... and as such, it has its uses, both good and bad. In and of itself, it should NOT be made illegal. Only illegal or criminal USES of portscanning should be made illegal.
Example:
I walk into my local computer repair shop. I'm casually looking around, and I notice that they have a security camera, and what appears to be a motion detector. I don't know about you, but seeing that kind of equipment sure makes me feel better about leaving my computer there. What I've just done isn't in any way, shape, or form, illegal.
Now, suppose that a criminal does the same thing; he goes in, scopes that there's a security cam and a motion detector. He makes notes of these, and later that night, comes back, and FOREWARNED about your security measures, breaks into the store, bypasses them (we'll assume he's a clever criminal), and makes off with the goods. What he's done is illegal.
Gaining the knowledge ISN'T illegal! Using it for illegal purposes IS! THIS is what so many people miss when they talk about outlawing portscanning.
ALL, one would presume, that run under Windows XP. Even if MS makes XP hostile towards other browsers (do they dare, after the IE fiasco?), there's always, well, the Penguin.
You know, the one that said the same thing about everything you posted to your Yahoo! homepage?
I may be wrong, but I think they rewrote it to say clarify that it only referred to spanning your page over multiple servers.
In any event, this doesn't worry me in particular. Why? Because, don't you essentially grant those rights to everyone when you make a posting to UseNet? It's a public channel of communication, dude! And in this case, you're using Google's resources to accomplish it!
The fact that they're offering a method to remove/dissalow archiving in the first place seems to me a very good indicator that Google is playing as fair as it can under the circumstances. And if, in the end, you still don't like it, go use your ISP's newsserver.
I have one of those Olympus digital cams with the smartmedia cards, and a PCMCIA adapter... the card shows up just like any other drive. So technically, you could dump some mp3s on the card, and stuff it back in the cam. The cam couldn't read them, all it could see would be the pictures. Granted, you might have to have a pretty large set of the smartmedia cards (they're only 64mb in size, I think), but still... yet another cool way to screw the Man.
Akardam Out
There's one console that it WON'T extinct...
on
Gamecube In Danger?
·
· Score: 1
Instead of investing billions of dollars tracking down all those "illegal" druggies, let's do something a bit more creative with out money.
Legalize drugs. Every stinkin' one of them. Categorize, classify them (Which the government is good at, no?) Get together a convention of UNBIASED scientists and rate them all. Find out how much at what intervals is safe.
THEN start ladling it out. Make it so that you have to be a registered druggie. That way, you get your weekly fix, and if you start to abuse it, or if you start to fuck up because of the use, the already know where you are! Bob Q. Public, 714 Evergreen Terrace, Springfield, USA: Hasn't shown up for work in three days. Registered coke user. Hmm, we have his address, we know he's a licensed drug user, he hasn't shown up for work in three days! Let's go find him, and if he's OD'd or something, he gets a restriction on his license, or gets it suspended until he's gone through rehab.
Sound familiar? Kinda like driving. And I know from personal experience that a bad driver is just as, if not more, dangerous than a bad drug user!
And surely, for the bean counters out there, this couldn't cost much more than the war on drugs?
Now if only we could get over our ingrained predjucises about these bad, BAD drugs.
This sounds like a troll, but I'll bite. And just so you know, I don't believe in god.
You should see the elk on the Thomales peninsula in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. They're constantly "coveting" any number of their neighbor's "wives" (female elk).
Why is it only humans care? Why did god not give the animals a sense of morals, a sense of ethics? Why is polygamy so common in the animal kingdom, but shunned by homo sapiens?
... 'cause if I pop down the grey plastic door on my G4's CD-ROM, I see that it's pretty much a generic Toshiba unit, with, lo and behold, an analog audio output right there on the front.
And, if worse comes to worse, I can play it via the player, disable all system sounds, and record what comes out of the speaker port.
What you are describing is the complete erasure, if you will, of all hardware and digital media.
What about this? *holds up his "Programming Perl" book*
As much as today is a computerized world, we have thousands and thousands of dead tree publications around the world describing the silicon technology of the past decades. IF what you describe were to happen, would we redesign everything? I think not. We'd just go down to the good ol' RFC repository, dig out the good ol' Intel chip references, and quickly climb our way back up the tech ladder. We wouldn't HAVE to start from the ground up, except in manufacturing. Ok, so we might end up with more efficent manufacturing.
