What bothers me though is the whole setup: what you do is submit your first and last name, and your e-mail address, and they e-mail you a "personalized Linux Jukebox download URL". How's that for tracking?
Well, it sucks for tracking. Let's see, fake name, freemail address, and you're anonymous.
Actually, your IP address is much better for tracking, and they get that from every request whether you like it or not.
I'm so sick of reading about fake privacy threats.
1. Anything posted by Slashdot editors that could be cleared up by a phone call to the company will instead be posted without any reservations whatsoever.
2. Any sort of "cause" that could be taken up with a petition of Slashdot viewers, such as disapproval of Amazon.com's patents, is instead posted without reservation. A very helpful, "What do you guys think?" should be tacked onto the article summary by the editor.
3. If you are posting an article about a product or company doing something with Linux, do not post the article under "Linux." Instead, spread it around to the various other subjects, so that everyone must read about it even if they don't want to read about Linux.
Don't even try to weasal out and say you weren't implying that D-Link built million-dollar Cisco routers and all Cisco did was slap their name on them in order to jack the price up.
Again, don't put words in my mouth. I said D-Link "builds a lot of the hardware for Cisco." Had I wanted to imply that Cisco re-sells D-Link routers, I would have said, "D-Link builds Cisco routers, and Cisco sells them."
PMC-Sierra also builds hardware for Cisco, as well as other companies. Obviously if D-Link was able to actually manufacture an entire router themselves, they would not be selling them to Cisco, they'd be selling them direct to companies.
I'm sorry, in this world, it is possible for a big company to simultaneously be doing a pricing experiment AND have some incorrect prices in their database.
You see, they are not mutually exclusive events. Therefore, your question, "So which was it?" does not really apply.
I see, sort of like the "race against piracy" with copy protection in the Commodore/Atari/Amiga days...:)
Well, it's a little different. We're not talking about something that makes it harder for the consumer to use merchandise that they've rightfully purchased. We're talking about, basically, a theft deterrent.
Just like banks used to throw ink grenades into money bags during a heist, where as now they have moved on to discrete, traceable transponders that are glued between two real dollar bills. Usually on the bottom of the money drawer.
An interesting side note... one of my friends used to work at a bank. During a holdup, they had these "transponders" on the bottom of their drawers, so she slipped them into the piles of money. The robber said, "Wait a second..." Grabbed the stack of money, leafed through it, and then pulled "one" bill out of the pile... a particularly thick bill. He threw it in her face and laughed, "Nice try."
I guess they'll come up with smaller transponders in the future...
I also bought their USB radio... it sucks, plain and simple.
First of all, it should have come with AM support.
Second of all, why didn't they design it so that the audio is sent over the USB connection as well? There's plenty of bandwidth available. I mean, what exactly is the point of having a USB cable on the thing when you have to plug the other cable into "Line In" to get it to work???
Yeah, I found it hard to believe they make million dollar cisco router hardware once I bought that piece of crap...
My father used to install cable modems for RoadRunner in Orlando, FL. He got to install for all kinds of interesting people (a manager for the band Creed, the lead programmer on the Madden football games, etc).
One time he installed a cable modem for a suit from D-Link. He asked me dad what he thought of D-Link products. My dad stated that he honestly thought of them as "generic" or low-end hardware.
The guy laughed... then he told my dad that D-Link actually builds a lot of the hardware for Cisco. Not the cheap routers either... the million-dollar ones.
I said, I hate to break this to you, but the people with enough money to duplicate DNA are not selling fake Olympic apparel! Sheesh!
You said, not-so-long-ago, the same was said about hologram-stickers.
Now I'm saying: Right, and then we came up with embedded DNA strands. And once that becomes cheap and easy enough for any schmoe to do, there will be something better, and so on...
1. The best DVD's will always look better than the best LD's.
2. The best DVD's will always sound better than the best LD's.
3. The best DVD's will always have more content than the best LD's.
To wit, Braveheart may not look as good on DVD (I don't know, never watched the LD version), but does the LD version have the movie, in Dolby 2.0/5.1, a french soundtrack, english/french subtitles, a great "the making of..." documentary, and an entire commentary track by Mel Gibson?
