In the past 15 months since 4.0 came out there are now 9 releases. That's a release every 1.66 months on average. No way more than 1 or 2 of them can be major. Sure, there might be a LOT of changes. But you get that with BIG projects. 2 months to develop a major change? Hah! If they did have major changes in parallel with other changes, they should not all be dribbling out every 1.66 months. Collect them, run them through testing, and come out with a serious major release every year. What they are doing now is totally insane and quite clearly an effort to just drive up version numbers.
Major changes happen every couple years. It's only been 14 months since version 4 came out. They may have made major changes ONCE in that time. Do tell me which it is and convince me it is worth a major. If it is the very latest release, then sure, call it version 5. But what we have up to date just a hurried attempt to catch up to crazy release numbers by another famous browser. Firefox has gotten to be a joke now days.
BTW, haven't you learned, yet, to not use the.0 of any release? Wait until there is at least a.1
He may contact me by mail at 1417 Ramada Dr. Houston Texas 77062 and is ill advised to call me after this bottomfeeder exploitation. I have more than a good faith belief that Michael Zhang knows he is infringing upon my rights because his entire article falsely accuses me of infringing upon Jay Lee, the Houston Hacker’s rights, when Lee dropped this claim with Go Daddy without prompting from me. He voluntarily (scared) ran. Zhang clearly knows and I believe without a doubt he does that his use of my work on his site is illegal, unauthorized and objectionable under federal law.
WRONG! He withdrew because of your threat. It has no bearing on the issue of whether or not you originally violated his copyright. It is obvious that Jay Lee had no intent for his complaint to do no more than take down ONLY the copyright infringement. It was GO DADDY that chose to screw over all the rest of your sites. So sue Go Daddy!
Apparently her whole domain name was taken down, and she had other "sites" under this domain. Shame, shame, shame, as Gomer would say. Simple solution for her: register a new domain name "for the children" and put the sites back up there. Problem solved.
Attorneys are allowed to practice under their current legal name. The question is whether she notified the bar of her name change at marriage, and whether the record pulled up is one that would have been updated had that notification been received.
Because lawyers think they have some God given right to be above the law.
This crazy woman thinks that just because she is involved in programs supporting disabled children, she should get a free pass at violating the law? It's entirely HER FAULT that she put these multiple sites together under one in which she infringed on someone else's copyright. If she wants them to go back online, then it's simple. Remove the infringing content (or agree to by a specified date). Or split the sites apart. But instead, she wants to use her law background to do the things that get lawyers hated by the public, and to even further extend her own misery on the internet.
Candice: just get a clue. Here's a free one (and feel free to copy it, too). Put your web sites back up elsewhere under other domain names. Just leave out the copyright infringements when you do.
NOTHING is ever adequate in eliminating some illegal activity. We have murder, prostitution, recreational drugs, and many other crimes that have absolutely zero hope of being eliminated. The content industry needs to let go of the hope to eliminate piracy and work on a business model that is more attractive. Make content EASIER to use than pirated content. Make content FASTER to download than pirated content.
Here's a clue: No one can listen to more than 24 hours of music a day. No one can watch more than 24 hours of movies a day. And this is stretching it to the extreme. Some people have downloaded more content than they could listen to and/or watch in their LIFETIME... just to have a choice when they want it. The subscription model is working for Magnatune. Try it!
If it were not available, sure, we can do without. But, it is available. The problem is that for many people, the ONLY way it is available that works happens to be illegal. Why should we do without when an illegal way that is the only way does exist?
No longer a practical format. Flash drive (USB, SDxx, etc) is the now.
HBO/Showtime/Cable TV/Pay-per-view
Crap quality.
Netflix/Hulu
Requires crap OS. Quality sucks due to overcompression. Cannot save in order to do non-breaky playback later.
FYE/GameStop
Requires specialized hardware.
Wal-Mart/Target
They don't have anything better.
Amazon
They don't have anything better.
How many other legal formats do you need?
Something that works... and on smaller media and/or savable in digital juke box (e.g. my 12TB storage array).
Sorry if I have a hard time believing we have "no legal methods" in existence today. How the hell we ever legally entertained ourselves before the precious almighty Internet came about is apparently a fucking unsolvable mystery to the point where we "need' to steal everything.