You have to remember that people are lazy. Some might go about designing better systems, but most will just turn to the books, the knowledge in their head, and rebuild. You'd have to wipe every engineer's, every programer's, mind, and every book on the topic on the face of the earth, clean, to truly have an effect such as you speak of.
You'd be the same as a regular customer, but you'd be earning the credit towards putting ads up in a different way - not just dollars and cents.
If that's the case, have you discussed what those different ways might be? Things that occur right off the top of my head are, for example, prime ad placing. But that argues some sort of ad targeting regime. I could be missing something, but it seems to my (insert "soggy, only 6:30am brain") can't find any other way that it could work.
If the "upload your own ad" thing does go through, how do you anticipate handling that? You've indicated that it might possibly be in reward for ad karma gained (if THAT goes into effect). What I'm curious about is, given the competitiveness in the ad market at present, how could you justify loading the ad que with banners who's owners paid nothing to have them there? And if you've instead decided to charge them for the privilidge, how is this a reward, and how does it differ from being a regular, paying, ad customer?
Like the ad that shows up when you search for VA Linux [http://www.google.com/search?q=VA+Linux for the goat wary]. Personally, I have to say I click on those ads far more than I do other banner ads. They're just so... simple! So... Googlish!
I explicitly told them that I was going to be placing a firewall and several PC's behind it, and I explicitly told them that if they didn't like that I'd take my business elsewhere. Of course, the had no problem, so all was good. It's a shame you don't find more ISP's like that these days. Of course, I am paying 100/mo for my DSL, but I'm happy to.
But if you're using something like the Sonicwall SOHO firewall that you can set to drop ICMP packets, they might be a little suspicious if they try and ping you, and get no response, whilst all the while the data keepeth flowing.
That and if they track 170 hits to Yahoo! at once, someone at the NOC might be scratching his head saying, "There's something not quite right with this picture".:)
Ten years from now, everybody's going to be running around their houses at ten to seven, with a little tricorder looking thing, searching for their keys. Of course, what happens if you loose the tricorder thingy?:)
... precisely because this standards body has no way to enforce this.
On the other hand, server-side methods of the likes of Perl, PHP, and others, are making it very easy to deliver solid, cross-browser compliant code without having to resort to JavaScript gimmicks. And who needs DHTML anyways? And what about text-only browsers like Lynx? Should we simply forget about them, too? I pride myself, as a web designer, in developing sites that look good AND operate correctly on all browsers, regardless of how advanced they are.
These feeds are unmoderated, the same as radio and TV signals through the air.
Again, true. But the ISP was, if you will, "capturing" these signals and re-broadcasting them to the local populace (its subscribers). Now, from the press release, I gather that the local "populace" and local authorities requested that they stop "re-broadcasting" the signal. Obviously, they don't have the authority to request that Spring (possibly an out-of-state concern, though I don't know for sure) to stop, but I don't see that they're in the wrong for asking someone within their juristiction to stop.
When someone sends illegal material through the U.S. Mail, they don't arrest the people in the Post Office.
Well, no, but I doubt that the US Postal Service would have willingly continued to deliver mail like that had it recieved a request from a customer or a law enforcement agency to discontinue... as a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure that it's against USPS regulations to knowingly deliver illegal material.
The company admitted that it failed to take action when it was notified by a customer as well as by law enforcement that one of the newsgroups it carried was being used to distribute graphic child pornography.
This seems to me to be a clear cut case of the ISP not acting responsibly. Since this is a usenet newsgroup, and not a communications structure hosted soley by the ISP, I can't see that the ISP would have been morally wrong on any level had it immediately complied with the law enforcement request. There's no question of censorship here; if the persons who subscribed to that ISP and to that newsgroup found the ISP had discontinued carrying that specific newsgroup, they could have simply used another server! An ISP's newsgroup server is not the end all and be all of newsgroups, and I think that's something that needs to be remembered here. Keep in mind that just as some may argue that ISP's are not responsible for the content they carry, they are not required to carry that content in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
... and as such, it has its uses, both good and bad. In and of itself, it should NOT be made illegal. Only illegal or criminal USES of portscanning should be made illegal.
