I'm not disagreeing that this is a non-story, but it is a little different than the "only in theaters" line (which I do abhor).
Usually (always?), there is a date attached to that line, so they have the excuse "oh, we merely meant that on this date, it is only in theaters. After that, we're free to do as we please." Really pissed me off when the first movie I noticed that line on came out on VHS several months later.
Actually it's more like this: CA User's Computer MD User's Computer. A direct connection with no need for a national provider like AOL.
Um, an interesting point, except I had been addressing your comment about AOL experiencing a revival. And we've already established that I misunderstood what you meant by a revival of AOL.
>>>what was the point of throwing my final line back at me?
Because you were rude.
Rude or not, it seemingly represents a lack of understanding of the debate, as I clearly understand that the internet _isn't_ just all those.
I apologize if it sounded rude to you, but it sounded to me like that is what you considered the internet to be. I was merely pointing out that there is more to the internet than the World Wide Web. In retrospect, I guess saying "there is more to the internet than the World Wide Web" would have been better, rather than listing a few individual sites as I did.
What does it matter if they cannot block nodes 2-n, if all they need to do is block the first node that the program connects to? Once you block all nodes which could be first nodes, all subsequent nodes are useless to users behind the blocking.
Computers connecting to each other is not automatically creating the internet. No TCP/IP, no standard routing protocols. It would be like a giant ad-hoc network. Quite different.
I never said it went like this: CA User's Computer <-> AOL Computer <-> MD User's Computer. But it also sounds like I'd misunderstood what was meant by a resurrection of AOL.
By your logic fax machines are automatically on the Internet because they have modems.
I apologize if I was sparse on explanation, but simply having a modem does not mean something is "on the internet" per my logic.
I think we're coming in from two different angles. You seem to be coming from an implementation standpoint, while I'm coming from an intent standpoint. The intent of the internet was to be a robust communication system, correct? If a fax message from one machine to another had multiple paths that it could take, that would certainly be a method of fulfilling the intent (though a very weak one). If the path could dynamically change, that would be an even better fulfillment of the intent.
BTW, what was the point of throwing my final line back at me?
Ok, much of your post was informative. I did not realize what you meant with regard to a resurrection of AOL at first. But I love how you quote-mined me on my final point. However, I digress on that, as I think we're coming in from two different angles. You seem to be coming from an implementation standpoint, while I'm coming from an intent standpoint. The intent of the internet was to be a robust communication system, correct? And you were not limited to logging into _just_ the local BBSes, were you? If you were in the middle of accessing something from one BBS, lost connection and could not reconnect to that same BBS, you could resume pretty much exactly where you were from _any_ other BBS, right? I'd certainly call the ability to do all that a method of fulfilling the intent.
Sounds like someone's in denial about being able to live without the internet.
- Next I'd setup one of those old-fashioned BBSes where people can dial-in at 50k to download illegal warez. Call it PirateBay BBS. Or they could just chat with one another via the forums. I would use HTML to give my BBS a web-like appearance.
Where would you get these warez? And would you pay for additional phone lines so that more than one person can connect at a given time? (btw, this counts as beginning to recreate the internet).
- AOL, GEnie, and other national services would experience a resurrection.
I admit I am not familiar with GEnie, but AOL being resurrected counts directly as recreating the internet. What is AOL if not a service which allows, for example, someone in CA to access (via a local phone number) services that someone in MD can also access via a local number to them, also allowing them to access each other?
- Usenet newsgroups like rec.arts.tv would be unaffected. Being text-only they are perfectly suited to phoneline-based distribution, as was done back in the 80s.
Usenet newsgroups like rec.arts.tv would not exist because the internet is turned off and so there is no way to access it. By returning to a dial-up access model, you recreate the internet.
FYI, the internet consists of more than just/., facebook, myspace, twitter, youtube, etc.
Physical Access
Digital Security
CowboyNeil
CommanderTaco
Being/.ed
Physical Access trumps Digital Security and negates Being/.ed.
Digital Security confuses CowboyNeil and CommanderTaco.
CowboyNeil strips out components when presented with Physical Access, and gives migraines to CommanderTaco.
CommanderTaco also strips out components when presented with Physical Access, and can disable Being/.ed
Being/.ed disables access to Digital Security and makes CowboyNeil feel insignificant when presented with the power of CommanderTaco.
Except it's not quite like that. It sounds more like you lock your door and leave to get groceries. Before you get back, someone comes up to the door and installs something that can scan the key that is used to unlock the door. That person leaves, you return, unlock the door, and go in. You later head out again, locking the door behind you, and that other person comes up, recovers their device, makes a duplicate key based on the device's contents, and now has access to your home.
Whether or not I think that's enough is irrelevant. But now that it's been said the way you said it ("5000 euros each, per day"), it does make it sound like they mean "5000 per day from each of the three TPB founders".
Coming from the US with the *AAs trying to fine people based on the number of downloads, I'd honestly never considered it could be the way that you said.
Is that supposed to be a joke, or are you being serious? Obviously they mean "if 1,000 people download torrent X per day, that's a 5,000,000 euro fine per day".
