Last time someone telemarketed me, I went into the Monty Python & The Holy Grail French Taunter bit.
"YOU TINY MINDED WIPER OF OTHER PEOPLES' BOTTOMS! NOW GO AWAY OR I SHALL TAUNT YOU A SECOND TIME."
Silence. Then this tiny little female voice with a wry slant said, "Next you're going to tell me you're already got one, right?" Made my day (and probably hers) and we ended up chatting. Too bad she lived 6 states away. ^_~
Yes, it does; it also says that the virus works not by spreading via JPG, but by patching the registry to foll the system into thinking that.JPG is an executable extension. Or, in their words:
A clean system can not get infected from an "infected" JPEG file since that would need the virus to be active on the system already.
Please note that Perrun can not be activated from infected JPEG files on a clean system.
They were so intent on emphasizing it, they said it twice.
it still worked even after I changed the default security level for Local Intranet to High
That's because this doesn't work off local intranet, it works off local hard drive; files on your hard drive are automatically ran without safeties, and MICROS~1 does not offer any option to change this.
can he really guarantee that the industry will be able to produce consumer-grade technology which will successfully prevent camcorder movie piracy while still allowing camcorders?
No, they'll just outlaw camcorders as circumvention devices. That, or charge $50 per blank tape/CD/whatever, with 90% going to the MPAA. Or, consumer camcorders will only be able to produce "can only view once" media. Want a camcorder without this restriction? You have to get the professional model - they're sold only to the MPAA and cost half a mil. "That's the surcharge for the unlimited amount of piracy this allows you to engage in." It's a war over the means of production, too.
"They'd never pass that sort of law!"
Funny... that's what three CS profs at my school said about it; I sat them down in the lab and showed them some of the articles and they were outraged. This country needs more people with clue in Congress.
The better option is to turn off JavaScript... (Adding Salon to IE's list of "restricted sites" will block their scripts.)
Actually, the better idea is to disallow Java in IE's "internet" domain and only enable it in trusted sites. I did that two years ago and haven't seen a pop-up ad since. It's much easier (and safer) to add in the sites you want/trust to run Java than to disallow every site you *don't* want to.
Go read the Thoreau, but think too...
on
SSSCA Hearing
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
"Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison." - Thoreau, Civil Disobedience
I know I'll be flamed to Redmond and back for this, but do we have the right to read/view/hear materials for which we have paid NO MONEY to the people who created / distributed / promoted them? Justify that. Please. I'm very interested. Now, I'm not exactly innocent; I've used Napster quite a bit. But because of that, I've become a fan of several bands I'd not known about before, bought their CDs, and plan to see them next time thery tour through SF.
I've heard the, "Well, I wouldn't buy the music/movie/game anyway, so they wouldn't make anything from it either way." argument. Faeces tauri. If it's good enough to listen to, good enough to use backup space/CD-Rs on, good enough to spend hours playing or watching, it's good enough to pay for. Believe me, I used to run Win95 *and* Office *and* have various games and mp3s within a gig. I had to prune mercilessly more than once and make decisions about what I really valued. Most of that music, I ended up buying anyway, save what I couldn't find (anime soundtracks, etc).
Corporations, like all entities, have to act in their own survival interest. No, it's not nice of them to want to restrict what we do with our computers. It's downright draconian to lock us into Microsoft's "trusted" operating systems. But, guess what? We haven't given them a choice. If filesharing becomes much more widespread, the whole RIAA/MPAA house of cards will fall over - good, you say? - yes, but there will be nothing to replace it. Will artists release their own songs on.mp3/.ogg/etc? Sure. What's to keep those files from being shared? Nothing. We need to get the attitude of "give some money to the people that entertain you" back in this country.
Having said all that, I still hope this is defeated on some grounds. I don't hold out much hope. Our Senate serves the Almighty dollar (In Profit We Trust), not the people they're supposed to serve. And anything the clueful might try to change with their votes will be lost in the noise.
"He's got to make a living, or move to Russia..." - Moxy Fruvous, River Valley
Right. So we're all supposed to sit around and smirk at each other in our "yes, we get it, we see through it" superiority? Hell fucking NO!
It would have been much funnier (and/or entertaining) if it'd at least been the TINIEST bit plausible.
They went to at least a little time and trouble, why not make it at least a little believable?
I think I'll drag the Vic-20 out of the garage, run some Cat5 behind it, hook it to the five old walkmen I have kicking around, stick a cartridge in the cartridge slot, and claim it's a webserver. Then I'll submit it to/. No, wait, that's utterly ridiculous and everyone would flame me for thinking anyone would believe it. Like hell...
Slashdot Mirror
Outlands, IMAO, isn't so hard in the first quest.
Once you get used to, at every turn, asking yourself "what would a sadistic level designer make me do."
What I always wonder about that story is - they used up one JATO. What do you suppose happened to the other three?
Last time someone telemarketed me, I went into the Monty Python & The Holy Grail French Taunter bit.
"YOU TINY MINDED WIPER OF OTHER PEOPLES' BOTTOMS! NOW GO AWAY OR I SHALL TAUNT YOU A SECOND TIME."
Silence. Then this tiny little female voice with a wry slant said, "Next you're going to tell me you're already got one, right?" Made my day (and probably hers) and we ended up chatting. Too bad she lived 6 states away. ^_~
They were so intent on emphasizing it, they said it twice.
