There's too many comments suggesting he should be killed, raped, or otherwise hurt. Seriously.
For the people advocating death/rape for this guy: just wait until you are falsely imprisoned, or simply imprisoned for a minor infraction such as telling your mind verbally to someone who turns out to be on the 'good' side of the law. It happens very frequently in this country. And non zero odds that it will happen to you as well.
To everyone else: don't get me wrong, I'm not at all saying Soloway is innocent and should not be punished for his crimes. Just that wishing cruel and unusual punishments on him, which sadly are highly likely to happen to anyone that ends up in jail or prison, will also be forced on a small part of the innocent population as well, and that it's never right.
I also don't feel stupidity should be punished with nightly beatings, rape, disfigurement, torture, and potentially murder in the prison system either, despite the fact that the people wishing these things on others will probably never learn just how stupid such desires are until it happens to them. But I sure do wish there was less stupid people in the world, such as those that cheer for this sort of treatment.
You can sugar coat it all you want, if you are unauthorized to redistribute content, and you are doing it, what you are doing is Piracy. Mod -100 lies lies and more lies.
Quote me one nations laws that back up what you just said. You can't, because that is not what ANY nations piracy laws state. Also no nations copyright laws will mention the word piracy.
Sugar coat it all you want, but you are just spreading lies and more lies
The only document I can even find that links copyright and piracy is the Cathach of St. Columba, a seventh century book of psalms. No nation abides by this document as law anymore.
In case you didn't notice, we are in the 21st century. You have a lot of legal catching up to do my friend.
(surely there is prior art on that), but rather than the commercial breaks are determined automatically by analyzing the video and audio (detecting scene changes for example). I'm glad they just didn't take what TV broadcasters have been doing for decades and added 'on the internet' to the end. I suppose the automated part makes it unique.
My only hope, them being google, is that once the TV broadcasters DO try to automate what they do, google sends them cease and desist letters!
Supercomputer in your palm, supercomputer in the desk, as long as you get to pick the year by which you declare what a 'supercomputer' is, you can declare whatever you want. This thing isn;t even a supercomputer of 15 years ago.
One of the staples of being a supercomputer (same with mainframes) is their high availability.
Will this system let you swap out CPUs or RAM while running? How bout all of the rest of the hardware? Can you perform a two or more stage swap over and upgrade the -entire- base of hardware, so that the applications on the OS don't even realize it happened, essentially replacing the entire system live? Can it detect bad/failed CPUs or newly added CPUs with design flaws, kick them out of the to-use list, and have the apps underneath chug along on their marry way with no ill effects? Bad RAM? Bad bus controller chips zapped by static?
If not, then it is no where near a supercomputer, nor even reaching a mainframe level. This is, at best, a high end desktop/server, and at worst, just a regular computer, for any year.
The mark of high availability is, as long as you feed the system with power, and replace failed parts, you should be able to replace any/all failed parts with the system running, the apps will never know, and the OS will not act any differently when this happens (outside of the guts of it, having to manage said changes transparently, and probably notifying someone that it found bad hardware and needs it replaced)
Ever steal anyone's answers in high school? you weren't actually 'stealing' then either, but people still called it that. So are you arguing that every kid in high school is always right, even if they say 1+1=3, simply because 'people say that'? That's a fairly low bar to set.
Legally, copying answer is not called stealing either. It's called plagiarism.
Just because some high school kid is wrong when they say 1+1=3, people that call copyright infringement stealing are equally as wrong.
Saying it repeatedly, louder, and in different ways still does not make it correct.
Many people consider taking something that shouldn't be yours, stealing. So, in that definition, yes it's stealing. Maybe, but I can consider a creepy looking guy that stares at a female for over 10 seconds 'rape' too. Just like your example, it means nothing to anyone but the person doing the considering.
The courts use legal definitions only. Only those legal definitions matter when talking about courts and laws. Legally, copyright infringement is not stealing.
Morally, copyright exists only to ensure that what an artist creates DOES belong to the public. Also copyright law enforces this on all artists the moment they create something, like it or not. Copyright is not optional any longer.
So even copyright infringement is not taking something that shouldn't be yours, its taking something that is guaranteed by law to be yours, in a time frame before you legally are allowed to do so.
Even by your personal definition which does not match the legal one, it is still not stealing.
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it extremely hillarious to see the comment
The Yahoo article notes, "The closed-door debate was scheduled for late Thursday night, after the House chamber could be cleared and swept by security personnel to make sure there are no listening devices." related to a debate about how OK it is to spy on people?
I'm sure its standard procedure in stuff like that, but I can't help but LOL
I hear the stories on how quickly unprotected machines get affected but it hasn't happened to me so far. I do periodically run an AV program just to make sure. And, although I am not an expert, I am the information assurance POC for my program and am aware of the dangers. In my case, it is because I have tried it. I work in computer security, and at my last job, every year we would perform the same test and record the stats.
I had a vmware gsx server setup (Same software as the free VMware server today) and had backup 'clean install' images of win95, 98, nt3.5, nt4, 2k, and xp. I would copy over the images and boot the machine, giving it a bridged IP directly on the internet (aka not behind NAT, no rfc1918 IPs here) and have an IDS machine sitting between the vmware server and router in transparent sniffing mode.
The last test we did was in 2006, and we did them every year since 2001.
In 2006, it took just under 3 minutes for IDS to trigger showing an incoming worm exploiting the system, and the network sniffer shows how the worm sent a small payload to trigger the exploit, run itself, then call back out over the network to the same IP that infected it, to download the rest of the worm executable. In 2005, it took just under 10 minutes. Even back in 2001, I cant remember exactly the time, but was around 30-40 minutes before it got infected. And thats just for 98/95.
