I dunno, maybe I was old enough when I first ran across this sort of stuff that it couldn't shock me so hard. But I don't see what a big deal it is.
If you were hit that badly by seeing fan-art, I wonder how you'd react to hearing actual audio outtakes from the Thundercats show. The fact is, while the cartoon itself may be pure, the people behind it are only human.
Maybe the fact that I grew up watching Warner Bros cartoons, which threw in all sorts of hidden adult humor, helped cushion me from this sort of shock. I dunno.
If anyone's interested, I have the first CD Baen Books put out with David Weber's War of Honor up on a BT torrent. It's not an ISO image, though, it's a zipped copy of all the files.
I recently got an account at AddAction.net. I haven't been with them very long, so I can't tell you how good their customer service is. On the other hand, I haven't had to deal with their customer service. Their facilities are pretty good, the only thing I don't like about them is the paucity of their subdomain service. And the price is right, too; $9.95 special for a 6 month trial period.
...Because it shares files, but doesn't search for them. It's also best when used with files larger than an MP3, and when more than one person is downloading the file at the same time.
If you want to see the next Napster, try WinMX, or Shareaza, or any of the "lite" versions of the various P2P sharing systems you can find at ZeroPaid.com. They're much more suited to trading stuff, rather than people helping each other downloading particular files.
And yeah, BT can help sites trade pirated music and movies and whatever, but the web pages the.torrent files are stored on are fixed targets, much like Napster was, and are susceptible to the RIAA/MPAA/SPA dropping on their asses.
I don't know about Mozilla plug-ins, but if that'd work, then fine.
As for how they knew what the bandwidh was, BT is based around a central server called a "tracker"; which helps nodes find each other, and also collects statistics.
Well, first off, BitTorrent isn't a P2P system. It is a P2P protocol. It doesn't search for your favorite MP3s. You can't even "surf" through it. You give it a.torrent file (analogous to a URL, though with some interesting features), and it gives you the file(s) that "URL" points at.
It's unique in that it is a highly efficient and secure cooperative system -- and is very low-profile, as well. It is capable of delivering large amounts of data that is originating from a source which cannot normally afford that sort of bandwidth. It can move more bandwidth than even large companies can afford; when Red Hat 9 was released through BT, traffic peaked at nearly 1.5 gigabits per second, or the full bandwidth of ten OC3 connections.
Just noting that the regulations in UCITA give you the worst parts of liability and disclaiming against it... The bill states that software companies must warranty their software's performance -- but says that they can disclaim that warranty in their license agreement.
So what does that mean? It means that companies like Microsoft can ask their lawyers for the appropriate legalese to have no liability against their software fuck-ups, but some hobbyist who coded up something and stuck it on their web site may be sued because their software malfunctioned.
See the origin of this thread. We don't know yet whether this would be true. Cells that were modified genetically from liver cells may express different antigens than the original islet cells.
I think that the GPL may indeed need to be modified due to DRM developments, because they may soon violate the spirit of the GPL, if not the letter.
Very soon we may have hardware out there that will only run OSes that are signed, or even encrypted, with a specific key. These hardware manufacturers or software companies in cahoots with them may release versions of Linux for this hardware.
So you've got this machine running Linux. You've got the source, so you make the changes you need and recompile the kernel -- but you can't run the new kernel image, because it isn't signed.
Or you may be given an OS with an encrypted kernel image and source code that supposedly matches what's in the kernel image -- but since it's encrypted you have no way of telling, and you can't compile your own copy because you can't sign it.
I think the GPL needs to be modified to disallow the distribution of versions of software where the hardware is so restrictive that having a copy of the source code does nothing for you at all.
You have to remember that a transplant of islet cells suffers from a double-whammy; not only are they of a cell type that the immune system previously destroyed, but they're also foreign organisms, coming from another human being. It'd be difficult to predict how much better immunosuppressants might work on cells that weren't foreign but merely altered.
This sort of advance should work very well for people who have type I diabetes, where their bodies no long secrete insulin. I have to wonder how well it will work in people with adult-onset, type II diabetes, which is triggered by a malformed receptor that isn't sensitive enough to secreted insulin. The use of oral or injectable insulin might be eliminate, but I worry that the attendant physical ailments, such as diabetic retinopathy, will still dog those who suffer. Unfortunately, the problem of fixing those receptors may prove to be much more difficult.
I suspect that, once you have a way to make new insulin-producing cells, the autoimmune problem will be relatively easy to get around. Prior to this point there was no way to test any potential solutions simply because the problem has never been detected in people until it was too late and their islets were destroyed.
Current immunosuppressive drugs may do well to inhibit the destruction of the new glands. Then again, the "pseudo-islets" may not even express the same antigens as the natural islets of Langerhans, and therefore might be immune to destruction.
A website like EFF.org should send its members passwords for their petition pages through snail-mail, thereby establishing their physical address. Then when a petition is launched, the signers can be verified as being genuine opinions by real people.
Well, it's popular in raves because Ecstasy users often become dehydrated. I don't know what rationale they'd used for the ban in the original version of the law. But I don't think this restriction is specifically in the version that passed.
