But if we're starting from scratch, it would be very difficult to initially build hardware that could even take advantage of such things as firewire, IPv6, etc. I think Sponsor's right: we would have to start from scratch. Granted, some things would be obvious from the beginning, and progress would be much faster.
As for whether we would eventually end up with better stuff: perhaps, but not significantly so. Consider: we've been building hardware, software, etc for a while now. If we were to suddenly find ourselves "back at square one" as it were, it wouldn't exactly be the time for experimentation. Real world pressures would force us to go with what we know, i.e. existing ideas/technologies/etc.
Agreed. The Simpson's pretty much sold out as much as they could with "Songs in the Key of Springfield".
The N'Sync ep Sunday was I thought one of the better one's the past couple seasons, which is a little like saying Win98se is one of the better Microsoft OS's I guess. Simpson's is defninitely past it's prime, but it's still better than 90% of the crap the networks throw up.
OT: When they hell are we gonna get Simpsons DVD's? Man, what I wouldn't give for Season's 1-5, each on 6 disk sets like the XFiles are currently doing.
Well I think your right that 98 doesn't by default create a share. Thing is though, you have to create a share before you can share your files: so anyone who's in the situation of having their computers used in the way described by the article would have figured out how to create the share at least.
I'd really consider this a Windows "vulnerability" more than anything. Really, Windows ought to make the user create a unique share name, or force them to use some sort of password. But then, if Windows did stuff like this, it wouldn't be the crappy OS we know and hate I guess.
NetBEUI's OK for sharing on a local LAN for sure, but you throw that LAN on the internet, and it's wide open. I haven't messed with it for a while, but NetBEUI's full of all kinds of commonly known security holes. Again, a Windows "vulnerability", as doesn't NetBEUI get installed by default if you install Windows Networking? Maybe that was just Win95...
Actually that tip jar has been up at PA for only a week this coming Wednesday. Pretty good results for so short a time, but then as Tycho pointed out on one of his posts, PA get's something like 30,000 unique hits on strip days. I'm guessing not many web comics can say that.
The guys who do Goats strip are doing the Amazon/PayPal tip jar thing as well. There up to about $1400 through the Amazon portion so far, probably more through PayPal. I suspect we'll start seeing a lot of other web comics start doing this pretty soon.
I for one hope this tip-jar thing sticks around. For PA, I plan on giving a dollar or two probably once a month. It's a lot better than any form of subscription service, as it allows me to choose when and where I want to pay for the content or not. Plus, it in theory allows the creators to give us a better product. Privacy I don't really see as that big an issue. It's no different than any other credit-card transaction I've made over the web the past 2 years. And according to the Amazon site, the creators you donate too don't recieve the identification of who's donating in any way.
The cut Amazon takes out is kinda steep (15%), but they do make it very easy for both the customers and the site creators to set things up. Amazon's been psudo-evil in the past with 1-Click and target pricing, but on this one I think they've done things right.
This BBC article is a joke. How can they make the statement, "Sales of music compact discs fell by 39% last year according to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)", and not bother to qualify that statement (CD-singles dropped that much) whatsoever. To my eyes, this borders on unethical journalism. I've always considered the BBC to be a good news organization: how could they let something like this slip by?
As for the RIAA: screw em. I haven't bought a CD in over a year, and right now I don't have plans to buy another one ever again. Napster or no Napster, it doesn't matter to me. There'll be other programs I'll try, or I'll just have to do without the latest music for a while. No big loss.
Explain to me this concept of a default share, for I have not seen it.
At least in 98, it works like this: Windows does not enable file sharing by default. Nor do any major computer manufacturers enable it by default, as far as I know.
The problem comes when people start hooking their Windows computers up to their own LAN's. If you want to share files/printers between the upstairs and downstairs machines, you enable File Sharing support. You get a window asking you to create a share name for your share, and if you want to set a password. The default share name is "C" or "C-drive", something like that. And while there is a password-protect option, it's not required to create the share.
Also of note: the share is automatically enabled for every network protocol you currently have installed on your system. So if you only intend to share your files via IPX locally, if you have TCP/IP, or worse, NetBui, installed, it get's shared over those as well. You have to manually go in and un-bind the other protocols from Microsoft Networking.
