Here are the (apparently) main files for the thing, lifted from boston.com. They place it outside of the tag, of course, because they wouldn't want to have the page validate with the W3C.
...with no regard for any consumer interests other than those that will make them buy M$ products (such as the superficial qualities of speed and good looks).
Last time I checked, people DO purchase things (like cars, for a good example) based on "superficial qualities" like speed and looks. If they want to, why shold we care? It's their money, to do with as they please, and regardless of how they spend it right now, it will still theoretically go back into the economy. Therefore, why should we care if that's how they really want to spend their money?
I don't understand, though, how Steve can gripe about Microsoft's decision to implement a complete version of sockets in WinXP. He gripes because it will be possible to send a packet programatically "from" any IP address on chooses (spoofing). He wants Microsoft to BREAK the standards compliance because someone could use if for a DDoS attack. I wish people that don't like Microsoft's way of doing things would make up their mind; I would LOVE to see a fully implemented standard, and I don't (and have no reason to try, on a modem connection) want to DDoS people. They either want standards compliance, or they don't. Grrr...
You CAN download/save Quicktime clips; just view the source for the page, and the author HAS to specify the clip filename in the embed or applet or whatever they use now, and if they don't use proprietary (non-http) streaming of that clip, then... yoiNK!
My parents built a new house last year, and we were able to do all of the wiring of LAN stuff ourselves. It's actually pretty easy, but it helped having a dad who's an electrician, because that way he knew how NOT to do things. Everything went pretty much as planned, and the general method we followed during our manic weekend of wiring consisted of:
Installing boxes. Like the kind that normally hold things like outlets, except we used the double-wide kind. They were placed each place that we wanted things; at least one in almost every room (no, there isn't one in either of the bathrooms), with some rooms like the family room having two.
Running cable. We chose to use a combination of plenum CAT-V and RG-6 coax to each drop, even though we don't have satellite. Just planning for the future, I guess. We used two drops so that the phones in each room could use CAT-V too... That way, data and phone are in the same plate. Nice.
Assembling wall plates. This part was a PITA... you try getting down on your knees (or laying on the ground, in some places) with a 110 punchdown tool that qualifies as a sharp-pointy object and apply the amount of pressure that it takes to punch crap down into those stupid plastic CAT-V and phone recepticles. Not fun. But in the end, all but the one in my brothers room, behind his bed, are set up now, for the most part. The RG-6 cable isn't connected inside the plates, though, since we aren't using it at the time. Maybe someday. Since we have 3 phone lines, due to our situation in the house, some plates where I care (my room) have two lines set up so that when other people get pesky about the phone, I can just take another line.
Setting up the goods in the basement. This was another experience, as we opted for a nice hardcore 66-pair punchdown block for the phones. It's nice, but still kinda difficult. But all the phone drops that we wanted set up work now, although there is this one that I think is causing line noise... prolly a crappy punch-down job.
Networking... the point of all this stuff. We put a LinkSys 5-port hub down there, along with a 3Com Dual Analog router, since we live in the country. No cable or DSL here, though it is available in town. The three (was four, until the poor linux box went to the great bit bucket, or the computers version of it, in the sky) is linked into it's port in the room it's in, and all of drops go to a place in the basement. There are a couple of extra activated drops in the house, for when friends come over with their boxen.
As for the logistics of it all, plan out your cable needs, then but extra. There is no such thing as too much cable. Even if you have just the right amount for your project, you will end up needing more later, for something.
I lean away from the wireless stuff because it's still so expensive, and what-not. I don't like the inherent security risks with sending lots of packets into the air, either. But I guess if the neighbor wants to sniff your quake packets with their uber-expensive setup, let em.:)
Ok, so I suppose that now all of you are going to try to convince each other that you trusted Verisign in the first place, da? Like, you know, the same Verisign that owns NSI. Right. I'll go for that.
Have you called Dell recently and tried to buy a computer sans OS? Good luck. They'll cite piracy, difficulty, or just about anything else (I'm guessing here, but I bet piracy would be near the top) to justify it, but in the end, they still won't sell it to you.
