Uhh... If they spoofed the address, they couldn't really download the file, now could they?
They HAVE to give the correct address, so they can establish a session to tie up the connections. This isn't really DoS, they want to clog up connections by downloading, but R-E-A-L-L-Y S-L-O-W-L-Y.
..or even create RIAA Honeypots. Machines that will act like they have all of the hotest songs, and unlimited connections. Bog the RIAA machines down by trying to download 1000's of songs off a Honeypot server, and let the server throttle down the RIAA machine even slower then it's trying to get the songs.
A couple of these could probably eat up the RIAA machine resources. A RIAA tarpit.
Long distance service is much, much cheaper than before de-regulation. In the 1970's, it cost nearly $1/minute, so the cost has gone down nearly 10 times even though the $ is worth much less than it was. This reflects both cut-throat competition and technological advances (fiber instead of copper).
Local service has gone up, perhaps with inflation, perhaps more than that. No competition, and no real technological advances since digital switching went in about 30 years ago. Hook-up charges are even more outrageous; in most cases, the house is already wired and all they have to do is tell the computer to turn the line on, but they'll charge a $70 "service call".
It's also a well known fact that the telco (AT&T) operated local service at a loss, becuase they had the expensive LD service @ 1$/Minute to cover the cost. And, they were more then willing to sell service at a loss, becuase the cheap local service was the gateway to the expensive LD. (Same mindset as cheap basic local cable service, but premium channels are where they make the money.)
The biggest joke on the American public was that now LD is cheaper, but local service is more expensive. Any the local telco companies have the most expensive part of the whole network to maintain: The last mile of coppper/fiber, and the local switching.
It's easy to build redundancy into LD networks, but figure on adding reduancy to 100,000+ telco offices across the US, and add into that 3 shifts manned in each office, and the cost is astronomical.
Firstly, @home never allowed servers, I've NEVER seen a TOS that allowed servers. So, complaining that they stopped you from doing what you were never suppoed to be doing is a weak point.
Secondly, @home did NOT block port 80. You local company blocked it. Place the blame in the correct place. 90% of all complaints I see about @home tend to be things controled by the local cable company.
So, your choice is to either fatten the parasitic automotive "industry", or to fatten YOUR pocketbook AND lifespan.
Unless you live in Detroit, where the parasitic automotive "industry" is our bread and butter, and you better realize that, or you won't be fattening your pocketbook.
Of course, buying cars at $5K below the sticker price really sucks too..
There is very good reason to know, and teach, the class structure. Just becuase CIDR is now commonly used, doesn't mean that all routing protocols in use are classless. There are 1000's of networks out there using clsssful routing protocols, and thus, it is important to know how these are used. After all, just becuase you are running RIP with a Class A network, doesn't mean that you are useing a public Class A network. There are 1000's of 10. networks out there, and many of them are using classful routing protocols.
There are way too many network engineers out there that don't understand the class structure, and how it effects summarization. Making a blanket statment that this is history, and no longer needed, is pure rubbish.
But, I did admit to being an a$$hole, and you can't even admit to that. But, then again, who would care if you admit to it, becuase you're hiding behind being an AC.
What bothers me most about this is not the lack of accuracy in the headlines, but people like you are being held hostage and forced to read/.
Imagine how much happier you would be if you had the freedom not to have to read this site, and you were allowed to choose where you gathered your news.
I know at least you be free to do more reading, becuase you wouldn't be wasting time you could use reading other sites complaning about this one.
That's right, that oem copy of Win98 is legally valid only for the original pile of parts that it was purchased with. Even if you kept the same old "GeeWhiz 2000" case, with its serial number, because you installed a new "system" into it, it is now in the eyes of MS, the SPA, and whatever other gestapo,... a different "computer", and hence illegal upon which to install that oem copy of Windows that came with the original PC.
So, at what 'legal' point are you no longer running the orignal PC, but a new PC? If you just upgrade the CPU, is it still the same PC? How about the MB, the HD? If these occur in steps months apart? When is it a new PC?
