Well that answers one question, but how did they get all the clouds out of the way? I wanna know how to do that. My guess would be that they just moved them to the moon for the duration of the photoshoot.
Boston itself isn't effected, but some places around Massachusetts have had power outages (apparently mostly in Springfield, Simpsons jokes left to others).
I'm fine, but I'm out just within 495 (if I look out the window, I can see it - I'm in Littleton). I dunno about neighboring towns.
I change my resolution rather frequently on my work laptop - when it's docked, it's connected to a 1280x1024 LCD screen, but when using its display the resolution needs to be 1600x1200.
Windows XP used to handle this automatically, but it keeps on getting more and more angry at the dock - I can no longer boot into the dock and now I have to explicitly change the resolution when docking. It's quite annoying. I'd imagine other people have similar scenarios when the resolution needs to be changed. (Another less frequent example is when connecting to an LCD projector, which frequently have yet another resolution requirement.)
The bottom line is that it's a good feature to have, because there are scenarios where changing the resolution is needed and there's no good reason why it should require restarting X or manually editting a configuration file. (And ALT +/- don't always cut it if you also need to change the refresh rate, like when going from a 75Hz CRT monitor to a 60Hz LCD projector.)
While it does have nothing to do with the FTP protocol, but it might have had something to do with the FTP server software. The bug they claim was exploited is a local exploit (the ptrace race condition). It requires code to be executed on the local machine. So the question remains - how did the code get there?
"It appears that the machine was cracked using a
ptrace exploit by a local user immediately after the exploit was posted on bugtraq." (from the MISSING-FILES.README)
So who was the local user? Was this a shell account that the hacker had legitimate access to? Or did the hacker steal someone else's account when they logged in through another compromised machine? Or was it the FTP server that allowed a local, non-root shell? There just isn't enough information given to know - it sounds the FTP server software wasn't responsible, but you never know...
If you're a pathological liar, how do we know that you're telling us the truth about being a pathological liar? Or are you just a normal liar, and are lying about being a pathological liar?
Or maybe you're not a liar at all, and... oh, wait, that doesn't work.
Oo, I have - it's next to Chelmsford, I drive through it on my way to Bedford.
Wait - you meant in Britain, right? Oops. Apparently when it came to naming the towns in Massachusetts the colonists weren't feeling too creative. Now if you don't mind, I need to leave for Worcester to handle some college issues...
As the ACs above have posted, "collateral damange" means what it has always meant - causing damage to an object, be it a building or person, where no damage was intended. Civilians by default fall into that catagory - as far as I know (although I'm sure someone can drag up a counter-example) the United States military does not intentially target civilians - therefore, any civilian casualty is callateral damage - damage to an object where no damage was intended.
While the war in Iraq has had a lot of talk about efforts to reduce civilian casualties, reducing collateral damage has always been a priority for the military from a purely strategic standpoint. While key infrastructure points are valuable to an enemy, they are also valuable to friendly forces. If you can take out specific targets without damaging the surrounding area, then you can more effectively wage war.
So while collateral damage can indeed mean maiming and killing people, it can also mean in the process of destroying a military silo poised to fire on our friendlies the bomb missed slightly and also blew up a gas tank, destroying a warehouse containing food supplies. In both cases, something was damaged were no damage was intended. In both cases, the military would not wish to cause the damage - in the first, for the obvious reason that injuring civilians is not the purpose of war fighting, while in the second food supplies that could have been useful for friendly troops (redistributed among civilians, whatever) was accidently destroyed.
While accidently killing civilians is always something the military wants to avoid, they also want to prevent any collateral damage. We want to destroy the missile launcher, but not the school it's parked next to - even if no one is currently attending it. That's why the term is used - because while reducing civilian deaths is always a goal, so is reducing collateral damage to other objects.
Yeah, the Slashdot writeup is a little confusing, and a lot of people seem to have gotten mixed up by this. As it turns out, according to the New York Times article, this was basically a "local exploit" in that the guy was an employee of a client and had legitimate access to the server. (Apparently security was a little lax, though...)
Anyway, quoting from the article:
Barrett said the individual in police custody is a former employee of one of Acxiom's clients and that the information was stolen while the person had legitimate access to Acxiom servers.
