. and Mrs. Computer Newbie, or does it mean that more and more technically inclined people (nerds, geeks, etc.) are using it?
I think Linux has gotten far, but it's not far enough. Charles Connell summed the entire argument up perfectly....that Linux still has a way to go before Mr. and Mrs. Computer Newbie embrace it. Until then, they're still going to use Microsoft products. They may be buggy, but they're still easy to use, and Microsoft does listen to what customers want. You may not like some features Microsoft sticks into their software, but judging by their value on the stock market, most people do.
This is the point I think everyone's been trying to make all along. The more that Linux grows, the more demands there will be on the programmers. And if these people decide to be cocky and say "Hey, Linux isn't for customers, it's for us," then Linux will not even come close to exceeding Microsoft in the market where it counts most: the home desktop.
"We do this for ourselves."
This statement exactly proves why Linux will never be considered a major competitor on the desktop, unless some attitudes are changed.
Think about it.....you've got some business using Linux, and they inquire about a bug fix. You say "Hey, you're not a customer, you just use it." And the business goes back to using Microsoft products.
Unless attitudes are changed, Linux will always be considered as "that thing those nerds use."
"Slashdot has always been a Linux/UNIX site"
And it's becoming an anti-MS hotbed as well. When I come here to Slashdot, I normally expect to see some informative articles about the latest happenings in the Linux world, etc etc. Recently, it's been nothing but "Look at what Microsoft is doing! They suck, we rule!"
"...the people here have enough experience with Microsoft products to know that there is absolutely no reason to expect Windows 2000 to be any different than all the other substandard shit they ship every day."
What about the people who have had enough experience with Microsoft products to know that they are decent products? Oh, I'm sorry, I was supposed to say "0P3N S0URC3 4-EVA!!1!!!!"
Say what you will about Win2K, but people will buy it, no matter what some Linux nerds like you will say.
"Man...you'd think it was some sort of crime to hold an anti-MS opinion these days, with all they crying going on in these threads."
Hell, it's a worse crime to have a pro-MS opinion on Slashdot, where it's "You have to be anti-MS."
"In other words, MP3.com will one day be using laws and questionable tactics to leverage their name. Does anyone know if I'm right here? Is MP3.com fighting the good fight, or just trying to benefit themselves?"
I doubt this. MP3.com may have a namesake when it comes to MP3s, but that's about it. If people want MP3s, there are a ton of FTP servers that can meet this demand.
"It means, boys and girls, that the music/movie/software industries would never have received any money from these poor downtrodden victims of the American Way anyway; therefore, piracy costs them almost nothing in lost revenue."
So let's say that I want to go out and buy the latest CD from Artist X. Before going to the mall to purchase the CD, I realize that I can just download the entire CD from Napster or some FTP site. Boom, there's $20 that Mr. Corporate Suit ain't gonna get.
You assume that everyone who pirates can't afford the software / music being pirated. From my own experiences, people who do pirate can afford the pirated goods, it's just that they don't want to go out and blow the cash when they can just download it for free and do whatever with it.
"It appears you can't move the music files around on your disk. They get stored in an encrypted form and if you try and reorganize them other than through the SDMI compliant software, they go boom!"
That's about it. Playing your music on a SDMI device? Forget about playing it on a non-SDMI device. What's even worse, is that if "circumstances arise" in which the SDMI player's security gets cracked (a la DVD), then the company making the affected product has to make another one. (Clause 10.4)
Additionally, the RIAA gets to crack open the devices to ensure that they're SDMI-compliant. Well, they don't get to, but they can appoint an outside expert *hack* *cough* to do the work. (Clause 10.5)
"It appears that storing your music on read-only media like CDR will not be possible."
According to the SDMI FAQ, you can, but I'm skeptical.
"It appears SDMI is a security standard only and doesn't guarantee interoperability between SDMI devices from multiple manufacturers."
Bingo. Hell, I doubt a lot of manufacturers would be inclined to produce SDMI-complaint products, as it would cause too much confusion between companies that can't agree on a standard.