I still think that the best way of doing a computer, is, of course, to build it yourself; however, not everyone wants to or has the time to do this. Maybe we need a bill to force OEM's to sell computers without an OS to go along with this one...:)
In the beginning, there was CDDB, and it was a volunteer effort. Other volunteers saw that it was good, and they brought their album information and entered it. CDDB grew. One day, the people running CDDB we approached by some company, whose name shall not be uttered here, who offered them money. They sold out. CDDB was based in Roanoke, IN, for a while; later, they added multiple CA offices. Little by little, they tightened their grip around the service; first, they added a license saying that they owned the data. Then, with the impending release of CDDB^2, they made the SDK proprietary and licensed it. Now, they have turned their faces away from the light, and must be punished. I personally like the idea of mass-correcting with bad data myself, but they deserve to pay, and pay DEARly for what they have done. I won't even use them anymore, given the option.
According to Merriam-Webster, censorship is defined as 1 a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring b : the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively.
How does Microsoft's inclusion of a function allowing someone to block things that they don't want to be viewed in their own private home, a function which is also entirely optional, count as censorship?
As much as I personally don't like it, those who have not reached their majority (age 18 in the US, differs elsewhere) have (basically) no legal rights. Thus, according to the law, their parents can make the decision about what they can see (or play, in this case) entirely legally. I mean, if you are old enough to take care of yourself, you can make decisions about things like this real simply, like by not enabling such "features" on your devices. If you aren't yet old enough to make such decisions, since you are considered a minor, then if the person who is legally responsible for you doesn't let you play Quake 5 when it comes out, too bad. Again, I don't agree with the almost complete lack of rights that minors get, and we could spend a long time talking about those rights in different places (especially schools, and their twisted hypocrisy), but that doesn't change the law; moreover, there are other places than here for that discussion. If you don't like the law, there are ways to change it. That doesn't mean that it's easy, or fun, but it is possible.
I don't recall anyone griping about the fact that lots of DVD players had the ability to disable viewing of discs that were rated at a certain level, but the function necessary to do so is built into lots of DVD players, both software and hardware based.
This article comes across as either a.) Microsoft bashing, OOOID (Or One Of It's Derivatives, another new phrase for your big list of acronyms) or b.) a little too much concern about "censorship." Or course, maybe I'm not paranoid enough, and the evil corporations and in league with the government and going for all they can take from us.:)
Try telling that to the people who buy "consumer" Minidisc recorders, record their own music, then try to make a digital copy of it to another MD unit.
Guess what? They can't. The unit assumes that anything recorded is "copyrighted" and thus, refuses to copy it. Or, for even more fun, try to find a consumer MD unit that even has a digital input.
The problem is, these companies wish to have things their way, at any expense to society or the consumer. Economic principle states that if one is selling things at monopoly rate (e.g. - RIAA and members), one is harming society due to the cost of the material not being equal to the cost that went into it. Or close. It's been a while since I had that class.:) (on another note, it has been said that any other industry that had racketeering going on like the music industry would find the people involved spending lots of time turning big rocks into small rocks. But that's beside the point.)
Regardless, the final point with me, and this has been brought up lots and lots of times by others, is that I resent being treated like a criminal from day one. To me what DataPlay (and other proprietary media companies) is doing is just like me going and buying a set of tools. When I go to buy these tools, I am told that since some people use tools for bad things, there is going to be someone who goes everywhere with me from now on, whenever I have the tools that I'm buying, and keeps an eye on me to make sure I use the tools nicely. And, since I want these tools, it's only fair that I pay for that person to come along and keep an eye on me (this is like the additional fee that gets included in the cost of the music due to the proprietary "DRM" people that want their cut).
Sure, I could have have NAT, but I'd rather pay a little and be honest.
What does setting up a particular method of using service that you paid for have to do with honesty? Do you really think that it is "dishonest" to set up a NAT system without telling your provider? What if it wasn't 4 more IP's, but 1024 more IP's that you needed on your T1 connection from your provider, but they charged for those additional IP's. Should you have to pay them more automatically, even when you don't want to have the addresses, just want internal machines to have a secured access path out? NAT is a technical solution. Please stop trying to make it look like a criminal act.
How can you be so sure that the same laws that "prevent you from enslaving your neighbor's child and doing the same thing" will apply?
How can you know that these cloned humans will even be given any rights? After all, they ARE made from part of the person that was cloned, so why not make them that person's property. That way, if someone needs a replacement , well, hmmm... let's just clone ourself, take the body part, and incinerate the clone. We can always do it again if we have to.
