One important difference between postage guaranteed postcards and BRM postcards is that BRM postcards can not be taped or attached to other things. Also, anything you return using a BRM envelope must fit in the envelope. Otherwise, the postal service will return them.
If I read this correctly, it seems as if you have never actually sat down and read an actual Playboy in
your life! Had you actually done so you would have found
It's been quite a while since I last saw an issue of Playboy in its entirety. It was at about age 13, and the copy was pilfered by a friend from his old man's closet. Since then, I've taken a cursory glance at a few issues, and their web site, but I haven't read either in its entirety. I've also watched a few seconds of their sattelite channel while checking out a friend's DSS receiver. What I saw was mostly what I remembered from pawing through the printed magazine back in the 80's: lots of commercial style nudie pictures.
* Interviews (with many interesting people)
* Advice Columns (where people ask and receive answers for a variety of things, such as sex advice,
dating advice, advice on electronics purchases, etc)
* General articles on a variety of topics: Literacy, freedom, rights, current events, and many other items
of interest
I'm not claiming that these things don't exist, just that they didn't leave a lasting impression on me.
* And oh yeah, in the middle, about 20 pages of very tactful, and artfully done, nude imagery (no sex,
very tastful)
Magazines, unlike books, have a strong tendancy to open towards the middle. However, that tendancy doesn't explain my experiences with the web site or sattelite channel.
Had you have mentioned Hustler, or Club, or one of those other, lesser known magazine, I would be
more inclined to agree (but hey, even Hustler has good articles).
B&N bookstores in New Hampshire also have Penthouse and Perfect 10. I'm not sure about Hustler. Salem, NH also has an adult novelty store called Midnight Madness Novelties for Adults that probably stocks some even more hardcore titles.
But we're getting away from my original point here, which was that if porn alone was not obscene in Salem, NH, then political criticism of the police plus a little porn certainly was a step ahead in the legality department.
I'm not a lawyer, and if you've taken anything I've said as legal advice, you've made a big mistake. I'm not studying law, nor do I pretend to be a lawyer. Have a look at my web page. I'm a studying to be a computer scientist, and I work in the IT industry.
I picked Playboy Magazine as my example because Playboy is sold at news stands in Salem, NH and includes pornographic pictures that are likely similar to those found on Hemmah's web page. I've been there. I've seen them for sale. In my hometown, which is only an hour or so drive from Salem, we've got some similar magazines in with the regular magazines on display in our public library.
If Playboy, a national publication which in my opinion has practicly nonexistent literary, artistic, political, or scientific value, is permitted in Salem, then why wouldn't Hemmah's web page also be permitted? After all, Hemmah's web page criticising the police is almost by definition of serious political value. What can you say for the drivel about some nudie model's favorite color and turn-ons that accompanies the pictures in the above mentioned magazines?
That aside, Hemmah hasn't even been charged with publishing obscene material, even though obscinity is the focus of the AP story. The charge described in the AP story was "misuse of computer system information." I suspect the police department is trying to bend to apply to his use of information from the original police department association web site on his parody site for two purposes. The first is to scare the shit out of Hemmah, since it's a felony. The second is because they can't successfully charge him with publishing obscene material because what he published obviously didn't meet the definition of obscene.
IV. A person is guilty of the computer crime of misuse of computer system information when:
(a) As a result of his accessing or causing to be accessed a computer system, he knowingly makes
or causes to be made an unauthorized display, use, disclosure, or copy, in any form, of data residing in,
communicated by, or produced by a computer system; or
(b) He knowingly or recklessly and without authorization:
(1) Alters, deletes, tampers with, damages, destroys, or takes data intended for use by a computer
system, whether residing within or external to a computer system; or
(2) Intercepts or adds to data residing within a computer system; or
(c) He knowingly receives or retains data obtained in violation of subparagraph (a) or (b) of this
paragraph; or
(d) He knowingly uses or discloses any data he knows or believes was obtained in violation of
subparagraph (a) or (b) of this paragraph.
x.509 is typically used with a message format called S/MIME. Recent versions of Netscape Communicator have a facility for sending, receiving, encrypting, and decrypting S/MIME messages using x.509 certificates.
If you use a flexible mail program such as mutt, you can pipe your message through the openssl smime command. By canning openssl smime with the options -encrypt, -decrypt, -sign, and -verify, you can perform all the same operations you could with a client that supported S/MIME natively.
The last amplifier I bought was a NAD 2200. The 218THX is rated at twice the continuous power of the 2200, and if it's anything like the 2200 quality-wise it should impress just about everyone. Note that since the 2200 and 218THX are both two channel amplifiers, you'd need 3 of them to do 5.1 surround. If you were running them in bridged mode to make roughly 3-4x more wattage, you'd need five of them (six if your sub doesn't have its own amplifier).