Why would I have to purchase the game multiple times to be able to play it on different platforms in the first place?
Because some people prefer not to pay up to 8 times (PC/Mac/Linux/Wii/PS3/360/DS/PSP) as much for a game that they only want to use on a single platform? I'll grant you that it is unlikely to be quite that high, but that would seem to me to be the upper limit.
It would be nice to be able to buy, say, a core game and then just pay a little more on top of that for every platform you'd like to play it on, but it's ludicrous to claim "I bought the PC version, why can't I get the game on Mac/Linux/Wii/PS3/360/DS/PSP for free?". There are additional costs to release a game on multiple platforms vs a single platform.
The Geneva Conventions results apply only when the guys who are winning want them too.
Wrong. The Geneva Convention's results apply for as long as *neutral* countries want them too
I'd say you're both wrong. A neutral country can bitch and moan all it wants, but all sides in a war will continue to do as they please. It's not until the neutral country backs up its words with either its military or economic strength that anyone will pay attention to them, effectively making them no longer neutral. But even that isn't likely to change anything _during_ the war (well, backing up its words with its economic strength might, if said economy is essential to the war effort of a particular side). Do you really think that the losing side is going to think "well, now we're losing, guess maybe we should stop all that Geneva Convention breaking" as long as there's still some fight left in them?
This is not unlike two people going to the same event and not knowing the other person was there.
You're misunderstanding. It is very much not like that at all. Here we are right now, having a conversation. You don't know who I am, and I don't know who you are. That is a 2-way anonymous encounter. Two people going to the same event, but neither coming into contact with the other is not an encounter.
But the point is, presuming that the current minimum password length is 8 characters, it is exactly as secure as making the minimum password length 9 characters and displaying a simple "Submit" button.
Though I guess an argument could be made for the image situation being more secure than increasing the minimum password length by 1 character. Afterall, for a password like "password" how do you predict what image the user would have chosen (the upper left one, duh) if the images are arranged randomly on the screen (oh)?
Slashdot Mirror
What good is a laptop without one?
What makes you think they care?
Unless you like fish and not cow. You can also get more than one meal out of a fishing pole.
Also practice landing planes. Just in case.
Mythbusters showed that completely untrained people can be guided into safely landing the plane.
But in what direction was there destination with regard to their current heading?
(No, I have no idea how long/far it would take for such an aircraft to do a 180.)
I'm not disagreeing that this is a non-story, but it is a little different than the "only in theaters" line (which I do abhor).
Usually (always?), there is a date attached to that line, so they have the excuse "oh, we merely meant that on this date, it is only in theaters. After that, we're free to do as we please." Really pissed me off when the first movie I noticed that line on came out on VHS several months later.
Actually it's more like this: CA User's Computer MD User's Computer. A direct connection with no need for a national provider like AOL.
Um, an interesting point, except I had been addressing your comment about AOL experiencing a revival. And we've already established that I misunderstood what you meant by a revival of AOL.
>>>what was the point of throwing my final line back at me?
Because you were rude.
Rude or not, it seemingly represents a lack of understanding of the debate, as I clearly understand that the internet _isn't_ just all those.
I apologize if it sounded rude to you, but it sounded to me like that is what you considered the internet to be. I was merely pointing out that there is more to the internet than the World Wide Web. In retrospect, I guess saying "there is more to the internet than the World Wide Web" would have been better, rather than listing a few individual sites as I did.
What does it matter if they cannot block nodes 2-n, if all they need to do is block the first node that the program connects to? Once you block all nodes which could be first nodes, all subsequent nodes are useless to users behind the blocking.
But how many unsuccessful attempts have there been?
(No, seriously, I have no idea and am curious.)
Computers connecting to each other is not automatically creating the internet. No TCP/IP, no standard routing protocols. It would be like a giant ad-hoc network. Quite different.
I never said it went like this: CA User's Computer <-> AOL Computer <-> MD User's Computer. But it also sounds like I'd misunderstood what was meant by a resurrection of AOL.
By your logic fax machines are automatically on the Internet because they have modems.
I apologize if I was sparse on explanation, but simply having a modem does not mean something is "on the internet" per my logic.
I think we're coming in from two different angles. You seem to be coming from an implementation standpoint, while I'm coming from an intent standpoint. The intent of the internet was to be a robust communication system, correct? If a fax message from one machine to another had multiple paths that it could take, that would certainly be a method of fulfilling the intent (though a very weak one). If the path could dynamically change, that would be an even better fulfillment of the intent.
BTW, what was the point of throwing my final line back at me?
Ok, much of your post was informative. I did not realize what you meant with regard to a resurrection of AOL at first. But I love how you quote-mined me on my final point. However, I digress on that, as I think we're coming in from two different angles. You seem to be coming from an implementation standpoint, while I'm coming from an intent standpoint. The intent of the internet was to be a robust communication system, correct? And you were not limited to logging into _just_ the local BBSes, were you? If you were in the middle of accessing something from one BBS, lost connection and could not reconnect to that same BBS, you could resume pretty much exactly where you were from _any_ other BBS, right? I'd certainly call the ability to do all that a method of fulfilling the intent.