Granted, I AM playing the devil's advocate here, but how many ways could this be a BAD thing, versus how many could it be a good thing? I can count LOTS more bad things that could happen than good things.
What I really miss are the BBS door games. Even though some of them were not the best, I refuse to let that ruin my impressions of the ones that I consider classic. TradeWars 2002 comes to mind.:)
In practice, many door games DID suck; however, there were also lots that people would play to build a community and to have fun, even when there were already games with "prettier" graphics floating around out there on the market. It didn't matter that they were ANSI graphics, and that it took 5 seconds to load a screen.
Lots of the door games DID offer open ended gaming, and were not just MUD's. Some were, and they were lacking something.
This may not be nice, but this prerelease version has been out for quite a while on their research site.
I haven't had the nerve to try it yet. I mean, after all, it IS MS-prerelease. I still remember what happened with IE4 beta 1.:) And think, that was only a shell-integrated browser... Not that I dislike MS or anything (NOT sarcasm).
I find it really funny that/. will jump on any tiny little perceived "hole" or "privacy breach" in any Microsoft product, but refuses to even note that a new version of an MS product has been released. Hmmm...?
Of course this is slashdot material. Slashdot supports little interesting projects. Half the point of doing some stuff like this is "just because I can"; so don't whine about it.
Why does it seem like EVERYone (or a large subset of everyone) is now questioning "should this be/. material" for half the stories that get posted?!
As dumb as it may sound, why don't we open a username "slashdot" with password "slashdot" on all these lame places that require registration? Fake information would fill their nasty little forms in nicely, and then it wouldn't be an issue, da?
Precisely. Real overinflates their "ratings" to make themselves look good. Even though MS isn't any better about that, at least they are usually honest about their info collection policies. What REALLY pushed me over the edge to HATing Real, though, was this constant STREAM (no pun intended) of email from "Maria Cantwell" at Real about their stupid products. After the privacy story came out, that pretty much closed it on them. Real sucks.
Slashdot Mirror
While karma-whoring, it IS still interesting:
s hoshkele.zip
.js file that appears to be the majority of what it can do:
v aat_v01.js
Here are the (apparently) main files for the thing, lifted from boston.com. They place it outside of the tag, of course, because they wouldn't want to have the page validate with the W3C.
http://diamond.jvlnet.com/~jadecristal/shoshkele/
More interesting, though, is probably the
http://diamond.jvlnet.com/~jadecristal/shoshkele/
Someone with more JS coding experience than me can take a look at it...
Last time I checked, people DO purchase things (like cars, for a good example) based on "superficial qualities" like speed and looks. If they want to, why shold we care? It's their money, to do with as they please, and regardless of how they spend it right now, it will still theoretically go back into the economy. Therefore, why should we care if that's how they really want to spend their money?
Because the record companies screw the artists out of their rights anyway, the label usually OWNs the copyright already anyway. Thus...
I don't understand, though, how Steve can gripe about Microsoft's decision to implement a complete version of sockets in WinXP. He gripes because it will be possible to send a packet programatically "from" any IP address on chooses (spoofing). He wants Microsoft to BREAK the standards compliance because someone could use if for a DDoS attack. I wish people that don't like Microsoft's way of doing things would make up their mind; I would LOVE to see a fully implemented standard, and I don't (and have no reason to try, on a modem connection) want to DDoS people. They either want standards compliance, or they don't. Grrr...
instead of using energy, light is used
*sarcasm* and light is not energy now, hmmm? interesting. tell us more about this non-energy called "light" *sarcasm*
You CAN download/save Quicktime clips; just view the source for the page, and the author HAS to specify the clip filename in the embed or applet or whatever they use now, and if they don't use proprietary (non-http) streaming of that clip, then... yoiNK!
- Installing boxes. Like the kind that normally hold things like outlets, except we used the double-wide kind. They were placed each place that we wanted things; at least one in almost every room (no, there isn't one in either of the bathrooms), with some rooms like the family room having two.
- Running cable. We chose to use a combination of plenum CAT-V and RG-6 coax to each drop, even though we don't have satellite. Just planning for the future, I guess. We used two drops so that the phones in each room could use CAT-V too... That way, data and phone are in the same plate. Nice.
