Confirmed this with a few of my friends who are using PCCW Netvigator. I have the same ISP, but use OpenDNS, so haven't notice anything was amiss for some time.
There are specific editions for mobile devices. It's no wonder that they don't access the the front page directly.
Many people go to BBC, CNN and other major sites through their mobile service provider's front pages. These would naturally point to the dedicated mobile editions too.
Backflip used to work well for social bookmarking. But now its user base has shrunk so much that it's trivially easy to distort the results in the "What's popular" sections.
Problem is, how does a copyright holder prove that someone has uploaded as well as downloaded? BitTorrent clients can be configured into leech mode (though it's frowned upon).
The copyright holder can of course establish the proof by downloading from whoever they're targeting. But then since the copyright holder already has rights to the movie (duh), there is nothing wrong in giving a copy of the movie back to him. It's difficult to prove that the user is infringing only by virtue of having a copy of the copyrighted material either, as the grandparent post explained.
My original submission includes comments on the legal aspects but they got edited away. Well here it is:
To prove that a user has committed copyright violation using a BitTorrent client, the copyright holder has to establish that the user actually has a file (or portion of it) that the copyright holder is entitled to. To achieve this, the copyright holder can either upload the file to the guy (entrapment), or download from the guy (the guy does nothing wrong in this case as explained above), or obtain the cooperation of the user's ISP to do massively intrusive monitoring.
So how did they gather their evidence? Can the evidence stand in court? Was the evidence lawfully gathered? Is it possible to gather absolutely damning evidence only by lawful means? These are the questions we need to ask.
Is the bill more about eliminating competition or denying access to war-drivers? If the latter, the solution should probably be technological (requiring some sort of credentials for access, which can be obtained free-of-charge) rather than legal (banning all free access).
The study was done by Monk et al. Nielsen's story is merely an abstract.
Original article: Andrew Monk, Jenni Carroll, Sarah Parker, and Mark Blythe: "Why are Mobile Phones Annoying?" Behaviour and Information Technology, vol. 23, no. 1, 2004, pp. 33-41.
VoIP doesn't need federal regulation. Being TCP/IP based, it fits naturally into the loose management model that serves the Internet so well.
If it ends up being so overregulated as telephone system, it will eventually raise the operational cost of VoIP so much that it eliminates the primary incentive of switching to VoIP -- cost.
Killing a promising technology at its infancy, smart move.
The problem is a classical one: bad assumption about the user environment.
Belkin likely thinks that all users fit one and the same profile:
They use the router at home
The router is connected to the Internet
There are probably just 3 or 4 users on the network
The person installing the router is technically savvy
Whoever first encounters the ad will find the person installing the router and have him turn off the feature
All traffic over port 80 are generated by humans viewing human-readable web pages
The assumption breaks down if any of the following is true: (i) The router is connected to a company's Intranet; (ii) There are multiple users on multiple floors who may not all know the administrator or realize that the ad must be disabled at the router; (iii) The HTTP request that triggers is ad happens to be (say) an antivirus update with a server within the Intranet.
If renting is not "distribution" as the GPL defined it, you can essentially circumvent all of GPL's requirements when you distribute software by saying you're only renting the software to the end user for an indefinite period of time, or until the year 3003 etc.
...is the ability to disregard "hidden" shares that are suffixed with $. Gave my unscrupulous co-workers many hours of paranoia wondering why files that are supposed to be in their super-secret warez/p0rn/mp3 shares keep surfacing in a public directory.
Slashdot Mirror
Confirmed this with a few of my friends who are using PCCW Netvigator. I have the same ISP, but use OpenDNS, so haven't notice anything was amiss for some time.
This sounds a lot like the whois DNSBL service by rfc-ignorant.org, which has been around for much longer. Why do we need another one?
The title reads like "John W. Backus dies at 82; developed cancer".
Now let's hook this up with WolframTones and see how long it takes to generate a Billboard hit.
The answer might be t -> infinity
"Microsoft has released Word"
That is the real threat, my friend.
Much better to take on an insurance against SCO than this FUD disguised as "insurance".
