Which is great because toll free numbers have no calling records.. mwuahahaha. No.
Which is why I said to use (toll free) long distance numbers into other countries - preferrably ones without good ties to your curent one. (You really think the US would help Iraq hunt down dissidents?)
Also, you're forgetting one VERY important principal: public telephones - plug into a public telephone and dial in with that. Plenty of waiting rooms have phone jacks, and there are still some handset-->modem devices available out there to make use of.
If you're smart about it, you can be untracable via public telephone systems, and even private ones. You don't need to stay on long if you just grab email through it.
but the operators of this fake nameserver would completely saturate a T1 with only 46 simultaneous 33.6 connections.
But it would be useful if you had one of these set up, since then you could use it for your own "free internet access" in other cities if you travelled a lot.
Also, there is another useful application of this: If you set up the target location of one of these in another country, one that doesn't cooperate with foreign authorities in tracking people down, you could have a way to communicate with the rest of the world in an (almost) untracable way.
For example, Mr. A and Mr. B are planning a revolution in a totalitarian state. It's too dangerous for them to use standard internet access, since it can be traced right back to them.
Instead, they get one of these DNS tunnels set up in some country that has no ties (or, even better, animosity) with their current country.
Then Mr. A and Mr. B can call up toll free numbers in various countries and transfer email back and forth in untracable ways to organize the revolution.
the recent study that found the majority of internet traffic traveling through a small number of servers (6 main ones i believe the number was, correct me if im wrong.) what happens when sony goes to them and offers the people in charge of those boxen some very large figure to install their filters into the stream?
I may be wrong, but doesn't the law in many countries state that if you do censoring on a medium you control (such as newspapers, message boards, etc.) that you are then responisble for the legality of everything that you DON'T censor?
If I remember right, there have been several court cases where this was brought up - that some sites were not held liable for content posted there because they don't monitor or censor the information, and other sites WERE held responsible for EVERYTHING posted when they controlled what was and was not posted?
I beleive this is called something like the "common carrier" clause - the reason why your telephone company or ISP can't be sued for anything illegal you do over their lines.
In this case, that would mean that since Sony is doing censoring, they are no longer protected and can be charged with aiding every single crime that is ever perpetrated through their servers.
I don't know how they think they could possibly legally get away with this.
Granted, they can buy out your ISP, telephone company, cable company, etc., but how in the hell do they expect to be able to block it at your computer? Buy out/bribe Microsoft to put it in their next "upgrade"?
And even if they try to buy those places out, there will simply always be someone not willing to sell - and those not under the control of Big Brother Sony will gain the business of those of us not willing to put up with Sony's shit.
McGucken was accused of being a ringleader for the demonstrators.
He was being accused of being a ringleader, OK, but of what?
Did he organize violent protests? Did he incite a riot, or encourage people to throw things at the police? Is he being accused of arranging a peaceful protest?
What is he being charged with? More specific information would be nice...
However, no matter what he's been charged with, $500k bail for a misdemeanor is ludicrous. So is everything about the treatment I've heard of the people there.
Personally, I hope that a nice, big, fat lawsuit is taken out against the police for thier treatment of protesters, and against the judicial system for their part in the illegal imprisonment of the protesters.
Then either the game.EXE file is modified to initialize those map control values differently
...it became platform-dependant [...].EXE files?!?
The paper was still on-topic and to the point. Just because he used a term that 99% of readers will recognize (.EXE files) does not mean he was talking only about.EXE's.
Would you have preferred he said something like "different file types that can be run on different platforms as the game developers see fit" or some other annoyingly long phrase?
Actually, hacker is the correct word for this situation, as the article does say that this sort of thing is done by both hackers and cheaters. The author doesn't use the word "cracker" for cheaters, but does make the distinction.
Also, hacker is appropriate because the author at a few points tells about people doing it just to prove it can be done - even going as far as calling up the developers and telling them how they did it.
anime's too much of a niche market in the US for many videos to be "profitable enough" to re-encode and sell abroad. So why bother encoding it in the first place? (Okay, Apparently a lot of them don't).
The point is, in the originating country (in this example, Japan) it is considered profitable - so they encode it for their region (and hteir region only). However, they then decide they don't want to have to pay for a re-encode for another region, creating the new master, new packaging, more paperwork for foreign distribution deals, etc.
