Despite what others say about the protocol having been the same for years (which is true), this is still a new thing they're touting. On June 10, this came though the AOL beta listserv:
Dear Testers:
The Beta Team is pleased to announce a new service that allows AOL and AIM users to Instant Message with ICQ users!
As many of you know, ICQ ("I Seek You") is a very popular service that is used by over 120 million users in more than 245 countries. Now it's possible for AIM and AOL users to Instant Message with their friends on ICQ! Even if you don't know anyone with an ICQ account, you can still participate in this test by getting an ICQ number (they're free) and sending IMs from your AOL account to your ICQ number on your own computer!
To get started, go to Keyword: Beta and click on the Instant Messaging with ICQ link.
This reminds me, a couple years ago, AOL started rejecting emails from my college's mail server because it was an open relay. If they wanted AOL to accept our mail they had to tighten it up. They did, and everything was fine. Granted, I can't send email through my college's mail server from home anymore (unless I use the webmail thing), but I can use my ISP's mail server, so it doesn't really matter. But what if my ISP didn't allow sending email from other ISPs through its mailserver? Oh well, it works so I won't complain.
I wish I had mod points to mod that up. Thanks for pointing that out...I wanted to actually get a look at what we're talking and not just here what the RIAA Information Ministers say about it.
Unfortunately, he appears to have been pretty stupid about what he was doing. First off, the site shouldn't have been accessible from outside of the network. That was his first mistake. Second, his Search In field could be used against him. Notice they're pretty much all for probably illegal stuff (mp3 avi divx mpg, etc). However, it's the last box that's the worst for him. The filesize filter is a great idea, but why in hell did he put in those descriptions like "music" and "full movies"? Just put the filesizes in and let the user figure it out. Don't lob the RIAA/MPAA such an easy pitch to hit out.
With all this said, I still don't think they really have a case, because when push comes to shove, it was still just a search engine searching the campus network. But with as much money as they have, you don't really need too great a case. I wish the guy luck, but he did bring it on himself with some key mistakes.
I was reading up on the Family Guy DVD release, and I think it's not just season one. The three seasons have unequal amounts of episodes so I think they took all the episodes and are putting about half in this release and will put the other half in the second set. So, I think there will only be two DVD sets for Family Guy, even though there were 3 seasons.
Well, I'm in college, and my college almost exclusively uses Windows 2000. It's on all the lab computers (except for a couple Mac labs).
In fact, they actually RECOMMEND Windows 2000 in the dorms, and DISCOURAGE XP Home (scroll down about halfway), mostly because of the inability of XP Home to join Windows domains, which basically renders those machines unable to get on the campus network.
This worked great for me because I love 2000 Pro and am not a big fan of XP. I don't know what I would do if they banned 2000 like that. I wonder if there's any way to fake them out? I'm not sure how they check your Windows version like that...do you broadcast it when you try to connect? If so can you spoof as XP or something? One thing for sure, I wouldn't be running out to buy XP.
I quick clicked through Audiogalaxy's site, and found a link to the UI source code, but not the actual program. This might be all I remembered from before.
I could be wrong, but I seem to remember they used to have the source code for the Satellite posted. This was a couple years ago, before it was a phenomenon, and I can't find a copy of it or anything, but I just seem to remember there being source code posted. Can anyone set me straight? I'm probably wrong but I wanted to throw it out there.
Actually, that does seem outrageous to me. I mean, I don't think you should let little Billy sit downstairs online by himself 24/7, but it's very excessive to monitor everything he does and everyone he talks to (unless they're like 8). Limit internet time? Yes. Occasionally check what they're doing? Yes. Approve who they can chat with and about what? Not unless you have a very, very good reason to look into it. Like I said, there's a certain age line here--kids under a certain age shouldn't spend ANY time alone online (under about 10). Kinda rambling, but I just disagree with your assessment of that not being outrageous.
It WOULD be bad, but if you read the article, it doesn't offer any evidence of "tricking children" or anything "sleazy". It just seemed like some kind of a "they COULD do this if they wanted to, and it would be really bad" editorial. Plus, the person has to initiate the conversation, so they should know what they're talking to, on the off chance they try to "trick" you.
