Yes, it is in the newer contracts that you aren't supposed to run servers, but I was in fact never presented with a contract and have never been asked to sign one subsequently. One party cannot unilaterally change the terms of a contract. They are free to disconnect me if they have been, at any time, unhappy with what servers I run. No complaints from them so far (four years and running).
Well, if they didn't tell you that you can't run servers, then you should be able to. So if your IP is on the MAPS DUL, you should complain to your ISP. Because if you have a static IP and your netblock is on MAPS DUL, your ISP put it there intentionally. Of course, if your ISP comes back with "you can't run servers" then you now have a bit of a problem with them, I assume...
The DUL is fairly straightforward to get onto and off of, unlike some of the other MAPS lists. It's not a list of people who have sent spam or anything, it's a list of dynamic IPs or static IPs supposedly not allowed to run servers. If you're not one of those, you shouldn't be on there, and your ISP has to confirm it.
No, the article is talking about how they did it for data from like 3 or 4 sources. I'm talking about making a structure that could support thousands of data sources. A much more generic system, sort of thing.
To take this massive amount of sky image data and to build one freakin' huge database of it all. Take all this raw data, cut it into chunks, index it in a huge database, then have a system to display any part of it combined from all or some of the sources. Like a virtual sky sort of thing.
The data storage would obviously have to be immense, as would the indexing and graphics processing capabilities.
Anyway, then make a virtual sky out of it. So that you can look at any place in the database, get your image in a variety of views, look at the original images, look at it in ultraviolet, IR, whatever you like.
Some system for processing incoming data would be needed, some method to sync data from multiple sources, etc, etc. But it would be pretty useful, I think. At least to astronomers.:)
What exactly constitutes a "full on mail hub" and someone "pretending to be a full on mail hub", and who are you to make that distinction?
A full on mail hub is somebody running a mail server on a connection where they are contractually allowed to run a mail server on that connection.
Nobody gets onto the MAPS DUL (dial up list) that easily. You have to be a netblock that has dynamic IP's (meaning that you can't receive mail anyway, as your IP could change) or has static IP's but has had your ISP confirm to MAPS that yes, your block is not allowed to run a mail server.
You pay for what you get. If you pay for a service that says "no mail servers" and then go an run a mail server, well, you get your ass blocked. You're operating outside your contract already, you're got no real right to bitch about this one.
Want to run a mail server? Buy your connection from someone that allows you to do so.
The internet ain't free, bub. You pay for your connection. In many cases, you can pay less if you use that connection for less. This is standard market economics at work. Most people don't use their connections for everything they can squeeze out of them, and so they get a bargain from their supplier. By trying to get that bargain while exceeding those limitations (in this case, not running a mail server is likely *explicitly* stated in your contract with the ISP), you're essentially being a jackass.
But then how the hell are hobbyists supposed to survive next to large commercial entities?
The MAPS DUL is a list of IP's that are not supposed to be running mail servers, usually according to the people who actually own those IP addresses. Most dynamic IP's should be on it, as would any static IP's whose owners (the ISP who gives you your IP) told MAPS that yes, they are not supposed to run servers.
Don't like it? Exercise your free market rights and buy your service from somebody else.
In this life, if you want a thing, you pay for that thing. TANSTAAFL. There are providers who'll gladly sell you service and let you run mail servers all you like. And those won't be listed on the MAPS DUL because the ISP is who confirms which of their netblocks should go on the DUL.
If you're running a mailserver on a connection that you have a contract that says you cannot do that, then I don't see that you have cause for bitching here.
Oh, wait. I forgot. The Internet died a long time ago.
The Internet did not die. It just ceased to be the sole domain of hobbyists and tinkerers and a bunch of bastards (spammers/scammers/other people in general) moved in. This is the expected reaction to those bastards.
If your cable modem company or other ISP does "lock in", where they give out addresses via DHCP by taking your MAC Address and putting it into their system, then you'll need to add a cable/DSL router into the picture. Get one with the built in 802.11b wireless, like many of the Linksys models. This way, the cable company sees only the router, your guests get their address via DHCP from the router and don't have to call you when it fails to work.
You can easily test if your high speed ISP does lock in.. Have them hook it up, and later, once it's working, plug a different computer in to see if it can get an IP via DHCP. If it can't put a router in there. You can change the MAC on the WAN side of the router to be the one the cable company is expecting. All of the cheap home routers have this feature. That way it gets an IP from the ISP and you give out local IPs like 192.168.1.100 or some such.
... and never did they have a computer in them. If I wanted a computer, I brought my laptop.
