Will the old/new maintainers have the right to close the source at any point?
Why would they want to do that? The program obviously will need to be maintained, and if they close the source, it may end up in a situation similar to the one that landed it in the UFO project in the first place...with the exception that since the source is closed, nobody can do anything about it.
If it was Mircosoft would would run thier hotmail servers on windows.
Believe it or not, they tried doing that once. As soon as they acquired Hotmail, they tried running it on WinNT servers instead of UNIX servers. Guess what...the WinNT setup was too unstable! Big surprise, I guess.
Actually, he was arrested for speeding and driving without having a license on him. I saw a URL with a copy of the police report once, and if I still had the URL, I'd post it here. Meanwhile, this is the closest I can come:
Money talks. As the first few posters pointed out, it is rumored that they (the authors of the censorware cracking program) were paid off. It may have gone against everything they believe in, but they could probably use the cash.
If it's not true that they were paid off, there is still the fact the government and the judicial system have a history of being more inclined to cater to the interests of large corporations rather than individuals. Yet another unfortunate fact. And also, this same government has a history of being almost paranoid in its efforts to "protect" young minds from the evils that lurk out there. Put together, these two facts seem to indicate that the US government would not be very likely to support someone who was attempting to bypass something as innocuous^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H ridiculous as Cyber Patrol.
Many startup bands distribute their songs as free MP3s in hopes that people will listen to and like them. IINM, this is what mp3.com was originally created for.
Gimme a break. This is like some Big Corporation(tm) trademarking the word "pep" as not only similar to the word Pepsi, but also because society had used it as a slang word in the past. If our legal system allows stuff like this to go on, that's just plain foolishness.
Defintiely a good read and a reminder that long before CDA, RIAA, MPAA, DMCA, and the USPTO, there were other entities all too willing to block access to information.
Also an example of how such obstacles can be overcome. Sure, CDA/RIAA/MPAA/DMCA/etc. may be bugging certain people now, but as illustrated in this example, that doesn't mean that a reasonable solution won't be reached.
At this rate, how long will it be before Cyber Patrol blocks the poage for Net Nanny, and they retaliate by blocking Mattel for extremist/hate (or, perhaps accuratly, for providing inappropriate role models).
Peacefire, which is an anti-censorship group run by teens, has been blocked for being extremist. And this was only after they had run-ins with the companies that made the blocking software.
First, how are many (most?) of the people in these countries going to be able to afford computers? If I had to choose between feeding my family or buying a computer, the choice would be rather obvious. Of course, the governments over there could provide a few computers here and there, but even that would have the potential to cause financial stress. Speaking of the governments, would they want their citizens to have access to this kind of technology? It would probably help them develop quicker as a nation, but as with almost any government, censorship issues arise.
As I understand, it was debated in the early days of the formation of the U.S. govt. to have another house of congress devoted to removing laws. Too bad they didn't go through with it.
That's why we have three branches of government. The legislative branch can pass all the laws they want to pass, but A) the President can always veto them or B) the Supreme Court can always declare them unconstitutional. We were talking about this exact thing recently in my poli-sci class, and it was brought up that Congress considers an average of over fourteen thousand bills (proposed laws) every session, only a very small portion of which get passed.
but many times the squatters use the domain ownership as a means of getting false hits for their banners or what-not.. which is very very lame.
What's worse is that many of these squatters run porn sites. Not necessarily a huge problem for your average 20-years-old-or-so web surfer, but when an elementary school student goes to whitehouse.com expecting to find one thing, but finding...ummm, another thing, that's when you have a problem. It's almost as if they're trying to take advantage of the fact that someone who is new to the internet might not know that URL != content. Taking advantage of kids like that is inexcusable.
I read somewhere recently that it's not much effort to remove banner ads on the fly without downloading them. I didn't read how to do it...
Here's how to do it... Go to http://www.junkbuster.com/, download Junkbuster, set it up, and start blacklisting ad sites (it doesn't come with a list of such sites, but you can either download one or make your own list of them. it's not hard). If a site is on the blacklist, Junkbuster will refuse to allow the URL to be loaded, returning a simple error message to the browser instead.
Not really. 1. These ads would be in graphic/FMV form, not in the form of a telemarketer (ugh...I hate that word). 2. They would more than likely be in return for some free or reduced-price service, i.e. you would be "soliciting" the ads by signing up for the service.