I love my CSW New Ensemble speaker system. It's got fairly flat response in all of the bands it covers, and the bass enclosures are shallow enough to hide out of the way. CSW also has a great 5.1 surround setup they sell that's built around these same speakers. You can't get much better in the under $2000 pricerange. Plus there's a 10 year warranty in case anything goes wrong. They even let you trade your used CSW gear at its full purchase price for newer/better stuff within the first year.
I have my gripes with Sony's audio amplifiers, including those used in their car stereo and home theater amps. Maybe it's got better in the past few years, but last I checked their amplifiers couldn't muster enough current to drive high end speakers, had wattage ratings that were inflated by a good 50%, and introduced a lot of noise, clipping, and harmonics when driven hard. Then again, maybe I'm just picky.
The last amplifier I bought was a NAD 2200. It's just as powerful as some of their newer THX certified power amplifiers, but built before THX certification existed. You'd need 3 NAD 2200's to do 5.1 surround - 5 if you were running them in bridged mode and hard a powered subwoofer.
Failing one's ability to find a few used 2200's along with a Dolby Digital / DTS decoder and preamp at a good price, one could instead opt for one of the newer Onkyo integrated receivers. Better models give you integrated decoding w/ DSP effects, an AM/FM tuner, input selection betwen about 8 sources with a tape monitor, 2 or 3 digital inputs, and an equalized Phono preamp stage, volume control, and amplifiers for the 5 major channels along with a line-level output for your powered subwoofer. The built in amplifiers are rated conservatively and put out plenty of current, unlike the Sony and JVC stuff I've played with, so you'll have no trouble driving low impedance loads at high volume.
Having lawfully aquired (purchased) a copyrighted work, you're free to do
with it as you please provided you do not infringe on the copyright. Lawful
uses include selling your copy, giving it away to an individual, library, or
charity, lending it out, reading it aloud to a child or friend, printing
copies for your own personal use (perhaps in for use away from the computer
or in larger type that's easier to read, or to mark up with highliter and
pencil), and copying excerpts to use in critical papers or reviews. Like
software end user license agreements that say you can't sell your copy of
the program, lend it out, or publish benchmarks or reviews, or a sticker on
a book you buy that says "not for resale or library use," the terms attached
to the Alice in Wonderland E-Book are just legal masturbation. Assertions
that you don't have liberty with the things you buy and own fly in the face
of hundreds of years of common practice dating back to times before the
United States even existed.
Members of the copyright cartel are trying to take away these physical
property rights to lend and sell the original copy as well as the ability to
make fair use via technology designed to cripple legally aquired copies of
copyrighted works so they can not be fully used. Then they misconstrue laws
such as the Digital Millenium Copyright Act as prohibiting individuals from
working around these crippling technologies. The final outcome of Universal
v. Corley and similar cases is going to be very important here, as there is
a risk that the copyright cartel may use the courts to wrongly interpret
laws in their favor.
The copyright compromise provides for copyright holders a limited period of
limited restrictions on others ability to duplicate, peform, and distribute
a work in exchange for releasing the work into the public domain at the end
of the term. It was not the intent of congress to rearrange the copyright
compromise to make the allowed restrictions and the time period unlimited,
but this is what members of the copyright cartel are arguing. Members of
congress are on the record at the time of lawmaking and have also spoken out
on the record and in the press explaining that they did not intend to create
unlimited copyright nor a pay-per-use copyright model. The copyright
cartel's claims to the contrary are simply false.
So you can now tweak your Dreamcast to turn it into a Linux box. What good is that? Can you use it
as a remote client for telnet/ssh or other uses? No; for that to be done, there would have to be an
interface connector. Someone would have to write a driver for the modem, and I don't think that Sega
is going to release that information. Besides, it might even be a Winmodem, or even worse, it might be
connected to an alien, non-16550/8250 UART controller.
It's a real hardware modem. There's also a serial cable you can hook up to the same slot. See http://mc.pp.se/dc/serifc.html.
So basically, this "Linux Dreamcast" consists of a CD-ROM/GigaDisc drive, some system for the
keyboard, and maybe support for the controller. So what? Without any drivers for the PowerVR2 on
there, this "Dreamcast Linux" would be worthless.
There's also example source code floating around for using the hardware 3d accelerator. It's only a matter of time before someone hacks support into Mesa. See http://mc.pp.se/dc/files/tatest.tar.gz.
Either way, I'm wondering if that thing segfaulted at some point and he refused to take a picture of
that. As you already know, the press only shows us what it wants us to see.