Also it only took around two minutes for a worm to attempt to find the $C network share on the system, which would have succeeded if there was no password on the admin account, which is default for 98.
Yes, win98 (and 95) do not by default have services running, however there are flaws in the MS TCP stack that let an attacker run code without restriction simply by the machine having a real IP and being reachable. In fact, these flaws were only just fixed in 2k, xp, and vista just a couple months ago at the end of 07! Before that, anyone could run code as 'system' or 'admin' on the machine just by sending a malformed IP packet to the TCP stack (and yes this includes the 'rewritten from scratch' vista OS that clearly reused a ot of xp's code!)
The above URL describes the exploit for win 2k, xp, and vista. It doesn't specifically say so, but I have found this exploit to work on NT 4 as well.
There is a similar exploit that works slightly different that effects all windows versions back to 95, however I can't seem to find the MS knowledge base article on it. Probably because they no longer support 95/98 at all.
Yeah, that's gonna be painful. It's all about the RAM. Get some old RAM and stuff that thing to the gills with it. Even at 128, you'll feel the difference; I'd consider 256M the usable minimum for 9x. If you can put 512 into it, it'll never swap, and feel pretty good. A PIII-800 MHz with 512M RAM absolutely flies under 9x; GUI responsiveness was comparable to a 2GHz CPU with 1GB RAM, and bootup time is in the 15-20 seconds from power switch to usable GUI, which XP still can't beat except in hibernation mode. Sadly, the 96mb is upgraded, and is the hardware max for RAM. I can't remember what it came with stock, I think it was 12 or 16mb on-board, Actually I bought and tossed in a 128mb dimm, but the BIOS and system only sees up to 96mb of that total.
Surprisingly though, it doesn't run too bad at that. Win98 is fast and responsive. Due to the nature of the apps I use, I'm generally only running one at a time, mainly because of the additional hardware I need hooked to the device. I've also never had to do a reinstall. I installed win98 once when I bought the new 6gb hard drive for it (It came with a 4gb that was having read issues at times. Every couple reboots, the drive would 'disapear' and the bios couldn't see it any longer, but even had the same problem using a 2.5->3.5 ide adaptor on my desktop pc.)
Coming out of hibernate is still fast (10 seconds i'm guessing at most, though I never really timed it.) Even booting up from scratch doesn't seem particularly slow. The battery in it needs rebuilt, as it only holds maybe 1-2 minutes of charge if that. But since the hardware hanging off it requires AC power, keeping the tablet plugged in has never been an issue.
Granted, I don't run 98 because I do not wish to upgrade. It's more that 2k/XP don't seem to support parallel port mode correctly. And the tablet pc on its little stand looks a lot nicer on my electronics workbench than a larger system, even a laptop. However with the specs on the tablet, I wouldn't even dream of running 2k or higher on it. That would be a nightmare in itself;}
I was hoping to read that your win98 system was not on the network/internet at all, as then you would have a solid case for it being the correct answer. But then read the email client bit...
I am honestly curious.
How do you prevent malware/trojan/virus infections on that?
I assume you have a hardware firewall, or at least a NAT gateway, and would hope you don't use IE. I know for a fact that a win98 box fully updated, placed naked directly on the internet, will be infected in at most 10 minutes.
How stable is it? I assume you perform a decent amount of work on it, and not just bring it out for specific needs once or twice a year. How long does the install last? Or do you reinstall frequently, just with win98 each time?
I too have one machine with 98 on it, however it never goes on the internet, and rarely ever is connected to my lan even. It's an old tablet pc that only has a 233mhz Pentium, 96mb ram, and I believe a 6gb hd (Fujitsu stylistic 2300 in case you're interested.) There are some electronics apps I use that speak with hardware on the parallel and serial ports, which does not run under NT or newer. However as i mentioned, it is never on the internet, rarely on the network, i take files to it over usb flash or on rare occasion via cdrom on a scsi pcmcia card. It gets used maybe once every 3-4 months, and only for i'm guessing an hour each time or less.
I simply can't imagine using that as my main system.
I'm not trying to troll or anything here, I really would like to know how you pull that off without massive headaches and bitterness towards the entire computing industry at best, and at worst not waking up every morning wanting to go to the nearest living thing, and simply kill it.;}
So it can store an integer up to 4.3 billion? Doesn't sound like impressive computing. How large of an integer have -you- stored in only 1 atom today?;}
Seriously though, its not the amount or size of data here thats the break through, its the method they are using to store it, which actually is quite impressive.
Imagine when they get this ramped up to a thousand, or ten thousand atoms, which will still be invisible to the naked eye, and store many integers up to mind boggling values.
I don't foresee this ramping up hard drive storage in the next hundred years, but there are still plenty of uses. Quantum computers alone might find this handy for storage of non quantum data (IE input or finished output), considering they need cooled to this level anyways. Not to mention all the good yummy science that can come out of it on the side.
And this, children, is why you should never ever give the password to your account to someone else. Not even someone who claims to want to do something for you. Once you've given it to them, you have no control over what they do with it. +5? How?! *boggles*
Well, you don't follow your own advice. You give out your passwords the same way! It's just a program that runs locally, that needs your gmail password to log into gmail.
You just gave your slashdot password to your webbrowser to post that message!
You also gave your login password to OS to get on your computer. You give your email password to your email client and/or webbrowser. Probably gave your email password to your gmail taskbar app, whatever it may be, or a similar tool that provides the same functionality. Granted your local email client may do this for you, but you still gave your password to it for that to happen. You give your website passwords to your web browser. You give your PGP/GPG password to which ever encryption/decryption tools you use, as well as your keychain manager. You gave all your remote system passwords to your ssh and scp/sftp clients. You give zip/rar archive passwords to your unzip/unrar apps.