This obviously isn't much of a problem until you start throwing DSL and cable lines into the mix, but there's where it becomes a big problem. Chances are most Windows users barely have a clue what a protocol or drive-share even is, let alone why they shouldn't be sharing it without a password over their cable modem.
Personally, I don't really buy this whole "they left it open, they deserve what they get" mentality. Come on people, we can't all be l33t h4x0rs. "You deserve what you get" doesn't fly when talking about cell-phone radiation, or getting mugged while walking to your car after dark. What's needed is a little education, not exploitation.
Mammals and other life forms on Earth are all similar mostly because, assuming you believe the theory, they all evolved from common ancestors. That, and the climate conditions on earth during this evolution has been relatively the same. Gravitational forces haven't changed much (i.e., the moon hasn't been blown away), the climate has been relatively stable and livable (no massive atmospheric changes or really long cold snaps), there's always been water, vegetation, etc.
Think about life developing on other planets. What would life look like if the the gravity was drastically changed by a moon being destroyed. What if the planet didn't have regular seasons, because of an irregular orbit or something similar. What if the planet was particularly massive, and life evolved in two seperate areas, independant of each other by vast distances? Would they evolve in similar ways?
You get the idea. There are so many factors that could affect how life would evolve, it's almost impossible to think the only differences would be bumpy fore-heads or blue skin. One could argue that life would have a tough time asserting itself in such environments, and you might be right. But again, we have only our stable little sun and earth, with it's perfect seasons and climate as a basis for comparison.
Yeah, and they're supposed be a "non-profit" organization as well. If that isn't the biggest lie in the world today, I'll eat....Some Tasty McDonalds(tm) French Fries, available Everyday(tm) from your local neighborhood McDonalds(tm), a proud sponser of Olympic Athletes(tm) everywhere.
This message has not, I repeat, NOT, been influenced in any way by the IOC or any of it's subsidiaries...I mean partners.
is it also moral to expect a street orphan on the streets of Calcutta not to work, especially when it is the only way he will make money?
Is it moral to expect a child to work long, grueling hours for little pay or benefits, simply because they were born in the wrong country? A job that, incidentally, prevents them from gaining any sort of education, severly decreasing their chances of getting a better job in the future.
Is it moral to say that working in harsh conditions such as sweatshops is third world peoples "choice", when in reality, there is no choice? If I have to choose between a sweatshop and starvation, that really isn't much of a choice, now, is it?
Is it moral to to casually dismiss the exploitations of workers in another country simply because it doesn't affect your life? Your great-great grandfather, who risked his life by striking against harsh factory conditions in the 1800's, so that he might be able to provide a better life for his family, might have something to say about that. So might the tens of thousands of other people in this country's past, who sacrificed their jobs, their dignity, and sometimes their lives, all so you could have some of the things you so obviously take for granted, like health insurance, vacation time, guarenteed work breaks, and high wages.
Why don't you step away from the keyboard for a little bit, look around you, and realize that whatever job you currently hold, whatever eductation you currently have, and whatever possesions you currently own, would not in any way have been possible had it not been for the sacrifices of these men and women who came before you. And now, why don't you go do something to honor those people, instead of shitting on them like you just did with that post.
It makes sense that such a provision would exist in an anti-trust act. If I was, say, Microsoft (since we've gone almost 10 minutes without some Microsoft bashing), I could use my money and power to fabricate in the media an imagined atrocity or other bad thing by my competitor. Netscape is testing animated gifs on kittens or something.
I, as a moral, upstanding company, could not stand idly by as these kittens continue to be subjected to spinning peace signs (or so I'd say in my press release), so I'd urge all of America to boycott Netscape. Look, I'd say in the fourth...no, fifth paragraph: this isn't about competition, or the fact that people will have to get their browsers from me if they boycott Netscape. This is about saving Kittens, dammit! No, scratch that: I wouldn't curse, but I'd sure include a JPEG of Big Eyed Sally petting her darling short-hair tabby.
IANAL either, but I'm thinking Ian is right: if there wasn't some sort of law against this, we'd be seeing companies calling for boycotts of their competitors all the time.