Anybody really wanting to access the internet on their beach vacation has the equipment to do so anyway. Seriously, laptops are common among business travellers, and all netheads have them or something like them.
If you want to advertise high speed internet access, few people will be expecting there to be an actual computer there. An ethernet jack hooked to a cable modem (out of sight.. like in a closet or wall or other locked area) is good enough. If you want to provide wireless, drop an access point back there hooked to the cable modem as well. Beyond that, I wouldn't put in one single bit of equipment. No computer, no monitor, nothing. Maybe a power protector on the cable modem/access point, but that's it.
Leave an instruction sheet on how to hook up their ethernet or 802.11b wireless (use a 802.11b access point, as the cable modem is slower than 11 mbits and b is cheaper/more compatible) and wash your hands of it. Nobody expects an entire configured system to be there, realistically. If you go to a nice hotel with connectivity, you don't get a computer in the room, you get a place to hook up your computer and that's it. That's expected. Leaving a whole system there just invites people to rewire the thing to hook up *their* system.
He mounts the filesystem as read only to prolong the life of the CF card, although he does leave an extra writable partition on it. But he also sets up a ramdisk for the majority of file usage and such. While that is, of course, ephemeral, if you're doing some recording it's nice to be able to record into RAM first and then save it off to elsewhere when you're happy with it.
Magnet links are much better in the long run, as a lot of P2P apps are starting to support them, and they are a more open standard. See here: http://magnet-uri.sourceforge.net/
Shareaza takes account of this to some degree. It calculates all the various hashes and shares these with other clients on the Gnutella2 network. So if you search for some file and find a client on Gnutella2 with that file, you'll get all the various hashes for that file when you tell it to download it. Then it can search for and download that file across all the networks.
It also works with BitTorrent, to some degree. A lot of recent torrent making utilities have added support for Shareaza's method of inserting these hashes into the torrent itself (it's backwards compatible too), and using raza to download these torrents will let it search for and download from the other networks as well.
It can also do trackerless torrents, although that doesn't get a lot of use as yet. Download a torrent using raza and it'll send a search out on the G2 network for anybody else who happens to be downloading the same torrent, and they'll become BT sources for each other, no tracker needed.
However if it can keep all of my bit torrent downloads in 1 easy to manage window with universal bandwidth management it may be worth it for just that.
I like Shareaza. It's swarming across multiple networks is a cool feature. But for BT downloads, it's not quite there yet, although it has potential.
For managing multiple BT downloads, the current app I use is Azureus. Written in Java, but nonetheless a good application with a lot of features. And far, far faster at BT than Shareaza.
True, but at the same time, when it's done downloading, now you need twice as much drive space, at least temporarily, for it to copy/split the temp file into the original file.
There's no *basis* upon which they can send a DMCA takedown notice.
A DMCA takedown notice states, under penalty of perjury that the material in question is copyright infringing material and is owned by whomever is sending the notice.
Sending a DMCA notice to someone is a legal document stating that the material you're bitching about is, in fact, owned by you or somebody you represent. If you don't in fact own that material, you just committed perjury and can be held liable for that.
If somebody were so stupid as to send SF a DMCA notice for Shareaza, which is *known* to have been entirely written by this one guy who's putting it out there (he wrote it from scratch, he should know), then they'd be liable for a pretty easy countersuit.
I fail to see how an organization that has gouged the public for a number of years (see that ruling against them for price-gouging and the big $10 check that got sent to anyone who bought a CD in the last XX years) can be realistically called a "victim".
Shareaza doesn't do anything illegal. Doesn't contain any copyrighted code. There's no basis for a DMCA notice. It's just a P2P application, like many others that are also on sourceforge.
Now, hopefully, someone can fix the whacked out BitTorrent implementation.
It works okay, but the way it uses the temporary files is just wonky. It downloads everything into a temporary file and then splits or copies the file when it's completed downloading. While this is fine in theory, in practice the problem is that the act of the splitting/copying is heavy on drive use, slows the whole system down, and generally is a PITA to deal with. Furthermore this makes it difficult to use other BT clients with the files, if you happen to want to use a different client in the middle of a download. You have to manually split the temp file apart using a separate tool or manually create a temporary file for Shareaza to use for the torrent.
Why it can't use the standard create the files as you go method I don't know. I think it's because he just worked the protocol into raza using the existing codebase like the temporary files.
The bill is about all the other assorted manufacturer-only codes which you don't have access to.
Every single code for every single module in the car is listed on the Part 2 specification for that module.. And those are available if you know where to look. And I'm pretty sure you could obtain those through ALLDATA, or if not them then some similar company.