If you use IM, you just gave your IM client that password (possibly multiple clients multiple passwords depending on which IM networks you use) If you use IRC you gave the irc network your nickserv/x passwords. If you remote desktop or vnc, you just gave those apps a password to something.
Even taken offline! You no doubt gave your phone and phone company your voicemail password. You give your bank account PIN to the ATM. You gave the lock to your home a form of password (in key format) to the house to get into it, and tell the lock to secure the door behind you when you left. You gave your car a password to get into it (either in key format, or broadcast over RF from a remote), and then did it again to start the engine. If you have a job where you open/close at or use any access control to get in, you gave a form of password to the door to get to work this morning.
Since you broke your own rule many times today alone, and do so every day, why should anyone else follow your advice?
"it's looking at whether Windows 7 favors Microsoft apps over third party programs"
Doesn't Apple very heavily lean towards Apple software?
(This isn't starting flaming, this is a legitimate question - what separates Apple from Microsoft in these regards?) No (*)
And while you might not be intending to flame, that is effectively what you are doing. It is hard to defend something when you yourself provide no reason for why you think that, or why you would say that. (*) This is why my answer is equally as terse.
The only cases I am aware of where anyone even claims this to be true, is on slashdot, which I think its safe to say does not have a history of getting facts straight in article summaries. Quite the opposite in fact. Pretty much all of the apple bashing articles on slashdot can be disproven simply by reading the article it links to, which states the exact opposite from what the summary said.
OS X does come with a lot of bundled apps, but there is nothing in place to cause them to be used over any other. That is all user-configurable, and those settings do not revert back to apples apps once an install/update is made.
Even the last two articles posted on slashdot specifically claiming this, one with safari APIs, and another with one particular gui API that was discontinued, were shown to be 100% factually incorrect.
If you have any other examples, please feel free to share. But kindly do not just blindly search slashdot and link to the summaries, actually follow and post the links, which in half the cases will show it as the bunk it is right away.
MS Visual Studio requires MS Office for some of the data aware components to work at all.
-You mean the components that are designed to get data from MS Office? The horror!
Windows Media player often "reactivates" all on its lonesome
-Funny, it's never done that for me. I can only comment on the last of those three. The only time I've used outlook was at work, where office was installed anyway, so I wouldn't see the link one way or another. I also don't use MS development tools.
However, I have had cases of WMP becoming the default again, thou 'all on its lonesome' is not how I would describe it.
With XP, the one upgrade to XP1 did reset that (as well as IE's) defaults. However since then I have only installed from an XP CD with SP1 pre-applied. I also don't remember if this was before or after the big stink where a lot of users complained about this happening, and MS ended up admitting it was a problem with their updater, which was fixed in a later hotfix. If it was before (which is very possible, even most likely) then it isn't like this was some big secret to hide it, and was even fixed.
The times I have installed SP2 however, have done this with WMP as well. However in my case, SP2 always badly broke my system, I think it has something to do with the install media I use, since that is the only common thread between those updates. Consistently SP2 broke my networking stack, in ways that I can easily duplicate by installing off the only CD I have of XP, then adding SP2. I always just assumed all the other problems were due to what ever was causing this. It is very clear this is not normal or something any one else has experienced.
Of course once I accidentally selected a WMP upgrade in windows update, and that too changed the default settings, however I suppose that is at least slightly understandable there. I normally don't do that, it was just a case of not paying attention and deselecting the packages I didnt want upgraded.
But as I said, none of these are 'all on its lonesome', it was always a separate action triggering it, and unless I am mistaken, all of those actions involved upgrading WMP on the system just before it happened.
I can understand frustrations at microsofts software causing one to feel like lashing out like the GP did, but you are right in that it is not fair nor accurate to do so. Sounds like FUDing to me.
There are enough legit problems with windows to complain about without having to make up new ones;}
* Voice recognition always requires training
* Everyone is born with the innate ability to use a qwerty keyboard It assumes neither of those things.
Voice recognition for general purpose input (to replace the computer keyboard) currently does require training. The apps that don't simply do not work. 5% accuracy rate is effectively not working. To get any higher of an accuracy rating DOES require training for all current software out there, now and in the past. And my post specifically excluded software in the future by the fact I said further research is needed and should be done.
Phone dialing voice recognition is so far from a general purpose input device, that if you are thinking of that, you fail at understanding technology.
As for an innate ability to use a keyboard, short of someone fully paralyzed, then yes, they do have that ability. Be it with 10 fingers, or a stick in your mouth, you will still get a much higher accuracy rating than voice recognition right now. And only if you are at the far end of the spectrum, IE using a stick in the mouth cuz you can't interact with the world around you at all beyond that, it is a very safe assumption since it has been right 100% of the time so far.
While it is arguable on speed when you compare a paralyzed person with a stick in their mouth, to the best voice recognition software available today, that isn't exactly what I would consider a selling point...
even the slowest hunt and pecker is going to be exponentially more accurate at input with a keyboard You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. Oh?
ex po nen tial -noun
3. Mathematics.
a. the constant e raised to the power equal to a given expression, as e3x, which is the exponential of 3x.
b. any positive constant raised to a power. If it takes a slow typer 30 seconds to enter a sentence, and it takes even 15 minutes to get it correct using voice recognition (and I am being VERY generous to the voice rec apps here!): 30(sec) ^ 2 = 900(sec) = 15(min).
Seems like both the word and the math is right to me! This is of course assumes that after 15 minutes of trying and failing to get the voice recognition software to work at all doesn't cause one to just simply give up, which is most likely.