There are many DVD's that are encoded for other regions (especially the UK and Japan) that take years to reach the US - if ever.
Don't think there are many? Try the enormous amount of anime available in Japan - anime's too much of a niche market in the US for many videos to be "profitable enough" to re-encode and sell abroad.
Also, there have been several shows from the BBC that I've wanted, but have never been released in the US. Once again, the studios/etc. involved don't want to risk the investment in another video distribution for another country.
Another very good reason is that there have been several movies released with different versions in different countries - scenes added or deleted according to the movie censors in each locale. For some examples, go to the IMDB and check some of the movies' running times - they will often be 2-10 minutes longer in some countries than others.
If there were no regions, then I could order those Japanese DVD's, or those UK DVD's. Or maybe I could get those foreign copies that have the extra 15 minutes of footage that the US censors cut out.
There is some mention of the fact that NSI reserves the right to revoke a domain if it is to be transferred. Does anyone know how likely NSI is to do something like this?
I wouldn't put anything past NSI at this point, and I think they may be quite likely to do things liek this until a court rules against it. The problem is, if it's in the contract you agreed to that they can, then they may be able to get away with it, legally.
On the other hand, when did this provision get added? Was it just with this recent batch of insanely restrictive rules that it was added? Because if so, I beleive several states require that any added provisions to an existing contract be given a 30-90 day time period during which you can object to added provisions. If you object to them, then they are required to fulfill the contract under the current terms or end the contract after the 30-90 day period. I'm not positive about how these laws work, but this is what I've gathered from the companies I've done business with.
Can any lawyers out there clarify or expand on this?
The fackt of the matter is that Mike wouldn't hand the domain over, buth when the Arb. came in he suddenly denied having anything to do with the domain.
Actually, as I read it, he really didn't have anything to do with the domain. It wasn't his. Then, someone comes along asking Mr. Pearson to hand it over -- but if he doesn't own it, can he legally hand it over? Mr. Pearson may have just been refusing to hand it over because he was worried the proper owners would sue him, or accuse him of "hacking" the domain name away from them. Personally, I wouldn't have just handed it over to the first person who called, either... if it's not mine, I have no right to give/sell it to someone else.
That's a common misconception...actually it's just illegal to discriminate against someone if they are too old
No it isn't. (At least not in the statutes I have read.) What is says is that you cannot discriminate when hiring based upon race, religion, age, sex, physical handicap, etc. - it just says "AGE" without specifying any particular age. And it means you cannot discrimiate for being young or old. The point of the law is that you must look at all applicants equally, regardless of age, or any other factors. An employer is only allowed to discriminate against people who would not be able to do the job in a reasonable manner. (Not hiring an armless typist for example.) If the person is capable of getting the job done, and is eligible for work in the U.S., Federal law says you must consider them for the position. Any practice requiring certification to get a job, when the certification requires applicants to be of a certain age would be viewed as an attempt at circumventing the law. It would most likely be considered illegal.
Personally, I think the whole concept of certifying programmers for this sort of thing is ridiculous. Perhaps it's a good idea to certify the PROGRAMS, but why the programmers?
Many of the best pieces of software I've seen in the last few years were written by someone in their spare time, usually because it's the type of thing they wanted for themselves. Often these pieces of software were written by high school and college students - the very ones who would not yet be certified. Why, if they write better programs, should they not be able to distribute them? Simply because they didn't have the time or money to get certified?
Additionally, the requirement of "X number of years experience" is ridiculous. You must have a degree, plus at least 12 years' experience! The ability of the programmer is absolutely irrelevent unless they've been in the job market for over a decade? At least with other certifications I've heard about the only question is the ability of the person to pass the test - this age requirment is absurd!
It's possibly even illegal to require this certification for a job, as it is against federal labor laws to discriminate based on age. You'd need to be AT LEAST 28 to get a job requiring certification - you can't start working at a job until you're 16 in most states, and you need to have 12 years' experience for certification. (And this assumes you get your degree either before you're 16, or work all through college.)
Nothing but attempts to be as offensive as possible - not funny at all.
This is almost like the old "worst suggested captions" at the Dysfunctional Family Circus page.
If someone's going to do something like this, for gods' sakes make it funny! I used to laugh my ass off at DFC, but this is just pathetic. Some people have it, some people don't.