"Nothing prevents people from taking a sample of that concoction of DNA off a T-shirt and PCR'ing it..."
To be able to make PCR copies, you first have to figure out what primers to use, which may not be too easy since the sequence is kept secret.
If they're smart, it will be mixed in with a lot of trash sequences as well, to serve as decoys. Since we have no way to pick out what's the real key sequence, we would have to copy them all -- and it's very easy to generate astronomical numbers of decoys.
As I did in another thread, I have to just alert you guys to a simple fact. The people that sell and make money off of fake Olympic apparel are not criminal masterminds with the know-how, skills, and money to duplicate DNA and get it on the merchandise in the same way as the official product.
Half of these people can't even spell DNA, I'm sure.
Christ, it would be cheaper just to license the products from the Olympics organization!
It is in the Olympics best interest to make sure there is no garbage merchandise being sold as "official." The NBA, NFL, and other leagues all have similar standards. (Try to find an official NBA product that does not have that little, shiny silver hologram sticker on it.)
Before I get my panties in a bunch over how greedy the Olympics organization is, I'd like to know how the profits are used. I doubt they go straight into some fatcat's pocket. More than likely they are used to fund the games (which, btw, costs a lot of money to run!).
Oh and by the way, you can duplicate DNA without having to go back and get more samples from the donor, but hey what do I know.
I hate to break this to you, but the people with enough money to duplicate DNA are not selling fake Olympic apparel! Sheesh!
Doesn't it seem odd? A corporation who vehemently opposes mp3's or digital recording is selling a "music clip" and mini-disc players.
I was under the impression that anything that uses the Sony music clip uses bastardized digital music formats, e.g. encrypted MP3 or some other format that I can't easily work with.
To deny the "reality" of anything that lies outside of easy detection by your senses or technology is as blind as the blanket acceptance of any other dogma. You just don't want to think too hard, do you?
In response to feeble claims by UFO believers, Carl Sagan once stated, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
I believe that sums up an atheists point of view quite nicely (although, I don't believe Sagan was an atheist).
You have then chosen to assume -- or believe, perhaps -- that in lack of evidence to the contrary, the book does not exist. (Re-read what you wrote.) The reality, however, is that the book may or may not exist; not having entered the room, you don't know which. Therefore, if you were truly a facts-only person, you would have said, "... lacking said information, I have no rational choice but to accept the possibility of the book's existence (or nonexistence)."
Wrong. If there is no evidence of something existing, then to an atheist (or a scientist), it does not exist.
If there is evidence that leans toward an explanation, then it might be assumed to exist, such as with black holes.
At most, scientists (and atheists) might have theories about the existence of something, even if they don't have hard proof. However, unlike most religious people, they would have no problem with someone proving that aforementioned thing does not exist.
It's the difference between believing things you want to believe, and believing things that are actually proven correct.
To deny the "reality" of anything that lies outside of easy detection by your senses or technology is as blind as the blanket acceptance of any other dogma. You just don't want to think too hard, do you?
What an assanine comment. The difference between atheists and non-atheists is this:
1. Atheists have open minds. They are not closed by religions. For example, in most Christian religions, it is generally a sin to consider the fact that there might not be a one, true god. This closes your mind. Atheists don't have this problem.
2. More importantly, Atheists aren't limited AT ALL. They just do not blindly believe in something (have faith in something) that has not been proven to a reasonable degree.
Under the DMCA, would it be legal to, say, reverse engineer the PCAnywhere network protocol to create a 3rd party software program that works just like pcAnywhere?
Would it be legal under the DMCA to reverse engineer the java applet that Symantec has created in order to do the same?
What exactly are we allowed to reverse engineer, and when?
You just hit upon the real problem here. Some parents these days want to rely on anyone (staff at Wal-Mart, etc.), and anything (V-Chips, etc.) to supervise their children for them, because they just aren't around to do it. I'm going to sound old-fashioned here, but what happened to supervising your children yourself?