"They used that access to hack into the passwords of other clients," she said.
Barrett said the offender gained access by hacking encrypted passwords from clients who access the server. The server, which was outside a firewall, was used "for clients to transfer files to us and for us to transfer files back to the clients," she said.
Barrett said much of the information taken from the server was encrypted and that the risk of identity theft is slim.
Barrett finishes the article off by saying that the information is "nonsensitive" but that seems more like spin-control than actual information. Presumably that means that no credit card numbers were stolen, but who knows about information other people might consider sensative like SSNs or home addresses and the like.
But what possible connection does the EFF have to a case about comic books?
Ordering then online from Texas comic book stores?
Or maybe Slashcode automatically inserts a "donate to the EFF" statement to every Your Rights Online article. Especially those detailing Your Rights To Work As A Clerk In A Store That Sells Pornographic Comics In Dallas, Texas.
The links Hemos gave did little to establish background for the "Jesus Castillo case" so I'll try and do it based on some brief research and what I found through Google.
Basically, during the month September 1999, an undercover police officer purchased a collection of adult comics from a store called "Keith's Comics" in Dallas. He then looked through them to try and determine comics that would be considered obscene by community standards. (This is a normal part of vice operations anywhere.)
The comics chosen where Demon Beast Invasion: The Fallen and Legend of the Overfiend (links to Google searches). At trial the second one was dropped and only "Demon Beast Invasion" was considered as being an obscene book sold to the officer. (Funny quote from the Dallas Observer article: "There was no test here to show the clerk knew what was in there. You can't judge a book by its cover." (Said by Castillo's attorney, working for the CBLDF.) Look at the Demon Beast Invasion cover. I think you probably can judge that book by its cover. Just look at the Google links above. Enough editorializing...)
The defense basically argued that the books were not legally obscene because they did not "taken as a whole, lacks any serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value." Scott McCloud (OT: one of my father's childhood friends was his older brother) testified about the artistic values, and Susan Napier, an associate professor in UT-Austin's Department of Asian Studies, testified about the cultural value in relation to Japanese culture.
Castillo was found guilty, and both appeals in the Texas legal system failed to overturn the verdict. The Supreme Court was the last resort, and they have declined the case. He has already paid his $4000 fine and began his 180-day probation.
The part of IE that draws a little window that has "back" and "forward" buttons and the like can be removed. However, while I think you can remove the executable that runs when you click the "Internet Explorer" button, the core of Internet Explorer is unremovable. It handles things like HTTP downloads (as a component) for programs, as well as handling drawing the desktop and the file dialog box as well as handling browsing the disk. Each of these is a separate component, but they are held in the same collection of library files and cannot be removed.
So, no, IE cannot effectively be removed although you can probably remove the stub that loads the libraries. This would be kinda like removing "startx" and then claiming that you've removed the X windowing system - all you'd have accomplished is removing a stub.
BTW - on the subject of Windows Media Player, while I do truly detest that program, it is not spyware, it does not contain ads, it is perfectly capable of reading DVDs and playing them (...but it doesn't come with a software DVD codec - you have to purchase that separately, and even then DVDs on WMP are less than stellar...). WMP6 was a nice little player. I liked it. WMP7 started sucking since they went the RealPlayer route of too many pretty colored widgets that distract from the actual task of playing media.
Also on the subject of WMP, it has the ultimate trump on the "extensions war" that various media players play. I installed Media Player Classic and instructed Windows to open all my movie files through it, but they would still open in WMP. After going through HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT and verifying that yes indeed the registry entries were set correctly and confirming that Windows Explorer indicated that it thought MPC should be opening the files, I finally realized that I needed to go into WMP and find its file options and remove the movie files from its list.
After doing that, movies now render in MPC just like I want them to. *grumble*
Which is good to know, since I missed this announcement while going from stage1 to full install this afternoon... seriously...
