Well, the wiki on my site was continually being probled with vandalism attempts by various machines around the world for the past couple of days, and it stopped dead right around the time of the power failure.
So... no prizes for guessing where the control machines for the botnet were.
I would think that using 'steal' has a better justification than using the word 'share'. The act IS illegal (whether you like it or not). I do agree that the word 'steal' has an implication that you're denying the resource to the original owner, which is not true in the case of copying.
A (possibly poor) analogy would be taking someone's car without permission, driving it around for a bit, and then returning it before the owner really needed it. The owner has not been denied a resource... perhaps he didn't even notice... but the act was still illegal. In legal terms, it was not theft, but (according to at least California law), it's called "Trespass of Chattels".
Ah... see... the problem is the mis-use of the word 'share'. People who copy like using the word 'share' for their activities because it lessens the illegal impact of their activities. "It's just sharing... and sharing can't be wrong, can it?"
The point is, they're not 'sharing'. They're copying and redistributing, and those two words certainly don't have the niceties attached to it.
"Sharing" implies you giving up your resources so someone else can use them. This is NOT what is happening with redistributing. If I put my file onto a website, I've made one copy. And doing that allows OTHERS to make copies every time it's downloaded. This is true regardless of whether you're using FTP, HTTP or BitTorrent. A copy is being made. There is noone that is 'denied' the resource just because someone else is using it, so there's no 'sharing' involved. It's just copying, plain and simple.
An example of "Sharing" would be allowing someone to borrow my (legitimately purchased) DVD to watch a show. While the person has it, I can no longer watch the show, until he gives it back. (Give it back, you bastard!:) )
So... think about that every time you see the word 'sharing' being used.
All your examples are based on 'verbal speech', so, don't QUITE fit in with the definitions I'm using above.
All your examples I would call censorship, because it is an EXTERNAL body stopping someone publishing their material on their own resources. In this case, 'their own resources' are their vocal chords.
However, if someone told me to verbally repeat something, and I refused, then I'm NOT censoring their words, I'm exercising editorial control.
Now, replace all instances of 'vocal chords' with 'web site', and the examples still hold. If it's MY website, and I do not let you publish your words using that resource, then that's editorial control. If it's YOUR website, and I stop you publishing your words using YOUR resource, then that's censorship.
When you hit a nyud.net address, the DNS gives you back a small handful of IP addresses, based on where the request came from. Unfortunately, one of those IPs, the one your browser chooses to use, is as likely of getting slashdotted as the master site is.
Umm... its not vapourware, because Apple themselves didn't announce an opening of an iTMS Australia. OTHERS did, and we all know how Apple feels about others pre-announcing stuff.
Okay, maybe it wouldn't have caught THIS dupe, then, but it would have saved many others.
Then again... the editors might not care.. people are still viewing the duped article, and therefore, people are still (mostly) looking at ads:)
Re:Seriously now, let's do something about this...
on
Nuclear Fusion Discovered
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Actually, we can make it even EASIER. All the system has to do is check the URLs in all the previous stories, and if they match, either exactly or just closely, with the URLs in the story-to-be-posted, a flag is raised that the poster has to review and confirm before the story's posted.
Umm... how does that work, since most modems (okay, most DECENT modems), needed 1 second of complete silence on either side of the +++, and you're NOT going to get that by putting it into a ping payload.
And, in addition, what also counts is how the OS supports using applications other than the one shipped with the product.
With Apple's Safari, Safari's own preferences page allows you to select a different browser as the default to handle HTML pages.
(And, while that's cool, and demonstrates how Apple aren't trying to tie everyone into their own components, I think it was a dumb way to do it: That particular setting used to be in the System Preferences. Now, you have to open safari to tell the OS that you dont want to use safari. Dumb)
Oh my goodness... I think what another posted said should really apply to you... I think YOU weren't hugged enough as a child.
Really... I've NEVER had anyone complain - except for that brief moment of confusion about where to put them - about the 2s... and I've had tons of people get a smile on their face on getting more 2s in one hit then they've seen in their entire lives.