This doesn't make any sense. You can't watch your children all the time. And you're not relying on the staff of Wal-Mart, any more than you're relying on the staff of 7-eleven not to sell your child a porno magazine. (Or are you saying that kids should be able to walk in and buy a porno magazine?)
I have no problem with restrictions being set for children on "risque" things, as long as it does not stop an adult from buying the item (for themselves, or for their children if they so choose).
When I was growing up, my parents didn't need all sorts of regulations and technology to keep track of me, because they spent time with me and knew what I was doing.
How does preventing kids from buying violent video games hinder this philosophy at all? All it does is help parents keep stuff out of their kids hands without their permission (theoretically... of course this isn't perfectly executed).
If people are so busy that they can't supervise their kids, and need to rely on all these external mechanisms to "police" them... well, maybe they shouldn't have children in the first place.
This being said by someone who is obviously not a parent...
I don't know if there's tax on media, but there is definitely tax on DEVICES that record digital audio/video, with the notable exception of CD-ROM devices...
Slashdot Mirror
What bothers me though is the whole setup: what you do is submit your first and last name, and your e-mail address, and they e-mail you a "personalized Linux Jukebox download URL". How's that for tracking?
Well, it sucks for tracking. Let's see, fake name, freemail address, and you're anonymous.
Actually, your IP address is much better for tracking, and they get that from every request whether you like it or not.
I'm so sick of reading about fake privacy threats.
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
1. Anything posted by Slashdot editors that could be cleared up by a phone call to the company will instead be posted without any reservations whatsoever.
2. Any sort of "cause" that could be taken up with a petition of Slashdot viewers, such as disapproval of Amazon.com's patents, is instead posted without reservation. A very helpful, "What do you guys think?" should be tacked onto the article summary by the editor.
3. If you are posting an article about a product or company doing something with Linux, do not post the article under "Linux." Instead, spread it around to the various other subjects, so that everyone must read about it even if they don't want to read about Linux.
Rinse, repeat.
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Don't even try to weasal out and say you weren't implying that D-Link built million-dollar Cisco routers and all Cisco did was slap their name on them in order to jack the price up.
Again, don't put words in my mouth. I said D-Link "builds a lot of the hardware for Cisco." Had I wanted to imply that Cisco re-sells D-Link routers, I would have said, "D-Link builds Cisco routers, and Cisco sells them."
PMC-Sierra also builds hardware for Cisco, as well as other companies. Obviously if D-Link was able to actually manufacture an entire router themselves, they would not be selling them to Cisco, they'd be selling them direct to companies.
Talk about a feeb... sheesh.
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Umm, please re-read my post. It wasn't a rumor, it came directly from a "higher-up" at D-Link.
"I can say that I am not aware of anyone designing or building hardware for cisco other than cisco."
Jeez... you're not AWARE of that happening? Well I guess that means it can't be happening then, right?
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
So which was it... a mistake or an experiment?
I'm sorry, in this world, it is possible for a big company to simultaneously be doing a pricing experiment AND have some incorrect prices in their database.
You see, they are not mutually exclusive events. Therefore, your question, "So which was it?" does not really apply.
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
This is a link from a /. banner ad, and it redirects you to another site! Oh my god! Evil Andover is tracking my browsing!
Why is it inherently evil when Microsoft does it?
Well, you are on Slashdot. Home of the paranoid Linux faithful and poorly filtered "news" articles.
Do you need more of an explanation?
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Actually, Motorola has been providing Cisco with hardware fo rsome time now. Most, if not all, run on a Power-PC-ish platform.
And D-Link doesn't make processors... and Cisco also uses PMC-Sierra networking chips...
What's your point? I didn't say Cisco uses routers completely built by D-Link. I said D-Link makes hardware used in million-dollar Cisco routers...
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
I see, sort of like the "race against piracy" with copy protection in the Commodore/Atari/Amiga days... :)
Well, it's a little different. We're not talking about something that makes it harder for the consumer to use merchandise that they've rightfully purchased. We're talking about, basically, a theft deterrent.
Just like banks used to throw ink grenades into money bags during a heist, where as now they have moved on to discrete, traceable transponders that are glued between two real dollar bills. Usually on the bottom of the money drawer.