This should read "Windows doesn't really give you any more information on why a program crashes than what X gives you" instead of the other way around. Sorry bout that.
X doesn't really give you any more information on why a program crashes than what Windows gives you. What exactly does "General Protection Fault" mean anyway?
Not necessarily. The average Joe can learn how to use Linux just as he can learn to use Windows, MacOS,... especially with things like KDE available to reduce the amount of command-line usage TAJ needs to learn.
Linux IS user-friendly; it isn't ignorant-friendly. If someone wants to learn Linux, they can.
If you're not up to the task of porting IJB to the Mac, you can set it up as a proxy on a Win/*nix system and configure it so that your Mac will use it as an HTTP proxy. Pretty much the same way it works normally, only that IJB is running on one machine while [insert name of your favorite web browser here] is running on another.
ipchains -A input -s 208.84.29.0/24 -d 0.0.0.0/0 -j REJECT ipchains -A input -s 0.0.0.0/0 -d 208.84.29.0/24 -j REJECT
Note that by using REJECT instead of DENY, your system will actually refuse the connections (instead of just ignoring them, which would cause your browser to stall).
It cost $1.5 billion, yet we got our money's worth? I'm wondering why NASA is so willing to spend that much money on a project that, as SgtPepper stated, was only intended to last two years originally. If it costs that much, it better last for a real long time. Think of what else could have been done with that money.
>Granted, I can occasionally watch as the Java ads on Slashdot cause Netscape for Linux to crash, but that seems to be the extend of Linux's so-called internet connectivity.
That problem is with Netscape, not Linux. Yes, I often have problems with Java crashing Netscape, but that happens regardless of whether I am using the Windows version or the Linux version. Point is, Linux is great, Netscape is okay, but Netscape's implementation of Java leaves a lot to be desired in the way of stability.
Slashdot Mirror
Will the old/new maintainers have the right to close the source at any point?
Why would they want to do that? The program obviously will need to be maintained, and if they close the source, it may end up in a situation similar to the one that landed it in the UFO project in the first place...with the exception that since the source is closed, nobody can do anything about it.
=================================
If it was Mircosoft would would run thier hotmail servers on windows.
Believe it or not, they tried doing that once. As soon as they acquired Hotmail, they tried running it on WinNT servers instead of UNIX servers. Guess what...the WinNT setup was too unstable! Big surprise, I guess.
=================================
Actually, he was arrested for speeding and driving without having a license on him. I saw a URL with a copy of the police report once, and if I still had the URL, I'd post it here. Meanwhile, this is the closest I can come:
http://www.brillscontent.com/f eatures/bill_0998.html
=================================
Money talks. As the first few posters pointed out, it is rumored that they (the authors of the censorware cracking program) were paid off. It may have gone against everything they believe in, but they could probably use the cash.
If it's not true that they were paid off, there is still the fact the government and the judicial system have a history of being more inclined to cater to the interests of large corporations rather than individuals. Yet another unfortunate fact. And also, this same government has a history of being almost paranoid in its efforts to "protect" young minds from the evils that lurk out there. Put together, these two facts seem to indicate that the US government would not be very likely to support someone who was attempting to bypass something as innocuous^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H ridiculous as Cyber Patrol.
=================================
Many startup bands distribute their songs as free MP3s in hopes that people will listen to and like them. IINM, this is what mp3.com was originally created for.
=================================
Gimme a break. This is like some Big Corporation(tm) trademarking the word "pep" as not only similar to the word Pepsi, but also because society had used it as a slang word in the past. If our legal system allows stuff like this to go on, that's just plain foolishness.
=================================
Defintiely a good read and a reminder that long before CDA, RIAA, MPAA, DMCA, and the USPTO, there were other entities all too willing to block access to information.
Also an example of how such obstacles can be overcome. Sure, CDA/RIAA/MPAA/DMCA/etc. may be bugging certain people now, but as illustrated in this example, that doesn't mean that a reasonable solution won't be reached.
=================================
At this rate, how long will it be before Cyber Patrol blocks the poage for Net Nanny, and they retaliate by blocking Mattel for extremist/hate (or, perhaps accuratly, for providing inappropriate role models).
Peacefire, which is an anti-censorship group run by teens, has been blocked for being extremist. And this was only after they had run-ins with the companies that made the blocking software.