"It looks like SDMI might be one of those 'standards' that can't be distributed as open source without its security being broken."
Bingo again. DVD anyone?
For more information, check out MP3 Newswire's SDMI information page.
Actually, the issue of online privacy is more prevalent than ever. Corporations like DoubleClick, Microsoft, and Real Networks have given people an idea of what information can be compiled about them, whether it be via software or webpages, etc etc. Hell, businesses are joining different industry-formed privacy groups (i.e. TrustE) and prominently displaying privacy policies because they're scared of possible legislation from Capitol Hill. There are many different resources that people can use to help keep their Internet activities private, such as HushMail, PGP, SkuzNET, the Anonymizer, the Junkbusters Proxy, numerous remailers across the world, various FAQs, etc. The problem is that the average netizen doesn't know that the technology is available, or doesn't know how to utilize it. However, I think that if the issue of online privacy keeps going down its current path, that scenario may change.
Remember, you are only as private as you allow yourself to be.
"But, "They are doing this for that reason..." or "They will do this because...", are just arrogant statements. Nobody really knows what their intentions are. And that's the problem when you take their history into account. How many times? Yet this one will be different? Can't say for certain."
What I think is arrogant is how most everyone starts throwing garbage at Microsoft thinking that this possible venture into the fun world of Linux is just another way for Microsoft to expand their allegedly "monopolistic" arms into another area. Hell, I think MS is finally getting the idea here, that Linux is indeed a competent and potentially competitive OS. Yeah, nobody knows what their intentions are. But what if this is a genuine effort from Microsoft's behalf? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, we can't fairly say. Taking history into account doesn't exactly offer a really fair perspective. So, if I were to use your train of thought, then I guess Germany is still evil because of their actions in WWI and WWII, right?
Now who's being arrogant?
AltaVista is jointly owned by CMGI and Compaq, they get advertising revenue from DoubleClick, and one look at their press page shows that they're making deals left and right, among other things.
So why this click-thru service anyway? Isn't this just the last resort for porn webmasters and script kiddies? What exactly does this prove...that at the mention of the phrase "open source," people come running? This just doesn't make any sense to me.
Thoughts?
As a Microsoft supporter, I do agree with your sentiments. However, I think that some people are just unfairly trashing Microsoft for doing something that nobody thought possible; proposing the idea of porting one of their apps to Linux. I'm willing to bet that a lot of people were surprised to hear this, no matter how off-the-cuff it was.
You can go by Microsoft's history all you'd like, but in doing so, you're really showing an extreme bias against this initative IMHO.
"Sorry until I actually can download and install something it doesn't exist."
Which is EXACTLY why I called it an IDEA.
Microsoft shows a sign of initative in releasing some Linux software, and everyone goes off the deep end saying that this is a part of a hidden agenda...ie Microsoft is going to peek into /etc/passwd, Microsoft is trying to fend off legislation, etc etc.
So let's look at this realistically. Linux is steadily becoming a choice OS for a lot of people. And if you people remember the Halloween Documents, Microsoft knows that Linux is also a choice OS, and is a source of competition. So wouldn't it make sense that Microsoft would be looking to port their apps to Linux? To me, it's a VERY smart business move. Microsoft knows the potential of Linux. Hell, Microsoft actually has a few Linux boxes on their campus for R&D purposes (learned by way of a relative who works for Microsoft's MoneyCentral division). And you think they're saying "screw you" to Linux?
I realize that Slashdot is a Linux-centric board, but whether you'll admit it or not, Microsoft is making a wise move here, even if this idea is still just that, an idea.
Word is on alt.tv.simpsons that it'll be Maude Flanders.
"Consider a group basically everyone despises: white supremacists. If an ISP were to rise up, comprised entirely of Aryan Nation skinheads, and if their thousands of clients were to post every day their noxious personal opinions all over the web, there is a smal but real possibility that some news admins would call for a UDP against the service. There is also the possibility that this UDP would go into effect, although no actual crime or harm had been committed, and the silenced participants were exercising their constitutional rights to free speech."