An interesting side note... one of my friends used to work at a bank. During a holdup, they had these "transponders" on the bottom of their drawers, so she slipped them into the piles of money. The robber said, "Wait a second..." Grabbed the stack of money, leafed through it, and then pulled "one" bill out of the pile... a particularly thick bill. He threw it in her face and laughed, "Nice try."
I guess they'll come up with smaller transponders in the future...
Weird, huh kids?
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
I also bought their USB radio... it sucks, plain and simple.
First of all, it should have come with AM support.
Second of all, why didn't they design it so that the audio is sent over the USB connection as well? There's plenty of bandwidth available. I mean, what exactly is the point of having a USB cable on the thing when you have to plug the other cable into "Line In" to get it to work???
Yeah, I found it hard to believe they make million dollar cisco router hardware once I bought that piece of crap...
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
My father used to install cable modems for RoadRunner in Orlando, FL. He got to install for all kinds of interesting people (a manager for the band Creed, the lead programmer on the Madden football games, etc).
... the million-dollar ones.
One time he installed a cable modem for a suit from D-Link. He asked me dad what he thought of D-Link products. My dad stated that he honestly thought of them as "generic" or low-end hardware.
The guy laughed... then he told my dad that D-Link actually builds a lot of the hardware for Cisco. Not the cheap routers either
You are paying for the Cisco name.
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
I said, I hate to break this to you, but the people with enough money to duplicate DNA are not selling fake Olympic apparel! Sheesh!
You said, not-so-long-ago, the same was said about hologram-stickers.
Now I'm saying: Right, and then we came up with embedded DNA strands. And once that becomes cheap and easy enough for any schmoe to do, there will be something better, and so on...
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
I never said DVD's always look better than LD's.
..." documentary, and an entire commentary track by Mel Gibson?
What I said was DVD's are BETTER than LD's.
1. The best DVD's will always look better than the best LD's.
2. The best DVD's will always sound better than the best LD's.
3. The best DVD's will always have more content than the best LD's.
To wit, Braveheart may not look as good on DVD (I don't know, never watched the LD version), but does the LD version have the movie, in Dolby 2.0/5.1, a french soundtrack, english/french subtitles, a great "the making of
Thank you.
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
"Nothing prevents people from taking a sample of that concoction of DNA off a T-shirt and PCR'ing it..."
To be able to make PCR copies, you first have to figure out what primers to use, which may not be too easy since the sequence is kept secret.
If they're smart, it will be mixed in with a lot of trash sequences as well, to serve as decoys. Since we have no way to pick out what's the real key sequence, we would have to copy them all -- and it's very easy to generate astronomical numbers of decoys.
As I did in another thread, I have to just alert you guys to a simple fact. The people that sell and make money off of fake Olympic apparel are not criminal masterminds with the know-how, skills, and money to duplicate DNA and get it on the merchandise in the same way as the official product.
Half of these people can't even spell DNA, I'm sure.
Christ, it would be cheaper just to license the products from the Olympics organization!
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
It is in the Olympics best interest to make sure there is no garbage merchandise being sold as "official." The NBA, NFL, and other leagues all have similar standards. (Try to find an official NBA product that does not have that little, shiny silver hologram sticker on it.)
Before I get my panties in a bunch over how greedy the Olympics organization is, I'd like to know how the profits are used. I doubt they go straight into some fatcat's pocket. More than likely they are used to fund the games (which, btw, costs a lot of money to run!).
Oh and by the way, you can duplicate DNA without having to go back and get more samples from the donor, but hey what do I know.
I hate to break this to you, but the people with enough money to duplicate DNA are not selling fake Olympic apparel! Sheesh!
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
I have in my hand the response from the geek community in response to this... Nuts.
Do you often have your nuts in your hand?
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Do what I do: buy used laser discs. Very cheap, just as good as DVD
Ummm, no not just as good as DVD. But i hope we don't have to re-visit this issue as well...
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
How do you get stuff from the one computer to the other if the other is not connected to the internet? via disk?
