Your network setup sounds viable to me. My 2 cents: Make sure you have some kind of antivirus program on those workstations. Then you have to worry about the stuff on the computers. Make sure there's a plan so you won't go out of business when that data gets accidentally deleted or stolen or burned or turned to ones and zeros by some virus.
This is a good example of marketing. The episodes themselves are pretty much freely available in "IP-space" but the slick packaging means people will buy this. Oooh! Shiny Ones!
Many Net swappers "think it is their God-given right to steal music," Whitmore says. "They don't know any better. We have to teach them."
What the public doesn't need to be taught is that the RIAA has been handing out raw deal record contracts for decades now. Sure it harms the artist when I don't buy a CD, but it harms the RIAA's interests about 15 times more. To me, that makes it worth it. Lesser of two evils and all that.
I show my support for the artists by dropping a dollar in the tip jar down at the bar. They're a lot more appreciative of my passion for music than the RIAA has been. Hey it's a buyer's market!
This story should be made into a movie. Perhaps a documentary.
"...We formulated a law--that if 500 or fewer cars were produced, if they weren't currently produced, if they were never U.S.-legal, and if they were rare--you could import them without having to pass DOT standards. As long as they met EPA standards and were driven no more than 2500 miles per year, they'd be legal."
...The supercar proviso became law when President Clinton signed off on it. After eight years of struggle, the real hassles were about to begin for the 959 project. "The next step was to reduce the bill to writing so DOT could administer it. At first they weren't happy about it. Their attitude was 'We're short-staffed as it is, so how are we going to deal with this?' But the government worked diligently to help our cars pass inspection."
There's so many things wrong here. For starters, Federal tax dollars (aka "your money") are being spent to push the paperwork on a car that only the super-wealthy will ever drive. Then, there's the fact that someone(s) in Congress (aka "your representative") felt s/he was acting appropriately when the attached this rider to the transportation bill. Finally, we've got the lawyers, who dreamed up this scheme where we have to pay (see "your money" above) so the super-wealthy chase their small-penised dreams.
This whole damn situation is so friggin' complex that I am really having a hard time determining who I should be pissed off at.
Personally, if I were that rich, I would just find a way to bring the car in illegally. How hard can that really be? On the other hand, I know Bill Gates gets his most intense satisfaction every time his lawyer-monkeys find a way to make legal something that really isn't.
and what could be more surreal than 10 kilotons at ten thousand feet over disney.
of course, they've already thought of this, and Walt Disney World is protected airspace. I wonder if they have Patriot missiles hidden in the swamp down there.
What do you think happens to the narcotis pipelines that our DEA busts up?
Ever wonder why drugs are just as prevalent as they've always been, despite 20+ years of "war"?
There should be little doubt in your mind that governmental organizations on both sides of the border have fingers in the pie.
Nobody mentions it because it would be political suicide. You're correct to assume that both parties are involved. The narcotics trade is too profitable.
1. If you feel that terrorism will always exist, why are you trying to go to war with it? That's like declaring a war on rivers or gravity or dirt or something.
2. Agreed
3. You need not have absolute dictatorial powers (nice rhetoric btw) to fund terrorists. Consider the $27 million of classified expenditures in the Pentagon budget. You have no idea where that money is going, and it's quite likely that some of it is going to fund groups we would never overtly support.
4. Afghani resources? No, OBL comes from an extremely wealthy family, and was (is?) funded by a small number of wealthy people. Taliban did much to diminish Afghan's cash position, by stamping out the opium trade.
5. You must be an exceptionally risk-averse person for the existence of terrorists (a given by your doctrine) and the concurrent existence of dictators to lead you to a pre-emtpive strike against the possibility that they MIGHT collaborate.
6. A direct link may explicity not exist, but that too may be classified. (This is the most fallacious argument you've come up with yet.)
To recap: You assert that fundamental extremism, and the terrorism it leads to, are an inescapable truth of the human condition. You assert that without funding, terrorists will only be able to kill a few, not too much to worry about. You then assert that "absolute dictators" could potentially back terrorists. You then conclude that the combination of a certain absolute dictator financing a certain terrorist is so potentially deadly that you'll eliminate that dictator.
(Doesn't that last part sound a bit backwards? Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to eliminate the terrorist? Oh wait we're not sure if we accomplished that or not.)
I hope you realize that the ability to finance terrorists is not reserved for absolute dictators. Anybody with enough money can do it. You can drop a fiver in the tip jar at your local Irish pub and do it yourself!