So even if it can be used legitimately, the potential misuse automatically makes it bad? The saving of game data to a PC seems like an awfully useful feature to me. Even if it IS designed to make copies, there still is no harm inherent in that. A VCR is *designed* to make copies of protected materials - namely TV programs - and there are other examples as well. The point is it HAS legitimate uses, so why take this away?
We need to stop the DMCA, and soon, or we'll see a helluva lot of cases. This is sadly the tip of the iceberg, and while it is somewhat questionable, we can't keep setting precedent.
That doesn't mean they HAVE TO in order to be a virus, just that some do or can.
"Second of all, it is not malicious."
The word malicious wasn't even in the definition you cited.
The definition I see that applies to all viruses is "A program or piece of code that is loaded onto your computer without your knowledge and runs against your wishes. All computer viruses are manmade." I'd say this applies to Magic Lantern pretty well.
Sorry, but "Du Hast" came out long before Napster/Scour, and Usenet hardly brings new music to the masses. Radio stations decide what to play, not listeners.
It seems that doctors in NYC would still be too busy with WTC related stuff to worry about French gall bladders/tumors. Or has it slowed down enough in the hospitals for doctors to do cool stuff like this?
They didn't explicitly say that nobody was in the buildings, but they did qualify that anyone who COULD be in them was in on the plot. Chances are nobody was.
Were there any other deaths (besides Bob)? I can't think of any off the top of my head. For such a violent movie, it had a remarkably low body count.
Hell, billions of people died in Star Wars, but was there an uproar over that?? I always thought that was fairly strange.
The only people in the exploded buildings in "Fight Club" were Tyler's people - in other words, the people in on the plot (suicide bombing if you will). Don't even try to compare the two. 0 innocent lives lost compared to tens of thousands? That's not a comparison. I suggest you watch the movie again and get your facts straight.
>>>The tie-ins with Russia - the former USSR required licenses for posession of photocopiers and printing presses, with heavy fines and penalties for owners of such material - are not just ironic, but highly appropriate, given the First Amendment implications of DMCA.
This gets better and better! And don't forget that the DMCA also criminalizes informing people where to get the plans for the photocopiers . . .
Not sure why the DVD wouldn't play, but we definitely need more "normal" people having problems with the DMCA in order to get things changed. As long as it's only the techno-few who have problems with it, and the general public seems complacent, changes will be very slow in coming. But if Joe Schmoe who rents a DVD and can't watch it on his/her own player, and this starts to happen more and more (which it probably will, with ever-changing drives and copy-protection measures on the drives AND disks), things will happen a lot faster.
I personally own both the Region 1 and Region 2 versions of Fight Club (I'm a big fan), and the Region 1 version plays fine on my computer (the Region 2 one does too, but I only have so many region switches I can do before my drive locks to the last region used, so I don't watch it), so I'm not sure what her specific problem was. But the fact that I can't play my Region 2 (without messing with stuff, which means breaking the DMCA probably) pisses me off because, contrary to what the MPAA will tell you, there is not an equivalent product available in Region 1. I don't see any German dubbing or subtitles on any Region 1 DVDs. This should also be used as evidence, because the average person can understand that not being able to watch a DVD that you bought is bad.
"It always would have been a violation of copyright to photocopy dozens of copies of Dougan's novel and sell them on the street. Now, critics argue, it's as if the photocopier itself is illegal."
This is an argument that courts will listen to (hopefully at least). EFF lawyers, write this down. It is the perfect analogy, as far as I can tell.
Slashdot Mirror
Despite what others say about the protocol having been the same for years (which is true), this is still a new thing they're touting. On June 10, this came though the AOL beta listserv:
Dear Testers:
The Beta Team is pleased to announce a new service that allows AOL and AIM users to Instant Message with ICQ users!