=================================
First, how are many (most?) of the people in these countries going to be able to afford computers? If I had to choose between feeding my family or buying a computer, the choice would be rather obvious. Of course, the governments over there could provide a few computers here and there, but even that would have the potential to cause financial stress. Speaking of the governments, would they want their citizens to have access to this kind of technology? It would probably help them develop quicker as a nation, but as with almost any government, censorship issues arise.
=================================
As I understand, it was debated in the early days of the formation of the U.S. govt. to have another house of congress devoted to removing laws. Too bad they didn't go through with it.
That's why we have three branches of government. The legislative branch can pass all the laws they want to pass, but A) the President can always veto them or B) the Supreme Court can always declare them unconstitutional. We were talking about this exact thing recently in my poli-sci class, and it was brought up that Congress considers an average of over fourteen thousand bills (proposed laws) every session, only a very small portion of which get passed.
=================================
The /. effect is now being observed on ad servers? Weird...
=================================
but many times the squatters use the domain ownership as a means of getting false hits for their banners or what-not.. which is very very lame.
What's worse is that many of these squatters run porn sites. Not necessarily a huge problem for your average 20-years-old-or-so web surfer, but when an elementary school student goes to whitehouse.com expecting to find one thing, but finding...ummm, another thing, that's when you have a problem. It's almost as if they're trying to take advantage of the fact that someone who is new to the internet might not know that URL != content. Taking advantage of kids like that is inexcusable.
=================================
I read somewhere recently that it's not much effort to remove banner ads on the fly without downloading them. I didn't read how to do it...
Here's how to do it...
Go to http://www.junkbuster.com/, download Junkbuster, set it up, and start blacklisting ad sites (it doesn't come with a list of such sites, but you can either download one or make your own list of them. it's not hard). If a site is on the blacklist, Junkbuster will refuse to allow the URL to be loaded, returning a simple error message to the browser instead.
=================================
Not really.
1. These ads would be in graphic/FMV form, not in the form of a telemarketer (ugh...I hate that word).
2. They would more than likely be in return for some free or reduced-price service, i.e. you would be "soliciting" the ads by signing up for the service.
=================================
(Of course it would demand a bit more processing power( and a keyboard)).
Not to mention a CD-ROM drive. Heck, why not just hook up a DVD drive?
=================================
Or should I call it "ram" family channel?
No, you should call it "beep" family channel.
=================================
Cheers to Trey for refusing to censor his own song, but letting the ABC censors do the job? Let's not even go there.
=================================
This should read "Windows doesn't really give you any more information on why a program crashes than what X gives you" instead of the other way around. Sorry bout that.
=================================
X doesn't really give you any more information on why a program crashes than what Windows gives you. What exactly does "General Protection Fault" mean anyway?
=================================
Not necessarily. The average Joe can learn how to use Linux just as he can learn to use Windows, MacOS, ... especially with things like KDE available to reduce the amount of command-line usage TAJ needs to learn.
Linux IS user-friendly; it isn't ignorant-friendly. If someone wants to learn Linux, they can.
=================================
If you're not up to the task of porting IJB to the Mac, you can set it up as a proxy on a Win/*nix system and configure it so that your Mac will use it as an HTTP proxy. Pretty much the same way it works normally, only that IJB is running on one machine while [insert name of your favorite web browser here] is running on another.
=================================
ipchains -A input -s 208.84.29.0/24 -d 0.0.0.0/0 -j REJECT
ipchains -A input -s 0.0.0.0/0 -d 208.84.29.0/24 -j REJECT
Note that by using REJECT instead of DENY, your system will actually refuse the connections (instead of just ignoring them, which would cause your browser to stall).
=================================
>Several sites, such as junkbuster(s) [i don' know the spelling or url] give a long list of steps to get off various lists, including addresses.
http://www.junkbusters.com/
=================================
It cost $1.5 billion, yet we got our money's worth? I'm wondering why NASA is so willing to spend that much money on a project that, as SgtPepper stated, was only intended to last two years originally. If it costs that much, it better last for a real long time. Think of what else could have been done with that money.
=================================
>Granted, I can occasionally watch as the Java ads on Slashdot cause Netscape for Linux to crash, but that seems to be the extend of Linux's so-called internet connectivity.
That problem is with Netscape, not Linux. Yes, I often have problems with Java crashing Netscape, but that happens regardless of whether I am using the Windows version or the Linux version. Point is, Linux is great, Netscape is okay, but Netscape's implementation of Java leaves a lot to be desired in the way of stability.
=================================