And hand out coupons for $40 off Micros~1 products, such as WinXp, Office XP, DevStudio...
The humour was at the juxtaposition of the indepth facts vs. "how to tell your child about..."
Satire's finest hour, indeed.
I still think the best of the best was God Angrily Clarifies 'Don't Kill' Rule.
Disabling javascript has always been a good idea, and not just on IE.
RTFA. There's a merger in the works between Comcast and - you guessed it - at&t.
That's because this doesn't work off local intranet, it works off local hard drive; files on your hard drive are automatically ran without safeties, and MICROS~1 does not offer any option to change this.
> A CD is still cheap as you pay 15 dollars [once] and get to listen to it forever.
Which is exactly what they're trying to take away.
Small correction...
It was his attempts to return to the time he originally visited.
Great book, except for that picture. You know which one I mean. Still gives me nightmares.
I for one like the stories and your writing style... any chance of more?
No, they'll just outlaw camcorders as circumvention devices. That, or charge $50 per blank tape/CD/whatever, with 90% going to the MPAA. Or, consumer camcorders will only be able to produce "can only view once" media. Want a camcorder without this restriction? You have to get the professional model - they're sold only to the MPAA and cost half a mil. "That's the surcharge for the unlimited amount of piracy this allows you to engage in."
It's a war over the means of production, too.
Funny... that's what three CS profs at my school said about it; I sat them down in the lab and showed them some of the articles and they were outraged.
This country needs more people with clue in Congress.
Beg to differ - that's rec.games.roguelike.nethack.
1 5966142 ___-Wiz-Hum-Mal-Neu ascended to demigod-hood. 261 [361]
Actually, the better idea is to disallow Java in IE's "internet" domain and only enable it in trusted sites. I did that two years ago and haven't seen a pop-up ad since. It's much easier (and safer) to add in the sites you want/trust to run Java than to disallow every site you *don't* want to.
"Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison." - Thoreau, Civil Disobedience
.mp3/.ogg/etc? Sure. What's to keep those files from being shared? Nothing. We need to get the attitude of "give some money to the people that entertain you" back in this country.
I know I'll be flamed to Redmond and back for this, but do we have the right to read/view/hear materials for which we have paid NO MONEY to the people who created / distributed / promoted them? Justify that. Please. I'm very interested. Now, I'm not exactly innocent; I've used Napster quite a bit. But because of that, I've become a fan of several bands I'd not known about before, bought their CDs, and plan to see them next time thery tour through SF.
I've heard the, "Well, I wouldn't buy the music/movie/game anyway, so they wouldn't make anything from it either way." argument. Faeces tauri. If it's good enough to listen to, good enough to use backup space/CD-Rs on, good enough to spend hours playing or watching, it's good enough to pay for. Believe me, I used to run Win95 *and* Office *and* have various games and mp3s within a gig. I had to prune mercilessly more than once and make decisions about what I really valued. Most of that music, I ended up buying anyway, save what I couldn't find (anime soundtracks, etc).
Corporations, like all entities, have to act in their own survival interest. No, it's not nice of them to want to restrict what we do with our computers. It's downright draconian to lock us into Microsoft's "trusted" operating systems. But, guess what? We haven't given them a choice. If filesharing becomes much more widespread, the whole RIAA/MPAA house of cards will fall over - good, you say? - yes, but there will be nothing to replace it. Will artists release their own songs on
Having said all that, I still hope this is defeated on some grounds. I don't hold out much hope. Our Senate serves the Almighty dollar (In Profit We Trust), not the people they're supposed to serve. And anything the clueful might try to change with their votes will be lost in the noise.
"He's got to make a living, or move to Russia..." - Moxy Fruvous, River Valley
mine is 9 Jan 1981 - or, if you write it middle-endian, 1/9/81. ^_^
> Do you think any of the fantastic plotline will survive?
It didn't. They didn't even try. They changed the characters, the backstory, and rewrote the whole thing.
And it sucks.
Like Sugar Ray - Fly, or Bangles - Walk Like an Egyptian, or Savage Garden - Crash and Burn.
Anyone notice that some of the bannings seem designed to keep us from stopping and thinking?
Examples:
99 Red Balloons
Obla-Di Obla-Da (life goes on)
Blowing in the Wind
Jumper
War
And I'm still wondering how they caught Talking Heads' Burning Down the House, but missed Life During Wartime...
This theory was advanced on 23 Aug here.
Lameness filter officially lame, film at 11...
And the link is here.
This text here to avoid lameness filter. Blah blah blah vote SSSCA supporters out of office blah blah blah...
It already happened. My @Home agreement says "Customer shall not... connect the cable modem to any computer outside of the Customer's premises."
Right. So we're all supposed to sit around and smirk at each other in our "yes, we get it, we see through it" superiority? Hell fucking NO!
/. No, wait, that's utterly ridiculous and everyone would flame me for thinking anyone would believe it. Like hell...
It would have been much funnier (and/or entertaining) if it'd at least been the TINIEST bit plausible.
They went to at least a little time and trouble, why not make it at least a little believable?
I think I'll drag the Vic-20 out of the garage, run some Cat5 behind it, hook it to the five old walkmen I have kicking around, stick a cartridge in the cartridge slot, and claim it's a webserver. Then I'll submit it to