I had a PC that over 4 years, upgraded and transformed dozens of times. Came to a point that the floppy drive was the only truely orignal component. But, I still considered it the same PC, especially since the parts never became a single 2nd computer, but migrated in chunks to various other computers.
You bought the copy, you get to run it on ONE computer.
Then again, if they cannot get you to stop linking to a link, then that would be the answer. Everyone create a link on thier page that links to a search engine query on the DeCSS source code.
It wouldn't just be a link to a link, but a link to hundreds of links.
-knick
..where there's a will, there's a loophole..
This did not work as the LinkSys would not connect to the ethernet card on the Linux box. Maybe it needs a crossover cable when going into a hub?
Exactly. Since the cable modem/DSL modem expects to connect to a NIC, it acts like a hub. Since LinkSys expects to be connect to a Modem, it acts like a NIC. When you connected it to a NIC, it wouldn't work. Using a x-over cable will fix your woes.
BTW, it's a 4-port 10/100 Switch. Thats almost worth the $150 right there.
--kNick
DeBeers controls all of the diamond market in the world. The only country that they cannot sell in is the US. So, they just sell diamond Middlemen companies, who the do the actualy wholesaling in the US. But, remember this, every diamond was sold through DeBeers before it entered into the US. US Goverment cannot stop this without banning diamond sales in the US, which would last about 10 minutes.
DeBeers gives up a little bit of the profit they would make to keep the market, but they more then make up for that by having the rest of the world as an exclusive market.
>Oh.. on another note.. this doesn't save them >from the US courts at all. I mean, the US courts >can just as easily forbid the import of MS >stuff.
Oh, and that would make the average consumer just pleased as punch, becuase that would OBVIOUSLY make thier lives much better.
Remember, to appear rational, you must remember that this is for the benefit of the consumer, not just becuase it would be neat to destroy MS. Once you start worrying about MS more then the consumer, you are just another anti-MS zelot, and everything you say is just 'the nonsensical ravings of a lunatic mind.'
They would only be able to put restrictions on the sale of the product. You are exactly right there.
Right now, they have the ability to punish the company, but not the consumer (so they say, but that's another discussion altogether). But, if they started imposing rescrictions on the products they allowed MS to import, that would mainly affect the consumer. They would started to affect what products, and the prices, and the quanilty, that the consumer could get, and THAT would not sit well with Joe Consumer.
"What do you mean that the goverment said I cannot purchase W98 anymore. Screw them, I'm ordering from Canadian site"
No doubt, this would not bode will for the goverment if it actually happened (which I highly doubt it would, but if MS was smart, they would 'consider' the idea, just to make the goverment sweat)
Of course, you are ASSUMING that a story moderations system would A) eliminate redundant stories (which it wouldn't, anybody who didn't see/doesn't remember the first posting could still vote it up) B) Put only INTERESTING stories up (all of these were found interesting to someone, becuase they were sumbitted) and C) Stuff that they submitted would finally get posted (again, assuming that others would find what they post intersting, thus OF COURSE it would be moderated up. It's an ego thing)
Moderation isn't a solution to a problem, it's a replacing of a problem with another, uglier problem. And, since Rob/Hemos/Etc RUN the board, they have the power/right to decide how to run it. So, realize that, realize that they don't want story moderation, and quit whining about it over and over and over. Talk about repeatition.
Before this day, many people had no idea about who was behind this piece of software that affect thier lifes so much. And now, they here this story, and they do, and thier only connection to them was that software.
But today, after hearing this, they suddenly realize that there was a human behind this, which is rare in the age of teams of programmers and corperations creating software. A man that was suffering though personal deamons for many years, and they used his software, totally unaware of the hell that the creator was living through.
Now he's dead, and in a totally horrible fashion. They realize with a twinge of guilt, that they never gave this person a moments thought before this, and maybe even, that the software that they value so much, that software that was the connection to this man, was a source of the problems that pushed this man into the hole he died in. Only a inhuman monster would blow it off without a moment to sit and think about the man who affected thier lifes so much, but never gave him a moment of thought over the almost decade of time.