You're assuming that everyone on Usenet has the right to freedom of speech. Wrong. Obviously, Usenet is global, so our good ol' Constitution means jack in this case. If these skinheads want to be obnoxious, they can. But that doesn't mean that newsadmins are forced to allow their messages on their servers. Now if a bunch of newsadmins wanted to UDP the said racists, they could. However, I doubt anything like this would happen, as most newsadmins understand that the UDP is for stopping abuse (i.e. spam etc.). Besides, their RFD would be laughed at by every other newsadmin out there.
"All USENET traffic originating from home.com would be blocked on UPD-participating NNTP servers."
:)
True.
"All USENET traffic originating OUTSIDE of home.com would still pass through to @Home's NNTP servers, articles being available for @Home users to read."
Yep.
"@Home users could still post USENET articles, which would reside on @Home's servers (though not make it outside), and @Home users could still read other @Home user postings."
Yep.
The basic premise here is that the UDP keeps posts from @Home from propogating (sp?) to sites participating in the UDP. @Home users can still download posts as usual, it's just that when they post, nobody's really going to see them. But they can still see everything else, and yes, even the spam
"most people who are spamming do it through servers that are open in some way or anonymously, so how will cutting off a whole server accomplish anything?"
It gets the ISP to get off their lazy asses and say "No, wait, we can play nice!" And the UDP has been proven to be effective in getting ISPs to take better steps in preventing abuse from their users.
Now as for your comments of spammers using open servers and anonymous servers, I hope to answer those. In most cases, the open server is shut down after the abuse has happened, to prevent more malicious usage from spammers. And a lot of those open servers still stamp the NNTP-Posting-Host line on, so the real root can be identified. As for anonymous servers....not a lot can be done about that.
Just remember kids, when playing on Usenet, a killfile is your best friend.
According to the MSNBC article, "Employers can be charged and fined by OSHA if they do not provide safe workplaces and employers are responsible for making any needed corrections."
So let's say I'm working at home for Company X. I have a few loose floorboards around the house that have been there long before I started working for Company X that I just never got around to fixing. I'm at my terminal doing some work, when I decide to get up and go to the fridge for a drink. Along the way, I step on one of these loose floorboards. I trip and sprain my ankle. So does this mean that Company X must pay to have the floorboards fixed, even though I knew of the problem long before I began working with Company X and neglected to fix them myself?
The MSNBC article further states that "employers are responsible for making sure an employee has ergonomically correct furniture, such as chairs and computer tables, as well as proper lighting, heating, cooling and ventilation systems in the home office." These new OSHA regulations are practically begging to be abused by people looking to get some home improvements done courtesy of their employer. So let's look at another situation....
I work at home for Company Y. I have an old air conditioner in my house (the kind that fits into a window). I've always wanted central air conditioning in my house, but I've never gotten around to having one put in. Now that OSHA mandates that Company Y is responsible for making sure I'm comfortable in my house, does this mean I can force Company Y to install central air conditioning in my home?
These new mandates from OSHA are going to cause more trouble than good down the road when work-at-home people complain that they want expensive ergonomic leather chairs, central air and heating, etc. Anyone think different?
What Mitch is doing is still a hell of a lot better than sitting in a damn tree for two years. At least he's sheltered from the elements. Either way, Mr. DotComGuy *barf* isn't proving anything with this media stunt.
Forgive me for being thoroughly sarcastic towards people who take environmentalism a tad too far.
To quote Eric Cartman, "Dirty tree-hugging hippies!"
"MAN PROVES HUMANITY DEPENDS ON E-COMMERCE BY GETTING FREEBIES FROM GATEWAY, SERVICE911.COM, PEAPOD.COM, AND SOON-TO-BE OTHERS"
OK, so we lock a nerd inside a house for a year.
We give him a laptop and an Internet connection.
He claims that he can live solely on the Internet.
I doubt it.