There's no reason why portable C programs should segfault on the SuperH. The GCC SH-4 target is relatively mature.
Check the laws in your local jurisdiction, as you may be entitled to more than the $150 you've billed for. Here in the US, we're entitled to at least $500 for each time a telemarketer calls after being told not to call anymore. I recently soaked Teleservices Direct for $500 and then $1000 after they wouldn't stop calling me. See http://osiris.978.org/~brianr/telem ark eting/.
If you actually think high school students have the right to free speech in this country, you need to do some reading. They don't have any
sort of right to speech, privacy, press, etc at least within school... and possibly even outside it.
In Massachusetts, where I live, students right to free speech in public schools is protected by state law. I got hassled by the administration a few times for the alternative newspaper I ran for two years, but after they talked to a competent attorney, they decided to leave me alone. The only person who persisted in harassing me and my staff nearly got fired for it, ended up retiring as advisor of the official school newspaper, and was forced to write a formal appology to one of my staffers.
I'm not saying this is a good thing - in fact I think it's a terrible thing - but that's the way it is right now. And since no one really cares
about teenagers' rights except teenagers, that's probably the way it will stay.
I care about teenager's rights even though I haven't been a teenager for years. And the folks over at peacefire care too. The only real danger lies in students who actually accept the fallacy that they have no rights.
At most high schools, homecoming candidates are nominated by the student body, not the themselves. So it's quite likely this kid could have been elected against his will.
All important data on a laptop should be stored in an encrypted loopback filesystem or PGPdisk filesystem with password timeout enabled. Even removable media can be secured via encrypted loopback.
If the unit is left alone too long, it forgets the passphrase and it must be re-entered. If it's powered off or rebooted, it forgets the passphrase. The Windows version of PGP even has a hotkey that will instantly forget all cached passphrases. Without the passphrase, recovering any data from the disk becomes prohibitively computationally expensive.
Fleet Homelink works just fine with Lynx and also Netscape on Linux. I'm not a big fan of big banks, but they've got their online banking stuff done right.
Also, x.com finance, which provides a no-fee checking account w/ Visa check card and ATM fee reimbursement if you keep a $100 minimum balance, works just fine with Lynx too. I have one of these accounts and keep a few hundred bucks in it for getting cash at ATM's where I'd be charged a fee. Fleet doesn't reimburse these fees, but x.com does.
I'm a CS major at the University Of Massachusetts Lowell. I don't want a laptop. Cheap models are heavy, slow, and heat up too much to be used safely on my lap. Expensive models aren't much lighter and still aren't as powerful my desktop machines. Battery life sucks. All but the tough-to-come-by Transmeta laptops will still burn my lap if I do something CPU intensive like a compile or DSP simulation.
Not only do I not want a laptop - I don't need one. Notetaking works just fine on a hundred dollar handheld or five dollar notebook. A good calculator like the TI-89 or HP-48g covers most of the mathmatic stuff, costs only around a hundred bucks, and is small and light enough to keep in my backpack at all time. I can't think of any tasks I can't do on the handheld or calculator that can't wait until I get back to my desktop PC or a computer lab.
Furthermore, the availability of portable computers in the classroom will make it possible for professors to assign proprietary e-textbooks that can't be loaned out or resold. I'll pass on those, thank you very much.
This poster had a valid point which he was expressing through sarcasm. Few people here would argue that the Free Software
Foundation's rules should be broken. Both the FSF and Microsoft distribute a contract (or copyleft or EULA or whatever you
want to call it) with the software which you are expected to follow. If you don't like the contract, you don't use the software.
The FSF's GNU General Public License is vastly different from a clickwrap or shrinkwrap license like the Microsoft EULA. You don't have to accept the terms GNU General Public License in order to use the software covered by it that you've lawfully aquired. You only need to accept the license if you wish to avail yourself of the special privilages it grants above and beyond what your normal first sale and fair use rights would allow. Microsoft, however, contends that you can't use the software at all, nor avail yourself of your first sale or fair use rights without accepting their license first.
It's a legal fallacy that users are bound by clickwrap or shrinkwrap licenses in all of the world. Even within the United States depending on your jusisdiction, precedent and/or laws are either in favor of shrinkwrap licenses, against them, or non-existant. Thus, it's very well possible that many people are not bound by the EULA and therefore are free to sell or reuse their OEM copies of Windows provided they haven't agreed in any other contracts not to do so. Note that there is currently a precedent in the US against shrink wrap licenses on books: you can safely ignore wrappers that say boxed sets of novels can only be sold together and labels stating that a book may not be resold below a certain price. I see no reason why this precedent might not be applied to software in the future.