So let people morn a bit about his death. Maybe in the future, we will think about the people behind the software just a bit more.
As for you, I can't decide if you are a bit worse, or a bit better, then the trolls who just blow this story off wit just a "Who Cares.."
A) I know it's Precedent, I'm just replying to someone who didn't know...
B) I have no argument that they can have a major effect on the business, but they cannot do anything legally to the company proper.
I see your point, but in the eyes of a company that is willing to accept and work with anything othern the a breakup, the EU is not as much of a threat...
Say what you want, but I would think the effects of breaaking up a company are quite distinguisable from putting limits on the company. This industry is changing fast enought that limits put on today will me nothing 5-10 years from now.
Very nice. You editted out half my comment, then agreed with my complete comment.
Imposing conditions upon the ability to continue to do business is NOT doing something to the company itself, just as I said.
Breaking up the company, removing key business people, putting restrictions on the core company, that's things that affect the company itself, and not within the legal power of the EU to do.
Just as the DOJ could not break up a British company, but they could put restrictions on thier practices in the US.
Next time you disagree with me, make sure it makes sense.
Ahh, the EU could impose restrictions and regulations as to how MS deals in Europe, but the could not do anything to the company itself. They have no legal power over an Americian company.
Really, if you read alot of the articles put out about the settlement talks breaking down, I think the biggest blame about that can be put on the State Attorny Generals. Seems the me that it was said in so many words that their almost 'meddling' in the case at this point, and I think that both the DOJ and Microsoft are glad to get back into the courts, where they have less say in the matter.
I bet if the states weren't involved, they would have settled. Too many cooks, sorta thing. They are going to be the biggest problem that the DOJ has to deal with, states thinking that it didn't work out the way THEY thing it should have.
Slashdot Mirror
Uhh... If they spoofed the address, they couldn't really download the file, now could they?
They HAVE to give the correct address, so they can establish a session to tie up the connections. This isn't really DoS, they want to clog up connections by downloading, but R-E-A-L-L-Y S-L-O-W-L-Y.
--knick
..or even create RIAA Honeypots. Machines that will act like they have all of the hotest songs, and unlimited connections. Bog the RIAA machines down by trying to download 1000's of songs off a Honeypot server, and let the server throttle down the RIAA machine even slower then it's trying to get the songs.
A couple of these could probably eat up the RIAA machine resources. A RIAA tarpit.
--knick
Long distance service is much, much cheaper than before de-regulation. In the 1970's, it cost nearly $1/minute, so the cost has gone down nearly 10 times even though the $ is worth much less than it was. This reflects both cut-throat competition and technological advances (fiber instead of copper).
Local service has gone up, perhaps with inflation, perhaps more than that. No competition, and no real technological advances since digital switching went in about 30 years ago. Hook-up charges are even more outrageous; in most cases, the house is already wired and all they have to do is tell the computer to turn the line on, but they'll charge a $70 "service call".
It's also a well known fact that the telco (AT&T) operated local service at a loss, becuase they had the expensive LD service @ 1$/Minute to cover the cost. And, they were more then willing to sell service at a loss, becuase the cheap local service was the gateway to the expensive LD. (Same mindset as cheap basic local cable service, but premium channels are where they make the money.)
The biggest joke on the American public was that now LD is cheaper, but local service is more expensive. Any the local telco companies have the most expensive part of the whole network to maintain: The last mile of coppper/fiber, and the local switching.
It's easy to build redundancy into LD networks, but figure on adding reduancy to 100,000+ telco offices across the US, and add into that 3 shifts manned in each office, and the cost is astronomical.
--knick
Firstly, @home never allowed servers, I've NEVER seen a TOS that allowed servers. So, complaining that they stopped you from doing what you were never suppoed to be doing is a weak point.
Secondly, @home did NOT block port 80. You local company blocked it. Place the blame in the correct place. 90% of all complaints I see about @home tend to be things controled by the local cable company.
--knick
Unless you live in Detroit, where the parasitic automotive "industry" is our bread and butter, and you better realize that, or you won't be fattening your pocketbook.