I really think you ought to take a look at some of the conclusions you've drawn. You might as well do away with money, since terrorists will always be out there, just looking for a sugar daddy to make their mushroom cloud dreams come true. Your position is based upon speculation and fear. Your policy has you lashing out at some local thug who has never attacked you, because he might team up with the bad man who did. Those actions will inevitably lead to an increase in the fundamental extremism that drives your attackers in the first place.
How, exactly, is this superpower getting its ass kicked? 3000 dead big deal. We've killed that many a dozen times over.
Really, what is everyone so up in arms about. Some civilians died. It's war. Just because they bombed us a couple times doesn't mean we're losing; it doesn't really mean a whole lot. What is has meant so far is that America is looking fooling trying to conquer Iraq and Afghanistan, deploying our for-real military against guys with AK47s and hand grenades and box cutters. We're completely overreacting to the threat -- a threat which on a few different occasions didn't quite ring the alarm bells loud enough.
The real battle will come when someone low on the food chain again notices some potential-terrorist behavior. Will we have learned anything from 9/11, or will we take the NASA route and fall asleep at the switch again? Sadly I fear it will be the latter.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Not another $87 billion for bombing the crap out of third world countries. Part of that vigilance is calling out leaders who lie to us (Iraqi WMD claims) and keep us in the dark (Cheney's Energy Task Force).
And I don't want to dwell on the past, but a robot tank would have done nothing to stop 9/11. A competent security screener (not the immigrants employed by the airlines making $8/hr thanks to deregulation) or a nice solid cockpit door (too heavy, too expensive to retrofit) might have made a world of difference.
From the display board, "It shall be a goal of the Armed Forces...that by 2015, one-third of the operational ground combat vehicles of the Armed Forces are unmanned." -National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (S. 2549, Sec. 217)
That is very scary to me. Who decided we want this? I do not want our military, any military sending ROBOT TANKS into battle.
If anybody can provide any history or background on where this "mission statement" is about, I'd love to know. The development of autonomous, mobile killing machines is extremely distrubing. I also wonder if some of the participants in this challenge are so focused on the million dollars that they don't quite realize what they are building.
I'm reminded of the movie Real Genius, where the huge laser they spend all semester working on turns out to be some black ops superweapon.
Just imagine what an autonomous tank with human targeting capability could do against even a lightly armed population. For example: "You have fifteen seconds to comply."
There is, somehow, a line between war and senseless slaughter. I think unmanned ground combat vehicles cross that line. They need to change the name back to Department of War if they're going to be building stuff like this.
And as cool and engaging as this challenge is, I can't support it.
oh, damn. At first I just thought you brought up two web pages.. Is this for real? Closing Orrin Hatch's web page took you to a porn site? That is far out@!
14.4k modem? jpgs? Luxury! In my day, we were downloading GIFs at 2400 and saving them to floppy to make room for more warez on a 230 MB HDD.
The floppy disk was kinda like a magazine... even better you could loan one to your friends and not have to worry about the pages getting stuck together! But you might not want to type on their keyboard next time you're over.
Thank you very much for that excellent comment. We're all busy saying how technologicaly stupid this idea is, but you've exposed the RIAA's straw man without the slightest need for an understanding of computers. Well done.
Parents who let their kids cruise the Internet unchaperoned are being neglectful.
Most people, even if they can apply DRM to a document, won't choose to do so. How many people change the rights for their local drives to remove access for 'Everyone'?
Furthermore, what's the interplay between NTFS permissions, Share permissions, and these new DRM permissions? That's a lot of permissions to manage. Do I have to set these permissions from inside Word or can I do it in the Finder (Whoops. I mean Explorer. Man how'd that happen?)
Every place I've been, the Finance people already have restricted access to sensitive documents. It's in a folder called "Finance" that only they have access to.
consider the bad reputation they're making for themselves among the federal judges presiding over these cases.
I guess maybe they'd have to incorporate under a new name and *poof!* the legal slate has been wiped clean!
It wouldn't matter (to the law) that it's the same people running the show. Wall Street might notice, but considering how strong an investment MS is, would they be upset? Hell no.l
Parent comment is great, but I think it should be "ethics" and not "morals" that guides the legislature. Morals are too personal, too subject to ideological indoctrination and zealotry. Ethics is where most people can agree.
If you're arguing that the only thing to save us will be a "return to morality," brought on by some great fear, then what you're saying is that society hasn't really progessed much since the days of the Wrathful God of the Old Testament. Not that I necessarily disagree with that, but it doesn't seem like that's the direction you want society to go in.
