Television advertising companies have known about things like this forever -- that's why many commercials employ the same devices as the shows they interrupt and why some stations (read: MTV) make there programming look a lot like commercials (fast cuts; bright colors; constant, catchy background music; etc.).
A little bit of thought and math will reveal that the total number of correctly-formed English sentences is a very, very, very large number. It's effectively infinite for practical purposes.
Just a terribly minor point, but according to one of the most commonly-accepted definitions of "language," (at least the one used in nearly all "Introduction to Linguistics" books), the amount of proper sentances is infinite.
I consider myself to be a libertarian, though not an extremely radical one (I think that shutting down the Federal Reserve (STOP THE PRESSES! HE'S US-CENTRIC!) would be absurd), and typosquatting (like abortion) is one of those things that one really hates to condone (or that I really hate to condone, in abortion's case), but do so in defence of free speech.
Fair point, except wasn't it Yahoo! that refused to stop the sale of subversive texts on its auction site because some country (France?) asked them to?
I don't really find this a justifiable extension of what Amazon started...
None of the new things Amazon sells is a logical extension for a book and music store. I mean lawnchairs? Hardware (read: hammers and nails, not SCSI cables and USB hubs)!? Soon they're going to start selling CARS (seriously)! I wouldn't be surprised to see uranium (or anything else) on amazon at this point.
Not trying to be flamebait here, but does anyone other than me find it a little wrong that the default password was actually published instead of a description of the vulnerability without the password? I mean, sure, if someone wants to post the default password, that's their right, and yes, I'm kinda blaming the messenger here, but why encourage exploitation of this type?
I've heard the argument that Microsoft won't fix it unless the vulnerability is made public, but doesn't everyone know that to be bullshit? I mean, Outlook's flaws were explained in detail, and instead of Microsoft fixing 'em, I just get more internal memos from the IT department telling me what subject-lines will delete the contents of my hard drive and send itself out to every member of the firm. Clearly telling the public how to make an exploit can only aggravate the problem, so why do people insist on doing it?
IIRC, it's an emulation in the sense that DOS is no longer the "guts" of w2k, but DOS is an application that runs over w2k (kinda like a file manager with support for dos commands). I know that's a bit incoherent, but I just got into work, give me a few minutes;)
I couldn't agree with you more. I am a libertarian who believes in a minimal government, and even in my idea of a minimal government there exists a justice system to make sure private contracts are enforced.
They have a week-and-a-half to create a timeline regarding when to tell the public how the system works?! This is a very typical "red tape" solution. Odds are, the FBI will tell the court that it'll take - at the very least - MONTHS to figure out a way to describe the workings of something IT created. In the meantime, Carnivore will still be active. It would be much more realistic for the courts to mandate that there must be some type of detailed disclosure in twenty or thirty days, but that wouldn't make any sense, now would it?
Criminals don't get 10 days to decide how they committed their crime.. how come the FBI gets a week and a half to dispatch its spinsters to put out a controversy!?
IIRC, an old version of WinPlay 3 worked well on my 486-DX/50. I could play in 8-bit stereo, which wasn't terrible. You have to realize, of course, that it was running over windows. If someone could come up with some tiny OS that only played mp3s and didn't suck resources at MS's rate, it'd 'most definately work.
I think AOL 2.5 (keyword: "get25" IIRC) 3.0 ("get30") use embedded antiquated browsers. Don't take my word for it though.
Additionally - if you're testing pages for aol, make sure you turn on the "compressed images" option in preferences, because that can really change how some pages work. AOL also uses a screwy cache system.
The fact that there are millions of people doing it doesn't by itself make it right - legally or ethically.
Actually, you're wrong in this case. IIRC, a trade secret loses its status as such if a large amount of people is aware of it (adding flour to water isn't Wonderbread's trade secret, but the method of making Coke is Coca-Cola's trade secret (yes, I know that's not 100% legally kosher, but it's close enough for this argument)). Therefore, if everyone on the internet gets a copy of DeCSS it can be argued that the MPAA isn't properly enforcing its trade secret/the MPAA can't realistically enforce its trade secret, so it's no longer a trade secret.
BTW, the last sentance is actually almost a halfway-valid reason the MPAA should sue CopyLeft (if there is such a thing.
How about a program that generated the code (for example a perl script that output the C source when invoked)?...
2600 Magazine made a similar point when they wrote about what they would do if the judge issued an injunction requiring them to remove the code from their website. They wrote (paraphrasing): If we have to remove the code, we'll link to the code. If we have to remove the links, we'll write out the web addresses in ascii. If we have to remove the addresses, we'll display an image that contains the web addresses, if we have to remove that, we'll spell out the address (http colon slash slash www dot 2600 dot com slash (etc.)). 2600's point (Touretsky's (sp?) point) is that it'd be ludicrous to try and ban everything relating to the code for two reasons: persistant people (i.e. 2600) would find ways around it, and you'd have to create a virtual police state to enforce it.
At issue for you is a misuse of the word "subpoena." They merely meant "add to the list of defendants," or something to that effect. Hell, maybe "subpoena" was not misused, and you're just missing that definition.. whatever.. they meant to say "add to the list of defendants."