Unfortunately, this post comes from Mozilla on Windows XP because I have yet to emerge - say, X, or anything like that - but I did really spend the afternoon installing from a stage1 1.4_rc3 CD... *sigh*
While IPv6 does effect some hardware (mostly routers), it does not effect most. The Linux kernel already has support for IPv6 and a recent patch for Windows XP indicated it added support for IPv6 or improved it or something. IPv6 will run just fine over Ethernet and a wide variety of other networking technologies (like 802.11b).
I'm going to give the "simple" network layer model (because I forget the full one):
The hardware layer describes how the hardware sends data to other hardware devices. The protocol layer describes how to handle the information coming in from the hardware layer and then the protocol implementation itself handles passing the data off to an application. The application itself then handles the application protocol.
While there are some routers that do IPv4 routing in hardware, most end-user devices handle the protocol layer in software. Changing from IPv4 to IPv6 may involve changing some core routers and switches but should only require a small software update on the client end.
(Except, of course, for the thousands of pieces of application software that expect to use IPv4 for their network connection - like web browsers, instant messaging programs, various video games, application protocols that care just a little too much about the protocol layer... Changing to IPv6 isn't "just" changing the protocol layer any more, a lot of applications rely on it.)
Or were you going for 500 Internal Server Error, as often seen when a DB-backed site gets overloaded by Slashdot users?
Of course, a real Slashdotting results in "Connection reset by peer" or "Connection refused" errors, as the network connection itself can no longer keep up with connection attempts and not just the webserver kill the DB with too many open connections.
I wanted to do a giant "/." sitting in a pile of server debris as my shirt idea. It's too bad I can't draw, though. I'll have to take a stab at it anyway...
Actually, all they have to do is "license" Windows XP to you for a cost of 0.00 for use solely on the computer you purchased. Most computer manufactors basically do this anyways with their crappy "restore" disks that simply reimage the disks, restoring the system to the state it was on purchase and deleting all your data too.
So you can keep the license, but it's only good on the computer you purchased. You didn't get a Windows XP license, only a license to use Windows XP on the computer you bought. So if you return the computer, you void the license. I haven't bought an OEM machine - ever, actually - so I don't know if current licenses state that, but I do remember that Microsoft was moving in that direction.
Since IANAL, I can't say if this is legally sound - the manufactor might assign the license a value of $0, but if you refuse the license, they may be forced to pay "fair market value" to recover the cost (especially if they pay Microsoft for the license). But who knows? The law is weird...
But does the fact that I don't get overtime anyway prevent them from forcing me to fill out a timecard? Of course not. I still have to specify my day in 15-minute increments, and I'll get paid for 8 hours regardless. (Well, except if I work for less than 8 hours.)
Since I'd assume that at the beginning, bush=0; So effectively, you wrote:
if (bush > 0) { /* */ bush++; } else { /* */// Do nothing }
Meaning that using your system, Bush would lose every election with 0 votes. (The/* */ were used as indentation because Slashcode removes added space (even in <ecode>).)
However, in the other system, every time a vote was counted (I guess), then bush would gain a vote. And based on the original code, I'd guess everyone else would too.
I think what the original poster wanted something like:
if (votedForBush()) { /* */ bushVotes++; } else if (votedForGore()) { /* */ bushVotes++; /* */ if (bushVote % 5 == 0) { /* *//* */ goreVotes++;// throw him a bone occasionally /* */ } }// third parties would require effort, and no one votes for them anyway
I haven't ever used X-Plane, but I did try Flightgear once. This is more of a pointless anecdote than an answer to your question, but...
Flightgear is a little too forgiving on your landings. I tried to lawndart the plane, and found the plane would bounce off the ground after hitting it - actually, it was more like its elevation was magically increased to prevent me from flying underground. (This was after a poor landing and noticing that the ground physics seemed off.)
So for the next flight, I took off, and then landed in the lake next to the airport (whereever it turned out I was). It turns out that you can indeed land on water in this game, and you don't even need pontoons. It was funny at the time. (As I recall, I blew my approach and then thought "screw this" and decided to land on the water to see if I'd crash. I didn't.)
This was about four months ago, so things could have changed since then. I haven't played around with Flightgear since.
I think this is the source of confusion here. The original poster gave us:
Why, oh why, can't they just start giving us a 1/8th input jack on car stereos?
The "they" has no antecedent, really, but presumably applies to the article, in which case "they" is presumably car designers.