We have no MODERN legal media. Content industry wants to keep us BEHIND the technology edge.
As far as obtaining content in a specific way, I can't help it if people are too damn lazy to figure out how to take a legal alternative and convert it to any format they "demand". Not really an acceptable excuse there, especially when legal conversion products are available.
Aren't you forgetting that converting legal content in other formats to the format you want is not legal? Oh sure, it can be done. There's software out there to crack DVDs and probably Blurays, too. But that MORE bother than just downloading the movie in the clear.
Note that my moral conscience does NOT bother me by buying the DVD or Bluray, setting it aside, and downloading a more practical format from the internet and using that from a USB memory stick. But it is still something the content industry wants to take away, and would even label me as a pirate for doing this. That's what makes them f---in idiots.
And to address those of you bitching about movie release dates varying across the world, get over it. That shit has been going on for a very long time, and isn't going to change anytime soon. Learn to find something called "patience" again and wait one more week. Patience IS a valuable asset.
In the past, this was justified for many technical reasons. Those reasons are all gone today. There is no TECHNICAL reason to not do a syncronized release world wide. Given that the ILLEGAL access is fully available in a syncronized release world wide just proves my point. The content industry is merely using this as an excuse.
The fix for this is to grant full residency rights to those here on H-1B, including the right to switch to another job at any time, for the duration of the visa. The cost to the original employer for obtaining the H-1B, prorated for the part of the 3 years not employed by the original employer, will then be owed as a debt.
FYI, the purpose is actually for dynamic configuration intelligence. Imagine having network static configuration data but without any interface names to associate it with. That and the newbie network admin just plugged the cables in the wrong ports (or... is there a wrong port... really).
I think the broadcast traffic will be sufficient. This could be augmented with some DHCP proding (try to get an address, but don't actually accept it... just use it to get more information about what subnets other hosts think is here). The purpose is to detect which subnets are being used on this physical LAN... for each interface... before configuring them. A configuration table for this will exist, listing IP addresses and network prefixes. The idea is to figure out which interface to put them on without any specification of the interfaces in the configuration. Once that is done, it will continue to watch the network and look for changes. If there is a change, move the IP addresses around to match.
TV news broadcasts work on the free news model, already, and it works. Ask CNN, Fox, and MSNBC. Ask your local TV stations if they will be an alternative news source to the paywalled locked local newspapers when Buffet comes buying.
If it were me, I'd be more than willing to settle matters like adults. But as soon as the other party merely THREATENS a lawsuit, then it is clear THEY do NOT want to settle.
... the question of whether or not Nmap could be used to sniff a network before it is configured with an IP address (DHCP can, so mechanisms to do so must exist, like maybe raw interface access), to do things like silently watch what other traffic is taking place to make smart guess as to which LAN a given interface is physically connected to. This information could then be used to select the IP address it is statically configured to use for a given subnet (but without specific interface information since that can change for many reasons).
In addition to these appointments, CCI announced the retention of the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”), a global leader in conflict management. AAA will be the independent entity that manages the program’s independent review process, including the training of neutral reviewers for situations where a subscriber has received multiple alerts but believes a mitigation measure should not be imposed.
The usual procedure for this organization in other activities is to require substantial up front payment just to get things started. How this would play out in the case of this program is not specified. But it is likely to require the accused alleged infringer to initiate the process through AAA which could cost hundreds of dollars paid in advance, thus leaving a huge portion of the population out, assuming this process is fair (which in the financial services sector has been a dismal failure).
I'd be curious how they would try to force use of arbitration. Maybe as part of the contracts people sign with their internet providers? Better read your contracts. But if no such clause is present and stated to apply to outside parties, and anything is wrong in accusations made, I'd recommend taking the matter to court against the CFCI or whoever is providing the erroneous accusations.
Slashdot Mirror
In the past 15 months since 4.0 came out there are now 9 releases. That's a release every 1.66 months on average. No way more than 1 or 2 of them can be major. Sure, there might be a LOT of changes. But you get that with BIG projects. 2 months to develop a major change? Hah! If they did have major changes in parallel with other changes, they should not all be dribbling out every 1.66 months. Collect them, run them through testing, and come out with a serious major release every year. What they are doing now is totally insane and quite clearly an effort to just drive up version numbers.