I grant you, reading those Part 2 specs is like pulling teeth, but they do have pretty much everything you ever need to know about any given electronic module in the car. All the self-tests, all the lookup locations, all the codes it can throw, everything.
First off, where is the evidence that their business model is in need of improvement?
They're the ones complaining that people committing copyright infringement is hurting their revenue stream.
Here's the thing.. If you sell a product, and large numbers of people don't buy your product, then you have a failed business model. It doesn't matter why they don't buy it, or that they acquire the same material through illegal channels... The end result is simple: they're not buying what you're selling. You can't stay in business long that way.
If people are in fact buying what they're selling, then they shouldn't be complaining that people are not. They're the ones making these claims, not me. Me, I think they're full of shit and selling just fine. I think the numbers back me up on that one. I don't think copyright infringment is hurting their bottom line, I think it's possibly helping it.
But nevertheless, if they're going to complain about those evil "pirates", then they should realize that they're calling themselves failures because they can't get people to buy their shit. If people won't buy what you're selling, then you need to figure out another way to sell it.
On most of those cars, you actually program the key in yourself. Read the manual. If you lose the key and need the thing unlocked, the dealer has to call a number they have to get a computer to tell them what the master code for that VIN is.
This has started to get too expensive though, so a lot of 2000 and up radios are hooked into the car's onboard data network. At start time, they query the BCM for the VIN of the car, and check that against what they think their VIN is supposed to be. If they match, it works. This provides the same theft protection (radio don't work in another car) without having to remember/find the codes and such when the radio loses power.
Slashdot Mirror
Ahh.. I got a different joke. I thought you were going for the bent line.. Bender? Get it? Ahh, nevermind. ;)
I watched it at lunch today. The Klein's Beer was more entertaining though. :)
I see the joke, but if you're going for that joke you might as well go with 01011110.
"'Through' is just trying to cheat at scrabble."
Yes, it is in the newer contracts that you aren't supposed to run servers, but I was in fact never presented with a contract and have never been asked to sign one subsequently. One party cannot unilaterally change the terms of a contract. They are free to disconnect me if they have been, at any time, unhappy with what servers I run. No complaints from them so far (four years and running).
Well, if they didn't tell you that you can't run servers, then you should be able to. So if your IP is on the MAPS DUL, you should complain to your ISP. Because if you have a static IP and your netblock is on MAPS DUL, your ISP put it there intentionally. Of course, if your ISP comes back with "you can't run servers" then you now have a bit of a problem with them, I assume...
The DUL is fairly straightforward to get onto and off of, unlike some of the other MAPS lists. It's not a list of people who have sent spam or anything, it's a list of dynamic IPs or static IPs supposedly not allowed to run servers. If you're not one of those, you shouldn't be on there, and your ISP has to confirm it.
No, the article is talking about how they did it for data from like 3 or 4 sources. I'm talking about making a structure that could support thousands of data sources. A much more generic system, sort of thing.
To take this massive amount of sky image data and to build one freakin' huge database of it all. Take all this raw data, cut it into chunks, index it in a huge database, then have a system to display any part of it combined from all or some of the sources. Like a virtual sky sort of thing.
:)
The data storage would obviously have to be immense, as would the indexing and graphics processing capabilities.
Anyway, then make a virtual sky out of it. So that you can look at any place in the database, get your image in a variety of views, look at the original images, look at it in ultraviolet, IR, whatever you like.
Some system for processing incoming data would be needed, some method to sync data from multiple sources, etc, etc. But it would be pretty useful, I think. At least to astronomers.
What exactly constitutes a "full on mail hub" and someone "pretending to be a full on mail hub", and who are you to make that distinction?
A full on mail hub is somebody running a mail server on a connection where they are contractually allowed to run a mail server on that connection.
Nobody gets onto the MAPS DUL (dial up list) that easily. You have to be a netblock that has dynamic IP's (meaning that you can't receive mail anyway, as your IP could change) or has static IP's but has had your ISP confirm to MAPS that yes, your block is not allowed to run a mail server.
You pay for what you get. If you pay for a service that says "no mail servers" and then go an run a mail server, well, you get your ass blocked. You're operating outside your contract already, you're got no real right to bitch about this one.
Want to run a mail server? Buy your connection from someone that allows you to do so.
The internet ain't free, bub. You pay for your connection. In many cases, you can pay less if you use that connection for less. This is standard market economics at work. Most people don't use their connections for everything they can squeeze out of them, and so they get a bargain from their supplier. By trying to get that bargain while exceeding those limitations (in this case, not running a mail server is likely *explicitly* stated in your contract with the ISP), you're essentially being a jackass.