- Assembling wall plates. This part was a PITA... you try getting down on your knees (or laying on the ground, in some places) with a 110 punchdown tool that qualifies as a sharp-pointy object and apply the amount of pressure that it takes to punch crap down into those stupid plastic CAT-V and phone recepticles. Not fun. But in the end, all but the one in my brothers room, behind his bed, are set up now, for the most part. The RG-6 cable isn't connected inside the plates, though, since we aren't using it at the time. Maybe someday. Since we have 3 phone lines, due to our situation in the house, some plates where I care (my room) have two lines set up so that when other people get pesky about the phone, I can just take another line.
- Setting up the goods in the basement. This was another experience, as we opted for a nice hardcore 66-pair punchdown block for the phones. It's nice, but still kinda difficult. But all the phone drops that we wanted set up work now, although there is this one that I think is causing line noise... prolly a crappy punch-down job.
- Networking... the point of all this stuff. We put a LinkSys 5-port hub down there, along with a 3Com Dual Analog router, since we live in the country. No cable or DSL here, though it is available in town. The three (was four, until the poor linux box went to the great bit bucket, or the computers version of it, in the sky) is linked into it's port in the room it's in, and all of drops go to a place in the basement. There are a couple of extra activated drops in the house, for when friends come over with their boxen.
As for the logistics of it all, plan out your cable needs, then but extra. There is no such thing as too much cable. Even if you have just the right amount for your project, you will end up needing more later, for something.I lean away from the wireless stuff because it's still so expensive, and what-not. I don't like the inherent security risks with sending lots of packets into the air, either. But I guess if the neighbor wants to sniff your quake packets with their uber-expensive setup, let em.
Ok, so I suppose that now all of you are going to try to convince each other that you trusted Verisign in the first place, da? Like, you know, the same Verisign that owns NSI. Right. I'll go for that.
Have you called Dell recently and tried to buy a computer sans OS? Good luck. They'll cite piracy, difficulty, or just about anything else (I'm guessing here, but I bet piracy would be near the top) to justify it, but in the end, they still won't sell it to you.
:)
I still think that the best way of doing a computer, is, of course, to build it yourself; however, not everyone wants to or has the time to do this. Maybe we need a bill to force OEM's to sell computers without an OS to go along with this one...
In the beginning, there was CDDB, and it was a volunteer effort. Other volunteers saw that it was good, and they brought their album information and entered it. CDDB grew. One day, the people running CDDB we approached by some company, whose name shall not be uttered here, who offered them money. They sold out. CDDB was based in Roanoke, IN, for a while; later, they added multiple CA offices. Little by little, they tightened their grip around the service; first, they added a license saying that they owned the data. Then, with the impending release of CDDB^2, they made the SDK proprietary and licensed it. Now, they have turned their faces away from the light, and must be punished. I personally like the idea of mass-correcting with bad data myself, but they deserve to pay, and pay DEARly for what they have done. I won't even use them anymore, given the option.
According to Merriam-Webster, censorship is defined as 1 a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring b : the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively.
:)
How does Microsoft's inclusion of a function allowing someone to block things that they don't want to be viewed in their own private home, a function which is also entirely optional, count as censorship?
As much as I personally don't like it, those who have not reached their majority (age 18 in the US, differs elsewhere) have (basically) no legal rights. Thus, according to the law, their parents can make the decision about what they can see (or play, in this case) entirely legally. I mean, if you are old enough to take care of yourself, you can make decisions about things like this real simply, like by not enabling such "features" on your devices. If you aren't yet old enough to make such decisions, since you are considered a minor, then if the person who is legally responsible for you doesn't let you play Quake 5 when it comes out, too bad. Again, I don't agree with the almost complete lack of rights that minors get, and we could spend a long time talking about those rights in different places (especially schools, and their twisted hypocrisy), but that doesn't change the law; moreover, there are other places than here for that discussion. If you don't like the law, there are ways to change it. That doesn't mean that it's easy, or fun, but it is possible.
I don't recall anyone griping about the fact that lots of DVD players had the ability to disable viewing of discs that were rated at a certain level, but the function necessary to do so is built into lots of DVD players, both software and hardware based.
This article comes across as either a.) Microsoft bashing, OOOID (Or One Of It's Derivatives, another new phrase for your big list of acronyms) or b.) a little too much concern about "censorship." Or course, maybe I'm not paranoid enough, and the evil corporations and in league with the government and going for all they can take from us.
Try telling that to the people who buy "consumer" Minidisc recorders, record their own music, then try to make a digital copy of it to another MD unit.