BTW, I said the word once. That is not 'keep using', despite your failed attempt at making an old movie quote relevant:P
Many technologists now believe that hunting and pecking on the tiny keyboards of cellphones and P.D.A.'s will quickly give way to voice commands that will return map, text and other data displayed visually on small screens." Despite the fact most of us are extremely faster at typing than 'hunt and pecking', even the slowest hunt and pecker is going to be exponentially more accurate at input with a keyboard than even the best voice recognition software in existence today.
Voice recognition still sucks badly, even after a lot of time investment into it. Maybe if someone got around to fixing that somehow, then we would consider, you know, using it. I'm not at all suggesting we give up that line of research, just suggesting we put the horse before the cart here.
Or at least don't lie and say "will quickly give way to voice commands" and call it what it is. Those people want it to happen, and there is nothing wrong with that! Each tech has people that would prefer it over others. To each their own! But to out right lie and say that it will happen 'quickly' is just embarrassing for your career as a technologist.
It's becoming all too common that they remove videos without apparently needing verification though. I realise that under the DMCA a company has to act when notified that they're hosting infringing material, but ever since they were bought by Google they've become the most tread-lightly-offend-none company around. Surely with the huge resources available to Youtube they'd be able to actually double check these DMCA requests to make sure they actually have merit?
IANAL, if you hadn't guessed...;)
The problem with that is, if youtube/google/whoever decides NOT to use the safe harbor clause in the DMCA, and not take the video down & contact the poster, then they instantly lose all protection under the safe harbor clause.
At this point, if youtube/google/whoever makes ANY mistake in their double checking the request, they are automatically liable for any damages to the copyright holder if it turns out the take down notice was correct.
In other words, they can take on the legal responsibility (and cost!) of fighting this battle, and either win where nothing happens, or lose where they get screwed pretty hard, or, they can do as the safe harbor clause states as law (no cost) and if the notice is correct or not, either way there is no way youtube/google/whoever can be sued for a cent, since they followed the law.
If i asked you to do extra work on your part, that brings a non zero chance you will have to pay a lot of legal fees, or you do no extra work and are guaranteed under the law to be protected against any lawsuit, and you got hundreds of these requests a day, which do you think you would do?
For a company, they are going to choose the path that costs them nothing up front and nothing later. Not the path that costs them money up front and a non zero chance of costing a whole lot more later.:} Actually, as a person, I would choose the same thing. Unless you are trying to make a point or example out of something (a potentially expensive one), it would seem silly not to.
[RANT ON] (to the parent poster, this isnt directed at you personally, please don't take offense.) The whole problem is, there is already a legal method to take care of this, which involves one single email. But instead of people using this, they bitch and moan about it instead.
If they don't take the video down, they can be sued. However, at this point it is up to the person that posted it in the first place to email them a counter-notice under the DMCA. One simple email. At this point, youtube is legally required to PUT THE VIDEO BACK UP or risk a lawsuit from the video poster!
If you aren't actually violating someone elses copyright, why would you not do this? Obviously the real answer is ignorance of the law, but for as much as slashdot types complain about this law, you would think they if anyone would know a little something about it.
If you are in the right, send one simple email, the video goes back up, and the matter is basically over with. At that point the person falsely claiming copyright can sue you, and you can royally screw them over in court for doing this to you, if you cared to take it that far. And if you are that pissed, why not do just that?
The only reason not to send this email reply back is if you really are violating someones copyright, and know you will lose the case in court on facts alone. And if that is the case, don't bitch because you got caught.
A whole lot of copyright law is fucked up right now. This is one example of a law that works IN OUR FAVOR! Please for the love of the internet, use it, destroy these IP trolls in court, and stop trying to get the good part of the DMCA removed! [/RANT]
I'm sorry for the rant. But I don't WANT youtube to pretend they know better than I do if the video I posted is copyrighted by me or not. I know if its a copyright violation or not. I should be the one to choose what I tell them, either a) its not a copyrig
because I THOUGHT we were talkin about marijuana No one here was talking about marijuana but you. Even *I* wasn't talking about it.
You do realize morphine and heroin are THE EXACT SAME THING right?
yet one is used by 100% of all medical doctors in the western world (and quite a lot in the east), and the other, which is the same thing, is poison.
Also meth and ritalin have nearly the exact same chemical makeup. the only difference between the two is, ritilin has two more compounds in it that meth does not. Yet you say one is perfectly fine to prescribe, despite its ill effects, and the other is a poison (which in this case is true)
I was not arguing to legalize pot, I was arguing that drugs you say are perfectly acceptable are poisons and should not be legal, yet you seem to think its perfectly fine.
In addition, tobacco contains nicotine, also used EXACTLY as a poison in bug killer spray. Yet you are arguing that is perfectly acceptable.
Alcohol, while not classified as a drug, is also a poison, as that is the exact reason you get drunk.
As for the other drugs you brought up, again, no one but you mentioned them. Cocaine has clear bad effects on the body, as does meth and ritilin, and abuse of heroin and morphine.
You insult me for wanting to legalize drugs, when that was not mentioned. Yet you insist on poisoning people with your 'legal' drugs, and don't care.
I'm in my 40s now, and time is so precious and I just see something like this as a sad waste. And what have you accomplished today other than bitch and moan on slashdot, hmmm?
My good sir, I take great offense at the fact you have not used your 40 years to cure cancer, feed all the homeless, and perfect unlimited energy for all people on earth!
Oh, and get to work on my matter transporter already!
Or, you know... only watching the good movies? I feel the need to inform slashdot that an entire 97%(*) of those figures come from people only watching the good movies.
* Of course, I got that number from the same reports the MPAA used.
I'm not against drug use. I'm just against *illegal* drug use. I realize you are anon, thus wont see this, and dont care as there are high chances you are trolling anyways.