I think Touretsky was trying to show the absurdity of arresting everyone who trafics (sp?) the DeCSS code by implanting the image of being arrested for wearing a t-shirt in the judge's head. Clearly you aren't allowed to sell t-shirts bearing a copyrighted image, and clearly there are certain things that shouldn't and can't be printed on t-shirts, but he's just trying to point out the absurdity of indicting every last person who is involved with "trafficking" the code.
Slashdot Mirror
Mine was some weird parody of "Walk like an Egyptian" called "Lie Like a Clinton."
And yeah, WinPlay3
Television advertising companies have known about things like this forever -- that's why many commercials employ the same devices as the shows they interrupt and why some stations (read: MTV) make there programming look a lot like commercials (fast cuts; bright colors; constant, catchy background music; etc.).
A little bit of thought and math will reveal that the total number of correctly-formed English sentences is a very, very, very large number. It's effectively infinite for practical purposes.
Just a terribly minor point, but according to one of the most commonly-accepted definitions of "language," (at least the one used in nearly all "Introduction to Linguistics" books), the amount of proper sentances is infinite.
It quite possibly has something to do with the fact that the NYT actually, justifiably *is* the newspaper of record in the US.
It may have something to do with the fact that the NYT is by far the best news daily in the country..
Here's the real link.
Anyone care to elucidate on this part?
It's tough territory.
Here, with Optimum Online cable, I max out at about 3.2 Mbps, but more realistic speeds are about 1.5-2 Mbps. I'll deal ;)
Fair point, except wasn't it Yahoo! that refused to stop the sale of subversive texts on its auction site because some country (France?) asked them to?
None of the new things Amazon sells is a logical extension for a book and music store. I mean lawnchairs? Hardware (read: hammers and nails, not SCSI cables and USB hubs)!? Soon they're going to start selling CARS (seriously)! I wouldn't be surprised to see uranium (or anything else) on amazon at this point.
I meant the people reporting the vulnerability.
I've heard the argument that Microsoft won't fix it unless the vulnerability is made public, but doesn't everyone know that to be bullshit? I mean, Outlook's flaws were explained in detail, and instead of Microsoft fixing 'em, I just get more internal memos from the IT department telling me what subject-lines will delete the contents of my hard drive and send itself out to every member of the firm. Clearly telling the public how to make an exploit can only aggravate the problem, so why do people insist on doing it?
IIRC, it's an emulation in the sense that DOS is no longer the "guts" of w2k, but DOS is an application that runs over w2k (kinda like a file manager with support for dos commands). I know that's a bit incoherent, but I just got into work, give me a few minutes ;)
I couldn't agree with you more. I am a libertarian who believes in a minimal government, and even in my idea of a minimal government there exists a justice system to make sure private contracts are enforced.
Criminals don't get 10 days to decide how they committed their crime.. how come the FBI gets a week and a half to dispatch its spinsters to put out a controversy!?
IIRC, an old version of WinPlay 3 worked well on my 486-DX/50. I could play in 8-bit stereo, which wasn't terrible. You have to realize, of course, that it was running over windows. If someone could come up with some tiny OS that only played mp3s and didn't suck resources at MS's rate, it'd 'most definately work.
And don't forget heat (IIRC LCD screens do not take kindly to heat).
Additionally - if you're testing pages for aol, make sure you turn on the "compressed images" option in preferences, because that can really change how some pages work. AOL also uses a screwy cache system.
I meant that the mechanism used to protect the copyright (CSS) is/was a trade secret, whatever, maybe I'm wrong.
Actually, you're wrong in this case. IIRC, a trade secret loses its status as such if a large amount of people is aware of it (adding flour to water isn't Wonderbread's trade secret, but the method of making Coke is Coca-Cola's trade secret (yes, I know that's not 100% legally kosher, but it's close enough for this argument)). Therefore, if everyone on the internet gets a copy of DeCSS it can be argued that the MPAA isn't properly enforcing its trade secret/the MPAA can't realistically enforce its trade secret, so it's no longer a trade secret.
BTW, the last sentance is actually almost a halfway-valid reason the MPAA should sue CopyLeft (if there is such a thing.I believe it's a "trade secret to protect copyright issue" not "copyright issue."
2600 Magazine made a similar point when they wrote about what they would do if the judge issued an injunction requiring them to remove the code from their website. They wrote (paraphrasing): If we have to remove the code, we'll link to the code. If we have to remove the links, we'll write out the web addresses in ascii. If we have to remove the addresses, we'll display an image that contains the web addresses, if we have to remove that, we'll spell out the address (http colon slash slash www dot 2600 dot com slash (etc.)). 2600's point (Touretsky's (sp?) point) is that it'd be ludicrous to try and ban everything relating to the code for two reasons: persistant people (i.e. 2600) would find ways around it, and you'd have to create a virtual police state to enforce it.
At issue for you is a misuse of the word "subpoena." They merely meant "add to the list of defendants," or something to that effect. Hell, maybe "subpoena" was not misused, and you're just missing that definition.. whatever.. they meant to say "add to the list of defendants."
I think Touretsky was trying to show the absurdity of arresting everyone who trafics (sp?) the DeCSS code by implanting the image of being arrested for wearing a t-shirt in the judge's head. Clearly you aren't allowed to sell t-shirts bearing a copyrighted image, and clearly there are certain things that shouldn't and can't be printed on t-shirts, but he's just trying to point out the absurdity of indicting every last person who is involved with "trafficking" the code.