The RAVE act basically means, if there are any drugs on your property, no matter whether they belong to someone else or whether you knew about it, are your responsibility, and your property may be forfeit and you can be subject to a ludicrous fine.
Uhm... How many molecules of water do you need to turn one molecule of methane into its hydrate?
FYI, methane has a molecular weight of 16, while water has a molecular weight of 18.
If, as the image on the web site seems to imply, it requires 20 molecules of water to encompass one molecule of methane, then we're talking 23 times the weight of the liquid methane. It would also take up around 20 times the space. Add on the refrigeration system that would be needed and it's just not practical, at least for transportation. (For long-term storage, it might have advantages.)
Sounds like you could pick up some very interesting projects by being a contrarian; ie, getting the stuff that's getting poo-pooed on the boards and actually READING it; then picking it up for less than the project would've gotten if it were universally lauded.
I'm theorizing that, if the Chinese government indeed builds a search portal that can compete with Google, their next step will be to keep Google's spiders from traversing the Chinese networks. This would cripple Google's ability to grow and update, and knock them out of the running.
Well, first off, you're saving what, 6 minutes at the most? That's how long it takes to cook most microwave dishes, except the ones which require quite a bit of manual assistance, which this gizmo couldn't prepare automatically anyway. You're also limited to the dish you chose when you left the house; no flexibility for last-minute changes of appetite. (Haven't you ever gone to the freezer for one nukable food, and decided to cook something else instead?)
For the pirce and complexity of this gizmo, I think I'd rather just nuke it when I'm ready for it.
You say that, if the consumer cost of a product is near-zero, then it won't be worthwhile for people to generate new ideas. I disagree. It only means we need a better method of paying for trivial dissemination.
The cost of disseminating an MP3 is practically zero; much less than a penny per copy. So, if there were a way to do so conveniently, would you pay a penny per download? Let's say you had a choice between grabbing the song off a P2P network, and risk getting a lousy copy that you'll have to take the trouble to delete -- or grab a genuine, tested copy off the band's own web page, paying a penny for the privilege, and to the band's benefit?
Slashdot Mirror
I dunno, maybe I was old enough when I first ran across this sort of stuff that it couldn't shock me so hard. But I don't see what a big deal it is.
If you were hit that badly by seeing fan-art, I wonder how you'd react to hearing actual audio outtakes from the Thundercats show. The fact is, while the cartoon itself may be pure, the people behind it are only human.
Maybe the fact that I grew up watching Warner Bros cartoons, which threw in all sorts of hidden adult humor, helped cushion me from this sort of shock. I dunno.
I've seen memepool /. sites in the past...
If anyone's interested, I have the first CD Baen Books put out with David Weber's War of Honor up on a BT torrent. It's not an ISO image, though, it's a zipped copy of all the files.
.torrent file is available for download at http://www.liberty4me.com/tracker .
The
I recently got an account at AddAction.net. I haven't been with them very long, so I can't tell you how good their customer service is. On the other hand, I haven't had to deal with their customer service. Their facilities are pretty good, the only thing I don't like about them is the paucity of their subdomain service. And the price is right, too; $9.95 special for a 6 month trial period.
...Because it shares files, but doesn't search for them. It's also best when used with files larger than an MP3, and when more than one person is downloading the file at the same time.
.torrent files are stored on are fixed targets, much like Napster was, and are susceptible to the RIAA/MPAA/SPA dropping on their asses.
If you want to see the next Napster, try WinMX, or Shareaza, or any of the "lite" versions of the various P2P sharing systems you can find at ZeroPaid.com. They're much more suited to trading stuff, rather than people helping each other downloading particular files.
And yeah, BT can help sites trade pirated music and movies and whatever, but the web pages the
I don't know about Mozilla plug-ins, but if that'd work, then fine.
As for how they knew what the bandwidh was, BT is based around a central server called a "tracker"; which helps nodes find each other, and also collects statistics.
Well, first off, BitTorrent isn't a P2P system. It is a P2P protocol. It doesn't search for your favorite MP3s. You can't even "surf" through it. You give it a .torrent file (analogous to a URL, though with some interesting features), and it gives you the file(s) that "URL" points at.
It's unique in that it is a highly efficient and secure cooperative system -- and is very low-profile, as well. It is capable of delivering large amounts of data that is originating from a source which cannot normally afford that sort of bandwidth. It can move more bandwidth than even large companies can afford; when Red Hat 9 was released through BT, traffic peaked at nearly 1.5 gigabits per second, or the full bandwidth of ten OC3 connections.
Just noting that the regulations in UCITA give you the worst parts of liability and disclaiming against it... The bill states that software companies must warranty their software's performance -- but says that they can disclaim that warranty in their license agreement.
So what does that mean? It means that companies like Microsoft can ask their lawyers for the appropriate legalese to have no liability against their software fuck-ups, but some hobbyist who coded up something and stuck it on their web site may be sued because their software malfunctioned.
Now THAT is stifling innovation.
