No one wants to use email anymore. When I talk with clients, one of the first things they ask for is do I have Skype, ICQ or MSN. For business stuff, Skype is the clear winner. I talk with clients and managers there. It has a clear advantage too, as you get instant answer and can actually discuss things in real time. Everything goes easier that way.
For friends and personal things, it's also only Facebook, Steam and MSN for me. It would feel weird to send email to them, and they probably wouldn't read it anyway. Email is kind of like sending a letter, but in this case it also loses its charm and personal feel. It might been relevant still up to 2005, but now it's all the way Facebook, IM or you know, actually calling someone. I can't say I really miss email either. I still have to use one to receive registration verifications and or some news and stuff like that, but there's nothing personal in email anymore.
Since Australia has transfer limits on internet connections, that would either mean that you have to pay a lot more per month, or your internet connection will get seriously rate limited. All just for transferring other peoples data or worse yet, useless data.
Bill Gates might had have rich parents, but Steve Jobs certainly didn't. He was adoption child and really poor in his young adult years, even up to the point that he collected money for food by returning empty bottles to a store. He also dropped out of school.
Sure, having loads of cash helps. But it isn't required, and certainly not something that guarantees success.
Maybe the hardcore pirates. That's not what companies care about, they care about the general public. Any obstacle or hardening of piracy is good, as it will make people think about twice of what they're doing ("is piracy bad if I need to use proxies to hide myself?"). This also why DRM doesn't need to provide 100% security - as long as it makes things harder for non-geeks.
Instead of running your own business. Then you don't need to provide your quality and skills to anyone, and it can make more money in the long run as you are not limited to your salary and don't have to fear getting fired. If you know web-design and running Drupal, then start to work with those. Make your websites. Now, learning some information about other subjects will help. Learn things like marketing, SEO and in general running a business. Most of the information can be found on webmaster forums. Then it's up to you - you can even sell your services to local businesses. You also have the added benefit of working with your projects instead of someones else, which is always more boring.
It seems like most people, especially geeks, want to take the easy route and try get a job. Being self-employed or running a business isn't all that hard and it is much more rewarding, especially for a computer geek now in internet age.
Just because you don't run such large sites doesn't mean it's not going to be a problem for anyone. When it's about some Microsoft vulnerability, there's new stories even for some minor things. I think Apache vulnerability is a big thing.
It's easy to misconfigure those rewrite rules, and trust me, larger companies have internal resources that really should stay private. That Apache allows access to such resources is a huge flaw.
It's on EPEL. And if you're running websites that need fast reverse proxying and caching on the web server side, you should be able to build it yourself too. nginx is specifically designed for this kind of stuff, and is much faster and more secure than Apache. It's Russian lightweight quality, while Apache is bloat as hell (for this kind of stuff).
Well, these are hosting providers. The data isn't just merely passing their networks, they're hosting it too and it comes with extra liability. And how far should we take it that ISP cannot inspect, act upon complaints or anything else? Should they do it when it's spam? Why ISPs should inspect for spam but not for copyright infringement?
Yes, it's not hard. But still some companies don't want to deal with it. It was more true maybe 5-6 years ago when bandwidth was more expensive, and especially so with shared hosting.
Still, it's drain on the network and system on top of the legal issues. Many hosting providers rather just skip those customers and provide better service for rest of their clients. They are free to do so, too.
Other companies also don't allow porn for the same reason. It's a huge bandwidth hog. You say they should just get more bandwidth? Well, that would mean increased prices and might not even be possible everywhere. It's a lot easier to just refuse certain types of clients.
Many companies also refuse IRC servers or even IRC clients on their network, or they have a separate network for those clients, because of the possibility of DDOS. While non-IRC clients might get DDOS too, it's not as usual as with IRC. And if you do start to get DDOSed every day so that it affects the whole network or even brings it completely down, most companies will cut you off as you're causing lots of troubles.
And Slashdot's terms of service note that when you post comments, you give the parent company worldwide license to display, modify, etc lots of things. Which is kind of funny, considering we have had some articles how it's bad how much rights companies like Facebook and Dropbox demand from users when they use their services.
From Slashdot TOS:
With respect to text or data entered into and stored by publicly-accessible site features such as forums, comments and bug trackers ("Geeknet Public Content"), the submitting user retains ownership of such Geeknet Public Content; with respect to publicly-available statistical content which is generated by the site to monitor and display content activity, such content is owned by Geeknet. In each such case, the submitting user grants Geeknet the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, all subject to the terms of any applicable license.
No, every other hosting provider most definitely don't support BitTorrent because it drains the network because of the amount of connections it opens. Not with a single customers, but if you get bunch of them. This is even more true for sharing hosting, because it drains the server resources immersible fast.