I think what he was really asking is why there are no stock car stereos that have a 1/8th input jack - why car manufactorers don't start including them as standard equipment. This actually sounds like a good idea too - it's a feature that people obviously want (given that most third market car stereos have them), and it shouldn't be that hard to implement.
That being said, if you (the grandparent poster) really want one, you can buy a third-party stereo. They aren't that hard to install yourself (although there will most likely be some wiring work involved, splicing the stereo's wires into the car's wire harness), and if that's too complicated, you can find places that'll do the install for you. The installation will probably set you back $50-100, though, so keep that in mind when budgetting for the stereo. (If you do it yourself, materials for the install will run around $50 - items like the wire harness and the housing that's standard size, if your car doesn't have one (*cough* GM *cough*).) You can probably get a decent stereo for around $150 that has an input - the above poster's link, for example.
I think "common carrier" status applies to routers and the like (because they are machines strictly for the passing of packets). This prevents them from infringing on the network level. (Servers are more of a gray area.) However, an "end-user" computer is most likely not allowed "common carrier" status.
The other possibility is that under the DMCA you must prevent an infringing work from entering and staying on your machine if you are informed that it has been noted to enter and leave your machine.
Again, IANAL. But my understanding of law suggests that you'd probably be liable for works that pass through your machine, especially if the work is "decoded" and stored in a completed form. If individual pieces of a work were passing through your computer, you might be in better shape, since that's more like what routers do.
I wonder if there's any case law about an ISP having a user use e-mail to distribute an infringing work. If there were, such a descision would likely apply to this scenario. However, it's still possible ISPs would be exempt but end users nonexempt due to common carrier status.
Since on GNUnet it is unclear both who has the goods you're looking for and who originated the search, and transfers do not happen directly, just because there is data coming into your box does not mean that you are it's destination. Similarly, data coming out does not implicate you as the source.
Lawyers nightmare, anyone?
Sounds more like a user's nightmare. IANAL, but based on what I've heard about copyright law, it's quite conceivably possible that by simply having the data "pass through" your system that you could be considered to be infringing.
I think there are currently child pornography laws that say that you are guilty even if you did not know or could not know that your computer had child porn on it. (I've heard of someone whose roommate's computer was discovered to contain child porn, and last I heard, all computers in the house were confiscated, not just the roommates, and he never got his machines back.)
This does not sound like a way to protect yourself, but a good way to make yourself a target even if you are using the system for entirely legitimate reasons. Since you make a copy of the data as it enters your computer and again when you send it on its way, I believe that you would be considered just as guilty of copyright infringement as the actual source and destination.
Again, IANAL, so who knows? I'd be careful about assuming you'd be safe by using something like that, though. Consult a real lawyer first:)
Why wait? Why not just allow them to copy them in front of the agents and then pounce on them immediately?
Anyway, someone's bound to suggest calling it a "LAN party" or something that doesn't - necessarily - mean "massive piracy party." There's an easy solution to that, which I'm surprised they haven't offered earlier: bounties on pirates. Offer up a $100 cash award for information leading to a successful conviction of a file trader and then watch as all the people stop using Kazaa or going to these parties out of shear paranoia.
Before someone flames me on using "the wrong words" keep in mind I'm suggesting things from an RIAA point of view. While there's an implicit judgement in that paragraph, I'm still waffling on the whole issue. (I'm hovering around "copyrights should be shorter but most file trading should be considered illegal.") I can read the other arguments in the thread.
Slashdot Mirror
That really has to be seen to be believed. There are more hotfixes off the top of the screen, too...
Well that answers one question, but how did they get all the clouds out of the way? I wanna know how to do that. My guess would be that they just moved them to the moon for the duration of the photoshoot.
Boston itself isn't effected, but some places around Massachusetts have had power outages (apparently mostly in Springfield, Simpsons jokes left to others).
I'm fine, but I'm out just within 495 (if I look out the window, I can see it - I'm in Littleton). I dunno about neighboring towns.