I don't agree, but you may have a point on the eReferee part. The problem, however, is that this lawsuit is applying to all domains with referee in the name. From the new eReferee (Officiating.com) web site:
A preliminary injunction has been issued which prevents RightSports from using its eReferee.com domain name and logo. The injunction also prevents RightSports from developing websites using other domain names that it owns. In short, RightSports is prohibited from any domain containing the word "Referee."
They also list about 40 other domain names that their partent company, RightSports, owns, that they are now forbidden to use, such as referee101.org, refereebooks.com, vollyballreferee.com, etc.
Now please tell me you honestly believe that each and every one of these sites is, "likely to cause confusion or mistakes or to deceive the public" concerning Referee Magazine. It's a load of BS. And here we have main reason why domain name lawsuits like this are bad. Basically, because of some short-sighted judge, Referee Magazine now owns the word referee, at least as it pertains to the internet.
Think this sort of thing would have been allowed to happen in the magazine publishing world? "Oh, gee, sorry, you can't publish any magazine with 'Referee' in the title in any form, we own that word." Or the television industry? "Nope, sorry, you can't create a TV show called The X-Files, The Rockford Files already owns the word 'Files'."
It's one thing if a company is protecting a brand name in this manner, i.e. Coca Cola or Disney. But referee is a common, public domain word. Referee Magazine didn't invent the word, they don't have any more right to the word then anyone else.
We've been using remote control in the shop I work, via Novell ZenWorks. It's great for taking care of "the little things", like missing Word toolbars or simple file-relocaton questions. Saves us techs a lot of unecessary leg work. Bigger problems like non-booting OS or what not obivously still take a visit, but really it's the little things that are the most time-consuming overall.
The best thing I've found about it is the ability to see what the user sees. Instead of trying to decipher what "My Word is screwed up" means, I can just log in and find out for myself. That in itself probably cuts the time for a remote control in half over what a similar phone call would take.
The only disadvantage so far is that the version we're using doesn't support remote rebooting. Apparently that's a "Real Soon Now" feature, but we'll see. And user resistance isn't as bad as you might think: most users find it "cool" to see their computer fixing itself with a mind of it's own.
Re:Chairs and MS Products have something in common
on
License to Sit
·
· Score: 1
And yet, if I was to post the very same joke with Linux substituted for MS, I would be modded down as a troll and/or flamebait, and probably generate at least one reply telling me how evil I am.
Yeah, I know, consider your audience before telling a joke, but you gotta admit people lose their sense of humor real fast around here when Linux is the butt of the joke.
I don't see how the JEDEC (Joint Electronic Devices Engineering Council) members can claim that Rambus didn't disclose their patents on SDRAM at the time that the standard was being chosen.
From the article:
Although the original claim was filed in 1990, Rambus didn't receive its patents, and make them fully public, until after it left JEDEC. By then, SDRAM was already established as the next standard for memory.
So basically what you have is this: Rambus and a bunch of other memory manufacturers are sitting around at JEDEC, discussing what the next memory standard should be. Eventually, they decide that it should be SDRAM. All the while, RAMBUS is sitting there with the knowledge that they have pending (as in, not yet accepted, or public) patents on SDRAM, yet they say nothing to anyone else.
Whether this is illegal or not is what the courts are going to decide, but at the very least it's highly immoral. Think maybe RAMBUS might have had an agenda for pushing an SDRAM standard at the conference, knowing that they'd likely be granted a patent on it in the near future? Think this knowledge might have affected what the other companies thought of SDRAM?
Perhaps since some parents are incapable of raising children, all current and future children should be confiscated by the government to be raised in sterile, certified ISO facilities where they will be given the 24x7 attention and care they obviously need, instilled with the proper values and work ethic and released to be productive members of society at the age of 18.
Well, we are going to be under Republican rule for at least the next 4 years. Anything could happen.
Slashdot Mirror
As IRC networks grow, they attract denial of service attacks
I'm sure a story on Slashdot won't exactly lower the number of attacks either.
But if we're starting from scratch, it would be very difficult to initially build hardware that could even take advantage of such things as firewire, IPv6, etc. I think Sponsor's right: we would have to start from scratch. Granted, some things would be obvious from the beginning, and progress would be much faster.