But then how the hell are hobbyists supposed to survive next to large commercial entities?
The MAPS DUL is a list of IP's that are not supposed to be running mail servers, usually according to the people who actually own those IP addresses. Most dynamic IP's should be on it, as would any static IP's whose owners (the ISP who gives you your IP) told MAPS that yes, they are not supposed to run servers.
Don't like it? Exercise your free market rights and buy your service from somebody else.
In this life, if you want a thing, you pay for that thing. TANSTAAFL. There are providers who'll gladly sell you service and let you run mail servers all you like. And those won't be listed on the MAPS DUL because the ISP is who confirms which of their netblocks should go on the DUL.
If you're running a mailserver on a connection that you have a contract that says you cannot do that, then I don't see that you have cause for bitching here.
Oh, wait. I forgot. The Internet died a long time ago.
The Internet did not die. It just ceased to be the sole domain of hobbyists and tinkerers and a bunch of bastards (spammers/scammers/other people in general) moved in. This is the expected reaction to those bastards.
If your cable modem company or other ISP does "lock in", where they give out addresses via DHCP by taking your MAC Address and putting it into their system, then you'll need to add a cable/DSL router into the picture. Get one with the built in 802.11b wireless, like many of the Linksys models. This way, the cable company sees only the router, your guests get their address via DHCP from the router and don't have to call you when it fails to work.
You can easily test if your high speed ISP does lock in.. Have them hook it up, and later, once it's working, plug a different computer in to see if it can get an IP via DHCP. If it can't put a router in there. You can change the MAC on the WAN side of the router to be the one the cable company is expecting. All of the cheap home routers have this feature. That way it gets an IP from the ISP and you give out local IPs like 192.168.1.100 or some such.
... and never did they have a computer in them. If I wanted a computer, I brought my laptop.
Anybody really wanting to access the internet on their beach vacation has the equipment to do so anyway. Seriously, laptops are common among business travellers, and all netheads have them or something like them.
If you want to advertise high speed internet access, few people will be expecting there to be an actual computer there. An ethernet jack hooked to a cable modem (out of sight.. like in a closet or wall or other locked area) is good enough. If you want to provide wireless, drop an access point back there hooked to the cable modem as well. Beyond that, I wouldn't put in one single bit of equipment. No computer, no monitor, nothing. Maybe a power protector on the cable modem/access point, but that's it.
Leave an instruction sheet on how to hook up their ethernet or 802.11b wireless (use a 802.11b access point, as the cable modem is slower than 11 mbits and b is cheaper/more compatible) and wash your hands of it. Nobody expects an entire configured system to be there, realistically. If you go to a nice hotel with connectivity, you don't get a computer in the room, you get a place to hook up your computer and that's it. That's expected. Leaving a whole system there just invites people to rewire the thing to hook up *their* system.
He mounts the filesystem as read only to prolong the life of the CF card, although he does leave an extra writable partition on it. But he also sets up a ramdisk for the majority of file usage and such. While that is, of course, ephemeral, if you're doing some recording it's nice to be able to record into RAM first and then save it off to elsewhere when you're happy with it.
Fair enough.. Read that as "copyrighted by anybody other than the author who put it under the GPL in the first place" if you like.
I just yanked the link right off shareaza.com. Didn't see the source link. But now I do. Here you go:
4 XD CRX4TX.EZIFTU5AWZIHNIZOEKI2QK6PFP2MVH2LHCU3FZY&dn= Shareaza_Core_2.0.0.0.zip&xs=http://128.241.220.10 /shareaza/Shareaza_Core_2.0.0.0.zip
magnet:?xt=urn:bitprint:IN4MI2IMDX5MGQ7JLROBWR3
magnet:?xt=urn:bitprint:2XPWQISMWDXSCOD4SDXZKXELH7 3KPXG6.YYFG355UD6K7SQVHIVWHSKF6BLDD5BH4W6EPA5Y&dn= Shareaza_2.0.0.0.exe
Magnet links are much better in the long run, as a lot of P2P apps are starting to support them, and they are a more open standard. See here: http://magnet-uri.sourceforge.net/
Shareaza takes account of this to some degree. It calculates all the various hashes and shares these with other clients on the Gnutella2 network. So if you search for some file and find a client on Gnutella2 with that file, you'll get all the various hashes for that file when you tell it to download it. Then it can search for and download that file across all the networks.