Quite simply, it's cool. It puts a little something unusual into people's lives... makes an otherwise boring, same-old-same-old, day for these counter clerks into something to remember... at least for a few hours.
The back might have to special-order them for you, but... they were printed as recently as 2003.
I often get bands of 2s in mint-condition, sequential serial numbers and all, even though I've told the bank that they don't have to do THAT much for me:)
You need to take the computer out of the line, out of the protective carrier that it's in (either the box, or just some foam protection), plug it in, turn it on, wait for it to boot, then get to a command prompt, then run fdisk, then discover that windows doesn't let you run fdisk on the active partition, and so on. Or... perhaps have that floppy around for the one in 10,000 chance that someone doesnt want windows.
THEN... add onto that the overhead of having a customisation channel for this kind of thing.
THEN... add on the additional cost of not being able to simply use the 'number of computers shipped' as the amount of computers installed with windows. You need to either track that number separately, or have two tracking systems. It may well be that MS insists on the payback being the 'number of stickers installed' on the computers... will they accept a used sticket back as a non-install?
THEN... triple all the costs... generally, a business plays 2.5 to 3 times the employee's salary to actually hire the imployee, due to taxes, liability insurance, accounting procedures, and so on.
So, yes, an additional $100 for that kind of customisation is NOT unreasonable. Welcome to the world of mass-production. You want a cheap laptop? This is the price you have to pay for that.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the wiki on my site was continually being probled with vandalism attempts by various machines around the world for the past couple of days, and it stopped dead right around the time of the power failure.
So... no prizes for guessing where the control machines for the botnet were.
Umm... how does sending to port 80 work? Or... have you configured your mail server to accept mail on port 80... and they're only sending to you?
Agreed that 'phreaking' was likely from 'phone phreaking'. I wasn't exactly very exploratory with my complaint :)
But... 'password harvest fishing' is totally bogus.
"Password harvested fishing"??? What a crock! The 'ph' is just a 'cooler' version of an 'f'. Like 'phreaking' or 'phat'.
Someone clearly tried too figure out where the term came from, and completely missed the obvioius
I would think that using 'steal' has a better justification than using the word 'share'. The act IS illegal (whether you like it or not). I do agree that the word 'steal' has an implication that you're denying the resource to the original owner, which is not true in the case of copying.
:)
A (possibly poor) analogy would be taking someone's car without permission, driving it around for a bit, and then returning it before the owner really needed it. The owner has not been denied a resource... perhaps he didn't even notice... but the act was still illegal. In legal terms, it was not theft, but (according to at least California law), it's called "Trespass of Chattels".
Perhaps we should use that from now on?
Ah... see... the problem is the mis-use of the word 'share'. People who copy like using the word 'share' for their activities because it lessens the illegal impact of their activities. "It's just sharing... and sharing can't be wrong, can it?"
:) )
The point is, they're not 'sharing'. They're copying and redistributing, and those two words certainly don't have the niceties attached to it.
"Sharing" implies you giving up your resources so someone else can use them. This is NOT what is happening with redistributing. If I put my file onto a website, I've made one copy. And doing that allows OTHERS to make copies every time it's downloaded. This is true regardless of whether you're using FTP, HTTP or BitTorrent. A copy is being made. There is noone that is 'denied' the resource just because someone else is using it, so there's no 'sharing' involved. It's just copying, plain and simple.
An example of "Sharing" would be allowing someone to borrow my (legitimately purchased) DVD to watch a show. While the person has it, I can no longer watch the show, until he gives it back. (Give it back, you bastard!
So... think about that every time you see the word 'sharing' being used.
All your examples are based on 'verbal speech', so, don't QUITE fit in with the definitions I'm using above.
All your examples I would call censorship, because it is an EXTERNAL body stopping someone publishing their material on their own resources. In this case, 'their own resources' are their vocal chords.
However, if someone told me to verbally repeat something, and I refused, then I'm NOT censoring their words, I'm exercising editorial control.
Now, replace all instances of 'vocal chords' with 'web site', and the examples still hold. If it's MY website, and I do not let you publish your words using that resource, then that's editorial control. If it's YOUR website, and I stop you publishing your words using YOUR resource, then that's censorship.