But why on earth would you prefer that the people who choose what is legal and what is illegal as a drug are racist government officials for the purpose of belittling an entire race, instead of doctors who know what they are talking about when it comes to the usefulness and effectiveness of a drug in the body?
One doesnt even need to argue the usefulness of any specific drug here. If collectively the medical body decides drug A is useful, and drug B is harmful, then why do you refuse to listen to that, and instead put full trust and faith in someone who by definition does not know what he is talking about in relation to medical science?
I strongly disagree. The solution is to not send stoners to jail. Nonviolent criminals should not be sent to prison. The US has more people behind bars than any other country in the world, including China. We also lead the world in prisoners per capita; over 1% of our population is behind bars. I do believe in what you said 100%, and all but two words are painfully true. But please don't try to make it sound like the US is worse than china.
Yes, the US system is broken very very badly. It desperately needs fixed. Many laws should be relaxed if not totally removed.
But the reason we have more people in prison than china is because that same number of people in china are simply killed, if not by sentence, then directly on the spot with nothing close to a trial.
Although I do agree - when I'm buying, I put in what I'm willing to pay and if I win, I win... This is what so many people don't understand about ebay.
And this whole problem could be solved by only allowing one bid per auction, and of course keeping auction bids secret until the end time.
Of course, that isnt the only way to solve it, running it like a real auction, while more annoying for an online auction, would work as well. EX the time is extended the same amount after each bid.
Would Scrabulous be as popular if it wasn't instantly recognizable? Probably not. Tell that to the popular Yahoo game Literati;}
(Which btw is scrabble)
Popular of course being relative. Most people that play yahoo games know of it and alot find it quite popular. I would say more so than the facebook version, which hasnt existed as long and doesnt have nearly as many online players it seems.
Slashdot Mirror
For the people advocating death/rape for this guy: just wait until you are falsely imprisoned, or simply imprisoned for a minor infraction such as telling your mind verbally to someone who turns out to be on the 'good' side of the law. It happens very frequently in this country. And non zero odds that it will happen to you as well.
To everyone else: don't get me wrong, I'm not at all saying Soloway is innocent and should not be punished for his crimes. Just that wishing cruel and unusual punishments on him, which sadly are highly likely to happen to anyone that ends up in jail or prison, will also be forced on a small part of the innocent population as well, and that it's never right.
I also don't feel stupidity should be punished with nightly beatings, rape, disfigurement, torture, and potentially murder in the prison system either, despite the fact that the people wishing these things on others will probably never learn just how stupid such desires are until it happens to them.
But I sure do wish there was less stupid people in the world, such as those that cheer for this sort of treatment.
Quote me one nations laws that back up what you just said. You can't, because that is not what ANY nations piracy laws state. Also no nations copyright laws will mention the word piracy.
Sugar coat it all you want, but you are just spreading lies and more lies
The only document I can even find that links copyright and piracy is the Cathach of St. Columba, a seventh century book of psalms. No nation abides by this document as law anymore.
In case you didn't notice, we are in the 21st century. You have a lot of legal catching up to do my friend.
My only hope, them being google, is that once the TV broadcasters DO try to automate what they do, google sends them cease and desist letters!
One of the staples of being a supercomputer (same with mainframes) is their high availability.
Will this system let you swap out CPUs or RAM while running? How bout all of the rest of the hardware?
Can you perform a two or more stage swap over and upgrade the -entire- base of hardware, so that the applications on the OS don't even realize it happened, essentially replacing the entire system live?
Can it detect bad/failed CPUs or newly added CPUs with design flaws, kick them out of the to-use list, and have the apps underneath chug along on their marry way with no ill effects? Bad RAM? Bad bus controller chips zapped by static?
If not, then it is no where near a supercomputer, nor even reaching a mainframe level.
This is, at best, a high end desktop/server, and at worst, just a regular computer, for any year.
The mark of high availability is, as long as you feed the system with power, and replace failed parts, you should be able to replace any/all failed parts with the system running, the apps will never know, and the OS will not act any differently when this happens (outside of the guts of it, having to manage said changes transparently, and probably notifying someone that it found bad hardware and needs it replaced)
Legally, copying answer is not called stealing either. It's called plagiarism.
Just because some high school kid is wrong when they say 1+1=3, people that call copyright infringement stealing are equally as wrong.
Saying it repeatedly, louder, and in different ways still does not make it correct.
The courts use legal definitions only. Only those legal definitions matter when talking about courts and laws.
Legally, copyright infringement is not stealing.
Morally, copyright exists only to ensure that what an artist creates DOES belong to the public. Also copyright law enforces this on all artists the moment they create something, like it or not. Copyright is not optional any longer.
So even copyright infringement is not taking something that shouldn't be yours, its taking something that is guaranteed by law to be yours, in a time frame before you legally are allowed to do so.
Even by your personal definition which does not match the legal one, it is still not stealing.
I'm sure its standard procedure in stuff like that, but I can't help but LOL
I had a vmware gsx server setup (Same software as the free VMware server today) and had backup 'clean install' images of win95, 98, nt3.5, nt4, 2k, and xp. I would copy over the images and boot the machine, giving it a bridged IP directly on the internet (aka not behind NAT, no rfc1918 IPs here) and have an IDS machine sitting between the vmware server and router in transparent sniffing mode.
The last test we did was in 2006, and we did them every year since 2001.
In 2006, it took just under 3 minutes for IDS to trigger showing an incoming worm exploiting the system, and the network sniffer shows how the worm sent a small payload to trigger the exploit, run itself, then call back out over the network to the same IP that infected it, to download the rest of the worm executable.
In 2005, it took just under 10 minutes. Even back in 2001, I cant remember exactly the time, but was around 30-40 minutes before it got infected. And thats just for 98/95.