I'll be surprised if someone can live solely on the Internet WITHOUT getting freebies from online vendors looking for reasons to boost up their stock prices. Hell, ANYONE could live inside a house for a year with a computer and Internet connection as long as they were getting freebies out the wazoo. I don't know what Mitch is trying to prove by doing this, but he is proving one thing. If you have a stupid gimmick, they will swarm.
You can comment about how this "good faith" talk from eToys is nothing but bullshit (and it certainly is), but I don't think that their request is too big to swallow. What they're asking etoy.com to do is the same thing a lot of porno sites do; they put the offending material elsewhere and warn the viewer what's behind that "Enter" link. I don't think it would be a terrible burden if etoy.com would put their "questionable" material in a seperate directory with a warning stating that the material may be pornographic to some people, yadda yadda yadda more legal crap. And if little Johnny is too stupid to realize that this ain't eToys and clicks anyway, then it's little Johnny's fault. Asking etoy.com to move their material elsewhere and providing a warning is somewhat similar to asking your neighbor to turn his stereo down. There's no real censorship here, no matter how much spin you put on the story.
It would've been in eToys' advantage have done this a few weeks ago, rather than flexing their muscles and getting Network Solutions to deep-six etoy.com because some stupid kid couldn't type in the extra "s" into his browser. But hey, it's not for me to worry about.
This is just what Microsoft needs, more bad PR. What surprises me is that they forgot to pay the InterNIC fee for a domain that handles all of their logins to places like Hotmail, MoneyCentral, etc. I hope that Microsoft gets the clue this time, and I would hope that the person who is in charge of domain registration there gets reprimanded as well. I just mentioned this story to my brother (who is a Microsoft employee in MoneyCentral), and he just rolled his eyes. As mentioned, since Passport handles the logins for MoneyCentral, my brother has already said that once he heads back to Seattle, he's planning on inquiring about this.
Really nice of that guy to pay for the domain registration though. I hope Microsoft gives him the thanks he deserves for helping to correct yet another Microsoft blunder.
"Please, dude, if it wasn't someone using AIM or MSNM, it would be some unix dweeb using ytalk or irc. Your bias is showing."
Now your bias is showing. You automatically assume that if I'm not using AIM or MSN Messenger, then I'd be some Unix dweeb using ytalk or IRC (IRC clients also come in Windows flavors as well).
Now for blazer1024...if your customer service department spends more time IMing people than fielding calls, then it looks like management should crack down.
"The question is, really, is this a good or bad thing? Is the internet as it is today much better as it was in '90 or '95 or even a year ago?"
:)), and stupid AOLers and script kiddies trying to be "3L33T d00dZ!!11!!!," thanks to AOL letting the brain-dead masses flood Usenet. IRC has transformed from something that was once utilized by news services and businesses into another playground for the lamers and script kiddies. The WWW still has relevant information out there for the taking, but it's getting harder to find it underneath the tons of glitzy hoopla and META tag spamming that's out there.
The Internet is MUCH better than it was back in the early '90s. However, I think we've sacrificed some things in favor of progression. Here's a scenario..... In the early '90s, the Internet was still a new and untamed place. If you wanted information, you had to know how to get it, and where to get it from. Everything wasn't exactly user-friendly. But, information was relevant. Expansions to the Internet made things new and even exciting. HTML? World Wide Web? Internet Relay Chat? Usenet? Cool! Everyone on the Internet knew how to use it. From 1995 on, the Internet had expanded into the hyper-compu-global-meganet (as Homer Simpson would put it) that we know today. Information can be had at the click of a mouse. But how relevant is the information? Hell, you type in "sex" into a search engine, and 99% of the results are for porn sites. Things like the WWW, IRC, and Usenet are not what they used to be. Usenet is now mainly flames (wasn't it always
There's no denying that the Internet is continually changing, and I for one welcome it with cautiously opened arms. Maybe I'm just getting philosophical (ugh, philosophy!), but I think the Internet of yesterday was more "user-friendly" than today's Internet.
Just my two cents.