Of course, buying cars at $5K below the sticker price really sucks too..
--knick
There is very good reason to know, and teach, the class structure. Just becuase CIDR is now commonly used, doesn't mean that all routing protocols in use are classless. There are 1000's of networks out there using clsssful routing protocols, and thus, it is important to know how these are used. After all, just becuase you are running RIP with a Class A network, doesn't mean that you are useing a public Class A network. There are 1000's of 10. networks out there, and many of them are using classful routing protocols.
There are way too many network engineers out there that don't understand the class structure, and how it effects summarization. Making a blanket statment that this is history, and no longer needed, is pure rubbish.
--knick
Nope, I didn't admit to that either.
But, I did admit to being an a$$hole, and you can't even admit to that. But, then again, who would care if you admit to it, becuase you're hiding behind being an AC.
--knick
Comments which have been thoughtfully written and given a 5-second review are the ones which I take more seriously.
A 6-second review would have let you notice you lack of commas.
Comments, which have been thoughtfully written and given a 5-second review, are the ones which I take more seriously.
Based on your own rules, I am ignoring the rest of your message.
--knick
I work there too, and rinky-dink comes to my mind everyday.. ;)
--knick
What bothers me most about this is not the lack of accuracy in the headlines, but people like you are being held hostage and forced to read /.
Imagine how much happier you would be if you had the freedom not to have to read this site, and you were allowed to choose where you gathered your news.
I know at least you be free to do more reading, becuase you wouldn't be wasting time you could use reading other sites complaning about this one.
--knick
And that's why beer is better in Europe...
--knick
Right from the webpage:
500 Mhz Celeron
64 MB RAM
6 GB Hard Drive
12.1" display
CD ROM
External USB Floppy Drive
Built in Ethernet and Modem
Typical MTU student..(snicker)
--knick
So, at what 'legal' point are you no longer running the orignal PC, but a new PC? If you just upgrade the CPU, is it still the same PC? How about the MB, the HD? If these occur in steps months apart? When is it a new PC? I had a PC that over 4 years, upgraded and transformed dozens of times. Came to a point that the floppy drive was the only truely orignal component. But, I still considered it the same PC, especially since the parts never became a single 2nd computer, but migrated in chunks to various other computers.
You bought the copy, you get to run it on ONE computer.
--knick
Then again, if they cannot get you to stop linking to a link, then that would be the answer. Everyone create a link on thier page that links to a search engine query on the DeCSS source code.
It wouldn't just be a link to a link, but a link to hundreds of links.
-knick
..where there's a will, there's a loophole..
Exactly. Since the cable modem/DSL modem expects to connect to a NIC, it acts like a hub. Since LinkSys expects to be connect to a Modem, it acts like a NIC. When you connected it to a NIC, it wouldn't work. Using a x-over cable will fix your woes. BTW, it's a 4-port 10/100 Switch. Thats almost worth the $150 right there. --kNick
DeBeers controls all of the diamond market in the world. The only country that they cannot sell in is the US. So, they just sell diamond Middlemen companies, who the do the actualy wholesaling in the US. But, remember this, every diamond was sold through DeBeers before it entered into the US. US Goverment cannot stop this without banning diamond sales in the US, which would last about 10 minutes.
DeBeers gives up a little bit of the profit they would make to keep the market, but they more then make up for that by having the rest of the world as an exclusive market.
In the end, the US accomplishes nothing. Again.
--knick
>Oh.. on another note.. this doesn't save them >from the US courts at all. I mean, the US courts >can just as easily forbid the import of MS >stuff.
Oh, and that would make the average consumer just pleased as punch, becuase that would OBVIOUSLY make thier lives much better.
Remember, to appear rational, you must remember that this is for the benefit of the consumer, not just becuase it would be neat to destroy MS. Once you start worrying about MS more then the consumer, you are just another anti-MS zelot, and everything you say is just 'the nonsensical ravings of a lunatic mind.'
--knick
They would only be able to put restrictions on the sale of the product. You are exactly right there.