It is also unclear whether a person has accepted the terms of the GPL. After all, it is neither a signed and witnessed contract nor a physical barrier from installing the software on one's computer. However, even one does not accept the terms of the GPL, they are still free to use the software. The Free Software Foundation does not contend this fact. However, if the person is engaging in practices that would otherwise be copyright infringement (such as making and selling copies of the software) then they have two and only two choices: either they're infringing copyright, or they've accepted the terms of the GPL.
Everyone knows you're supposed to check the return value from fopen and friends before using it to make sure it's not null or some other bad value and take appropriate action if it is.
You own it. There's no redefining the terms of the transfer of title after the fact like these guys are trying to do. I have a receipt from Radio Shack that says I bought my CueCat for $0.00. Contract made, device sold, end of story.
FWIW, they didn't take my name or scan anything in.
I just asked them if they were giving away free scanners and they said, "Sure, I'll get you one."
Before I knew it they put the scanner and the catalog in a bag and I was on my way.
I had a similar experience when I picked up another cuecat at the Radio Shack in Billerica, Massachusetts. The clerk just gave me the scanner, no catalog, and told me to have a nice day. However, when I picked up units at the Radio Shack in Tewksbury, Massachusetts, I was asked for a name and address and also given a catalog. The clerk scanned at least one of the items.
From what I can tell, they don't check to see if it's your name and address or just a name and address. If you give the name of an existing Radio Shack customer (try Smith), however, they'll use the information already on file saving you a few questions.
that serial number is probably easily matched up to the store where you picked up your cuecat device, or even to your name if you gave it to the clerk
at the store.
Ummm... No.
The clerk who took my name entered it into the computer and then scanned the cuecat (or the catalog, I'm not sure) before giving it to me. Even if the serial number wasn't definantly associated with the identity I gave at time of purchase, it was certainly associated with the store location. There's no doubt that Digital Convergance would keep track of which serial numbers got shipped to which Radio Shack locations.
Furthermore, from what I've heard there's a potentially identity revealing registration process one must complete in order to use the Windows software.
Even if Digital Convergence doesn't know a person's exact identity, they know at the very minimum what Radio Shack store the scanner came from and thus very approximately where they live in most cases. And that's more than enough to increase the value of any marketing/profileing data they collect substantially.
Even more scary - if you read the enclosure that's with the scanner.
Someone else said there was a slip of paper in with the scanner that said "This isn't yours. You're just borrowing it from us" or something to that effect. I didn't get such a slip with mine.
Are they asssuming everyone's a big enough moron to trade their privacy for a barcode reader they don't really own?
Every cuecat scan results in some garbage that looks like the following:
.C3nZC3nZC3nZCxj2Dhz1C3nX.fHmc.DxPYE3b6C3nZC3jY.
Hidden inside that code is the barcode type, and its numeric or alphanumeric equivilent. But there's more: There's also a serial number. And that serial number is probably easily matched up to the store where you picked up your cuecat device, or even to your name if you gave it to the clerk at the store.
The first item in the second line is the serial number. Then the barcode, and then the numeric value of the UPC type A code. This serial number stuff is real bad news. It's like a cookie that can't be turned off, and it gets sent to Digital Convergence every time you scan a barcode that brings you to a web site using their software.
Of course, they're going to be pissed about people using their barcode scanners without their spying software: They want to make money by seling your personal information. They know where you live. They know what books you read, and they know what products you buy, all by what you scan with their little cuespy.
The cease and desist letter they've sent is a vague piece of crap. Its sole intent is to intimidate. They have no legal standing. First spying, now intimidation tactics? I think perhaps it's time for a TLO to investigate Digitial Convergence.
Totally agree.. I bought a nice enlight AT case 4 years ago. It's still my primary box's case. I've
painted, hacked, sawed, glued, and multilated the case, and it still serves me quite well.:-)
I especially like the fact that I can get in, rip the HDs, cdrom, floppy, basically *everything* but the
cards out without a single tool. Everything is on slide rails. (the cards are held in with a single
screw tho)
Enlight is still making cases. I have 5 very nice Enlight ATX cases in use at my place. There's hand-removable rails for the 5.25 bays, and the 3.5 bay snaps out real easy. There's also an extra intake fan in the front and an extra exhaust fan in the back, not to mention the large row of vents on the side. The sides are held on by a single (optional) screw and slide off individually. Very slick, and not single sharp edge. Worth every cent!
Disclaimer: I don't work for Enlight or own any Enlight stock.