Major changes happen every couple years. It's only been 14 months since version 4 came out. They may have made major changes ONCE in that time. Do tell me which it is and convince me it is worth a major. If it is the very latest release, then sure, call it version 5. But what we have up to date just a hurried attempt to catch up to crazy release numbers by another famous browser. Firefox has gotten to be a joke now days.
BTW, haven't you learned, yet, to not use the .0 of any release? Wait until there is at least a .1
Sorry, it's been delayed. You'll have to wait until the end of the week.
In the normal scheme, its really just 4.9.
***YAWN***
I already have a home source of methane. I just need a nice way to capture it.
In her complaint:
He may contact me by mail at 1417 Ramada Dr. Houston Texas 77062 and is ill advised to call me after this bottomfeeder exploitation. I have more than a good faith belief that Michael Zhang knows he is infringing upon my rights because his entire article falsely accuses me of infringing upon Jay Lee, the Houston Hacker’s rights, when Lee dropped this claim with Go Daddy without prompting from me. He voluntarily (scared) ran. Zhang clearly knows and I believe without a doubt he does that his use of my work on his site is illegal, unauthorized and objectionable under federal law.
WRONG! He withdrew because of your threat. It has no bearing on the issue of whether or not you originally violated his copyright. It is obvious that Jay Lee had no intent for his complaint to do no more than take down ONLY the copyright infringement. It was GO DADDY that chose to screw over all the rest of your sites. So sue Go Daddy!
Apparently her whole domain name was taken down, and she had other "sites" under this domain. Shame, shame, shame, as Gomer would say. Simple solution for her: register a new domain name "for the children" and put the sites back up there. Problem solved.
Attorneys are allowed to practice under their current legal name. The question is whether she notified the bar of her name change at marriage, and whether the record pulled up is one that would have been updated had that notification been received.
Because lawyers think they have some God given right to be above the law.
This crazy woman thinks that just because she is involved in programs supporting disabled children, she should get a free pass at violating the law? It's entirely HER FAULT that she put these multiple sites together under one in which she infringed on someone else's copyright. If she wants them to go back online, then it's simple. Remove the infringing content (or agree to by a specified date). Or split the sites apart. But instead, she wants to use her law background to do the things that get lawyers hated by the public, and to even further extend her own misery on the internet.
Candice: just get a clue. Here's a free one (and feel free to copy it, too). Put your web sites back up elsewhere under other domain names. Just leave out the copyright infringements when you do.
... when there isn't any at all in the direction of us.
NOTHING is ever adequate in eliminating some illegal activity. We have murder, prostitution, recreational drugs, and many other crimes that have absolutely zero hope of being eliminated. The content industry needs to let go of the hope to eliminate piracy and work on a business model that is more attractive. Make content EASIER to use than pirated content. Make content FASTER to download than pirated content.
Here's a clue: No one can listen to more than 24 hours of music a day. No one can watch more than 24 hours of movies a day. And this is stretching it to the extreme. Some people have downloaded more content than they could listen to and/or watch in their LIFETIME ... just to have a choice when they want it. The subscription model is working for Magnatune. Try it!
If it were not available, sure, we can do without. But, it is available. The problem is that for many people, the ONLY way it is available that works happens to be illegal. Why should we do without when an illegal way that is the only way does exist?
Uh, really?
DVD/Blu-Ray
No longer a practical format. Flash drive (USB, SDxx, etc) is the now.
HBO/Showtime/Cable TV/Pay-per-view
Crap quality.
Netflix/Hulu
Requires crap OS. Quality sucks due to overcompression. Cannot save in order to do non-breaky playback later.
FYE/GameStop
Requires specialized hardware.
Wal-Mart/Target
They don't have anything better.
Amazon
They don't have anything better.
How many other legal formats do you need?
Something that works ... and on smaller media and/or savable in digital juke box (e.g. my 12TB storage array).
Sorry if I have a hard time believing we have "no legal methods" in existence today. How the hell we ever legally entertained ourselves before the precious almighty Internet came about is apparently a fucking unsolvable mystery to the point where we "need' to steal everything.
We have no MODERN legal media. Content industry wants to keep us BEHIND the technology edge.