Lots of good points by the parent. However part of the conflict comes down to exactly this assertion: governments/organizations will have to learn that no matter how hard you try you cannot manipulate everyone into thinking the way you want them to
John Ashcroft once made a comment, which I'm not going to bother do get the actual quoute for, but it went like this: "People say you can't legislate morality? Watch me."
Ashcroft is not alone in his belief that laws and morality are really inextricable. In Ashcroft's view, you need laws like $150,000 per IP violation to keep people on the path of righteousness, or they will be tempted by the sins of the MP3. Seriously, he really does think that way. This is the same sort of logic that has no problem with homosexuality per se; rather it's the performance homosexual acts that's taboo. You see, homosexuals/file traders aren't immoral so long as the fear of punishment keeps them from doing what their lustful hearts truly desire.
Another great quote came from George W. Bush during the 2000 campaign: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are the ones I'm focusing on."
When dealing with the Right, never for a minute assume that they're rational. Their ideology stems from a bitter and venomous religious treatise in which men and women consistently demonstrate their propesnity for evil deeds. It is only fear of horrific punishment and constant reminders of our own worthlessness and impotence that keeps the Devil at bay.
I've been thinking along those lines too. I wonder if someone set up a "compromised" system, set the system clock ahead to PayDay, and did a little packet dump of whatever the Mysterious Download was?
It's been really hard to find good in-depth and knowledgeable coverage of this event, so I'm glad to see it on SlashDot (ahem. eventually. like days after the fact. ahem.) But at least it's here now!
I was also somewhat relieved when a search for DSCN 0465 on my comptuer revealed a picture of a rock I took in a cave. Not that I've ever downloaded anything from alt.binaries.schoolgirls:O
Hmmm.... new virus... Microsoft systems affected... delivered via Usenet... Wasn't there some story on Slashdot just recently about Microsoft's interest in Usenet?;)
Slashdot Mirror
Your network setup sounds viable to me. My 2 cents:
Make sure you have some kind of antivirus program on those workstations. Then you have to worry about the stuff on the computers. Make sure there's a plan so you won't go out of business when that data gets accidentally deleted or stolen or burned or turned to ones and zeros by some virus.
most MCSEs don't understand what you just said.
This is a good example of marketing. The episodes themselves are pretty much freely available in "IP-space" but the slick packaging means people will buy this. Oooh! Shiny Ones!
will they ever learn.
Many Net swappers "think it is their God-given right to steal music," Whitmore says. "They don't know any better. We have to teach them."
What the public doesn't need to be taught is that the RIAA has been handing out raw deal record contracts for decades now. Sure it harms the artist when I don't buy a CD, but it harms the RIAA's interests about 15 times more. To me, that makes it worth it. Lesser of two evils and all that.
I show my support for the artists by dropping a dollar in the tip jar down at the bar. They're a lot more appreciative of my passion for music than the RIAA has been. Hey it's a buyer's market!
"...We formulated a law--that if 500 or fewer cars were produced, if they weren't currently produced, if they were never U.S.-legal, and if they were rare--you could import them without having to pass DOT standards. As long as they met EPA standards and were driven no more than 2500 miles per year, they'd be legal."
There's so many things wrong here. For starters, Federal tax dollars (aka "your money") are being spent to push the paperwork on a car that only the super-wealthy will ever drive. Then, there's the fact that someone(s) in Congress (aka "your representative") felt s/he was acting appropriately when the attached this rider to the transportation bill. Finally, we've got the lawyers, who dreamed up this scheme where we have to pay (see "your money" above) so the super-wealthy chase their small-penised dreams.
This whole damn situation is so friggin' complex that I am really having a hard time determining who I should be pissed off at.
Personally, if I were that rich, I would just find a way to bring the car in illegally. How hard can that really be? On the other hand, I know Bill Gates gets his most intense satisfaction every time his lawyer-monkeys find a way to make legal something that really isn't.
and what could be more surreal than 10 kilotons at ten thousand feet over disney.
of course, they've already thought of this, and Walt Disney World is protected airspace. I wonder if they have Patriot missiles hidden in the swamp down there.
What do you think happens to the narcotis pipelines that our DEA busts up?
Ever wonder why drugs are just as prevalent as they've always been, despite 20+ years of "war"?
There should be little doubt in your mind that governmental organizations on both sides of the border have fingers in the pie.
Nobody mentions it because it would be political suicide. You're correct to assume that both parties are involved. The narcotics trade is too profitable.
read some of the articles. they're not about liberal vs. conservative or any silly crap like that. This one is my favorite: US Dollar vs. The Euro
Thanks for the invitation davejenkins. I would take you up on it, but none of the DNS servers near me have ever heard of thought-control.org.