It's not entrapment either (and this is private company to begin with). Offering hosting is not a request to violate laws.
They advertised being seedbox friendly, not pirate friendly. Or are you saying that torrents can only be used for copyright infringement? Because that's what slashdotters have been claiming for years. Now that the claim is used against pirates, it's suddenly not true anymore.
I also wanted to point out that Ubisoft is not releasing a PC title because of all the piracy... so in effect, they'd rather get 0% of nothing instead of >0% of something.
Yeah... that makes sense!
Well that's not completely true. If the game is only for consoles, then people will buy it for consoles. I know I did with the first Bad Company, GTA IV and other games which didn't have a PC release.
No it isn't. My first language is completely neutral too. It isn't sexism and it doesn't mean "he" (but you obviously have to translate it to English in some way). It really is neutral.
Well, for example the country were talking about, Thailand, doesn't fingerprint or eye scan people. They do take photo on international flights when going through customs.
Having the law but not enforcing it is actually worse. It means it can be selectively enforced if someone doesn't like some guy. Either have the law or not, but don't make it random.
That law isn't made by the king or royal family, it's made by the government (and in turn, people). He himself has said that he shouldn't be above criticism, and does parole people punished for that law.
I'm just saying that every country should keep it to themselves. If US government wants to block those domains, feel free to make your own firewall. But as it is now, US is deciding for the whole world. Regardless if other countries want it or not.
ICANN is still US-based, and they ultimately have power over it. It would be best for everyone if the things ICANN handles would be moved under neutral party, like UN.
There is still need for copyrights. It would be impossible to monetize creation of movies etc. Now, there's some change but only regarding games. Valve started offering Team Fortress 2 for free, with in-game items. Facebook games have done so for a long time. Not everyone likes that, but that is actually companies adjusting to the situation. It's been like that in Asia for a long time. Now I have no idea how to apply it to music and movies, but it works for some games.
It's a matter of opinion. US and Chinese cultures are different. Many Chinese people agree that government should restrict some hate speech. Hell, even US does - just try yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater. It's a slippery slope, and can't be justified just because US people think it's ok in this case.
In my opinion this is much worse than Chinese firewall. At least China keeps it to themselves and within their own laws. US just seizes what it wants, even if the sites would be lawful in other countries.
Slashdot Mirror
No one wants to use email anymore. When I talk with clients, one of the first things they ask for is do I have Skype, ICQ or MSN. For business stuff, Skype is the clear winner. I talk with clients and managers there. It has a clear advantage too, as you get instant answer and can actually discuss things in real time. Everything goes easier that way.
For friends and personal things, it's also only Facebook, Steam and MSN for me. It would feel weird to send email to them, and they probably wouldn't read it anyway. Email is kind of like sending a letter, but in this case it also loses its charm and personal feel. It might been relevant still up to 2005, but now it's all the way Facebook, IM or you know, actually calling someone. I can't say I really miss email either. I still have to use one to receive registration verifications and or some news and stuff like that, but there's nothing personal in email anymore.
Why would it need to be hard-coded, no way to turn off restriction? Just show a warning and ask if the user really wants to do that.
You do understand that is selling warez for money, right?
Since Australia has transfer limits on internet connections, that would either mean that you have to pay a lot more per month, or your internet connection will get seriously rate limited. All just for transferring other peoples data or worse yet, useless data.
Bill Gates might had have rich parents, but Steve Jobs certainly didn't. He was adoption child and really poor in his young adult years, even up to the point that he collected money for food by returning empty bottles to a store. He also dropped out of school.
Sure, having loads of cash helps. But it isn't required, and certainly not something that guarantees success.
Maybe the hardcore pirates. That's not what companies care about, they care about the general public. Any obstacle or hardening of piracy is good, as it will make people think about twice of what they're doing ("is piracy bad if I need to use proxies to hide myself?"). This also why DRM doesn't need to provide 100% security - as long as it makes things harder for non-geeks.
Instead of running your own business. Then you don't need to provide your quality and skills to anyone, and it can make more money in the long run as you are not limited to your salary and don't have to fear getting fired. If you know web-design and running Drupal, then start to work with those. Make your websites. Now, learning some information about other subjects will help. Learn things like marketing, SEO and in general running a business. Most of the information can be found on webmaster forums. Then it's up to you - you can even sell your services to local businesses. You also have the added benefit of working with your projects instead of someones else, which is always more boring.
It seems like most people, especially geeks, want to take the easy route and try get a job. Being self-employed or running a business isn't all that hard and it is much more rewarding, especially for a computer geek now in internet age.