Legal filings are specifically exempted from liability of allegation in virtually all jurisdictions inheriting from British common law. The
theory is that this prevents the target of a lawsuit crushing the plaintiff with their greater legal resources and so forth.
Let's not forget that malicious prosecution is still illegal. If their lawsuit is baseless and the entire intent is to harass or defame me, then it's unlikely this exemption will apply. Also, court filings are usually made under the penalty of perjury. Submitting deliberately false filings to the effect that I'm a goatfucker when they know I'm not could land them with fines or jail. Again, for the protection of the little guy.
Slashdot Mirror
One important difference between postage guaranteed postcards and BRM postcards is that BRM postcards can not be taped or attached to other things. Also, anything you return using a BRM envelope must fit in the envelope. Otherwise, the postal service will return them.
It's been quite a while since I last saw an issue of Playboy in its entirety. It was at about age 13, and the copy was pilfered by a friend from his old man's closet. Since then, I've taken a cursory glance at a few issues, and their web site, but I haven't read either in its entirety. I've also watched a few seconds of their sattelite channel while checking out a friend's DSS receiver. What I saw was mostly what I remembered from pawing through the printed magazine back in the 80's: lots of commercial style nudie pictures.
I'm not claiming that these things don't exist, just that they didn't leave a lasting impression on me.
Magazines, unlike books, have a strong tendancy to open towards the middle. However, that tendancy doesn't explain my experiences with the web site or sattelite channel.
B&N bookstores in New Hampshire also have Penthouse and Perfect 10. I'm not sure about Hustler. Salem, NH also has an adult novelty store called Midnight Madness Novelties for Adults that probably stocks some even more hardcore titles.
But we're getting away from my original point here, which was that if porn alone was not obscene in Salem, NH, then political criticism of the police plus a little porn certainly was a step ahead in the legality department.
I'm not a lawyer, and if you've taken anything I've said as legal advice, you've made a big mistake. I'm not studying law, nor do I pretend to be a lawyer. Have a look at my web page. I'm a studying to be a computer scientist, and I work in the IT industry.
I picked Playboy Magazine as my example because Playboy is sold at news stands in Salem, NH and includes pornographic pictures that are likely similar to those found on Hemmah's web page. I've been there. I've seen them for sale. In my hometown, which is only an hour or so drive from Salem, we've got some similar magazines in with the regular magazines on display in our public library.
If Playboy, a national publication which in my opinion has practicly nonexistent literary, artistic, political, or scientific value, is permitted in Salem, then why wouldn't Hemmah's web page also be permitted? After all, Hemmah's web page criticising the police is almost by definition of serious political value. What can you say for the drivel about some nudie model's favorite color and turn-ons that accompanies the pictures in the above mentioned magazines?
That aside, Hemmah hasn't even been charged with publishing obscene material, even though obscinity is the focus of the AP story. The charge described in the AP story was "misuse of computer system information." I suspect the police department is trying to bend to apply to his use of information from the original police department association web site on his parody site for two purposes. The first is to scare the shit out of Hemmah, since it's a felony. The second is because they can't successfully charge him with publishing obscene material because what he published obviously didn't meet the definition of obscene.
From http://sudoc.nhsl.lib.nh.us/rsa/62/638-17.HTM.
x.509 is typically used with a message format called S/MIME. Recent versions of Netscape Communicator have a facility for sending, receiving, encrypting, and decrypting S/MIME messages using x.509 certificates.
If you use a flexible mail program such as mutt, you can pipe your message through the openssl smime command. By canning openssl smime with the options -encrypt, -decrypt, -sign, and -verify, you can perform all the same operations you could with a client that supported S/MIME natively.
The last amplifier I bought was a NAD 2200. The 218THX is rated at twice the continuous power of the 2200, and if it's anything like the 2200 quality-wise it should impress just about everyone. Note that since the 2200 and 218THX are both two channel amplifiers, you'd need 3 of them to do 5.1 surround. If you were running them in bridged mode to make roughly 3-4x more wattage, you'd need five of them (six if your sub doesn't have its own amplifier).
I love my CSW New Ensemble speaker system. It's got fairly flat response in all of the bands it covers, and the bass enclosures are shallow enough to hide out of the way. CSW also has a great 5.1 surround setup they sell that's built around these same speakers. You can't get much better in the under $2000 pricerange. Plus there's a 10 year warranty in case anything goes wrong. They even let you trade your used CSW gear at its full purchase price for newer/better stuff within the first year.
I have my gripes with Sony's audio amplifiers, including those used in their car stereo and home theater amps. Maybe it's got better in the past few years, but last I checked their amplifiers couldn't muster enough current to drive high end speakers, had wattage ratings that were inflated by a good 50%, and introduced a lot of noise, clipping, and harmonics when driven hard. Then again, maybe I'm just picky.