As for whether we would eventually end up with better stuff: perhaps, but not significantly so. Consider: we've been building hardware, software, etc for a while now. If we were to suddenly find ourselves "back at square one" as it were, it wouldn't exactly be the time for experimentation. Real world pressures would force us to go with what we know, i.e. existing ideas/technologies/etc.
No, he's saying that it would be impossible to design/manufacture a modern computer without the help of existing computers.
Heathen. All true men know that Betty was the real hottie.
Agreed. The Simpson's pretty much sold out as much as they could with "Songs in the Key of Springfield".
The N'Sync ep Sunday was I thought one of the better one's the past couple seasons, which is a little like saying Win98se is one of the better Microsoft OS's I guess. Simpson's is defninitely past it's prime, but it's still better than 90% of the crap the networks throw up.
OT: When they hell are we gonna get Simpsons DVD's? Man, what I wouldn't give for Season's 1-5, each on 6 disk sets like the XFiles are currently doing.
Well I think your right that 98 doesn't by default create a share. Thing is though, you have to create a share before you can share your files: so anyone who's in the situation of having their computers used in the way described by the article would have figured out how to create the share at least.
I'd really consider this a Windows "vulnerability" more than anything. Really, Windows ought to make the user create a unique share name, or force them to use some sort of password. But then, if Windows did stuff like this, it wouldn't be the crappy OS we know and hate I guess.
NetBEUI's OK for sharing on a local LAN for sure, but you throw that LAN on the internet, and it's wide open. I haven't messed with it for a while, but NetBEUI's full of all kinds of commonly known security holes. Again, a Windows "vulnerability", as doesn't NetBEUI get installed by default if you install Windows Networking? Maybe that was just Win95...
Actually that tip jar has been up at PA for only a week this coming Wednesday. Pretty good results for so short a time, but then as Tycho pointed out on one of his posts, PA get's something like 30,000 unique hits on strip days. I'm guessing not many web comics can say that.
The guys who do Goats strip are doing the Amazon/PayPal tip jar thing as well. There up to about $1400 through the Amazon portion so far, probably more through PayPal. I suspect we'll start seeing a lot of other web comics start doing this pretty soon.
I for one hope this tip-jar thing sticks around. For PA, I plan on giving a dollar or two probably once a month. It's a lot better than any form of subscription service, as it allows me to choose when and where I want to pay for the content or not. Plus, it in theory allows the creators to give us a better product. Privacy I don't really see as that big an issue. It's no different than any other credit-card transaction I've made over the web the past 2 years. And according to the Amazon site, the creators you donate too don't recieve the identification of who's donating in any way.
The cut Amazon takes out is kinda steep (15%), but they do make it very easy for both the customers and the site creators to set things up. Amazon's been psudo-evil in the past with 1-Click and target pricing, but on this one I think they've done things right.
This BBC article is a joke. How can they make the statement, "Sales of music compact discs fell by 39% last year according to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)", and not bother to qualify that statement (CD-singles dropped that much) whatsoever. To my eyes, this borders on unethical journalism. I've always considered the BBC to be a good news organization: how could they let something like this slip by?
As for the RIAA: screw em. I haven't bought a CD in over a year, and right now I don't have plans to buy another one ever again. Napster or no Napster, it doesn't matter to me. There'll be other programs I'll try, or I'll just have to do without the latest music for a while. No big loss.
Same thing in Kansas. It's really funny in places like Kansas City or Pittsburg, where you can drive 10 minutes to Missouri if you so desire.
Explain to me this concept of a default share, for I have not seen it.
At least in 98, it works like this: Windows does not enable file sharing by default. Nor do any major computer manufacturers enable it by default, as far as I know.
The problem comes when people start hooking their Windows computers up to their own LAN's. If you want to share files/printers between the upstairs and downstairs machines, you enable File Sharing support. You get a window asking you to create a share name for your share, and if you want to set a password. The default share name is "C" or "C-drive", something like that. And while there is a password-protect option, it's not required to create the share.
Also of note: the share is automatically enabled for every network protocol you currently have installed on your system. So if you only intend to share your files via IPX locally, if you have TCP/IP, or worse, NetBui, installed, it get's shared over those as well. You have to manually go in and un-bind the other protocols from Microsoft Networking.