Windows XP used to handle this automatically, but it keeps on getting more and more angry at the dock - I can no longer boot into the dock and now I have to explicitly change the resolution when docking. It's quite annoying. I'd imagine other people have similar scenarios when the resolution needs to be changed. (Another less frequent example is when connecting to an LCD projector, which frequently have yet another resolution requirement.)
The bottom line is that it's a good feature to have, because there are scenarios where changing the resolution is needed and there's no good reason why it should require restarting X or manually editting a configuration file. (And ALT +/- don't always cut it if you also need to change the refresh rate, like when going from a 75Hz CRT monitor to a 60Hz LCD projector.)
"It appears that the machine was cracked using a ptrace exploit by a local user immediately after the exploit was posted on bugtraq." (from the MISSING-FILES.README)
So who was the local user? Was this a shell account that the hacker had legitimate access to? Or did the hacker steal someone else's account when they logged in through another compromised machine? Or was it the FTP server that allowed a local, non-root shell? There just isn't enough information given to know - it sounds the FTP server software wasn't responsible, but you never know...
Or maybe you're not a liar at all, and ... oh, wait, that doesn't work.
Oo, I have - it's next to Chelmsford, I drive through it on my way to Bedford.
Wait - you meant in Britain, right? Oops. Apparently when it came to naming the towns in Massachusetts the colonists weren't feeling too creative. Now if you don't mind, I need to leave for Worcester to handle some college issues...
While the war in Iraq has had a lot of talk about efforts to reduce civilian casualties, reducing collateral damage has always been a priority for the military from a purely strategic standpoint. While key infrastructure points are valuable to an enemy, they are also valuable to friendly forces. If you can take out specific targets without damaging the surrounding area, then you can more effectively wage war.
So while collateral damage can indeed mean maiming and killing people, it can also mean in the process of destroying a military silo poised to fire on our friendlies the bomb missed slightly and also blew up a gas tank, destroying a warehouse containing food supplies. In both cases, something was damaged were no damage was intended. In both cases, the military would not wish to cause the damage - in the first, for the obvious reason that injuring civilians is not the purpose of war fighting, while in the second food supplies that could have been useful for friendly troops (redistributed among civilians, whatever) was accidently destroyed.
While accidently killing civilians is always something the military wants to avoid, they also want to prevent any collateral damage. We want to destroy the missile launcher, but not the school it's parked next to - even if no one is currently attending it. That's why the term is used - because while reducing civilian deaths is always a goal, so is reducing collateral damage to other objects.
Anyway, quoting from the article:
Barrett finishes the article off by saying that the information is "nonsensitive" but that seems more like spin-control than actual information. Presumably that means that no credit card numbers were stolen, but who knows about information other people might consider sensative like SSNs or home addresses and the like.
Ordering then online from Texas comic book stores?
Or maybe Slashcode automatically inserts a "donate to the EFF" statement to every Your Rights Online article. Especially those detailing Your Rights To Work As A Clerk In A Store That Sells Pornographic Comics In Dallas, Texas.
Basically, during the month September 1999, an undercover police officer purchased a collection of adult comics from a store called "Keith's Comics" in Dallas. He then looked through them to try and determine comics that would be considered obscene by community standards. (This is a normal part of vice operations anywhere.)
The comics chosen where Demon Beast Invasion: The Fallen and Legend of the Overfiend (links to Google searches). At trial the second one was dropped and only "Demon Beast Invasion" was considered as being an obscene book sold to the officer. (Funny quote from the Dallas Observer article: "There was no test here to show the clerk knew what was in there. You can't judge a book by its cover." (Said by Castillo's attorney, working for the CBLDF.) Look at the Demon Beast Invasion cover. I think you probably can judge that book by its cover. Just look at the Google links above. Enough editorializing...)
The defense basically argued that the books were not legally obscene because they did not "taken as a whole, lacks any serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value." Scott McCloud (OT: one of my father's childhood friends was his older brother) testified about the artistic values, and Susan Napier, an associate professor in UT-Austin's Department of Asian Studies, testified about the cultural value in relation to Japanese culture.
Castillo was found guilty, and both appeals in the Texas legal system failed to overturn the verdict. The Supreme Court was the last resort, and they have declined the case. He has already paid his $4000 fine and began his 180-day probation.