Example:
I walk into my local computer repair shop. I'm casually looking around, and I notice that they have a security camera, and what appears to be a motion detector. I don't know about you, but seeing that kind of equipment sure makes me feel better about leaving my computer there. What I've just done isn't in any way, shape, or form, illegal.
Now, suppose that a criminal does the same thing; he goes in, scopes that there's a security cam and a motion detector. He makes notes of these, and later that night, comes back, and FOREWARNED about your security measures, breaks into the store, bypasses them (we'll assume he's a clever criminal), and makes off with the goods. What he's done is illegal.
Gaining the knowledge ISN'T illegal! Using it for illegal purposes IS! THIS is what so many people miss when they talk about outlawing portscanning.
... Netscape,
... Mozilla,
... Opera,
ALL, one would presume, that run under Windows XP. Even if MS makes XP hostile towards other browsers (do they dare, after the IE fiasco?), there's always, well, the Penguin.
Akardam Out
... if I had them.
:)
*apoligetic grin*
My company's privately owned
Playstation 1, or Playstation 2?
You know, the one that said the same thing about everything you posted to your Yahoo! homepage?
I may be wrong, but I think they rewrote it to say clarify that it only referred to spanning your page over multiple servers.
In any event, this doesn't worry me in particular. Why? Because, don't you essentially grant those rights to everyone when you make a posting to UseNet? It's a public channel of communication, dude! And in this case, you're using Google's resources to accomplish it!
The fact that they're offering a method to remove/dissalow archiving in the first place seems to me a very good indicator that Google is playing as fair as it can under the circumstances. And if, in the end, you still don't like it, go use your ISP's newsserver.
I have one of those Olympus digital cams with the smartmedia cards, and a PCMCIA adapter... the card shows up just like any other drive. So technically, you could dump some mp3s on the card, and stuff it back in the cam. The cam couldn't read them, all it could see would be the pictures. Granted, you might have to have a pretty large set of the smartmedia cards (they're only 64mb in size, I think), but still... yet another cool way to screw the Man.
Akardam Out
[root@localhost /root]# _
No, the war on drugs DOESN'T make sense.
Instead of investing billions of dollars tracking down all those "illegal" druggies, let's do something a bit more creative with out money.
Legalize drugs. Every stinkin' one of them. Categorize, classify them (Which the government is good at, no?) Get together a convention of UNBIASED scientists and rate them all. Find out how much at what intervals is safe.
THEN start ladling it out. Make it so that you have to be a registered druggie. That way, you get your weekly fix, and if you start to abuse it, or if you start to fuck up because of the use, the already know where you are! Bob Q. Public, 714 Evergreen Terrace, Springfield, USA: Hasn't shown up for work in three days. Registered coke user. Hmm, we have his address, we know he's a licensed drug user, he hasn't shown up for work in three days! Let's go find him, and if he's OD'd or something, he gets a restriction on his license, or gets it suspended until he's gone through rehab.
Sound familiar? Kinda like driving. And I know from personal experience that a bad driver is just as, if not more, dangerous than a bad drug user!
And surely, for the bean counters out there, this couldn't cost much more than the war on drugs?
Now if only we could get over our ingrained predjucises about these bad, BAD drugs.
Akardam Out
Sure, it defaults to women, but, I mean, this was a bunch of young male geeks. What did you expect, Pink Elephants?
This sounds like a troll, but I'll bite. And just so you know, I don't believe in god.
You should see the elk on the Thomales peninsula in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. They're constantly "coveting" any number of their neighbor's "wives" (female elk).
Why is it only humans care? Why did god not give the animals a sense of morals, a sense of ethics? Why is polygamy so common in the animal kingdom, but shunned by homo sapiens?
I just don't get it.
At home, I have 1.5mb down/384k up (COVAD/LMI) for ~ USD80/mo.
At work, I have 1.5mb down/128k up (PacBell/PacBell) for ~ USD40/mo.
I'm happy to pay the extra USD40/mo for my home connection, because its so much more reliable.
... 'cause if I pop down the grey plastic door on my G4's CD-ROM, I see that it's pretty much a generic Toshiba unit, with, lo and behold, an analog audio output right there on the front.