The last amplifier I bought was a NAD 2200. It's just as powerful as some of their newer THX certified power amplifiers, but built before THX certification existed. You'd need 3 NAD 2200's to do 5.1 surround - 5 if you were running them in bridged mode and hard a powered subwoofer.
Failing one's ability to find a few used 2200's along with a Dolby Digital / DTS decoder and preamp at a good price, one could instead opt for one of the newer Onkyo integrated receivers. Better models give you integrated decoding w/ DSP effects, an AM/FM tuner, input selection betwen about 8 sources with a tape monitor, 2 or 3 digital inputs, and an equalized Phono preamp stage, volume control, and amplifiers for the 5 major channels along with a line-level output for your powered subwoofer. The built in amplifiers are rated conservatively and put out plenty of current, unlike the Sony and JVC stuff I've played with, so you'll have no trouble driving low impedance loads at high volume.
Having lawfully aquired (purchased) a copyrighted work, you're free to do with it as you please provided you do not infringe on the copyright. Lawful uses include selling your copy, giving it away to an individual, library, or charity, lending it out, reading it aloud to a child or friend, printing copies for your own personal use (perhaps in for use away from the computer or in larger type that's easier to read, or to mark up with highliter and pencil), and copying excerpts to use in critical papers or reviews. Like software end user license agreements that say you can't sell your copy of the program, lend it out, or publish benchmarks or reviews, or a sticker on a book you buy that says "not for resale or library use," the terms attached to the Alice in Wonderland E-Book are just legal masturbation. Assertions that you don't have liberty with the things you buy and own fly in the face of hundreds of years of common practice dating back to times before the United States even existed.
Members of the copyright cartel are trying to take away these physical property rights to lend and sell the original copy as well as the ability to make fair use via technology designed to cripple legally aquired copies of copyrighted works so they can not be fully used. Then they misconstrue laws such as the Digital Millenium Copyright Act as prohibiting individuals from working around these crippling technologies. The final outcome of Universal v. Corley and similar cases is going to be very important here, as there is a risk that the copyright cartel may use the courts to wrongly interpret laws in their favor.
The copyright compromise provides for copyright holders a limited period of limited restrictions on others ability to duplicate, peform, and distribute a work in exchange for releasing the work into the public domain at the end of the term. It was not the intent of congress to rearrange the copyright compromise to make the allowed restrictions and the time period unlimited, but this is what members of the copyright cartel are arguing. Members of congress are on the record at the time of lawmaking and have also spoken out on the record and in the press explaining that they did not intend to create unlimited copyright nor a pay-per-use copyright model. The copyright cartel's claims to the contrary are simply false.
So you can now tweak your Dreamcast to turn it into a Linux box. What good is that? Can you use it as a remote client for telnet/ssh or other uses? No; for that to be done, there would have to be an interface connector. Someone would have to write a driver for the modem, and I don't think that Sega is going to release that information. Besides, it might even be a Winmodem, or even worse, it might be connected to an alien, non-16550/8250 UART controller.
It's a real hardware modem. There's also a serial cable you can hook up to the same slot. See http://mc.pp.se/dc/serifc.html.
So basically, this "Linux Dreamcast" consists of a CD-ROM/GigaDisc drive, some system for the keyboard, and maybe support for the controller. So what? Without any drivers for the PowerVR2 on there, this "Dreamcast Linux" would be worthless.
There's also example source code floating around for using the hardware 3d accelerator. It's only a matter of time before someone hacks support into Mesa. See http://mc.pp.se/dc/files/tatest.tar.gz.
Either way, I'm wondering if that thing segfaulted at some point and he refused to take a picture of that. As you already know, the press only shows us what it wants us to see.
There's no reason why portable C programs should segfault on the SuperH. The GCC SH-4 target is relatively mature.
See http://mc.pp.se/dc/ for more details on Dreamcast development.
Check the laws in your local jurisdiction, as you may be entitled to more than the $150 you've billed for. Here in the US, we're entitled to at least $500 for each time a telemarketer calls after being told not to call anymore. I recently soaked Teleservices Direct for $500 and then $1000 after they wouldn't stop calling me. See http://osiris.978.org/~brianr/telem ark eting/.
If you actually think high school students have the right to free speech in this country, you need to do some reading. They don't have any sort of right to speech, privacy, press, etc at least within school... and possibly even outside it.
In Massachusetts, where I live, students right to free speech in public schools is protected by state law. I got hassled by the administration a few times for the alternative newspaper I ran for two years, but after they talked to a competent attorney, they decided to leave me alone. The only person who persisted in harassing me and my staff nearly got fired for it, ended up retiring as advisor of the official school newspaper, and was forced to write a formal appology to one of my staffers.
