You can still use mail servers other than Microsoft though. Sure, if you want to use Qwest's mail servers you need to use Outlook, but if Microsoft does start accumulating ISPs there will just need to be efforts to provide mail services using other protocols such as IMAP. I can't see this being free, but I'd be willing to shell out a yearly fee to avoid being forced to run Windows.
I'm all in favour of retiring fossil fuels, but the article you pointed to as a viable hydrogen-powered vehicle isn't viable. It only has a 62 mile range, and even if they increase the storage system 160 miles is still a very small range, not to mention that you've lost your trunk.
To be viable to replace gasoline based automobiles more than just efficiency and environmental friendlyness is required. It also needs to meet the needs of the consumer. I've driven cross country on a number of occasions, as well as on roads off the beaten path quite often. Even on interstate the 160 mile range would mean there are places you can't drive through on a Sunday or at night (most gas stations are closed)
Not a normal DOS attack, also easily defeatable
on
RIAA to DoS Pirates?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
First off, its not a normal denial of service, they're not swamping you with connection attempts and consuming all your bandwidth. What they're doing is downloading your file, repeatedly, very slowly. This is actually fine, and not at all questionable ethically in my mind. Its not going to work however. How long until the various file sharing software products implement blacklists? All you'd need is for somebody to set up a database of IP addresses to block. If they do the denial of service attack from corporate WAN then it'll be easy. If they lease IP addresses from the internet service providers it'll be a bit more tedious but still easily defeatable. Regexps are your friend.
Well, I don't have a problem with the officials sending out canned responses. If written responses were forced then either one of two things would happen: Obviously the senate leaders can't personally respond to every response, so there would be a delegation of aides who's job in life was to transcribe canned doctrine (perhaps an exact transcription or maybe with some artistic freedom for that personal touch) onto paper. This would be outright mimicry and would be no different than the form letter.
The other possibility would be aides writing up their own feelings on the matter, which wouldn't necessarily reflect the views of the persons the letter was addressed to. You might happen to have your letter answered by somebody who agrees with your or panders to you, or you might be answered by somebody who opposes your thoughts.
The form letter is often the best choice given the constraints, unless you want to generate a cottage industry of people copying doctrine down with pen and ink.
I take issue with only accepting views of people who can vote against you though. I'm not a citizen, but I live in the U.S. I'm taxed at the same rate as everybody else yet somehow my voice is less important because I can't vote. I happen to find it disgusting that politicians are taking advantage of this tragedy to take away fundamental rights and freedoms. The 5 or 6 thousand deaths are being used as a distraction despite the fact that hundreds of times this number have died to earn and protect these freedoms.
OK, but show me the stolen goods. If I go to the museum and take a photograph of a painting have I stolen the painting? Where's the paper trail showing a missing copy of "Britney Spears: Gyrates Live"?
There are other things that would be more realistic charges, such as counterfitting, but I don't think that even applies in this case. Nobody is representing that their digital copy is the real thing, its not an exact copy. I think this comes back to my photograph argument.
If I make an agreement: I'll sell you a digital copy of Britney Spears' latest hit "I'm a Virgin, Honest! (Technical virgin)" for a buck, or some other explicit trade then I'm representing that my copy has value. In that case I'd agree that I'm engaging in some sort of illegal trade practice.
Napsters business model isn't "clearly illegal" any more than a pawn shop is "clearly illegal". Just because many goods sold in pawn shops are of questionable origin doesn't make the business itself illegal.
I never really defended Napster either, I think the RIAA is entitled to demand a cut, or sue them out of existance. I'm just arguing that they were assinine for doing so. They're now in a situation where Napster's down, but who's next? Kazaa? Maybe they'll be down soon too. What about Audiogalaxy, Morpheus or all the other repackaged not-quite-peer-to-peer services? They're going to spend an eternity in court because programmers can whip together their next nightmare faster than they can sue it out of existance.
They're in a bad position. As new businesses come on line, no matter how illegitimate, they're losing out on a share of the profits. On the other hand by making an agreement with these businesses they're giving them an air of legitamacy but at the same time are undermining their profits. They can't expect to charge a buck per track for an electronic copy of a song.