So, no, IE cannot effectively be removed although you can probably remove the stub that loads the libraries. This would be kinda like removing "startx" and then claiming that you've removed the X windowing system - all you'd have accomplished is removing a stub.
BTW - on the subject of Windows Media Player, while I do truly detest that program, it is not spyware, it does not contain ads, it is perfectly capable of reading DVDs and playing them (...but it doesn't come with a software DVD codec - you have to purchase that separately, and even then DVDs on WMP are less than stellar...). WMP6 was a nice little player. I liked it. WMP7 started sucking since they went the RealPlayer route of too many pretty colored widgets that distract from the actual task of playing media.
Also on the subject of WMP, it has the ultimate trump on the "extensions war" that various media players play. I installed Media Player Classic and instructed Windows to open all my movie files through it, but they would still open in WMP. After going through HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT and verifying that yes indeed the registry entries were set correctly and confirming that Windows Explorer indicated that it thought MPC should be opening the files, I finally realized that I needed to go into WMP and find its file options and remove the movie files from its list.
After doing that, movies now render in MPC just like I want them to. *grumble*
Unfortunately, this post comes from Mozilla on Windows XP because I have yet to emerge - say, X, or anything like that - but I did really spend the afternoon installing from a stage1 1.4_rc3 CD... *sigh*
I'm going to give the "simple" network layer model (because I forget the full one):
The hardware layer describes how the hardware sends data to other hardware devices. The protocol layer describes how to handle the information coming in from the hardware layer and then the protocol implementation itself handles passing the data off to an application. The application itself then handles the application protocol.
While there are some routers that do IPv4 routing in hardware, most end-user devices handle the protocol layer in software. Changing from IPv4 to IPv6 may involve changing some core routers and switches but should only require a small software update on the client end.
(Except, of course, for the thousands of pieces of application software that expect to use IPv4 for their network connection - like web browsers, instant messaging programs, various video games, application protocols that care just a little too much about the protocol layer... Changing to IPv6 isn't "just" changing the protocol layer any more, a lot of applications rely on it.)
Or were you going for 500 Internal Server Error, as often seen when a DB-backed site gets overloaded by Slashdot users?
Of course, a real Slashdotting results in "Connection reset by peer" or "Connection refused" errors, as the network connection itself can no longer keep up with connection attempts and not just the webserver kill the DB with too many open connections.
I wanted to do a giant "/." sitting in a pile of server debris as my shirt idea. It's too bad I can't draw, though. I'll have to take a stab at it anyway...
So you can keep the license, but it's only good on the computer you purchased. You didn't get a Windows XP license, only a license to use Windows XP on the computer you bought. So if you return the computer, you void the license. I haven't bought an OEM machine - ever, actually - so I don't know if current licenses state that, but I do remember that Microsoft was moving in that direction.
Since IANAL, I can't say if this is legally sound - the manufactor might assign the license a value of $0, but if you refuse the license, they may be forced to pay "fair market value" to recover the cost (especially if they pay Microsoft for the license). But who knows? The law is weird...
Over-what? Fricken "exempt" status.
But does the fact that I don't get overtime anyway prevent them from forcing me to fill out a timecard? Of course not. I still have to specify my day in 15-minute increments, and I'll get paid for 8 hours regardless. (Well, except if I work for less than 8 hours.)
perl -e "print 40 + 17;"
57 57 hours on the Internet in a week. That sounds more reasonable.
Since I'd assume that at the beginning, bush=0; So effectively, you wrote:
if (bush > 0) {
/* */ bush++;
/* */ // Do nothing
} else {
}
Meaning that using your system, Bush would lose every election with 0 votes. (The /* */ were used as indentation because Slashcode removes added space (even in <ecode>).)
However, in the other system, every time a vote was counted (I guess), then bush would gain a vote. And based on the original code, I'd guess everyone else would too.
I think what the original poster wanted something like:
if (votedForBush()) {
/* */ bushVotes++;
/* */ bushVotes++;
/* */ if (bushVote % 5 == 0) {
/* */ /* */ goreVotes++; // throw him a bone occasionally
/* */ } // third parties would require effort, and no one votes for them anyway
} else if (votedForGore()) {
}
Er, anyway... sorry, I was bored.