Also it only took around two minutes for a worm to attempt to find the $C network share on the system, which would have succeeded if there was no password on the admin account, which is default for 98.
Yes, win98 (and 95) do not by default have services running, however there are flaws in the MS TCP stack that let an attacker run code without restriction simply by the machine having a real IP and being reachable.
In fact, these flaws were only just fixed in 2k, xp, and vista just a couple months ago at the end of 07! Before that, anyone could run code as 'system' or 'admin' on the machine just by sending a malformed IP packet to the TCP stack (and yes this includes the 'rewritten from scratch' vista OS that clearly reused a ot of xp's code!)
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS08-001.mspx
The above URL describes the exploit for win 2k, xp, and vista. It doesn't specifically say so, but I have found this exploit to work on NT 4 as well.
There is a similar exploit that works slightly different that effects all windows versions back to 95, however I can't seem to find the MS knowledge base article on it. Probably because they no longer support 95/98 at all.
Yeah, that's gonna be painful. It's all about the RAM. Get some old RAM and stuff that thing to the gills with it. Even at 128, you'll feel the difference; I'd consider 256M the usable minimum for 9x. If you can put 512 into it, it'll never swap, and feel pretty good. A PIII-800 MHz with 512M RAM absolutely flies under 9x; GUI responsiveness was comparable to a 2GHz CPU with 1GB RAM, and bootup time is in the 15-20 seconds from power switch to usable GUI, which XP still can't beat except in hibernation mode. Sadly, the 96mb is upgraded, and is the hardware max for RAM. I can't remember what it came with stock, I think it was 12 or 16mb on-board, Actually I bought and tossed in a 128mb dimm, but the BIOS and system only sees up to 96mb of that total.
Surprisingly though, it doesn't run too bad at that. Win98 is fast and responsive. Due to the nature of the apps I use, I'm generally only running one at a time, mainly because of the additional hardware I need hooked to the device.
I've also never had to do a reinstall. I installed win98 once when I bought the new 6gb hard drive for it (It came with a 4gb that was having read issues at times. Every couple reboots, the drive would 'disapear' and the bios couldn't see it any longer, but even had the same problem using a 2.5->3.5 ide adaptor on my desktop pc.)
Coming out of hibernate is still fast (10 seconds i'm guessing at most, though I never really timed it.)
Even booting up from scratch doesn't seem particularly slow.
The battery in it needs rebuilt, as it only holds maybe 1-2 minutes of charge if that. But since the hardware hanging off it requires AC power, keeping the tablet plugged in has never been an issue.
Granted, I don't run 98 because I do not wish to upgrade. It's more that 2k/XP don't seem to support parallel port mode correctly. And the tablet pc on its little stand looks a lot nicer on my electronics workbench than a larger system, even a laptop.
However with the specs on the tablet, I wouldn't even dream of running 2k or higher on it. That would be a nightmare in itself
I was hoping to read that your win98 system was not on the network/internet at all, as then you would have a solid case for it being the correct answer. But then read the email client bit...
;}
I am honestly curious.
How do you prevent malware/trojan/virus infections on that?
I assume you have a hardware firewall, or at least a NAT gateway, and would hope you don't use IE.
I know for a fact that a win98 box fully updated, placed naked directly on the internet, will be infected in at most 10 minutes.
How stable is it? I assume you perform a decent amount of work on it, and not just bring it out for specific needs once or twice a year. How long does the install last? Or do you reinstall frequently, just with win98 each time?
I too have one machine with 98 on it, however it never goes on the internet, and rarely ever is connected to my lan even. It's an old tablet pc that only has a 233mhz Pentium, 96mb ram, and I believe a 6gb hd (Fujitsu stylistic 2300 in case you're interested.) There are some electronics apps I use that speak with hardware on the parallel and serial ports, which does not run under NT or newer. However as i mentioned, it is never on the internet, rarely on the network, i take files to it over usb flash or on rare occasion via cdrom on a scsi pcmcia card. It gets used maybe once every 3-4 months, and only for i'm guessing an hour each time or less.
I simply can't imagine using that as my main system.
I'm not trying to troll or anything here, I really would like to know how you pull that off without massive headaches and bitterness towards the entire computing industry at best, and at worst not waking up every morning wanting to go to the nearest living thing, and simply kill it.
Doesn't sound like impressive computing. How large of an integer have -you- stored in only 1 atom today?
Seriously though, its not the amount or size of data here thats the break through, its the method they are using to store it, which actually is quite impressive.
Imagine when they get this ramped up to a thousand, or ten thousand atoms, which will still be invisible to the naked eye, and store many integers up to mind boggling values.
I don't foresee this ramping up hard drive storage in the next hundred years, but there are still plenty of uses. Quantum computers alone might find this handy for storage of non quantum data (IE input or finished output), considering they need cooled to this level anyways.
Not to mention all the good yummy science that can come out of it on the side.
Well, you don't follow your own advice. You give out your passwords the same way!
It's just a program that runs locally, that needs your gmail password to log into gmail.
You just gave your slashdot password to your webbrowser to post that message!
You also gave your login password to OS to get on your computer.
You give your email password to your email client and/or webbrowser.
Probably gave your email password to your gmail taskbar app, whatever it may be, or a similar tool that provides the same functionality. Granted your local email client may do this for you, but you still gave your password to it for that to happen.
You give your website passwords to your web browser.
You give your PGP/GPG password to which ever encryption/decryption tools you use, as well as your keychain manager.
You gave all your remote system passwords to your ssh and scp/sftp clients.
You give zip/rar archive passwords to your unzip/unrar apps.
If you use IM, you just gave your IM client that password (possibly multiple clients multiple passwords depending on which IM networks you use)
If you use IRC you gave the irc network your nickserv/x passwords.