One problem with your argument is that you're saying that the artist can complain about their lyrics being reprinted. Well, if you look closer at the article, it wasn't the ARTISTS who did this, but the RECORD COMPANIES.
So, a good question here is wether the artists actually cared, or if it's the record companies just doing it on their own? After all, record companies have recently forced artists to remove their own songs from the 'net.
The problem is that only mega-corporations are having their "rights" enforced, and are often enforcing the rights of others, whether they want them enforced or not.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is why I said to use (toll free) long distance numbers into other countries - preferrably ones without good ties to your curent one. (You really think the US would help Iraq hunt down dissidents?)
Also, you're forgetting one VERY important principal: public telephones - plug into a public telephone and dial in with that. Plenty of waiting rooms have phone jacks, and there are still some handset-->modem devices available out there to make use of.
If you're smart about it, you can be untracable via public telephone systems, and even private ones. You don't need to stay on long if you just grab email through it.
But it would be useful if you had one of these set up, since then you could use it for your own "free internet access" in other cities if you travelled a lot.
Also, there is another useful application of this: If you set up the target location of one of these in another country, one that doesn't cooperate with foreign authorities in tracking people down, you could have a way to communicate with the rest of the world in an (almost) untracable way.
For example, Mr. A and Mr. B are planning a revolution in a totalitarian state. It's too dangerous for them to use standard internet access, since it can be traced right back to them.
Instead, they get one of these DNS tunnels set up in some country that has no ties (or, even better, animosity) with their current country.
Then Mr. A and Mr. B can call up toll free numbers in various countries and transfer email back and forth in untracable ways to organize the revolution.
I may be wrong, but doesn't the law in many countries state that if you do censoring on a medium you control (such as newspapers, message boards, etc.) that you are then responisble for the legality of everything that you DON'T censor?
If I remember right, there have been several court cases where this was brought up - that some sites were not held liable for content posted there because they don't monitor or censor the information, and other sites WERE held responsible for EVERYTHING posted when they controlled what was and was not posted?
I beleive this is called something like the "common carrier" clause - the reason why your telephone company or ISP can't be sued for anything illegal you do over their lines.
In this case, that would mean that since Sony is doing censoring, they are no longer protected and can be charged with aiding every single crime that is ever perpetrated through their servers.
I don't know how they think they could possibly legally get away with this.
Granted, they can buy out your ISP, telephone company, cable company, etc., but how in the hell do they expect to be able to block it at your computer? Buy out/bribe Microsoft to put it in their next "upgrade"?
And even if they try to buy those places out, there will simply always be someone not willing to sell - and those not under the control of Big Brother Sony will gain the business of those of us not willing to put up with Sony's shit.
He was being accused of being a ringleader, OK, but of what?
Did he organize violent protests? Did he incite a riot, or encourage people to throw things at the police? Is he being accused of arranging a peaceful protest?
What is he being charged with? More specific information would be nice...
However, no matter what he's been charged with, $500k bail for a misdemeanor is ludicrous. So is everything about the treatment I've heard of the people there.
Personally, I hope that a nice, big, fat lawsuit is taken out against the police for thier treatment of protesters, and against the judicial system for their part in the illegal imprisonment of the protesters.
The paper was still on-topic and to the point. .EXE's.
Just because he used a term that 99% of readers will recognize (.EXE files) does not mean he was talking only about
Would you have preferred he said something like "different file types that can be run on different platforms as the game developers see fit" or some other annoyingly long phrase?
Who cares what file type he used for the example?
Actually, hacker is the correct word for this situation, as the article does say that this sort of thing is done by both hackers and cheaters. The author doesn't use the word "cracker" for cheaters, but does make the distinction.
Also, hacker is appropriate because the author at a few points tells about people doing it just to prove it can be done - even going as far as calling up the developers and telling them how they did it.
Optional, yes.
But just try find a disc that isn't endoced for a particular region. One or two of the smaller studios may make them, but the big studios? Forget it.
So why bother encoding it in the first place? (Okay, Apparently a lot of them don't).
The point is, in the originating country (in this example, Japan) it is considered profitable - so they encode it for their region (and hteir region only).
However, they then decide they don't want to have to pay for a re-encode for another region, creating the new master, new packaging, more paperwork for foreign distribution deals, etc.
There are many DVD's that are encoded for other regions (especially the UK and Japan) that take years to reach the US - if ever.
