Re:My wife never heard of boo.com
on
Boo No More
·
· Score: 1
I never thought boo would last, I can't understand why you would want to buy clothing over the web, but some people buy stuff from a catalogue.
Yeah, i heard of lastminute.com...went there, shite (compared to cheapflights.com), never been back.
It seems to be haemorrhaging money also, anyone want to run a sweepstake on the lifespan of that one? And for a more reasonable point of view on it, click here.
I don't know if it's fair to say that MS forgot about Agent, it's been subsumed into Windows 2000, and IIRC, it powers the TTS module that's used for the accessibility reader function. Additionally, it's pretty simple to write application for it to enable dictation and menu control, I had set it up to allow me to play old arcade games through MAME via keyboard mappings. To honest, the only games that it was reasonably successful with were Gorf, Galaxian and Space invaders, but, hey, it was a laugh. The biggest problem I had with it was that it expected a North American accent, and the only way I could get it to launch Word was to pronounce it 'Woid'. The agent aspect of it doesn't have to be visible, but it did have to be running in the background to catch your commands. It was quite a novely being able to shout 'computer, internet, browser' across the room, and have it wake and dialup, but after a while it became a bit dull.
But you might want to try the libraries in Scotland. I'm sure you've got one or two...
Fair point, although I'm not too sure if the book itself did make it here, but thanks for the info, I'll make enquiries next time I go down to borrow a couple of CD's for ripping^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hlistening... FYI, I'm a bit too old to go back to University.
They know we're Open Source zealots, and that we will never, ever back down. We're too smart for that.
So smart that you will go down with the ship? So smart that you will vehemently defend the right for an AC to post copyrighted material, and not do anything about it? /. as a whole may well want to go up against DMCA, to prove that they too can be as much of a martyr as 2600, and to take on the evil empire, but this is not the time to stand. Why is there an issue here? A copyright violation has taken place, and regardless of the tools employed to request the removal of the document in question, law has been broken. This is not like providing a link to a tool(such as DeCSS or DivX), but providing the end product(Galaxy Quest/Metallica/Pam&Tommy). How long before warez, mp3z and pr0n appear in the hidden sids, uuencoded for anyone to download? Think carefully about the stand you are about to take here, the enemy might be attractive, and you may well want the opportunity to fight, but perhaps this is not the time. By striking now, you may lose a better opportunity to strike harder later on. Be careful, don't get into a fight for the sake of a fight. This may well set a precendent where posts have to be pulled, but how is this different from articles which magically appear and disappear, because an editor has decided they should be held, or assigning a login an automatic -2 karma? Again, if you want to be a martyr, fine, but don't do it just to be cool, do it for what you believe in, not for column inches.
If I posted a list of 100 stolen credit card numbers to Slashdot, would they remove that?
It's not quite the same, but it is likely to be pulled, because you are breaking the law. CC numbers aren't copyright, but as an example which more closely parallels this, how about you uuencode all of Metallica's albums and post them in chunks for all to download? Do you think they would remain for long? My understanding of the EULA is that you *must* agree to it to be legally entitled to access the content. Even if you work around, it is an illegal access of the document in question, and as such is breaking copyright. Crowing about free speech isn't going to help, there is a copyright violation in place here, and, regardless of who posted the documents, they should, realistically, be pulled. If the original posters want to mirror their posts elsewhere, fine, but see if the juggernaut leaves you alone. Anyhow, how is an AC going to claim ownership of a post? Without dredging the logs and determining if the server caught the IP of the poster, or checking if it was a logged in posted who checked 'post as AC'*, you end up with a thousand people claiming to be Spartacus. On the other hand, if this is going to degenerate into Usenet, I'd like a copy of Neil Stephenson's The Big-U posted to a thread.
* If you moderate a comment, then go back to that thread and post as AC, your moderation is undone. I guess the server still knows who you are in this case, regardless of what others may have said.