Just because you don't run such large sites doesn't mean it's not going to be a problem for anyone. When it's about some Microsoft vulnerability, there's new stories even for some minor things. I think Apache vulnerability is a big thing.
It's easy to misconfigure those rewrite rules, and trust me, larger companies have internal resources that really should stay private. That Apache allows access to such resources is a huge flaw.
It's on EPEL. And if you're running websites that need fast reverse proxying and caching on the web server side, you should be able to build it yourself too. nginx is specifically designed for this kind of stuff, and is much faster and more secure than Apache. It's Russian lightweight quality, while Apache is bloat as hell (for this kind of stuff).
Well, these are hosting providers. The data isn't just merely passing their networks, they're hosting it too and it comes with extra liability. And how far should we take it that ISP cannot inspect, act upon complaints or anything else? Should they do it when it's spam? Why ISPs should inspect for spam but not for copyright infringement?
Yes, it's not hard. But still some companies don't want to deal with it. It was more true maybe 5-6 years ago when bandwidth was more expensive, and especially so with shared hosting.
Still, it's drain on the network and system on top of the legal issues. Many hosting providers rather just skip those customers and provide better service for rest of their clients. They are free to do so, too.
Other companies also don't allow porn for the same reason. It's a huge bandwidth hog. You say they should just get more bandwidth? Well, that would mean increased prices and might not even be possible everywhere. It's a lot easier to just refuse certain types of clients.
Many companies also refuse IRC servers or even IRC clients on their network, or they have a separate network for those clients, because of the possibility of DDOS. While non-IRC clients might get DDOS too, it's not as usual as with IRC. And if you do start to get DDOSed every day so that it affects the whole network or even brings it completely down, most companies will cut you off as you're causing lots of troubles.
From Slashdot TOS:
With respect to text or data entered into and stored by publicly-accessible site features such as forums, comments and bug trackers ("Geeknet Public Content"), the submitting user retains ownership of such Geeknet Public Content; with respect to publicly-available statistical content which is generated by the site to monitor and display content activity, such content is owned by Geeknet. In each such case, the submitting user grants Geeknet the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, all subject to the terms of any applicable license.
No, every other hosting provider most definitely don't support BitTorrent because it drains the network because of the amount of connections it opens. Not with a single customers, but if you get bunch of them. This is even more true for sharing hosting, because it drains the server resources immersible fast.
It's not entrapment either (and this is private company to begin with). Offering hosting is not a request to violate laws.
They advertised being seedbox friendly, not pirate friendly. Or are you saying that torrents can only be used for copyright infringement? Because that's what slashdotters have been claiming for years. Now that the claim is used against pirates, it's suddenly not true anymore.
I also wanted to point out that Ubisoft is not releasing a PC title because of all the piracy... so in effect, they'd rather get 0% of nothing instead of >0% of something.
Yeah... that makes sense!
Well that's not completely true. If the game is only for consoles, then people will buy it for consoles. I know I did with the first Bad Company, GTA IV and other games which didn't have a PC release.
No it isn't. My first language is completely neutral too. It isn't sexism and it doesn't mean "he" (but you obviously have to translate it to English in some way). It really is neutral.
Well, for example the country were talking about, Thailand, doesn't fingerprint or eye scan people. They do take photo on international flights when going through customs.
Having the law but not enforcing it is actually worse. It means it can be selectively enforced if someone doesn't like some guy. Either have the law or not, but don't make it random.
That law isn't made by the king or royal family, it's made by the government (and in turn, people). He himself has said that he shouldn't be above criticism, and does parole people punished for that law.
I'm just saying that every country should keep it to themselves. If US government wants to block those domains, feel free to make your own firewall. But as it is now, US is deciding for the whole world. Regardless if other countries want it or not.
ICANN is still US-based, and they ultimately have power over it. It would be best for everyone if the things ICANN handles would be moved under neutral party, like UN.
There is still need for copyrights. It would be impossible to monetize creation of movies etc. Now, there's some change but only regarding games. Valve started offering Team Fortress 2 for free, with in-game items. Facebook games have done so for a long time. Not everyone likes that, but that is actually companies adjusting to the situation. It's been like that in Asia for a long time. Now I have no idea how to apply it to music and movies, but it works for some games.
It's a matter of opinion. US and Chinese cultures are different. Many Chinese people agree that government should restrict some hate speech. Hell, even US does - just try yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater. It's a slippery slope, and can't be justified just because US people think it's ok in this case.
In my opinion this is much worse than Chinese firewall. At least China keeps it to themselves and within their own laws. US just seizes what it wants, even if the sites would be lawful in other countries.