:) (on another note, it has been said that any other industry that had racketeering going on like the music industry would find the people involved spending lots of time turning big rocks into small rocks. But that's beside the point.)
Guess what? They can't. The unit assumes that anything recorded is "copyrighted" and thus, refuses to copy it. Or, for even more fun, try to find a consumer MD unit that even has a digital input.
The problem is, these companies wish to have things their way, at any expense to society or the consumer. Economic principle states that if one is selling things at monopoly rate (e.g. - RIAA and members), one is harming society due to the cost of the material not being equal to the cost that went into it. Or close. It's been a while since I had that class.
Regardless, the final point with me, and this has been brought up lots and lots of times by others, is that I resent being treated like a criminal from day one. To me what DataPlay (and other proprietary media companies) is doing is just like me going and buying a set of tools. When I go to buy these tools, I am told that since some people use tools for bad things, there is going to be someone who goes everywhere with me from now on, whenever I have the tools that I'm buying, and keeps an eye on me to make sure I use the tools nicely. And, since I want these tools, it's only fair that I pay for that person to come along and keep an eye on me (this is like the additional fee that gets included in the cost of the music due to the proprietary "DRM" people that want their cut).
That, sir, is the problem.
Sure, I could have have NAT, but I'd rather pay a little and be honest.
What does setting up a particular method of using service that you paid for have to do with honesty? Do you really think that it is "dishonest" to set up a NAT system without telling your provider? What if it wasn't 4 more IP's, but 1024 more IP's that you needed on your T1 connection from your provider, but they charged for those additional IP's. Should you have to pay them more automatically, even when you don't want to have the addresses, just want internal machines to have a secured access path out? NAT is a technical solution. Please stop trying to make it look like a criminal act.
How can you be so sure that the same laws that "prevent you from enslaving your neighbor's child and doing the same thing" will apply?
How can you know that these cloned humans will even be given any rights? After all, they ARE made from part of the person that was cloned, so why not make them that person's property. That way, if someone needs a replacement , well, hmmm... let's just clone ourself, take the body part, and incinerate the clone. We can always do it again if we have to.
Granted, I AM playing the devil's advocate here, but how many ways could this be a BAD thing, versus how many could it be a good thing? I can count LOTS more bad things that could happen than good things.
What I really miss are the BBS door games. Even though some of them were not the best, I refuse to let that ruin my impressions of the ones that I consider classic. TradeWars 2002 comes to mind. :)
In practice, many door games DID suck; however, there were also lots that people would play to build a community and to have fun, even when there were already games with "prettier" graphics floating around out there on the market. It didn't matter that they were ANSI graphics, and that it took 5 seconds to load a screen.
Lots of the door games DID offer open ended gaming, and were not just MUD's. Some were, and they were lacking something.
DMCA allows "research" circumvention... Good luck getting a sane legal interpretation of that though. IANAL.
But what if you use something like a Soundblaster Live! with SPDIF in/out, and loop that? Nice digital copy... :)
This may not be nice, but this prerelease version has been out for quite a while on their research site. I haven't had the nerve to try it yet. I mean, after all, it IS MS-prerelease. I still remember what happened with IE4 beta 1. :) And think, that was only a shell-integrated browser... Not that I dislike MS or anything (NOT sarcasm).
I find it really funny that /. will jump on any tiny little perceived "hole" or "privacy breach" in any Microsoft product, but refuses to even note that a new version of an MS product has been released. Hmmm...?
Of course this is slashdot material. Slashdot supports little interesting projects. Half the point of doing some stuff like this is "just because I can"; so don't whine about it. Why does it seem like EVERYone (or a large subset of everyone) is now questioning "should this be /. material" for half the stories that get posted?!
As dumb as it may sound, why don't we open a username "slashdot" with password "slashdot" on all these lame places that require registration? Fake information would fill their nasty little forms in nicely, and then it wouldn't be an issue, da?
Visit AnimeDen for LOTS of stuff on anime. Or contact Kallesin, the webmaster, directly: kallesin@animeden.com
Precisely. Real overinflates their "ratings" to make themselves look good. Even though MS isn't any better about that, at least they are usually honest about their info collection policies. What REALLY pushed me over the edge to HATing Real, though, was this constant STREAM (no pun intended) of email from "Maria Cantwell" at Real about their stupid products. After the privacy story came out, that pretty much closed it on them. Real sucks.