And, if worse comes to worse, I can play it via the player, disable all system sounds, and record what comes out of the speaker port.
Parse that, you old bugger!
What you are describing is the complete erasure, if you will, of all hardware and digital media.
What about this? *holds up his "Programming Perl" book*
As much as today is a computerized world, we have thousands and thousands of dead tree publications around the world describing the silicon technology of the past decades. IF what you describe were to happen, would we redesign everything? I think not. We'd just go down to the good ol' RFC repository, dig out the good ol' Intel chip references, and quickly climb our way back up the tech ladder. We wouldn't HAVE to start from the ground up, except in manufacturing. Ok, so we might end up with more efficent manufacturing.
You have to remember that people are lazy. Some might go about designing better systems, but most will just turn to the books, the knowledge in their head, and rebuild. You'd have to wipe every engineer's, every programer's, mind, and every book on the topic on the face of the earth, clean, to truly have an effect such as you speak of.
Akardam Out
[root@world root] reboot
Message from root on tty1:
Warning! World going down for reboot NOW!
You'd be the same as a regular customer, but you'd be earning the credit towards putting ads up in a different way - not just dollars and cents.
If that's the case, have you discussed what those different ways might be? Things that occur right off the top of my head are, for example, prime ad placing. But that argues some sort of ad targeting regime. I could be missing something, but it seems to my (insert "soggy, only 6:30am brain") can't find any other way that it could work.
Akardam Out
Dear Mr. Grey,
If the "upload your own ad" thing does go through, how do you anticipate handling that? You've indicated that it might possibly be in reward for ad karma gained (if THAT goes into effect). What I'm curious about is, given the competitiveness in the ad market at present, how could you justify loading the ad que with banners who's owners paid nothing to have them there? And if you've instead decided to charge them for the privilidge, how is this a reward, and how does it differ from being a regular, paying, ad customer?
Respectfully yours,
Akardam
Like the ad that shows up when you search for VA Linux [http://www.google.com/search?q=VA+Linux for the goat wary]. Personally, I have to say I click on those ads far more than I do other banner ads. They're just so... simple! So... Googlish!
Akardam Out
I explicitly told them that I was going to be placing a firewall and several PC's behind it, and I explicitly told them that if they didn't like that I'd take my business elsewhere. Of course, the had no problem, so all was good. It's a shame you don't find more ISP's like that these days. Of course, I am paying 100/mo for my DSL, but I'm happy to.
But if you're using something like the Sonicwall SOHO firewall that you can set to drop ICMP packets, they might be a little suspicious if they try and ping you, and get no response, whilst all the while the data keepeth flowing.
:)
That and if they track 170 hits to Yahoo! at once, someone at the NOC might be scratching his head saying, "There's something not quite right with this picture".
Akardam Out
Ten years from now, everybody's going to be running around their houses at ten to seven, with a little tricorder looking thing, searching for their keys. Of course, what happens if you loose the tricorder thingy? :)
... precisely because this standards body has no way to enforce this.
On the other hand, server-side methods of the likes of Perl, PHP, and others, are making it very easy to deliver solid, cross-browser compliant code without having to resort to JavaScript gimmicks. And who needs DHTML anyways? And what about text-only browsers like Lynx? Should we simply forget about them, too? I pride myself, as a web designer, in developing sites that look good AND operate correctly on all browsers, regardless of how advanced they are.
These feeds are unmoderated, the same as radio and TV signals through the air.
Again, true. But the ISP was, if you will, "capturing" these signals and re-broadcasting them to the local populace (its subscribers). Now, from the press release, I gather that the local "populace" and local authorities requested that they stop "re-broadcasting" the signal. Obviously, they don't have the authority to request that Spring (possibly an out-of-state concern, though I don't know for sure) to stop, but I don't see that they're in the wrong for asking someone within their juristiction to stop.
When someone sends illegal material through the U.S. Mail, they don't arrest the people in the Post Office.
Well, no, but I doubt that the US Postal Service would have willingly continued to deliver mail like that had it recieved a request from a customer or a law enforcement agency to discontinue... as a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure that it's against USPS regulations to knowingly deliver illegal material.