This obviously isn't much of a problem until you start throwing DSL and cable lines into the mix, but there's where it becomes a big problem. Chances are most Windows users barely have a clue what a protocol or drive-share even is, let alone why they shouldn't be sharing it without a password over their cable modem.
Personally, I don't really buy this whole "they left it open, they deserve what they get" mentality. Come on people, we can't all be l33t h4x0rs. "You deserve what you get" doesn't fly when talking about cell-phone radiation, or getting mugged while walking to your car after dark. What's needed is a little education, not exploitation.
Mammals and other life forms on Earth are all similar mostly because, assuming you believe the theory, they all evolved from common ancestors. That, and the climate conditions on earth during this evolution has been relatively the same. Gravitational forces haven't changed much (i.e., the moon hasn't been blown away), the climate has been relatively stable and livable (no massive atmospheric changes or really long cold snaps), there's always been water, vegetation, etc.
Think about life developing on other planets. What would life look like if the the gravity was drastically changed by a moon being destroyed. What if the planet didn't have regular seasons, because of an irregular orbit or something similar. What if the planet was particularly massive, and life evolved in two seperate areas, independant of each other by vast distances? Would they evolve in similar ways?
You get the idea. There are so many factors that could affect how life would evolve, it's almost impossible to think the only differences would be bumpy fore-heads or blue skin. One could argue that life would have a tough time asserting itself in such environments, and you might be right. But again, we have only our stable little sun and earth, with it's perfect seasons and climate as a basis for comparison.
You are not alone in that wish.
Yeah, and they're supposed be a "non-profit" organization as well. If that isn't the biggest lie in the world today, I'll eat....Some Tasty McDonalds(tm) French Fries, available Everyday(tm) from your local neighborhood McDonalds(tm), a proud sponser of Olympic Athletes(tm) everywhere.
This message has not, I repeat, NOT, been influenced in any way by the IOC or any of it's subsidiaries...I mean partners.
is it also moral to expect a street orphan on the streets of Calcutta not to work, especially when it is the only way he will make money?
Is it moral to expect a child to work long, grueling hours for little pay or benefits, simply because they were born in the wrong country? A job that, incidentally, prevents them from gaining any sort of education, severly decreasing their chances of getting a better job in the future.
Is it moral to say that working in harsh conditions such as sweatshops is third world peoples "choice", when in reality, there is no choice? If I have to choose between a sweatshop and starvation, that really isn't much of a choice, now, is it?
Is it moral to to casually dismiss the exploitations of workers in another country simply because it doesn't affect your life? Your great-great grandfather, who risked his life by striking against harsh factory conditions in the 1800's, so that he might be able to provide a better life for his family, might have something to say about that. So might the tens of thousands of other people in this country's past, who sacrificed their jobs, their dignity, and sometimes their lives, all so you could have some of the things you so obviously take for granted, like health insurance, vacation time, guarenteed work breaks, and high wages.
Why don't you step away from the keyboard for a little bit, look around you, and realize that whatever job you currently hold, whatever eductation you currently have, and whatever possesions you currently own, would not in any way have been possible had it not been for the sacrifices of these men and women who came before you. And now, why don't you go do something to honor those people, instead of shitting on them like you just did with that post.
Any more info on this? Google searches are turning up dry for me.
Hatch warned that some in Congress may attempt to remedy the situation by stripping the music industry of some of its Internet copyright privileges.
Hmmm...no election coming up for a while...looks like someone didn't get his monthly kickback from the RIAA.
*Warning: The preceeding was both bitter and conspiracy laced at the same time. But don't blame me, blame video games.*
It makes sense that such a provision would exist in an anti-trust act. If I was, say, Microsoft (since we've gone almost 10 minutes without some Microsoft bashing), I could use my money and power to fabricate in the media an imagined atrocity or other bad thing by my competitor. Netscape is testing animated gifs on kittens or something.
I, as a moral, upstanding company, could not stand idly by as these kittens continue to be subjected to spinning peace signs (or so I'd say in my press release), so I'd urge all of America to boycott Netscape. Look, I'd say in the fourth...no, fifth paragraph: this isn't about competition, or the fact that people will have to get their browsers from me if they boycott Netscape. This is about saving Kittens, dammit! No, scratch that: I wouldn't curse, but I'd sure include a JPEG of Big Eyed Sally petting her darling short-hair tabby.