If you remote desktop or vnc, you just gave those apps a password to something.
Even taken offline!
You no doubt gave your phone and phone company your voicemail password.
You give your bank account PIN to the ATM.
You gave the lock to your home a form of password (in key format) to the house to get into it, and tell the lock to secure the door behind you when you left.
You gave your car a password to get into it (either in key format, or broadcast over RF from a remote), and then did it again to start the engine.
If you have a job where you open/close at or use any access control to get in, you gave a form of password to the door to get to work this morning.
Since you broke your own rule many times today alone, and do so every day, why should anyone else follow your advice?
Doesn't Apple very heavily lean towards Apple software?
(This isn't starting flaming, this is a legitimate question - what separates Apple from Microsoft in these regards?) No (*)
And while you might not be intending to flame, that is effectively what you are doing.
It is hard to defend something when you yourself provide no reason for why you think that, or why you would say that.
(*) This is why my answer is equally as terse.
The only cases I am aware of where anyone even claims this to be true, is on slashdot, which I think its safe to say does not have a history of getting facts straight in article summaries. Quite the opposite in fact.
Pretty much all of the apple bashing articles on slashdot can be disproven simply by reading the article it links to, which states the exact opposite from what the summary said.
OS X does come with a lot of bundled apps, but there is nothing in place to cause them to be used over any other. That is all user-configurable, and those settings do not revert back to apples apps once an install/update is made.
Even the last two articles posted on slashdot specifically claiming this, one with safari APIs, and another with one particular gui API that was discontinued, were shown to be 100% factually incorrect.
If you have any other examples, please feel free to share. But kindly do not just blindly search slashdot and link to the summaries, actually follow and post the links, which in half the cases will show it as the bunk it is right away.
-No, it doesn't.
MS Visual Studio requires MS Office for some of the data aware components to work at all.
-You mean the components that are designed to get data from MS Office? The horror!
Windows Media player often "reactivates" all on its lonesome
-Funny, it's never done that for me. I can only comment on the last of those three.
The only time I've used outlook was at work, where office was installed anyway, so I wouldn't see the link one way or another. I also don't use MS development tools.
However, I have had cases of WMP becoming the default again, thou 'all on its lonesome' is not how I would describe it.
With XP, the one upgrade to XP1 did reset that (as well as IE's) defaults. However since then I have only installed from an XP CD with SP1 pre-applied. I also don't remember if this was before or after the big stink where a lot of users complained about this happening, and MS ended up admitting it was a problem with their updater, which was fixed in a later hotfix. If it was before (which is very possible, even most likely) then it isn't like this was some big secret to hide it, and was even fixed.
The times I have installed SP2 however, have done this with WMP as well. However in my case, SP2 always badly broke my system, I think it has something to do with the install media I use, since that is the only common thread between those updates. Consistently SP2 broke my networking stack, in ways that I can easily duplicate by installing off the only CD I have of XP, then adding SP2. I always just assumed all the other problems were due to what ever was causing this. It is very clear this is not normal or something any one else has experienced.
Of course once I accidentally selected a WMP upgrade in windows update, and that too changed the default settings, however I suppose that is at least slightly understandable there. I normally don't do that, it was just a case of not paying attention and deselecting the packages I didnt want upgraded.
But as I said, none of these are 'all on its lonesome', it was always a separate action triggering it, and unless I am mistaken, all of those actions involved upgrading WMP on the system just before it happened.
I can understand frustrations at microsofts software causing one to feel like lashing out like the GP did, but you are right in that it is not fair nor accurate to do so. Sounds like FUDing to me.
There are enough legit problems with windows to complain about without having to make up new ones
* Voice recognition always requires training
* Everyone is born with the innate ability to use a qwerty keyboard It assumes neither of those things.
Voice recognition for general purpose input (to replace the computer keyboard) currently does require training. The apps that don't simply do not work. 5% accuracy rate is effectively not working.
To get any higher of an accuracy rating DOES require training for all current software out there, now and in the past. And my post specifically excluded software in the future by the fact I said further research is needed and should be done.
Phone dialing voice recognition is so far from a general purpose input device, that if you are thinking of that, you fail at understanding technology.
As for an innate ability to use a keyboard, short of someone fully paralyzed, then yes, they do have that ability. Be it with 10 fingers, or a stick in your mouth, you will still get a much higher accuracy rating than voice recognition right now. And only if you are at the far end of the spectrum, IE using a stick in the mouth cuz you can't interact with the world around you at all beyond that, it is a very safe assumption since it has been right 100% of the time so far.
While it is arguable on speed when you compare a paralyzed person with a stick in their mouth, to the best voice recognition software available today, that isn't exactly what I would consider a selling point...
3. Mathematics.
a. the constant e raised to the power equal to a given expression, as e3x, which is the exponential of 3x.
b. any positive constant raised to a power. If it takes a slow typer 30 seconds to enter a sentence, and it takes even 15 minutes to get it correct using voice recognition (and I am being VERY generous to the voice rec apps here!): 30(sec) ^ 2 = 900(sec) = 15(min).
Seems like both the word and the math is right to me!
This is of course assumes that after 15 minutes of trying and failing to get the voice recognition software to work at all doesn't cause one to just simply give up, which is most likely.
BTW, I said the word once. That is not 'keep using', despite your failed attempt at making an old movie quote relevant
Voice recognition still sucks badly, even after a lot of time investment into it.
Maybe if someone got around to fixing that somehow, then we would consider, you know, using it.
I'm not at all suggesting we give up that line of research, just suggesting we put the horse before the cart here.
Or at least don't lie and say "will quickly give way to voice commands" and call it what it is. Those people want it to happen, and there is nothing wrong with that! Each tech has people that would prefer it over others. To each their own!