- Next I'd setup one of those old-fashioned BBSes where people can dial-in at 50k to download illegal warez. Call it PirateBay BBS. Or they could just chat with one another via the forums. I would use HTML to give my BBS a web-like appearance.
Where would you get these warez? And would you pay for additional phone lines so that more than one person can connect at a given time? (btw, this counts as beginning to recreate the internet).
- AOL, GEnie, and other national services would experience a resurrection.
I admit I am not familiar with GEnie, but AOL being resurrected counts directly as recreating the internet. What is AOL if not a service which allows, for example, someone in CA to access (via a local phone number) services that someone in MD can also access via a local number to them, also allowing them to access each other?
- Usenet newsgroups like rec.arts.tv would be unaffected. Being text-only they are perfectly suited to phoneline-based distribution, as was done back in the 80s.
Usenet newsgroups like rec.arts.tv would not exist because the internet is turned off and so there is no way to access it. By returning to a dial-up access model, you recreate the internet.
/., facebook, myspace, twitter, youtube, etc.
FYI, the internet consists of more than just
You beat me to it, but not to the explanation!
/.ed
/.ed. /.ed /.ed disables access to Digital Security and makes CowboyNeil feel insignificant when presented with the power of CommanderTaco.
Physical Access
Digital Security
CowboyNeil
CommanderTaco
Being
Physical Access trumps Digital Security and negates Being
Digital Security confuses CowboyNeil and CommanderTaco.
CowboyNeil strips out components when presented with Physical Access, and gives migraines to CommanderTaco.
CommanderTaco also strips out components when presented with Physical Access, and can disable Being
Being
Except it's not quite like that. It sounds more like you lock your door and leave to get groceries. Before you get back, someone comes up to the door and installs something that can scan the key that is used to unlock the door. That person leaves, you return, unlock the door, and go in. You later head out again, locking the door behind you, and that other person comes up, recovers their device, makes a duplicate key based on the device's contents, and now has access to your home.
So can my utilizing my connection to watch Netflix. Which is why that portion (and others too probably) is poorly worded and should be re-written.
Whether or not I think that's enough is irrelevant. But now that it's been said the way you said it ("5000 euros each, per day"), it does make it sound like they mean "5000 per day from each of the three TPB founders".
Coming from the US with the *AAs trying to fine people based on the number of downloads, I'd honestly never considered it could be the way that you said.
Is that supposed to be a joke, or are you being serious? Obviously they mean "if 1,000 people download torrent X per day, that's a 5,000,000 euro fine per day".
As long as you never plan to travel to France, that would certainly be a viable option.
Anyone else (of the few who don't use adblock or the likes) happen to see an anti-drug ad just below the story?
Why would I have to purchase the game multiple times to be able to play it on different platforms in the first place?
Because some people prefer not to pay up to 8 times (PC/Mac/Linux/Wii/PS3/360/DS/PSP) as much for a game that they only want to use on a single platform? I'll grant you that it is unlikely to be quite that high, but that would seem to me to be the upper limit.
It would be nice to be able to buy, say, a core game and then just pay a little more on top of that for every platform you'd like to play it on, but it's ludicrous to claim "I bought the PC version, why can't I get the game on Mac/Linux/Wii/PS3/360/DS/PSP for free?". There are additional costs to release a game on multiple platforms vs a single platform.
I thought so to, till I checked the post AC was responding to.
The nice thing about pre-ribbon Office versions, is that unlike the ribbon, if you didn't like the "hide menu options" setting you could disable it.
:/
If I still had a pre-ribbon Office installed, I could even tell you how.
The Geneva Conventions results apply only when the guys who are winning want them too.
Wrong. The Geneva Convention's results apply for as long as *neutral* countries want them too
I'd say you're both wrong. A neutral country can bitch and moan all it wants, but all sides in a war will continue to do as they please. It's not until the neutral country backs up its words with either its military or economic strength that anyone will pay attention to them, effectively making them no longer neutral. But even that isn't likely to change anything _during_ the war (well, backing up its words with its economic strength might, if said economy is essential to the war effort of a particular side). Do you really think that the losing side is going to think "well, now we're losing, guess maybe we should stop all that Geneva Convention breaking" as long as there's still some fight left in them?
In order for it to work in politics, the politician needs to stop screwing up at some point :P
This is not unlike two people going to the same event and not knowing the other person was there.
You're misunderstanding. It is very much not like that at all. Here we are right now, having a conversation. You don't know who I am, and I don't know who you are. That is a 2-way anonymous encounter. Two people going to the same event, but neither coming into contact with the other is not an encounter.
But the point is, presuming that the current minimum password length is 8 characters, it is exactly as secure as making the minimum password length 9 characters and displaying a simple "Submit" button.
Though I guess an argument could be made for the image situation being more secure than increasing the minimum password length by 1 character. Afterall, for a password like "password" how do you predict what image the user would have chosen (the upper left one, duh) if the images are arranged randomly on the screen (oh)?