The most basic analysis of their situation is that the RIAA's business model has been destroyed by the advance of technology. Their business is based around shipping truck loads of plastic discs and relying on peoples lack of knowledge of the miniscule costs involved in distribution. People now see that they can download recordings off of the net for free and that any distribution costs are negligible. In addition the RIAA's actual costs of production and promotion have been exposed and people realize that they're being absolutely raped on the price.
In the mean time the RIAA is trying to crush what little rights consumers have left in order to protect their profits. Laws shouldn't be passed to help companies make a profit. The RIAA isn't even losing money at this point, though I forsee a future where they will no longer be a viable business if their current business plans stay intact or they can't purchase the legislation they require.
Thats not entirely true. We'll always be able to download music off the internet. The only real question is when will we be able to legitimately download music off the internet? Napster got in trouble for two reasons 1) RIAA is extremely greedy and 2) Napster was greedy.
The only reason for Napster itself to exist was to skim money off of peer-to-peer networking. Once Napster became involved in fact it was no longer really peer-to-peer networking, there was an entity in the middle that operated as an information broker. Some percentage of the songs transferred via Napster were copyrighted, it seems fair that the copyright holders of those songs should be able to negotiate a percentage of Napster's revenue based on that. The RIAA, through its extreme greed, did the wrong thing and for all intents and purposes shut down Napster. If they were smart and/or less greedy they would've negotiated a fee based on the knowledge that they can't really stop file sharing but can get an indicator on what percentage of files are infringing. This would've been pure profit for them since their distribution costs are zero.
Instead they're going after each new adulterated peer-to-peer network and shutting them down. The problem is they still aren't stopping file sharing and also aren't making any money off of it. Every side really loses, including the consumer who obviously really wants to be able to download files off of the net.
Does the Wintv PVR PCI card work under linux? I bought a Pinnacle Pro capture card and haven't been all that impressed with its quality. The tuner seems pretty poor in particular so I can't completely comment on the capture quality.
I've found a link which gives higher totals for deaths at the various wars. I still stand by not including Korea, Vietnam or Kuwait. None of them threatened to change the United States itself.
Anyway, this would give:
Revolutionary War 25324
World War I 116708
World War II 408306
Total 550338
I don't know the veracity of these numbers either, which is why I guess the Encyclopedia Britannica is still around.
I don't agree with that sentiment at all. The rights that we take for granted and which many people presently are ready to concede have been earned through the blood of our ancestors.
Five or six thousand people died in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. It is a horrid tragedy and I would never try to minimize it, but it pales to the number of people who have died defending democracy. In three of these defining wars, as tabulated below, there were over 350,000 deaths.
Revolutionary war: 4425
World War I: 53513
World War II: 292131
Total: 350069
This only includes those killed in action or dead from wounds and doesn't include prisoners of war. It seems tremendously disrespectful to those who died creating or defending this country to relenquish our rights, rights earned through their deaths, so easily.
There are also 40,000 deaths per year in the US, not through terrorism, but through automobile accidents. Would you also suggest that for safeties sake we ban the automobile?
Should a brick and mortar business be responsible for the status of what they sell? Should they be excused if they sell CD-R copies of copyrighted material? I don't see why an online company should be any different. These are the same shady business practices that this same group of people gets their panties in a bunch over if it involves violating the GPL.
None of these services are really peer-to-peer filesharing services. Each of them has an entity in the middle that tries to make money off of other people sharing files. This isn't really any different than the people who offer CD-Rs full of proprietary applications on news groups.
Gnutella is still as far as I've found the only true peer-to-peer network. There's nobody in the middle making money. If somebody is in the middle making money it should at least be the legitimate copyright holder.
If this was a GPLed application which was being oppressed I'd feel very differently. Right now I see it as one business using legal means of defending itself against another business. Kazaa and company in this case really are fences for copyright violations, even if they launder their money through spyware and force fed advertisements.
I know how I've explained it in the past, don't go into technical details, explore where this will likely effect her. For instance, your dad may like watching sporting events on TV. Occasionaly your mom forces him to go shopping or ballroom dancing or whatever at the same time his favourite team is competing against his most despised team. Slap a tape into the VCR and program it, problems solved, right?
Nope, with these new laws the teams will be able to enforce the "no recording without prior consent of the baseball commisioner" clause. They simply instruct your TV and VCR to not allow you to record the game. Even if they do let you record it they can still control the length of time you have to watch it, or prevent you from keeping the "best game ever" for posterities sake.