Right now, they have the ability to punish the company, but not the consumer (so they say, but that's another discussion altogether). But, if they started imposing rescrictions on the products they allowed MS to import, that would mainly affect the consumer. They would started to affect what products, and the prices, and the quanilty, that the consumer could get, and THAT would not sit well with Joe Consumer.
"What do you mean that the goverment said I cannot purchase W98 anymore. Screw them, I'm ordering from Canadian site"
No doubt, this would not bode will for the goverment if it actually happened (which I highly doubt it would, but if MS was smart, they would 'consider' the idea, just to make the goverment sweat)
--knick
Of course, you are ASSUMING that a story moderations system would A) eliminate redundant stories (which it wouldn't, anybody who didn't see/doesn't remember the first posting could still vote it up) B) Put only INTERESTING stories up (all of these were found interesting to someone, becuase they were sumbitted) and C) Stuff that they submitted would finally get posted (again, assuming that others would find what they post intersting, thus OF COURSE it would be moderated up. It's an ego thing)
Moderation isn't a solution to a problem, it's a replacing of a problem with another, uglier problem. And, since Rob/Hemos/Etc RUN the board, they have the power/right to decide how to run it. So, realize that, realize that they don't want story moderation, and quit whining about it over and over and over. Talk about repeatition.
--knick
Your right, and your wrong.
Before this day, many people had no idea about who was behind this piece of software that affect thier lifes so much. And now, they here this story, and they do, and thier only connection to them was that software.
But today, after hearing this, they suddenly realize that there was a human behind this, which is rare in the age of teams of programmers and corperations creating software. A man that was suffering though personal deamons for many years, and they used his software, totally unaware of the hell that the creator was living through.
Now he's dead, and in a totally horrible fashion. They realize with a twinge of guilt, that they never gave this person a moments thought before this, and maybe even, that the software that they value so much, that software that was the connection to this man, was a source of the problems that pushed this man into the hole he died in. Only a inhuman monster would blow it off without a moment to sit and think about the man who affected thier lifes so much, but never gave him a moment of thought over the almost decade of time.
So let people morn a bit about his death. Maybe in the future, we will think about the people behind the software just a bit more.
As for you, I can't decide if you are a bit worse, or a bit better, then the trolls who just blow this story off wit just a "Who Cares.."
A) I know it's Precedent, I'm just replying to someone who didn't know...
B) I have no argument that they can have a major effect on the business, but they cannot do anything legally to the company proper.
I see your point, but in the eyes of a company that is willing to accept and work with anything othern the a breakup, the EU is not as much of a threat...
Say what you want, but I would think the effects of breaaking up a company are quite distinguisable from putting limits on the company. This industry is changing fast enought that limits put on today will me nothing 5-10 years from now.
Very nice. You editted out half my comment, then agreed with my complete comment.
Imposing conditions upon the ability to continue to do business is NOT doing something to the company itself, just as I said.
Breaking up the company, removing key business people, putting restrictions on the core company, that's things that affect the company itself, and not within the legal power of the EU to do.
Just as the DOJ could not break up a British company, but they could put restrictions on thier practices in the US.
Next time you disagree with me, make sure it makes sense.
Must be a pretty cool trick, seeing that in the Ford Taruas, the heating/cooling/radio panel is intragrated, and the actualy radio is in the trunk.
Nobody makes replacement OEM radios for them..
Ahh, the EU could impose restrictions and regulations as to how MS deals in Europe, but the could not do anything to the company itself. They have no legal power over an Americian company.
--knick
Really, if you read alot of the articles put out about the settlement talks breaking down, I think the biggest blame about that can be put on the State Attorny Generals. Seems the me that it was said in so many words that their almost 'meddling' in the case at this point, and I think that both the DOJ and Microsoft are glad to get back into the courts, where they have less say in the matter.
I bet if the states weren't involved, they would have settled. Too many cooks, sorta thing. They are going to be the biggest problem that the DOJ has to deal with, states thinking that it didn't work out the way THEY thing it should have.
--knick