According to a neighbor, Julie Villuaneva, the suspect kept to himself most of the time.
Aren't they all? If you're going to write code that's malicious, be the life and soul of the party. They won't suspect you. Anyway, there's a story at bloomberg, which states they have both been released. Has no other news source noticed this, or is the feeding frenzy causing a red mist?
Considering that this morning, the newswires were stating with some certainty that it was a woman that was responsible, how come it's a guy that has been arrested? Or are they just stooges for the real culprit(The german student in Australia mentioned elsewhere)?
You will need to install the evaluation edition of Dr. Solomons, then the extra virus.sig to get it to work, though, but it's a start. Solutions from your favourite AV vendor should be appearing Real Soon Now. Now, here's hoping a benevolent moderator passes by and mods the parent of this up where it belongs.
From my initial investigation it looks like it is totally MS Specific.
Yup.
So own up then how many/. readers have been kicked in the balls?
Not here. I have turned off active scripting, and if there is active content(as in this payload method), I would get a message asking if I want to run it. However, I'm in the minority. If you care about the security of your machine, you should turn off scripting, and given the attack of Melissa last year, you should be fully aware of the potential risk involved. This is only going to get worse.
IIRC, Windows 3.0 already had some sort of "magnifying lens" cursor.
Yup, it's further improved in Win2K, along with a narrator and on screen keyboard, and some wizards to help you set everything up as needed. Much as this will go down like a lead balloon, the short answer is install Win2K. You might not like it, but the support for alternative inputs outweighs Linux. Now X10, I don't know about, but I'd guess the support for Windows/X10 is as complete as the support for Linux/X10.
You could still tell where the TV show went on commercial break, and there were plenty of recaps, but there was only one set of actual credits, IIRC.
Hey, it's the BBC, no commercial breaks here. Each episode was approx 24 minutes long, but the versions on video do include a bit more footage than the (6x24) version, so a total of 144 minutes, and given additional and commercial breaks, it would pad out to about 3 hours. Six episodes is pretty much the norm for UK series, as you point out, the Blackadder series was 4series x 6episodes. The Young Ones was 2 x 6, Red Dwarf was 7 x 6, etc...
There was a sub-plot involving multiple Mona Lisas and IIRC a cameo by John Cleese.
The City Of Death Written by David Agnew, who was a gestalt of Douglas Adams/Graham Williams/David Fisher. The baddy was Scaroth, last of the Jagaroth. The other Dr. Who that Douglas Adams wrote was *Remembrance* of the Daleks, notable because it has one of the worst plot devices ever in a Doctor Who storyline. The protagonists, who have been oppressed by the Daleks for n years, have a battery on their chest that can be easily removed. Why not make them susceptible to gold? Oh, hold on, I think that one might have been used before....
I believe Mr. Adams wrote a few Doctor Who stories, notably "Shada," "Resurrection of the Daleks," and "Revelation of the Daleks." As yet, "Resurrection of the Daleks" and "Revelation of the Daleks" have not been released on video or in book form due to copyright issues. With Doctor Who, the story writers retained the copyrights to their own work. Obviously, he doesn't have the copyright on the Daleks themselves (Terry Nation's estate does), but he does on the stories. I remember hearing that he required a lot of convincing to allow "Shada" to be released on video (which ended up being limited-edition, anyway).
Part of the problem with shada was that it wan't all filmed. There was an electricians strike or somesuch at the time. The version on video has Tom Baker linking the bits that weren't filmed, and to be honest, if you've read Dirk Gently(whichever one deals with the Time traveller), then you're already familiar with the storyline. As to Res & Rev of the Daleks, I'm pretty sure they have been shown on UKGold(A BBC spinoff in the UK) recently. I think Resurrection of the Daleks was on last Sunday. If it was, it means that Revelation of the Daleks should be one in about a month. If you have any mates in the UK with satellite, and the capability to view PAL, you might be in luck. Unless someone has encoded it and uploaded it(doubt it).