Don't think there are many? Try the enormous amount of anime available in Japan - anime's too much of a niche market in the US for many videos to be "profitable enough" to re-encode and sell abroad.
Also, there have been several shows from the BBC that I've wanted, but have never been released in the US. Once again, the studios/etc. involved don't want to risk the investment in another video distribution for another country.
Another very good reason is that there have been several movies released with different versions in different countries - scenes added or deleted according to the movie censors in each locale. For some examples, go to the IMDB and check some of the movies' running times - they will often be 2-10 minutes longer in some countries than others.
If there were no regions, then I could order those Japanese DVD's, or those UK DVD's. Or maybe I could get those foreign copies that have the extra 15 minutes of footage that the US censors cut out.
I wouldn't put anything past NSI at this point, and I think they may be quite likely to do things liek this until a court rules against it.
The problem is, if it's in the contract you agreed to that they can, then they may be able to get away with it, legally.
On the other hand, when did this provision get added? Was it just with this recent batch of insanely restrictive rules that it was added? Because if so, I beleive several states require that any added provisions to an existing contract be given a 30-90 day time period during which you can object to added provisions. If you object to them, then they are required to fulfill the contract under the current terms or end the contract after the 30-90 day period.
I'm not positive about how these laws work, but this is what I've gathered from the companies I've done business with.
Can any lawyers out there clarify or expand on this?
Actually, as I read it, he really didn't have anything to do with the domain.
It wasn't his.
Then, someone comes along asking Mr. Pearson to hand it over -- but if he doesn't own it, can he legally hand it over?
Mr. Pearson may have just been refusing to hand it over because he was worried the proper owners would sue him, or accuse him of "hacking" the domain name away from them.
Personally, I wouldn't have just handed it over to the first person who called, either... if it's not mine, I have no right to give/sell it to someone else.
No it isn't. (At least not in the statutes I have read.) What is says is that you cannot discriminate when hiring based upon race, religion, age, sex, physical handicap, etc. - it just says "AGE" without specifying any particular age. And it means you cannot discrimiate for being young or old.
The point of the law is that you must look at all applicants equally, regardless of age, or any other factors. An employer is only allowed to discriminate against people who would not be able to do the job in a reasonable manner. (Not hiring an armless typist for example.) If the person is capable of getting the job done, and is eligible for work in the U.S., Federal law says you must consider them for the position.
Any practice requiring certification to get a job, when the certification requires applicants to be of a certain age would be viewed as an attempt at circumventing the law. It would most likely be considered illegal.
Personally, I think the whole concept of certifying programmers for this sort of thing is ridiculous. Perhaps it's a good idea to certify the PROGRAMS, but why the programmers?
Many of the best pieces of software I've seen in the last few years were written by someone in their spare time, usually because it's the type of thing they wanted for themselves. Often these pieces of software were written by high school and college students - the very ones who would not yet be certified.
Why, if they write better programs, should they not be able to distribute them? Simply because they didn't have the time or money to get certified?
Additionally, the requirement of "X number of years experience" is ridiculous. You must have a degree, plus at least 12 years' experience! The ability of the programmer is absolutely irrelevent unless they've been in the job market for over a decade? At least with other certifications I've heard about the only question is the ability of the person to pass the test - this age requirment is absurd!
It's possibly even illegal to require this certification for a job, as it is against federal labor laws to discriminate based on age. You'd need to be AT LEAST 28 to get a job requiring certification - you can't start working at a job until you're 16 in most states, and you need to have 12 years' experience for certification. (And this assumes you get your degree either before you're 16, or work all through college.)
Nothing but attempts to be as offensive as possible - not funny at all.
This is almost like the old "worst suggested captions" at the Dysfunctional Family Circus page.
If someone's going to do something like this, for gods' sakes make it funny! I used to laugh my ass off at DFC, but this is just pathetic. Some people have it, some people don't.
One problem with your argument is that you're saying that the artist can complain about their lyrics being reprinted. Well, if you look closer at the article, it wasn't the ARTISTS who did this, but the RECORD COMPANIES.
So, a good question here is wether the artists actually cared, or if it's the record companies just doing it on their own? After all, record companies have recently forced artists to remove their own songs from the 'net.
The problem is that only mega-corporations are having their "rights" enforced, and are often enforcing the rights of others, whether they want them enforced or not.