As many of you know, ICQ ("I Seek You") is a very popular service that is used by over 120 million users in more than 245 countries. Now it's possible for AIM and AOL users to Instant Message with their friends on ICQ! Even if you don't know anyone with an ICQ account, you can still participate in this test by getting an ICQ number (they're free) and sending IMs from your AOL account to your ICQ number on your own computer!
To get started, go to Keyword: Beta and click on the Instant Messaging with ICQ link.
The AOL Beta Team
This reminds me, a couple years ago, AOL started rejecting emails from my college's mail server because it was an open relay. If they wanted AOL to accept our mail they had to tighten it up. They did, and everything was fine. Granted, I can't send email through my college's mail server from home anymore (unless I use the webmail thing), but I can use my ISP's mail server, so it doesn't really matter. But what if my ISP didn't allow sending email from other ISPs through its mailserver? Oh well, it works so I won't complain.
I wish I had mod points to mod that up. Thanks for pointing that out...I wanted to actually get a look at what we're talking and not just here what the RIAA Information Ministers say about it.
Unfortunately, he appears to have been pretty stupid about what he was doing. First off, the site shouldn't have been accessible from outside of the network. That was his first mistake. Second, his Search In field could be used against him. Notice they're pretty much all for probably illegal stuff (mp3 avi divx mpg, etc). However, it's the last box that's the worst for him. The filesize filter is a great idea, but why in hell did he put in those descriptions like "music" and "full movies"? Just put the filesizes in and let the user figure it out. Don't lob the RIAA/MPAA such an easy pitch to hit out.
With all this said, I still don't think they really have a case, because when push comes to shove, it was still just a search engine searching the campus network. But with as much money as they have, you don't really need too great a case. I wish the guy luck, but he did bring it on himself with some key mistakes.
I was reading up on the Family Guy DVD release, and I think it's not just season one. The three seasons have unequal amounts of episodes so I think they took all the episodes and are putting about half in this release and will put the other half in the second set. So, I think there will only be two DVD sets for Family Guy, even though there were 3 seasons.
Well, I'm in college, and my college almost exclusively uses Windows 2000. It's on all the lab computers (except for a couple Mac labs).
In fact, they actually RECOMMEND Windows 2000 in the dorms, and DISCOURAGE XP Home (scroll down about halfway), mostly because of the inability of XP Home to join Windows domains, which basically renders those machines unable to get on the campus network.
This worked great for me because I love 2000 Pro and am not a big fan of XP. I don't know what I would do if they banned 2000 like that. I wonder if there's any way to fake them out? I'm not sure how they check your Windows version like that...do you broadcast it when you try to connect? If so can you spoof as XP or something? One thing for sure, I wouldn't be running out to buy XP.
Me again with a P.S.
I quick clicked through Audiogalaxy's site, and found a link to the UI source code, but not the actual program. This might be all I remembered from before.
I could be wrong, but I seem to remember they used to have the source code for the Satellite posted. This was a couple years ago, before it was a phenomenon, and I can't find a copy of it or anything, but I just seem to remember there being source code posted. Can anyone set me straight? I'm probably wrong but I wanted to throw it out there.
Actually, that does seem outrageous to me. I mean, I don't think you should let little Billy sit downstairs online by himself 24/7, but it's very excessive to monitor everything he does and everyone he talks to (unless they're like 8). Limit internet time? Yes. Occasionally check what they're doing? Yes. Approve who they can chat with and about what? Not unless you have a very, very good reason to look into it. Like I said, there's a certain age line here--kids under a certain age shouldn't spend ANY time alone online (under about 10). Kinda rambling, but I just disagree with your assessment of that not being outrageous.
It WOULD be bad, but if you read the article, it doesn't offer any evidence of "tricking children" or anything "sleazy". It just seemed like some kind of a "they COULD do this if they wanted to, and it would be really bad" editorial. Plus, the person has to initiate the conversation, so they should know what they're talking to, on the off chance they try to "trick" you.