-- by selling FL Mask and creating links to sites where users could then employ it to view explicit pornographic images --
This infers, that, in the past, one of the sites hosted illegal material, but surely the onus in on the user. If you choose to exploit software like this to remove imagemasks or download MP3s, the responsibility is yours. I think this is pretty much the crux of the napster case. Perhaps it is time for an epiphany, you are responsible for your own actions. Time to own up to that fact.
The server holds the master file nicknamed dot (or ".") that has the central database of domain-name information. Copies of the information are distributed regularly to other top-level domain servers around the world.
*One* Server holds the master file? No load balancing/[obligatory beowulf]/Round Robin? I would like to think there is some redundancy in there...
Can you speculate at least a little bit and give us a realistic scenario? I'm genuinely curious.
OK, how about this... AOL merges with Time Warner. The DC Comics line is no longer available on the newsstand, but only on Broadband to AOL customers. Does this suit? Don't underestimate the corporate muscle here. Sure it might start with DC, but where to go from there? How about all of Prince's back catalog? Only on Spinner/Shoutcast/Winamp. The future is as bright as your average AOL user...
You have a notice at the bottom of the page that says all comments are owned by the poster. But it doesn't preclude any retransmission of them. This isn't a book, there is no disclaimer that states 'you may not republish any part of this via any unknown media/time machine/video conferencing, etc.' Yeah, you own the comment, but you can't dictate what happens to it. By being brief, the disclaimer is rather obtuse. In this case, it can be mis-interpreted either way, and, as you can see, it is.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems to be haemorrhaging money also, anyone want to run a sweepstake on the lifespan of that one?
And for a more reasonable point of view on it, click here.
I don't know if it's fair to say that MS forgot about Agent, it's been subsumed into Windows 2000, and IIRC, it powers the TTS module that's used for the accessibility reader function.
Additionally, it's pretty simple to write application for it to enable dictation and menu control, I had set it up to allow me to play old arcade games through MAME via keyboard mappings.
To honest, the only games that it was reasonably successful with were Gorf, Galaxian and Space invaders, but, hey, it was a laugh.
The biggest problem I had with it was that it expected a North American accent, and the only way I could get it to launch Word was to pronounce it 'Woid'.
The agent aspect of it doesn't have to be visible, but it did have to be running in the background to catch your commands.
It was quite a novely being able to shout 'computer, internet, browser' across the room, and have it wake and dialup, but after a while it became a bit dull.
I think it needed some patches too.
Yeah, a big one over the floppy drive to stop anyone putting a disk in, cycling the power and booting another OS.
What's next a copycat virus that changes your screen saver to flying windows, then opens help? .exe with the extension renamed.
Screensavers are just
FYI, I'm a bit too old to go back to University.
So smart that you will vehemently defend the right for an AC to post copyrighted material, and not do anything about it?
This is not like providing a link to a tool(such as DeCSS or DivX), but providing the end product(Galaxy Quest/Metallica/Pam&Tommy). How long before warez, mp3z and pr0n appear in the hidden sids, uuencoded for anyone to download? Think carefully about the stand you are about to take here, the enemy might be attractive, and you may well want the opportunity to fight, but perhaps this is not the time. By striking now, you may lose a better opportunity to strike harder later on.
Be careful, don't get into a fight for the sake of a fight. This may well set a precendent where posts have to be pulled, but how is this different from articles which magically appear and disappear, because an editor has decided they should be held, or assigning a login an automatic -2 karma?
Again, if you want to be a martyr, fine, but don't do it just to be cool, do it for what you believe in, not for column inches.
Do you think they would remain for long?
My understanding of the EULA is that you *must* agree to it to be legally entitled to access the content. Even if you work around, it is an illegal access of the document in question, and as such is breaking copyright.
Crowing about free speech isn't going to help, there is a copyright violation in place here, and, regardless of who posted the documents, they should, realistically, be pulled.