Well, one way to do something like this would be to use a protocol other than TCP/IP to connect the "offline" machine to the "online" machine.
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Doesn't it seem odd? A corporation who vehemently opposes mp3's or digital recording is selling a "music clip" and mini-disc players.
I was under the impression that anything that uses the Sony music clip uses bastardized digital music formats, e.g. encrypted MP3 or some other format that I can't easily work with.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
To deny the "reality" of anything that lies outside of easy detection by your senses or technology is as blind as the blanket acceptance of any other dogma. You just don't want to think too hard, do you?
In response to feeble claims by UFO believers, Carl Sagan once stated, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
I believe that sums up an atheists point of view quite nicely (although, I don't believe Sagan was an atheist).
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
"If quitters never win, and winners never quit, what fool came up with, 'Quit ... while you're ahead?"
"How come you don't hear about gruntled employees?"
"If it's zero degrees outside today, and it's supposed to be twice as cold tomorrow, how cold is it going to be?"
And my personal favorite...
"Whose cruel idea was it for the word 'lisp' to have an 's' in it?"
All stolen from Steven Wright. A true thinker if I ever heard one.
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
You have then chosen to assume -- or believe, perhaps -- that in lack of evidence to the contrary, the book does not exist. (Re-read what you wrote.) The reality, however, is that the book may or may not exist; not having entered the room, you don't know which. Therefore, if you were truly a facts-only person, you would have said, "... lacking said information, I have no rational choice but to accept the possibility of the book's existence (or nonexistence)."
Wrong. If there is no evidence of something existing, then to an atheist (or a scientist), it does not exist.
If there is evidence that leans toward an explanation, then it might be assumed to exist, such as with black holes.
At most, scientists (and atheists) might have theories about the existence of something, even if they don't have hard proof. However, unlike most religious people, they would have no problem with someone proving that aforementioned thing does not exist.
It's the difference between believing things you want to believe, and believing things that are actually proven correct.
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
To deny the "reality" of anything that lies outside of easy detection by your senses or technology is as blind as the blanket acceptance of any other dogma. You just don't want to think too hard, do you?
What an assanine comment. The difference between atheists and non-atheists is this:
1. Atheists have open minds. They are not closed by religions. For example, in most Christian religions, it is generally a sin to consider the fact that there might not be a one, true god. This closes your mind. Atheists don't have this problem.
2. More importantly, Atheists aren't limited AT ALL. They just do not blindly believe in something (have faith in something) that has not been proven to a reasonable degree.
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Under the DMCA, would it be legal to, say, reverse engineer the PCAnywhere network protocol to create a 3rd party software program that works just like pcAnywhere?
Would it be legal under the DMCA to reverse engineer the java applet that Symantec has created in order to do the same?
What exactly are we allowed to reverse engineer, and when?
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
You just hit upon the real problem here. Some parents these days want to rely on anyone (staff at Wal-Mart, etc.), and anything (V-Chips, etc.) to supervise their children for them, because they just aren't around to do it. I'm going to sound old-fashioned here, but what happened to supervising your children yourself?
... well, maybe they shouldn't have children in the first place.
This doesn't make any sense. You can't watch your children all the time. And you're not relying on the staff of Wal-Mart, any more than you're relying on the staff of 7-eleven not to sell your child a porno magazine. (Or are you saying that kids should be able to walk in and buy a porno magazine?)
I have no problem with restrictions being set for children on "risque" things, as long as it does not stop an adult from buying the item (for themselves, or for their children if they so choose).
When I was growing up, my parents didn't need all sorts of regulations and technology to keep track of me, because they spent time with me and knew what I was doing.
How does preventing kids from buying violent video games hinder this philosophy at all? All it does is help parents keep stuff out of their kids hands without their permission (theoretically... of course this isn't perfectly executed).
If people are so busy that they can't supervise their kids, and need to rely on all these external mechanisms to "police" them
This being said by someone who is obviously not a parent...
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
1) isn't the tax on recording media?
I don't know if there's tax on media, but there is definitely tax on DEVICES that record digital audio/video, with the notable exception of CD-ROM devices...
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."