It also works with BitTorrent, to some degree. A lot of recent torrent making utilities have added support for Shareaza's method of inserting these hashes into the torrent itself (it's backwards compatible too), and using raza to download these torrents will let it search for and download from the other networks as well.
It can also do trackerless torrents, although that doesn't get a lot of use as yet. Download a torrent using raza and it'll send a search out on the G2 network for anybody else who happens to be downloading the same torrent, and they'll become BT sources for each other, no tracker needed.
However if it can keep all of my bit torrent downloads in 1 easy to manage window with universal bandwidth management it may be worth it for just that.
I like Shareaza. It's swarming across multiple networks is a cool feature. But for BT downloads, it's not quite there yet, although it has potential.
For managing multiple BT downloads, the current app I use is Azureus. Written in Java, but nonetheless a good application with a lot of features. And far, far faster at BT than Shareaza.
True, but at the same time, when it's done downloading, now you need twice as much drive space, at least temporarily, for it to copy/split the temp file into the original file.
If the DMCA notice arrives...
There's no *basis* upon which they can send a DMCA takedown notice.
A DMCA takedown notice states, under penalty of perjury that the material in question is copyright infringing material and is owned by whomever is sending the notice.
Sending a DMCA notice to someone is a legal document stating that the material you're bitching about is, in fact, owned by you or somebody you represent. If you don't in fact own that material, you just committed perjury and can be held liable for that.
If somebody were so stupid as to send SF a DMCA notice for Shareaza, which is *known* to have been entirely written by this one guy who's putting it out there (he wrote it from scratch, he should know), then they'd be liable for a pretty easy countersuit.
It won't be taken down anytime soon, methinks.
In other words, it *must* be the victims fault.
I fail to see how an organization that has gouged the public for a number of years (see that ruling against them for price-gouging and the big $10 check that got sent to anyone who bought a CD in the last XX years) can be realistically called a "victim".
Shareaza doesn't do anything illegal. Doesn't contain any copyrighted code. There's no basis for a DMCA notice. It's just a P2P application, like many others that are also on sourceforge.
Now, hopefully, someone can fix the whacked out BitTorrent implementation.
It works okay, but the way it uses the temporary files is just wonky. It downloads everything into a temporary file and then splits or copies the file when it's completed downloading. While this is fine in theory, in practice the problem is that the act of the splitting/copying is heavy on drive use, slows the whole system down, and generally is a PITA to deal with. Furthermore this makes it difficult to use other BT clients with the files, if you happen to want to use a different client in the middle of a download. You have to manually split the temp file apart using a separate tool or manually create a temporary file for Shareaza to use for the torrent.
Why it can't use the standard create the files as you go method I don't know. I think it's because he just worked the protocol into raza using the existing codebase like the temporary files.
The bill is about all the other assorted manufacturer-only codes which you don't have access to.
Every single code for every single module in the car is listed on the Part 2 specification for that module.. And those are available if you know where to look. And I'm pretty sure you could obtain those through ALLDATA, or if not them then some similar company.
I grant you, reading those Part 2 specs is like pulling teeth, but they do have pretty much everything you ever need to know about any given electronic module in the car. All the self-tests, all the lookup locations, all the codes it can throw, everything.
First off, where is the evidence that their business model is in need of improvement?
They're the ones complaining that people committing copyright infringement is hurting their revenue stream.
Here's the thing.. If you sell a product, and large numbers of people don't buy your product, then you have a failed business model. It doesn't matter why they don't buy it, or that they acquire the same material through illegal channels... The end result is simple: they're not buying what you're selling. You can't stay in business long that way.
If people are in fact buying what they're selling, then they shouldn't be complaining that people are not. They're the ones making these claims, not me. Me, I think they're full of shit and selling just fine. I think the numbers back me up on that one. I don't think copyright infringment is hurting their bottom line, I think it's possibly helping it.
But nevertheless, if they're going to complain about those evil "pirates", then they should realize that they're calling themselves failures because they can't get people to buy their shit. If people won't buy what you're selling, then you need to figure out another way to sell it.
On most of those cars, you actually program the key in yourself. Read the manual. If you lose the key and need the thing unlocked, the dealer has to call a number they have to get a computer to tell them what the master code for that VIN is.
This has started to get too expensive though, so a lot of 2000 and up radios are hooked into the car's onboard data network. At start time, they query the BCM for the VIN of the car, and check that against what they think their VIN is supposed to be. If they match, it works. This provides the same theft protection (radio don't work in another car) without having to remember/find the codes and such when the radio loses power.