Factually, it looks right to me. Where's the problem?
OK I've got a bone to pick with you davejenkins:
1. If you feel that terrorism will always exist, why are you trying to go to war with it? That's like declaring a war on rivers or gravity or dirt or something.
2. Agreed
3. You need not have absolute dictatorial powers (nice rhetoric btw) to fund terrorists. Consider the $27 million of classified expenditures in the Pentagon budget. You have no idea where that money is going, and it's quite likely that some of it is going to fund groups we would never overtly support.
4. Afghani resources? No, OBL comes from an extremely wealthy family, and was (is?) funded by a small number of wealthy people. Taliban did much to diminish Afghan's cash position, by stamping out the opium trade.
5. You must be an exceptionally risk-averse person for the existence of terrorists (a given by your doctrine) and the concurrent existence of dictators to lead you to a pre-emtpive strike against the possibility that they MIGHT collaborate.
6. A direct link may explicity not exist, but that too may be classified. (This is the most fallacious argument you've come up with yet.)
To recap: You assert that fundamental extremism, and the terrorism it leads to, are an inescapable truth of the human condition. You assert that without funding, terrorists will only be able to kill a few, not too much to worry about. You then assert that "absolute dictators" could potentially back terrorists. You then conclude that the combination of a certain absolute dictator financing a certain terrorist is so potentially deadly that you'll eliminate that dictator.
(Doesn't that last part sound a bit backwards? Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to eliminate the terrorist? Oh wait we're not sure if we accomplished that or not.)
I hope you realize that the ability to finance terrorists is not reserved for absolute dictators. Anybody with enough money can do it. You can drop a fiver in the tip jar at your local Irish pub and do it yourself!
I really think you ought to take a look at some of the conclusions you've drawn. You might as well do away with money, since terrorists will always be out there, just looking for a sugar daddy to make their mushroom cloud dreams come true. Your position is based upon speculation and fear. Your policy has you lashing out at some local thug who has never attacked you, because he might team up with the bad man who did. Those actions will inevitably lead to an increase in the fundamental extremism that drives your attackers in the first place.
How, exactly, is this superpower getting its ass kicked? 3000 dead big deal. We've killed that many a dozen times over.
Really, what is everyone so up in arms about. Some civilians died. It's war. Just because they bombed us a couple times doesn't mean we're losing; it doesn't really mean a whole lot. What is has meant so far is that America is looking fooling trying to conquer Iraq and Afghanistan, deploying our for-real military against guys with AK47s and hand grenades and box cutters. We're completely overreacting to the threat -- a threat which on a few different occasions didn't quite ring the alarm bells loud enough.
The real battle will come when someone low on the food chain again notices some potential-terrorist behavior. Will we have learned anything from 9/11, or will we take the NASA route and fall asleep at the switch again? Sadly I fear it will be the latter.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Not another $87 billion for bombing the crap out of third world countries. Part of that vigilance is calling out leaders who lie to us (Iraqi WMD claims) and keep us in the dark (Cheney's Energy Task Force).
And I don't want to dwell on the past, but a robot tank would have done nothing to stop 9/11. A competent security screener (not the immigrants employed by the airlines making $8/hr thanks to deregulation) or a nice solid cockpit door (too heavy, too expensive to retrofit) might have made a world of difference.
While nuclear weapons haven't made war unthinkable they certainly have made major wars much less thinkable.
Nuclear weapons have made nuclear war unthinkable. Regular war still happens every day at several locations on the planet.
Creating a horrible weapon that everyone is afraid to use hardly qualifies as a humanitarian gesture.
From the display board, "It shall be a goal of the Armed Forces...that by 2015, one-third of the operational ground combat vehicles of the Armed Forces are unmanned." -National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (S. 2549, Sec. 217)
That is very scary to me. Who decided we want this? I do not want our military, any military sending ROBOT TANKS into battle.
If anybody can provide any history or background on where this "mission statement" is about, I'd love to know. The development of autonomous, mobile killing machines is extremely distrubing. I also wonder if some of the participants in this challenge are so focused on the million dollars that they don't quite realize what they are building.
I'm reminded of the movie Real Genius, where the huge laser they spend all semester working on turns out to be some black ops superweapon.
Just imagine what an autonomous tank with human targeting capability could do against even a lightly armed population. For example: "You have fifteen seconds to comply."