IANAL either, but I'm thinking Ian is right: if there wasn't some sort of law against this, we'd be seeing companies calling for boycotts of their competitors all the time.
Not to mention refree.com, for those bad spelling internet users.
I don't agree, but you may have a point on the eReferee part. The problem, however, is that this lawsuit is applying to all domains with referee in the name. From the new eReferee (Officiating.com) web site:
A preliminary injunction has been issued which prevents RightSports from using its eReferee.com domain name and logo. The injunction also prevents RightSports from developing websites using other domain names that it owns. In short, RightSports is prohibited from any domain containing the word "Referee."
They also list about 40 other domain names that their partent company, RightSports, owns, that they are now forbidden to use, such as referee101.org, refereebooks.com, vollyballreferee.com, etc.
Now please tell me you honestly believe that each and every one of these sites is, "likely to cause confusion or mistakes or to deceive the public" concerning Referee Magazine. It's a load of BS. And here we have main reason why domain name lawsuits like this are bad. Basically, because of some short-sighted judge, Referee Magazine now owns the word referee, at least as it pertains to the internet.
Think this sort of thing would have been allowed to happen in the magazine publishing world? "Oh, gee, sorry, you can't publish any magazine with 'Referee' in the title in any form, we own that word." Or the television industry? "Nope, sorry, you can't create a TV show called The X-Files, The Rockford Files already owns the word 'Files'."
It's one thing if a company is protecting a brand name in this manner, i.e. Coca Cola or Disney. But referee is a common, public domain word. Referee Magazine didn't invent the word, they don't have any more right to the word then anyone else.
Hemos: Great Strangelove reference
:)
Agreed
Gentlemen! You can't flame in here! This is Slashdot!
We've been using remote control in the shop I work, via Novell ZenWorks. It's great for taking care of "the little things", like missing Word toolbars or simple file-relocaton questions. Saves us techs a lot of unecessary leg work. Bigger problems like non-booting OS or what not obivously still take a visit, but really it's the little things that are the most time-consuming overall.
The best thing I've found about it is the ability to see what the user sees. Instead of trying to decipher what "My Word is screwed up" means, I can just log in and find out for myself. That in itself probably cuts the time for a remote control in half over what a similar phone call would take.
The only disadvantage so far is that the version we're using doesn't support remote rebooting. Apparently that's a "Real Soon Now" feature, but we'll see. And user resistance isn't as bad as you might think: most users find it "cool" to see their computer fixing itself with a mind of it's own.
And yet, if I was to post the very same joke with Linux substituted for MS, I would be modded down as a troll and/or flamebait, and probably generate at least one reply telling me how evil I am.
Yeah, I know, consider your audience before telling a joke, but you gotta admit people lose their sense of humor real fast around here when Linux is the butt of the joke.
Aren't corporations supposed to be more focused on doing business than suing?
Haven't you heard? Suing is the hot business model of the new millenium!
I don't see how the JEDEC (Joint Electronic Devices Engineering Council) members can claim that Rambus didn't disclose their patents on SDRAM at the time that the standard was being chosen.
From the article:
Although the original claim was filed in 1990, Rambus didn't receive its patents, and make them fully public, until after it left JEDEC. By then, SDRAM was already established as the next standard for memory.
So basically what you have is this: Rambus and a bunch of other memory manufacturers are sitting around at JEDEC, discussing what the next memory standard should be. Eventually, they decide that it should be SDRAM. All the while, RAMBUS is sitting there with the knowledge that they have pending (as in, not yet accepted, or public) patents on SDRAM, yet they say nothing to anyone else.
Whether this is illegal or not is what the courts are going to decide, but at the very least it's highly immoral. Think maybe RAMBUS might have had an agenda for pushing an SDRAM standard at the conference, knowing that they'd likely be granted a patent on it in the near future? Think this knowledge might have affected what the other companies thought of SDRAM?
Perhaps since some parents are incapable of raising children, all current and future children should be confiscated by the government to be raised in sterile, certified ISO facilities where they will be given the 24x7 attention and care they obviously need, instilled with the proper values and work ethic and released to be productive members of society at the age of 18.
Well, we are going to be under Republican rule for at least the next 4 years. Anything could happen.