See the origin of this thread. We don't know yet whether this would be true. Cells that were modified genetically from liver cells may express different antigens than the original islet cells.
I think that the GPL may indeed need to be modified due to DRM developments, because they may soon violate the spirit of the GPL, if not the letter.
Very soon we may have hardware out there that will only run OSes that are signed, or even encrypted, with a specific key. These hardware manufacturers or software companies in cahoots with them may release versions of Linux for this hardware.
So you've got this machine running Linux. You've got the source, so you make the changes you need and recompile the kernel -- but you can't run the new kernel image, because it isn't signed.
Or you may be given an OS with an encrypted kernel image and source code that supposedly matches what's in the kernel image -- but since it's encrypted you have no way of telling, and you can't compile your own copy because you can't sign it.
I think the GPL needs to be modified to disallow the distribution of versions of software where the hardware is so restrictive that having a copy of the source code does nothing for you at all.
You have to remember that a transplant of islet cells suffers from a double-whammy; not only are they of a cell type that the immune system previously destroyed, but they're also foreign organisms, coming from another human being. It'd be difficult to predict how much better immunosuppressants might work on cells that weren't foreign but merely altered.
This sort of advance should work very well for people who have type I diabetes, where their bodies no long secrete insulin. I have to wonder how well it will work in people with adult-onset, type II diabetes, which is triggered by a malformed receptor that isn't sensitive enough to secreted insulin. The use of oral or injectable insulin might be eliminate, but I worry that the attendant physical ailments, such as diabetic retinopathy, will still dog those who suffer. Unfortunately, the problem of fixing those receptors may prove to be much more difficult.
I suspect that, once you have a way to make new insulin-producing cells, the autoimmune problem will be relatively easy to get around. Prior to this point there was no way to test any potential solutions simply because the problem has never been detected in people until it was too late and their islets were destroyed.
Current immunosuppressive drugs may do well to inhibit the destruction of the new glands. Then again, the "pseudo-islets" may not even express the same antigens as the natural islets of Langerhans, and therefore might be immune to destruction.
SMTP doesn't HAVE to operate on port 25. If you mapped it to a high port range, say over 10000, it might not be filtered.
A website like EFF.org should send its members passwords for their petition pages through snail-mail, thereby establishing their physical address. Then when a petition is launched, the signers can be verified as being genuine opinions by real people.
Recommended by adult-check pages everywhere!
Well, it's popular in raves because Ecstasy users often become dehydrated. I don't know what rationale they'd used for the ban in the original version of the law. But I don't think this restriction is specifically in the version that passed.
A rant about it
The RAVE act basically means, if there are any drugs on your property, no matter whether they belong to someone else or whether you knew about it, are your responsibility, and your property may be forfeit and you can be subject to a ludicrous fine.
The full text of the law.
Uhm... How many molecules of water do you need to turn one molecule of methane into its hydrate?
FYI, methane has a molecular weight of 16, while water has a molecular weight of 18.
If, as the image on the web site seems to imply, it requires 20 molecules of water to encompass one molecule of methane, then we're talking 23 times the weight of the liquid methane. It would also take up around 20 times the space. Add on the refrigeration system that would be needed and it's just not practical, at least for transportation. (For long-term storage, it might have advantages.)
Sounds like you could pick up some very interesting projects by being a contrarian; ie, getting the stuff that's getting poo-pooed on the boards and actually READING it; then picking it up for less than the project would've gotten if it were universally lauded.
You've gotta know when to question.
Know when to keep still.
Know when to walk away.
And know when to run...
You'd better count your money
With each and every paystub
Cuz you'll have no chance to count it
When the merger's done.
I'm theorizing that, if the Chinese government indeed builds a search portal that can compete with Google, their next step will be to keep Google's spiders from traversing the Chinese networks. This would cripple Google's ability to grow and update, and knock them out of the running.
Well, first off, you're saving what, 6 minutes at the most? That's how long it takes to cook most microwave dishes, except the ones which require quite a bit of manual assistance, which this gizmo couldn't prepare automatically anyway. You're also limited to the dish you chose when you left the house; no flexibility for last-minute changes of appetite. (Haven't you ever gone to the freezer for one nukable food, and decided to cook something else instead?)
For the pirce and complexity of this gizmo, I think I'd rather just nuke it when I'm ready for it.
I strongly recommend you plant some cabbage. It'll give you some idea of the consistency of your brains after 20 years of IT work.
You say that, if the consumer cost of a product is near-zero, then it won't be worthwhile for people to generate new ideas. I disagree. It only means we need a better method of paying for trivial dissemination.
The cost of disseminating an MP3 is practically zero; much less than a penny per copy. So, if there were a way to do so conveniently, would you pay a penny per download? Let's say you had a choice between grabbing the song off a P2P network, and risk getting a lousy copy that you'll have to take the trouble to delete -- or grab a genuine, tested copy off the band's own web page, paying a penny for the privilege, and to the band's benefit?
Yeah, there's no practical micropayment system. Yet. Eventually, though, we'll find one.