So even if it can be used legitimately, the potential misuse automatically makes it bad? The saving of game data to a PC seems like an awfully useful feature to me. Even if it IS designed to make copies, there still is no harm inherent in that. A VCR is *designed* to make copies of protected materials - namely TV programs - and there are other examples as well. The point is it HAS legitimate uses, so why take this away?
We need to stop the DMCA, and soon, or we'll see a helluva lot of cases. This is sadly the tip of the iceberg, and while it is somewhat questionable, we can't keep setting precedent.
"There is no other video codec in a software form that can encode and decode," said Koichi Kato, chief technology officer at Office Noa.
What's the definition of codec again? I forget.
"Viruses can also replicate themselves."
That doesn't mean they HAVE TO in order to be a virus, just that some do or can.
"Second of all, it is not malicious."
The word malicious wasn't even in the definition you cited.
The definition I see that applies to all viruses is "A program or piece of code that is loaded onto your computer without your knowledge and runs against your wishes. All computer viruses are manmade." I'd say this applies to Magic Lantern pretty well.
Sorry, but "Du Hast" came out long before Napster/Scour, and Usenet hardly brings new music to the masses. Radio stations decide what to play, not listeners.
"is considers"?? that's terrible!! :P
"12 Monkeys" had the whole "guy in the asylum saying stuff but nobody believing him" angle.
It seems that doctors in NYC would still be too busy with WTC related stuff to worry about French gall bladders/tumors. Or has it slowed down enough in the hospitals for doctors to do cool stuff like this?
From what I understand, it's real, but it's not the "law" it's just a suggestion so they can still play them if they want to.
It's not "bogus" it's just not required for them to abide by it. It's a little suggestion memo type thing. Not words from above.
They didn't explicitly say that nobody was in the buildings, but they did qualify that anyone who COULD be in them was in on the plot. Chances are nobody was.
Were there any other deaths (besides Bob)? I can't think of any off the top of my head. For such a violent movie, it had a remarkably low body count.
Hell, billions of people died in Star Wars, but was there an uproar over that?? I always thought that was fairly strange.
The only people in the exploded buildings in "Fight Club" were Tyler's people - in other words, the people in on the plot (suicide bombing if you will). Don't even try to compare the two. 0 innocent lives lost compared to tens of thousands? That's not a comparison. I suggest you watch the movie again and get your facts straight.
i still buy the cheapest gas, i don't know what you're talking about
>>>The tie-ins with Russia - the former USSR required licenses for posession of photocopiers and printing presses, with heavy fines and penalties for owners of such material - are not just ironic, but highly appropriate, given the First Amendment implications of DMCA.
This gets better and better! And don't forget that the DMCA also criminalizes informing people where to get the plans for the photocopiers . . .
"Doesn't Adobe also sell software that, among its features, has the ability to strip off the copy protection?"
Umm, no.
Not sure why the DVD wouldn't play, but we definitely need more "normal" people having problems with the DMCA in order to get things changed. As long as it's only the techno-few who have problems with it, and the general public seems complacent, changes will be very slow in coming. But if Joe Schmoe who rents a DVD and can't watch it on his/her own player, and this starts to happen more and more (which it probably will, with ever-changing drives and copy-protection measures on the drives AND disks), things will happen a lot faster.
I personally own both the Region 1 and Region 2 versions of Fight Club (I'm a big fan), and the Region 1 version plays fine on my computer (the Region 2 one does too, but I only have so many region switches I can do before my drive locks to the last region used, so I don't watch it), so I'm not sure what her specific problem was. But the fact that I can't play my Region 2 (without messing with stuff, which means breaking the DMCA probably) pisses me off because, contrary to what the MPAA will tell you, there is not an equivalent product available in Region 1. I don't see any German dubbing or subtitles on any Region 1 DVDs. This should also be used as evidence, because the average person can understand that not being able to watch a DVD that you bought is bad.
"It always would have been a violation of copyright to photocopy dozens of copies of Dougan's novel and sell them on the street. Now, critics argue, it's as if the photocopier itself is illegal."
This is an argument that courts will listen to (hopefully at least). EFF lawyers, write this down. It is the perfect analogy, as far as I can tell.