Does this affect the Miranda client?
There are specific editions for mobile devices. It's no wonder that they don't access the the front page directly.
Many people go to BBC, CNN and other major sites through their mobile service provider's front pages. These would naturally point to the dedicated mobile editions too.
Vista doesn't trust YOU!
Backflip used to work well for social bookmarking. But now its user base has shrunk so much that it's trivially easy to distort the results in the "What's popular" sections.
there's no way to *just* download via bittorrent
Problem is, how does a copyright holder prove that someone has uploaded as well as downloaded? BitTorrent clients can be configured into leech mode (though it's frowned upon).
The copyright holder can of course establish the proof by downloading from whoever they're targeting. But then since the copyright holder already has rights to the movie (duh), there is nothing wrong in giving a copy of the movie back to him. It's difficult to prove that the user is infringing only by virtue of having a copy of the copyrighted material either, as the grandparent post explained.
My original submission includes comments on the legal aspects but they got edited away. Well here it is:
To prove that a user has committed copyright violation using a BitTorrent client, the copyright holder has to establish that the user actually has a file (or portion of it) that the copyright holder is entitled to. To achieve this, the copyright holder can either upload the file to the guy (entrapment), or download from the guy (the guy does nothing wrong in this case as explained above), or obtain the cooperation of the user's ISP to do massively intrusive monitoring.
So how did they gather their evidence? Can the evidence stand in court? Was the evidence lawfully gathered? Is it possible to gather absolutely damning evidence only by lawful means? These are the questions we need to ask.
(Obligatory IANAL goes here.)
... and those 200 people aren't attendees of the conference. They're just sampled off the streets of London.
Is the bill more about eliminating competition or denying access to war-drivers? If the latter, the solution should probably be technological (requiring some sort of credentials for access, which can be obtained free-of-charge) rather than legal (banning all free access).
The Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada...
S.C.A.M.P.C... how fitting.
Those other people went to booble.
The study was done by Monk et al. Nielsen's story is merely an abstract.
Original article: Andrew Monk, Jenni Carroll, Sarah Parker, and Mark Blythe: "Why are Mobile Phones Annoying?" Behaviour and Information Technology, vol. 23, no. 1, 2004, pp. 33-41.
RealSecure? MyISS.
Um... since you have to install popularity-contest to participate in the contest, wouldn't that make popularity-contest the most popular package?
VoIP doesn't need federal regulation. Being TCP/IP based, it fits naturally into the loose management model that serves the Internet so well.
If it ends up being so overregulated as telephone system, it will eventually raise the operational cost of VoIP so much that it eliminates the primary incentive of switching to VoIP -- cost.
Killing a promising technology at its infancy, smart move.
- They use the router at home
- The router is connected to the Internet
- There are probably just 3 or 4 users on the network
- The person installing the router is technically savvy
- Whoever first encounters the ad will find the person installing the router and have him turn off the feature
- All traffic over port 80 are generated by humans viewing human-readable web pages
The assumption breaks down if any of the following is true: (i) The router is connected to a company's Intranet; (ii) There are multiple users on multiple floors who may not all know the administrator or realize that the ad must be disabled at the router; (iii) The HTTP request that triggers is ad happens to be (say) an antivirus update with a server within the Intranet.The NIC for .cx has been doing this for some time already.
Example 1
Example 2
If renting is not "distribution" as the GPL defined it, you can essentially circumvent all of GPL's requirements when you distribute software by saying you're only renting the software to the end user for an indefinite period of time, or until the year 3003 etc.
...is the ability to disregard "hidden" shares that are suffixed with $. Gave my unscrupulous co-workers many hours of paranoia wondering why files that are supposed to be in their super-secret warez/p0rn/mp3 shares keep surfacing in a public directory.
Most commercial vendors of business intelligence solutions, e.g. Cognos and Business Objects, have a web solution for building custom reports.
Quote: "By submitting bids that request PC systems without an Operating System due to a Microsoft site license, you can earn points and win!"
But, in the first place, why do purchasers have to provide justifications for their RFQs for naked PCs?