Clear as mud now?
Skip work?! Nah... work's PAYING for the entire engineering team to go watch the movie :)
When you hit a nyud.net address, the DNS gives you back a small handful of IP addresses, based on where the request came from. Unfortunately, one of those IPs, the one your browser chooses to use, is as likely of getting slashdotted as the master site is.
And, even with that clarification, it still isn't censorship. It's "Editorial Control".
Sys-con/Linuxworld has NO obligation to publish anything Maureen, or ANYONE, writes.
Censorship would be stopping Maureen writing in ANY forum.
So, no, this isn't censorship, it's Editorial Control.
Umm... its not vapourware, because Apple themselves didn't announce an opening of an iTMS Australia. OTHERS did, and we all know how Apple feels about others pre-announcing stuff.
Oh! That would explain all the dupe articles we see!
So... are you saying... an analogy is as strong as its weakest link?? :)
Okay, maybe it wouldn't have caught THIS dupe, then, but it would have saved many others.
:)
Then again... the editors might not care.. people are still viewing the duped article, and therefore, people are still (mostly) looking at ads
Actually, we can make it even EASIER. All the system has to do is check the URLs in all the previous stories, and if they match, either exactly or just closely, with the URLs in the story-to-be-posted, a flag is raised that the poster has to review and confirm before the story's posted.
Doofus.
127/8 is shorthand for 127.0.0.0/255.0.0.0
Ie, the '/8' means 8 '1 bits' in the netmask.
Compare with 192.168.0.0/24, for example.
Umm... how does that work, since most modems (okay, most DECENT modems), needed 1 second of complete silence on either side of the +++, and you're NOT going to get that by putting it into a ping payload.
Yep... if they DID read slashdot, we wouldn't see so many dupes... especially ones within 2 days of the original article :)
The WTO was the successor to the GATT, both were created by the UN, not the USA.
Yes, it's trivial.
And, in addition, what also counts is how the OS supports using applications other than the one shipped with the product.
With Apple's Safari, Safari's own preferences page allows you to select a different browser as the default to handle HTML pages.
(And, while that's cool, and demonstrates how Apple aren't trying to tie everyone into their own components, I think it was a dumb way to do it: That particular setting used to be in the System Preferences. Now, you have to open safari to tell the OS that you dont want to use safari. Dumb)
This is the internet that is included in Bush's infamous "internets" speech :)
Haha... my bad, he really WAS referring to you :)
Oh my goodness... I think what another posted said should really apply to you... I think YOU weren't hugged enough as a child.
Really... I've NEVER had anyone complain - except for that brief moment of confusion about where to put them - about the 2s... and I've had tons of people get a smile on their face on getting more 2s in one hit then they've seen in their entire lives.
Quite simply, it's cool. It puts a little something unusual into people's lives... makes an otherwise boring, same-old-same-old, day for these counter clerks into something to remember... at least for a few hours.
The back might have to special-order them for you, but... they were printed as recently as 2003.
:)
I often get bands of 2s in mint-condition, sequential serial numbers and all, even though I've told the bank that they don't have to do THAT much for me
Yes. It's expensive.
You need to take the computer out of the line, out of the protective carrier that it's in (either the box, or just some foam protection), plug it in, turn it on, wait for it to boot, then get to a command prompt, then run fdisk, then discover that windows doesn't let you run fdisk on the active partition, and so on. Or... perhaps have that floppy around for the one in 10,000 chance that someone doesnt want windows.
THEN... add onto that the overhead of having a customisation channel for this kind of thing.
THEN... add on the additional cost of not being able to simply use the 'number of computers shipped' as the amount of computers installed with windows. You need to either track that number separately, or have two tracking systems. It may well be that MS insists on the payback being the 'number of stickers installed' on the computers... will they accept a used sticket back as a non-install?
THEN... triple all the costs... generally, a business plays 2.5 to 3 times the employee's salary to actually hire the imployee, due to taxes, liability insurance, accounting procedures, and so on.
So, yes, an additional $100 for that kind of customisation is NOT unreasonable. Welcome to the world of mass-production. You want a cheap laptop? This is the price you have to pay for that.