The former editor of Windows *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* PC Computing?
I think you meant Window^H^H^H^H^H^H PC Computing Or the simpler Windows^W PC Computing. HTH. :)
(To ensure I wasn't wrong, I found this link which does, in fact, list ^G as the bell character. It causes the console to beep. :))
Flightgear is a little too forgiving on your landings. I tried to lawndart the plane, and found the plane would bounce off the ground after hitting it - actually, it was more like its elevation was magically increased to prevent me from flying underground. (This was after a poor landing and noticing that the ground physics seemed off.)
So for the next flight, I took off, and then landed in the lake next to the airport (whereever it turned out I was). It turns out that you can indeed land on water in this game, and you don't even need pontoons. It was funny at the time. (As I recall, I blew my approach and then thought "screw this" and decided to land on the water to see if I'd crash. I didn't.)
This was about four months ago, so things could have changed since then. I haven't played around with Flightgear since.
I think this is the source of confusion here. The original poster gave us:
Why, oh why, can't they just start giving us a 1/8th input jack on car stereos?
The "they" has no antecedent, really, but presumably applies to the article, in which case "they" is presumably car designers.
I think what he was really asking is why there are no stock car stereos that have a 1/8th input jack - why car manufactorers don't start including them as standard equipment. This actually sounds like a good idea too - it's a feature that people obviously want (given that most third market car stereos have them), and it shouldn't be that hard to implement.
That being said, if you (the grandparent poster) really want one, you can buy a third-party stereo. They aren't that hard to install yourself (although there will most likely be some wiring work involved, splicing the stereo's wires into the car's wire harness), and if that's too complicated, you can find places that'll do the install for you. The installation will probably set you back $50-100, though, so keep that in mind when budgetting for the stereo. (If you do it yourself, materials for the install will run around $50 - items like the wire harness and the housing that's standard size, if your car doesn't have one (*cough* GM *cough*).) You can probably get a decent stereo for around $150 that has an input - the above poster's link, for example.
The other possibility is that under the DMCA you must prevent an infringing work from entering and staying on your machine if you are informed that it has been noted to enter and leave your machine.
Again, IANAL. But my understanding of law suggests that you'd probably be liable for works that pass through your machine, especially if the work is "decoded" and stored in a completed form. If individual pieces of a work were passing through your computer, you might be in better shape, since that's more like what routers do.
I wonder if there's any case law about an ISP having a user use e-mail to distribute an infringing work. If there were, such a descision would likely apply to this scenario. However, it's still possible ISPs would be exempt but end users nonexempt due to common carrier status.
Lawyers nightmare, anyone?
Sounds more like a user's nightmare. IANAL, but based on what I've heard about copyright law, it's quite conceivably possible that by simply having the data "pass through" your system that you could be considered to be infringing.
I think there are currently child pornography laws that say that you are guilty even if you did not know or could not know that your computer had child porn on it. (I've heard of someone whose roommate's computer was discovered to contain child porn, and last I heard, all computers in the house were confiscated, not just the roommates, and he never got his machines back.)
This does not sound like a way to protect yourself, but a good way to make yourself a target even if you are using the system for entirely legitimate reasons. Since you make a copy of the data as it enters your computer and again when you send it on its way, I believe that you would be considered just as guilty of copyright infringement as the actual source and destination.
Again, IANAL, so who knows? I'd be careful about assuming you'd be safe by using something like that, though. Consult a real lawyer first :)
Anyway, someone's bound to suggest calling it a "LAN party" or something that doesn't - necessarily - mean "massive piracy party." There's an easy solution to that, which I'm surprised they haven't offered earlier: bounties on pirates. Offer up a $100 cash award for information leading to a successful conviction of a file trader and then watch as all the people stop using Kazaa or going to these parties out of shear paranoia.
Before someone flames me on using "the wrong words" keep in mind I'm suggesting things from an RIAA point of view. While there's an implicit judgement in that paragraph, I'm still waffling on the whole issue. (I'm hovering around "copyrights should be shorter but most file trading should be considered illegal.") I can read the other arguments in the thread.