How in the world was this flame bait? The referred page does talk about constructing lens flares, there's not a goat.cx image to be seen and even seems fairly well written.
My home entertainment system is based around Carver amplifiers etc. It uses a different IR frequency than most other vendors. I've tried a couple universal remotes but they've not worked. Does anybody know of one that will?
Orchestras have to pay cash to play the arrangements. Even your little tiny community orchestra can be forced to pay licensing fees. A good friend of mine plays in an ensemble and they were forced to either stop playing certain works or pay a rather exorbidant fee. They decided to play other works, they don't profit off their music and so couldn't afford the fees.
Another friend who was a dance instructor also faced the same problem, she was hit with a nasty letter from a set of lawyers demanding she pay some huge licensing fee. It would've wiped out her meager profits so she's no longer a dance instructor.
I'm not saying that this is really fair play (the licensing fee should be based on the audience size and profit potential etc), but all of those classical CDs would have payed a licensing fee.
This isn't even a really impressive box. I'd rather have an sgi O3K system if I'm going for the ultimate in servers you can actually purchase. The SGI Origin 3800 has anywhere from 16 to 512 processors, 716 GB/sec system bandwidth and up to a terabyte of memory. It's also a single system image machine. Oh yeah, and you can cluster them to scale way beyond 512 processors.
Nah, my case predates this. It happened about 3 years ago. The systems I help design/build are large servers, up to thousands of processors. They don't follow the normal 2X speed/18 months (development time on machines of this calibre are a wee bit longer than slapping a processor in an ABIT motherboard)
Thanks, I was wondering if this had happened before. A former CEO at the company I work for remarked that in several months we'd be releasing product that was 100% faster and 50% cheaper. Guess how this affected our bookings?
Attempting to censor this will do nothing. Censor the web and they use ICQ. Censor ICQ and they use AIM and...
Think beyond the current enemy. Think of the KKK and other groups which exist within the United States. They target those who've not learned empathy, books aren't going to change the minds of those who are already backwards but it can insulate people from being recruited.
The only way you could possibly censor these people (and I still think it would fail) is to allow only officially sanctioned speech on the internet, on television, on the radio, in print...
There's a lot of things that are posted on the web which are objectionable, depending on your definition of objectionable. There are many things said in small groups of people that are objectionable. There are things said among large groups of people that are objectionable.
Trying to censor a viewpoint, no matter how wrong the view point is, can not possibly work. If you manage to censor the web (nearly impossible - just go off and start a GeoCities page or my.yahoo page, then another and then another and...) you only move the hateful speech someplace else. Hate didn't originate with the world wide web, its been around for a very long time. It's always managed to find a forum and it always will.
You're better off spending the funds that would be wasted on censorship on free books for libraries (especially grade school and high school libraries) in order to mold peoples brains into being more accepting of others.
Afghamistan doesn't care about sanctions. There are two parts of the country. The Taliban, who presently rule, and the actual Afghanistans. The Taliban gets what they want at the cost of the real citizens. If the citizens die they couldn't care less. They have done huge injustices to them already.
The CCA is a pretty interesting case. There is a fairly good write up on it. There were also many instances where the CCA was used to kill the competition. The main comic producers could essentially determine if smaller companies could bear the CCA seal or not.
Slashdot Mirror
You can still use mail servers other than Microsoft though. Sure, if you want to use Qwest's mail servers you need to use Outlook, but if Microsoft does start accumulating ISPs there will just need to be efforts to provide mail services using other protocols such as IMAP. I can't see this being free, but I'd be willing to shell out a yearly fee to avoid being forced to run Windows.
To be viable to replace gasoline based automobiles more than just efficiency and environmental friendlyness is required. It also needs to meet the needs of the consumer. I've driven cross country on a number of occasions, as well as on roads off the beaten path quite often. Even on interstate the 160 mile range would mean there are places you can't drive through on a Sunday or at night (most gas stations are closed)
First off, its not a normal denial of service, they're not swamping you with connection attempts and consuming all your bandwidth. What they're doing is downloading your file, repeatedly, very slowly. This is actually fine, and not at all questionable ethically in my mind. Its not going to work however. How long until the various file sharing software products implement blacklists? All you'd need is for somebody to set up a database of IP addresses to block. If they do the denial of service attack from corporate WAN then it'll be easy. If they lease IP addresses from the internet service providers it'll be a bit more tedious but still easily defeatable. Regexps are your friend.