I'm not saying this is a good thing - in fact I think it's a terrible thing - but that's the way it is right now. And since no one really cares about teenagers' rights except teenagers, that's probably the way it will stay.
I care about teenager's rights even though I haven't been a teenager for years. And the folks over at peacefire care too. The only real danger lies in students who actually accept the fallacy that they have no rights.
Don't run if you don't plan to accept.
At most high schools, homecoming candidates are nominated by the student body, not the themselves. So it's quite likely this kid could have been elected against his will.
All important data on a laptop should be stored in an encrypted loopback filesystem or PGPdisk filesystem with password timeout enabled. Even removable media can be secured via encrypted loopback.
If the unit is left alone too long, it forgets the passphrase and it must be re-entered. If it's powered off or rebooted, it forgets the passphrase. The Windows version of PGP even has a hotkey that will instantly forget all cached passphrases. Without the passphrase, recovering any data from the disk becomes prohibitively computationally expensive.
Fleet Homelink works just fine with Lynx and also Netscape on Linux. I'm not a big fan of big banks, but they've got their online banking stuff done right.
Also, x.com finance, which provides a no-fee checking account w/ Visa check card and ATM fee reimbursement if you keep a $100 minimum balance, works just fine with Lynx too. I have one of these accounts and keep a few hundred bucks in it for getting cash at ATM's where I'd be charged a fee. Fleet doesn't reimburse these fees, but x.com does.
I'm a CS major at the University Of Massachusetts Lowell. I don't want a laptop. Cheap models are heavy, slow, and heat up too much to be used safely on my lap. Expensive models aren't much lighter and still aren't as powerful my desktop machines. Battery life sucks. All but the tough-to-come-by Transmeta laptops will still burn my lap if I do something CPU intensive like a compile or DSP simulation.
Not only do I not want a laptop - I don't need one. Notetaking works just fine on a hundred dollar handheld or five dollar notebook. A good calculator like the TI-89 or HP-48g covers most of the mathmatic stuff, costs only around a hundred bucks, and is small and light enough to keep in my backpack at all time. I can't think of any tasks I can't do on the handheld or calculator that can't wait until I get back to my desktop PC or a computer lab.
Furthermore, the availability of portable computers in the classroom will make it possible for professors to assign proprietary e-textbooks that can't be loaned out or resold. I'll pass on those, thank you very much.
This poster had a valid point which he was expressing through sarcasm. Few people here would argue that the Free Software Foundation's rules should be broken. Both the FSF and Microsoft distribute a contract (or copyleft or EULA or whatever you want to call it) with the software which you are expected to follow. If you don't like the contract, you don't use the software.
The FSF's GNU General Public License is vastly different from a clickwrap or shrinkwrap license like the Microsoft EULA. You don't have to accept the terms GNU General Public License in order to use the software covered by it that you've lawfully aquired. You only need to accept the license if you wish to avail yourself of the special privilages it grants above and beyond what your normal first sale and fair use rights would allow. Microsoft, however, contends that you can't use the software at all, nor avail yourself of your first sale or fair use rights without accepting their license first.
It's a legal fallacy that users are bound by clickwrap or shrinkwrap licenses in all of the world. Even within the United States depending on your jusisdiction, precedent and/or laws are either in favor of shrinkwrap licenses, against them, or non-existant. Thus, it's very well possible that many people are not bound by the EULA and therefore are free to sell or reuse their OEM copies of Windows provided they haven't agreed in any other contracts not to do so. Note that there is currently a precedent in the US against shrink wrap licenses on books: you can safely ignore wrappers that say boxed sets of novels can only be sold together and labels stating that a book may not be resold below a certain price. I see no reason why this precedent might not be applied to software in the future.
It is also unclear whether a person has accepted the terms of the GPL. After all, it is neither a signed and witnessed contract nor a physical barrier from installing the software on one's computer. However, even one does not accept the terms of the GPL, they are still free to use the software. The Free Software Foundation does not contend this fact. However, if the person is engaging in practices that would otherwise be copyright infringement (such as making and selling copies of the software) then they have two and only two choices: either they're infringing copyright, or they've accepted the terms of the GPL.
Hopefully, the easing of US crypto controls earlier this year doesn't mean that someone has figured out how to factor large primes trivially... :-)
All prime numbers (including large ones) have exactly two factors, themselves and 1.
fread( f,
Everyone knows you're supposed to check the return value from fopen and friends before using it to make sure it's not null or some other bad value and take appropriate action if it is.