There is, somehow, a line between war and senseless slaughter. I think unmanned ground combat vehicles cross that line. They need to change the name back to Department of War if they're going to be building stuff like this.
And as cool and engaging as this challenge is, I can't support it.
oh, damn. At first I just thought you brought up two web pages.. Is this for real? Closing Orrin Hatch's web page took you to a porn site? That is far out@!
14.4k modem? jpgs? Luxury! In my day, we were downloading GIFs at 2400 and saving them to floppy to make room for more warez on a 230 MB HDD.
The floppy disk was kinda like a magazine... even better you could loan one to your friends and not have to worry about the pages getting stuck together! But you might not want to type on their keyboard next time you're over.
Thank you very much for that excellent comment. We're all busy saying how technologicaly stupid this idea is, but you've exposed the RIAA's straw man without the slightest need for an understanding of computers. Well done.
Parents who let their kids cruise the Internet unchaperoned are being neglectful.
There are no white-hat, gray-hats or black-hats. Only criminals and law-abiding citizens.
You have got to be kidding me. You never jaywalk, speed, or roll through a stop sign? Please.
You sound about as erudite that guy who said "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists."
Most people, even if they can apply DRM to a document, won't choose to do so. How many people change the rights for their local drives to remove access for 'Everyone'?
Furthermore, what's the interplay between NTFS permissions, Share permissions, and these new DRM permissions? That's a lot of permissions to manage. Do I have to set these permissions from inside Word or can I do it in the Finder (Whoops. I mean Explorer. Man how'd that happen?)
Every place I've been, the Finance people already have restricted access to sensitive documents. It's in a folder called "Finance" that only they have access to.
consider the bad reputation they're making for themselves among the federal judges presiding over these cases.
I guess maybe they'd have to incorporate under a new name and *poof!* the legal slate has been wiped clean!
It wouldn't matter (to the law) that it's the same people running the show. Wall Street might notice, but considering how strong an investment MS is, would they be upset? Hell no.l
Parent comment is great, but I think it should be "ethics" and not "morals" that guides the legislature. Morals are too personal, too subject to ideological indoctrination and zealotry. Ethics is where most people can agree.
If you're arguing that the only thing to save us will be a "return to morality," brought on by some great fear, then what you're saying is that society hasn't really progessed much since the days of the Wrathful God of the Old Testament. Not that I necessarily disagree with that, but it doesn't seem like that's the direction you want society to go in.
Children sucked until computer games came along.
Now, if only I could play Sim-Hoop-and-a-Stick, in a MMPORPGLORPS setting!
Really, how did society come this far without computer games? And what about the children!
If I'm not mistaken, the No Electronic Theft act of like 1998 or something moved criminalized copyright violations.
Lots of good points by the parent. However part of the conflict comes down to exactly this assertion: governments/organizations will have to learn that no matter how hard you try you cannot manipulate everyone into thinking the way you want them to
John Ashcroft once made a comment, which I'm not going to bother do get the actual quoute for, but it went like this: "People say you can't legislate morality? Watch me."
Ashcroft is not alone in his belief that laws and morality are really inextricable. In Ashcroft's view, you need laws like $150,000 per IP violation to keep people on the path of righteousness, or they will be tempted by the sins of the MP3. Seriously, he really does think that way. This is the same sort of logic that has no problem with homosexuality per se; rather it's the performance homosexual acts that's taboo. You see, homosexuals/file traders aren't immoral so long as the fear of punishment keeps them from doing what their lustful hearts truly desire.
Another great quote came from George W. Bush during the 2000 campaign: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are the ones I'm focusing on."
When dealing with the Right, never for a minute assume that they're rational. Their ideology stems from a bitter and venomous religious treatise in which men and women consistently demonstrate their propesnity for evil deeds. It is only fear of horrific punishment and constant reminders of our own worthlessness and impotence that keeps the Devil at bay.
You can see why these people get into politics.
I've been thinking along those lines too. I wonder if someone set up a "compromised" system, set the system clock ahead to PayDay, and did a little packet dump of whatever the Mysterious Download was?
:O
;)
It's been really hard to find good in-depth and knowledgeable coverage of this event, so I'm glad to see it on SlashDot (ahem. eventually. like days after the fact. ahem.) But at least it's here now!
I was also somewhat relieved when a search for DSCN 0465 on my comptuer revealed a picture of a rock I took in a cave. Not that I've ever downloaded anything from alt.binaries.schoolgirls
Hmmm.... new virus... Microsoft systems affected... delivered via Usenet... Wasn't there some story on Slashdot just recently about Microsoft's interest in Usenet?