But to out right lie and say that it will happen 'quickly' is just embarrassing for your career as a technologist.
It's becoming all too common that they remove videos without apparently needing verification though. I realise that under the DMCA a company has to act when notified that they're hosting infringing material, but ever since they were bought by Google they've become the most tread-lightly-offend-none company around. Surely with the huge resources available to Youtube they'd be able to actually double check these DMCA requests to make sure they actually have merit?
;)
IANAL, if you hadn't guessed...
The problem with that is, if youtube/google/whoever decides NOT to use the safe harbor clause in the DMCA, and not take the video down & contact the poster, then they instantly lose all protection under the safe harbor clause.
:}
At this point, if youtube/google/whoever makes ANY mistake in their double checking the request, they are automatically liable for any damages to the copyright holder if it turns out the take down notice was correct.
In other words, they can take on the legal responsibility (and cost!) of fighting this battle, and either win where nothing happens, or lose where they get screwed pretty hard, or, they can do as the safe harbor clause states as law (no cost) and if the notice is correct or not, either way there is no way youtube/google/whoever can be sued for a cent, since they followed the law.
If i asked you to do extra work on your part, that brings a non zero chance you will have to pay a lot of legal fees, or you do no extra work and are guaranteed under the law to be protected against any lawsuit, and you got hundreds of these requests a day, which do you think you would do?
For a company, they are going to choose the path that costs them nothing up front and nothing later. Not the path that costs them money up front and a non zero chance of costing a whole lot more later.
Actually, as a person, I would choose the same thing.
Unless you are trying to make a point or example out of something (a potentially expensive one), it would seem silly not to.
[RANT ON] (to the parent poster, this isnt directed at you personally, please don't take offense.)
The whole problem is, there is already a legal method to take care of this, which involves one single email. But instead of people using this, they bitch and moan about it instead.
If they don't take the video down, they can be sued. However, at this point it is up to the person that posted it in the first place to email them a counter-notice under the DMCA. One simple email. At this point, youtube is legally required to PUT THE VIDEO BACK UP or risk a lawsuit from the video poster!
If you aren't actually violating someone elses copyright, why would you not do this? Obviously the real answer is ignorance of the law, but for as much as slashdot types complain about this law, you would think they if anyone would know a little something about it.
If you are in the right, send one simple email, the video goes back up, and the matter is basically over with.
At that point the person falsely claiming copyright can sue you, and you can royally screw them over in court for doing this to you, if you cared to take it that far. And if you are that pissed, why not do just that?
The only reason not to send this email reply back is if you really are violating someones copyright, and know you will lose the case in court on facts alone. And if that is the case, don't bitch because you got caught.
A whole lot of copyright law is fucked up right now. This is one example of a law that works IN OUR FAVOR! Please for the love of the internet, use it, destroy these IP trolls in court, and stop trying to get the good part of the DMCA removed!
[/RANT]
I'm sorry for the rant.
But I don't WANT youtube to pretend they know better than I do if the video I posted is copyrighted by me or not. I know if its a copyright violation or not. I should be the one to choose what I tell them, either a) its not a copyrig
Even *I* wasn't talking about it.
You do realize morphine and heroin are THE EXACT SAME THING right?
yet one is used by 100% of all medical doctors in the western world (and quite a lot in the east), and the other, which is the same thing, is poison.
Also meth and ritalin have nearly the exact same chemical makeup. the only difference between the two is, ritilin has two more compounds in it that meth does not.
Yet you say one is perfectly fine to prescribe, despite its ill effects, and the other is a poison (which in this case is true)
I was not arguing to legalize pot, I was arguing that drugs you say are perfectly acceptable are poisons and should not be legal, yet you seem to think its perfectly fine.
In addition, tobacco contains nicotine, also used EXACTLY as a poison in bug killer spray.
Yet you are arguing that is perfectly acceptable.
Alcohol, while not classified as a drug, is also a poison, as that is the exact reason you get drunk.
As for the other drugs you brought up, again, no one but you mentioned them. Cocaine has clear bad effects on the body, as does meth and ritilin, and abuse of heroin and morphine.
You insult me for wanting to legalize drugs, when that was not mentioned.
Yet you insist on poisoning people with your 'legal' drugs, and don't care.
My good sir, I take great offense at the fact you have not used your 40 years to cure cancer, feed all the homeless, and perfect unlimited energy for all people on earth!
Oh, and get to work on my matter transporter already!
* Of course, I got that number from the same reports the MPAA used.
But why on earth would you prefer that the people who choose what is legal and what is illegal as a drug are racist government officials for the purpose of belittling an entire race, instead of doctors who know what they are talking about when it comes to the usefulness and effectiveness of a drug in the body?
One doesnt even need to argue the usefulness of any specific drug here.
If collectively the medical body decides drug A is useful, and drug B is harmful, then why do you refuse to listen to that, and instead put full trust and faith in someone who by definition does not know what he is talking about in relation to medical science?
But please don't try to make it sound like the US is worse than china.
Yes, the US system is broken very very badly. It desperately needs fixed. Many laws should be relaxed if not totally removed.
But the reason we have more people in prison than china is because that same number of people in china are simply killed, if not by sentence, then directly on the spot with nothing close to a trial.
And this whole problem could be solved by only allowing one bid per auction, and of course keeping auction bids secret until the end time.
Of course, that isnt the only way to solve it, running it like a real auction, while more annoying for an online auction, would work as well. EX the time is extended the same amount after each bid.
(Which btw is scrabble)
Popular of course being relative. Most people that play yahoo games know of it and alot find it quite popular.
I would say more so than the facebook version, which hasnt existed as long and doesnt have nearly as many online players it seems.