As far as obtaining content in a specific way, I can't help it if people are too damn lazy to figure out how to take a legal alternative and convert it to any format they "demand". Not really an acceptable excuse there, especially when legal conversion products are available.
Aren't you forgetting that converting legal content in other formats to the format you want is not legal? Oh sure, it can be done. There's software out there to crack DVDs and probably Blurays, too. But that MORE bother than just downloading the movie in the clear.
Note that my moral conscience does NOT bother me by buying the DVD or Bluray, setting it aside, and downloading a more practical format from the internet and using that from a USB memory stick. But it is still something the content industry wants to take away, and would even label me as a pirate for doing this. That's what makes them f---in idiots.
And to address those of you bitching about movie release dates varying across the world, get over it. That shit has been going on for a very long time, and isn't going to change anytime soon. Learn to find something called "patience" again and wait one more week. Patience IS a valuable asset.
In the past, this was justified for many technical reasons. Those reasons are all gone today. There is no TECHNICAL reason to not do a syncronized release world wide. Given that the ILLEGAL access is fully available in a syncronized release world wide just proves my point. The content industry is merely using this as an excuse.
The fix for this is to grant full residency rights to those here on H-1B, including the right to switch to another job at any time, for the duration of the visa. The cost to the original employer for obtaining the H-1B, prorated for the part of the 3 years not employed by the original employer, will then be owed as a debt.
Then free market works for everyone.
I agree with the "smack" part. I don't agree with the "engineering school" part. Prep them for LAW school, instead. That's where the money flows.
"IT Positiions Some of the Toughest Job to Underpay People in US"
or maybe
"Companies over specify jobs, find no one matches."
Apparently now. It's still around.
FYI, the purpose is actually for dynamic configuration intelligence. Imagine having network static configuration data but without any interface names to associate it with. That and the newbie network admin just plugged the cables in the wrong ports (or ... is there a wrong port ... really).
I think the broadcast traffic will be sufficient. This could be augmented with some DHCP proding (try to get an address, but don't actually accept it ... just use it to get more information about what subnets other hosts think is here). The purpose is to detect which subnets are being used on this physical LAN ... for each interface ... before configuring them. A configuration table for this will exist, listing IP addresses and network prefixes. The idea is to figure out which interface to put them on without any specification of the interfaces in the configuration. Once that is done, it will continue to watch the network and look for changes. If there is a change, move the IP addresses around to match.
TV news broadcasts work on the free news model, already, and it works. Ask CNN, Fox, and MSNBC. Ask your local TV stations if they will be an alternative news source to the paywalled locked local newspapers when Buffet comes buying.
If it were me, I'd be more than willing to settle matters like adults. But as soon as the other party merely THREATENS a lawsuit, then it is clear THEY do NOT want to settle.
I pick Ron Paul because he serves no one but himself. That's the way it should be.
Isn't there a #depressed channel on IRC?
... the question of whether or not Nmap could be used to sniff a network before it is configured with an IP address (DHCP can, so mechanisms to do so must exist, like maybe raw interface access), to do things like silently watch what other traffic is taking place to make smart guess as to which LAN a given interface is physically connected to. This information could then be used to select the IP address it is statically configured to use for a given subnet (but without specific interface information since that can change for many reasons).
From the Center For Copyright Information page, the News Feed link Center for Copyright Information Announces Three Major Steps Towards Implementation has this paragraph:
In addition to these appointments, CCI announced the retention of the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”), a global leader in conflict management. AAA will be the independent entity that manages the program’s independent review process, including the training of neutral reviewers for situations where a subscriber has received multiple alerts but believes a mitigation measure should not be imposed.
The usual procedure for this organization in other activities is to require substantial up front payment just to get things started. How this would play out in the case of this program is not specified. But it is likely to require the accused alleged infringer to initiate the process through AAA which could cost hundreds of dollars paid in advance, thus leaving a huge portion of the population out, assuming this process is fair (which in the financial services sector has been a dismal failure).
I'd be curious how they would try to force use of arbitration. Maybe as part of the contracts people sign with their internet providers? Better read your contracts. But if no such clause is present and stated to apply to outside parties, and anything is wrong in accusations made, I'd recommend taking the matter to court against the CFCI or whoever is providing the erroneous accusations.