The other possibility would be aides writing up their own feelings on the matter, which wouldn't necessarily reflect the views of the persons the letter was addressed to. You might happen to have your letter answered by somebody who agrees with your or panders to you, or you might be answered by somebody who opposes your thoughts.
The form letter is often the best choice given the constraints, unless you want to generate a cottage industry of people copying doctrine down with pen and ink.
I take issue with only accepting views of people who can vote against you though. I'm not a citizen, but I live in the U.S. I'm taxed at the same rate as everybody else yet somehow my voice is less important because I can't vote. I happen to find it disgusting that politicians are taking advantage of this tragedy to take away fundamental rights and freedoms. The 5 or 6 thousand deaths are being used as a distraction despite the fact that hundreds of times this number have died to earn and protect these freedoms.
There are other things that would be more realistic charges, such as counterfitting, but I don't think that even applies in this case. Nobody is representing that their digital copy is the real thing, its not an exact copy. I think this comes back to my photograph argument.
If I make an agreement: I'll sell you a digital copy of Britney Spears' latest hit "I'm a Virgin, Honest! (Technical virgin)" for a buck, or some other explicit trade then I'm representing that my copy has value. In that case I'd agree that I'm engaging in some sort of illegal trade practice.
Kazaa does have somebody in the middle. Read the details at gift.sourceforge.net. I'm not absolutely sure about Morpheus though.
I never really defended Napster either, I think the RIAA is entitled to demand a cut, or sue them out of existance. I'm just arguing that they were assinine for doing so. They're now in a situation where Napster's down, but who's next? Kazaa? Maybe they'll be down soon too. What about Audiogalaxy, Morpheus or all the other repackaged not-quite-peer-to-peer services? They're going to spend an eternity in court because programmers can whip together their next nightmare faster than they can sue it out of existance.
They're in a bad position. As new businesses come on line, no matter how illegitimate, they're losing out on a share of the profits. On the other hand by making an agreement with these businesses they're giving them an air of legitamacy but at the same time are undermining their profits. They can't expect to charge a buck per track for an electronic copy of a song.
The most basic analysis of their situation is that the RIAA's business model has been destroyed by the advance of technology. Their business is based around shipping truck loads of plastic discs and relying on peoples lack of knowledge of the miniscule costs involved in distribution. People now see that they can download recordings off of the net for free and that any distribution costs are negligible. In addition the RIAA's actual costs of production and promotion have been exposed and people realize that they're being absolutely raped on the price.
In the mean time the RIAA is trying to crush what little rights consumers have left in order to protect their profits. Laws shouldn't be passed to help companies make a profit. The RIAA isn't even losing money at this point, though I forsee a future where they will no longer be a viable business if their current business plans stay intact or they can't purchase the legislation they require.
The only reason for Napster itself to exist was to skim money off of peer-to-peer networking. Once Napster became involved in fact it was no longer really peer-to-peer networking, there was an entity in the middle that operated as an information broker. Some percentage of the songs transferred via Napster were copyrighted, it seems fair that the copyright holders of those songs should be able to negotiate a percentage of Napster's revenue based on that. The RIAA, through its extreme greed, did the wrong thing and for all intents and purposes shut down Napster. If they were smart and/or less greedy they would've negotiated a fee based on the knowledge that they can't really stop file sharing but can get an indicator on what percentage of files are infringing. This would've been pure profit for them since their distribution costs are zero.
Instead they're going after each new adulterated peer-to-peer network and shutting them down. The problem is they still aren't stopping file sharing and also aren't making any money off of it. Every side really loses, including the consumer who obviously really wants to be able to download files off of the net.
Does the Wintv PVR PCI card work under linux? I bought a Pinnacle Pro capture card and haven't been all that impressed with its quality. The tuner seems pretty poor in particular so I can't completely comment on the capture quality.
Anyway, this would give:
I don't know the veracity of these numbers either, which is why I guess the Encyclopedia Britannica is still around.