If the original posters want to mirror their posts elsewhere, fine, but see if the juggernaut leaves you alone.
Anyhow, how is an AC going to claim ownership of a post? Without dredging the logs and determining if the server caught the IP of the poster, or checking if it was a logged in posted who checked 'post as AC'*, you end up with a thousand people claiming to be Spartacus.
On the other hand, if this is going to degenerate into Usenet, I'd like a copy of Neil Stephenson's The Big-U posted to a thread.
* If you moderate a comment, then go back to that thread and post as AC, your moderation is undone. I guess the server still knows who you are in this case, regardless of what others may have said.
Aren't they all? If you're going to write code that's malicious, be the life and soul of the party. They won't suspect you.
Anyway, there's a story at bloomberg, which states they have both been released.
Has no other news source noticed this, or is the feeding frenzy causing a red mist?
Considering that this morning, the newswires were stating with some certainty that it was a woman that was responsible, how come it's a guy that has been arrested?
Or are they just stooges for the real culprit(The german student in Australia mentioned elsewhere)?
It's been promised for long enough, and with wireless links should be able to do this seamlessly. Or will we never see this technology?
You will need to install the evaluation edition of Dr. Solomons, then the extra virus .sig to get it to work, though, but it's a start. Solutions from your favourite AV vendor should be appearing Real Soon Now.
Now, here's hoping a benevolent moderator passes by and mods the parent of this up where it belongs.
However, I'm in the minority. If you care about the security of your machine, you should turn off scripting, and given the attack of Melissa last year, you should be fully aware of the potential risk involved.
This is only going to get worse.
Much as this will go down like a lead balloon, the short answer is install Win2K.
You might not like it, but the support for alternative inputs outweighs Linux. Now X10, I don't know about, but I'd guess the support for Windows/X10 is as complete as the support for Linux/X10.
Six episodes is pretty much the norm for UK series, as you point out, the Blackadder series was 4series x 6episodes. The Young Ones was 2 x 6, Red Dwarf was 7 x 6, etc...
Written by David Agnew, who was a gestalt of Douglas Adams/Graham Williams/David Fisher. The baddy was Scaroth, last of the Jagaroth.
The other Dr. Who that Douglas Adams wrote was *Remembrance* of the Daleks, notable because it has one of the worst plot devices ever in a Doctor Who storyline. The protagonists, who have been oppressed by the Daleks for n years, have a battery on their chest that can be easily removed.
Why not make them susceptible to gold?
Oh, hold on, I think that one might have been used before....
As to Res & Rev of the Daleks, I'm pretty sure they have been shown on UKGold(A BBC spinoff in the UK) recently.
I think Resurrection of the Daleks was on last Sunday. If it was, it means that Revelation of the Daleks should be one in about a month. If you have any mates in the UK with satellite, and the capability to view PAL, you might be in luck. Unless someone has encoded it and uploaded it(doubt it).
Uh..umm..duh..lauwh
VB is about to grow up.
Alternatively, there's the Moog Cookbook. Entertaining cover versions of Rock 'classics'. Try here for samples of their stuff.
No load balancing/[obligatory beowulf]/Round Robin?
I would like to think there is some redundancy in there...
AOL merges with Time Warner. The DC Comics line is no longer available on the newsstand, but only on Broadband to AOL customers. Does this suit?
Don't underestimate the corporate muscle here. Sure it might start with DC, but where to go from there?
How about all of Prince's back catalog?
Only on Spinner/Shoutcast/Winamp.
The future is as bright as your average AOL user...
You have a notice at the bottom of the page that says all comments are owned by the poster. But it doesn't preclude any retransmission of them. This isn't a book, there is no disclaimer that states 'you may not republish any part of this via any unknown media/time machine/video conferencing, etc.' Yeah, you own the comment, but you can't dictate what happens to it. By being brief, the disclaimer is rather obtuse. In this case, it can be mis-interpreted either way, and, as you can see, it is.