The license page at http:/ /crl.research.compaq.com/downloads/register.cgi?do wnload=Linux+Jukebox now shows a copy of the GNU General Public License.
If someone gives you a barcode scanner...
You own it. There's no redefining the terms of the transfer of title after the fact like these guys are trying to do. I have a receipt from Radio Shack that says I bought my CueCat for $0.00. Contract made, device sold, end of story.
FWIW, they didn't take my name or scan anything in.
I just asked them if they were giving away free scanners and they said, "Sure, I'll get you one."
Before I knew it they put the scanner and the catalog in a bag and I was on my way.
I had a similar experience when I picked up another cuecat at the Radio Shack in Billerica, Massachusetts. The clerk just gave me the scanner, no catalog, and told me to have a nice day. However, when I picked up units at the Radio Shack in Tewksbury, Massachusetts, I was asked for a name and address and also given a catalog. The clerk scanned at least one of the items.
From what I can tell, they don't check to see if it's your name and address or just a name and address. If you give the name of an existing Radio Shack customer (try Smith), however, they'll use the information already on file saving you a few questions.
that serial number is probably easily matched up to the store where you picked up your cuecat device, or even to your name if you gave it to the clerk at the store.
Ummm... No.
The clerk who took my name entered it into the computer and then scanned the cuecat (or the catalog, I'm not sure) before giving it to me. Even if the serial number wasn't definantly associated with the identity I gave at time of purchase, it was certainly associated with the store location. There's no doubt that Digital Convergance would keep track of which serial numbers got shipped to which Radio Shack locations.
Furthermore, from what I've heard there's a potentially identity revealing registration process one must complete in order to use the Windows software.
Even if Digital Convergence doesn't know a person's exact identity, they know at the very minimum what Radio Shack store the scanner came from and thus very approximately where they live in most cases. And that's more than enough to increase the value of any marketing/profileing data they collect substantially.
Even more scary - if you read the enclosure that's with the scanner.
Someone else said there was a slip of paper in with the scanner that said "This isn't yours. You're just borrowing it from us" or something to that effect. I didn't get such a slip with mine.
Are they asssuming everyone's a big enough moron to trade their privacy for a barcode reader they don't really own?
Every cuecat scan results in some garbage that looks like the following:
Hidden inside that code is the barcode type, and its numeric or alphanumeric equivilent. But there's more: There's also a serial number. And that serial number is probably easily matched up to the store where you picked up your cuecat device, or even to your name if you gave it to the clerk at the store.
The first item in the second line is the serial number. Then the barcode, and then the numeric value of the UPC type A code. This serial number stuff is real bad news. It's like a cookie that can't be turned off, and it gets sent to Digital Convergence every time you scan a barcode that brings you to a web site using their software.
Of course, they're going to be pissed about people using their barcode scanners without their spying software: They want to make money by seling your personal information. They know where you live. They know what books you read, and they know what products you buy, all by what you scan with their little cuespy.
The cease and desist letter they've sent is a vague piece of crap. Its sole intent is to intimidate. They have no legal standing. First spying, now intimidation tactics? I think perhaps it's time for a TLO to investigate Digitial Convergence.
I've mirrored the standalone cuecat decoder software at http://osiris.978.org/~brianr/cuecat/.
Totally agree.. I bought a nice enlight AT case 4 years ago. It's still my primary box's case. I've painted, hacked, sawed, glued, and multilated the case, and it still serves me quite well. :-)
I especially like the fact that I can get in, rip the HDs, cdrom, floppy, basically *everything* but the cards out without a single tool. Everything is on slide rails. (the cards are held in with a single screw tho)
Enlight is still making cases. I have 5 very nice Enlight ATX cases in use at my place. There's hand-removable rails for the 5.25 bays, and the 3.5 bay snaps out real easy. There's also an extra intake fan in the front and an extra exhaust fan in the back, not to mention the large row of vents on the side. The sides are held on by a single (optional) screw and slide off individually. Very slick, and not single sharp edge. Worth every cent!
Disclaimer: I don't work for Enlight or own any Enlight stock.
Legal filings are specifically exempted from liability of allegation in virtually all jurisdictions inheriting from British common law. The theory is that this prevents the target of a lawsuit crushing the plaintiff with their greater legal resources and so forth.
Let's not forget that malicious prosecution is still illegal. If their lawsuit is baseless and the entire intent is to harass or defame me, then it's unlikely this exemption will apply. Also, court filings are usually made under the penalty of perjury. Submitting deliberately false filings to the effect that I'm a goatfucker when they know I'm not could land them with fines or jail. Again, for the protection of the little guy.