Five or six thousand people died in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. It is a horrid tragedy and I would never try to minimize it, but it pales to the number of people who have died defending democracy. In three of these defining wars, as tabulated below, there were over 350,000 deaths.
This only includes those killed in action or dead from wounds and doesn't include prisoners of war. It seems tremendously disrespectful to those who died creating or defending this country to relenquish our rights, rights earned through their deaths, so easily.
There are also 40,000 deaths per year in the US, not through terrorism, but through automobile accidents. Would you also suggest that for safeties sake we ban the automobile?
Should a brick and mortar business be responsible for the status of what they sell? Should they be excused if they sell CD-R copies of copyrighted material? I don't see why an online company should be any different. These are the same shady business practices that this same group of people gets their panties in a bunch over if it involves violating the GPL.
Gnutella is still as far as I've found the only true peer-to-peer network. There's nobody in the middle making money. If somebody is in the middle making money it should at least be the legitimate copyright holder.
If this was a GPLed application which was being oppressed I'd feel very differently. Right now I see it as one business using legal means of defending itself against another business. Kazaa and company in this case really are fences for copyright violations, even if they launder their money through spyware and force fed advertisements.
Nope, with these new laws the teams will be able to enforce the "no recording without prior consent of the baseball commisioner" clause. They simply instruct your TV and VCR to not allow you to record the game. Even if they do let you record it they can still control the length of time you have to watch it, or prevent you from keeping the "best game ever" for posterities sake.
How in the world was this flame bait? The referred page does talk about constructing lens flares, there's not a goat.cx image to be seen and even seems fairly well written.
My home entertainment system is based around Carver amplifiers etc. It uses a different IR frequency than most other vendors. I've tried a couple universal remotes but they've not worked. Does anybody know of one that will?
Another friend who was a dance instructor also faced the same problem, she was hit with a nasty letter from a set of lawyers demanding she pay some huge licensing fee. It would've wiped out her meager profits so she's no longer a dance instructor.
I'm not saying that this is really fair play (the licensing fee should be based on the audience size and profit potential etc), but all of those classical CDs would have payed a licensing fee.
This isn't even a really impressive box. I'd rather have an sgi O3K system if I'm going for the ultimate in servers you can actually purchase. The SGI Origin 3800 has anywhere from 16 to 512 processors, 716 GB/sec system bandwidth and up to a terabyte of memory. It's also a single system image machine. Oh yeah, and you can cluster them to scale way beyond 512 processors.
Chainsaw Mike also put salary caps on doctors, which resulted in a rather substantial brain drain to the United States.
Nah, my case predates this. It happened about 3 years ago. The systems I help design/build are large servers, up to thousands of processors. They don't follow the normal 2X speed/18 months (development time on machines of this calibre are a wee bit longer than slapping a processor in an ABIT motherboard)
Thanks, I was wondering if this had happened before. A former CEO at the company I work for remarked that in several months we'd be releasing product that was 100% faster and 50% cheaper. Guess how this affected our bookings?
Attempting to censor this will do nothing. Censor the web and they use ICQ. Censor ICQ and they use AIM and...
Think beyond the current enemy. Think of the KKK and other groups which exist within the United States. They target those who've not learned empathy, books aren't going to change the minds of those who are already backwards but it can insulate people from being recruited.
The only way you could possibly censor these people (and I still think it would fail) is to allow only officially sanctioned speech on the internet, on television, on the radio, in print...
Trying to censor a viewpoint, no matter how wrong the view point is, can not possibly work. If you manage to censor the web (nearly impossible - just go off and start a GeoCities page or my.yahoo page, then another and then another and...) you only move the hateful speech someplace else. Hate didn't originate with the world wide web, its been around for a very long time. It's always managed to find a forum and it always will.
You're better off spending the funds that would be wasted on censorship on free books for libraries (especially grade school and high school libraries) in order to mold peoples brains into being more accepting of others.
Afghamistan doesn't care about sanctions. There are two parts of the country. The Taliban, who presently rule, and the actual Afghanistans. The Taliban gets what they want at the cost of the real citizens. If the citizens die they couldn't care less. They have done huge injustices to them already.
The CCA is a pretty interesting case. There is a fairly good write up on it. There were also many instances where the CCA was used to kill the competition. The main comic producers could essentially determine if smaller companies could bear the CCA seal or not.