I love Linux, and sit down all day, every day, at a Linux box, but in this case I would tend to agree with Ashcroft. The market is taking care of Microsoft without any problem whatsoever.
What market, exactly?
Have you ever considered this; Microsoft has NO real commercial competitors. The one remaining 'threat' to them is an operating system that was written by a collection of hobbiest programmers with little or no financial backing, and is given away for free. And they're even trying to kill THAT.
Perhaps I'm wrong; I've never actually heard "The Last Time" but I've heard Bittersweet Symphony and it sounds like just one bar of orchestral music repeated throughout the song.
So apart from queueing Last Time on p2p, I did a quick google search and turned up this too;
George Michael had to turn over some of his royalties on his song "Waiting For That Day" because he quoted the Stones lyric "You Can't Always Get What You Want." Janet Jackson had to give up part of her copyright for "What'll I Do" for using the "Satisfaction" refrain "Hey hey hey, that's what I say."
So apparently 'fair use' of lyrics means 'no more than six consecutive words.'
I cannot use bits and pieces of the movie trailer in another work
I stoped reading right there. You sir need to brush up on fair use and copyright law
Yeah, right.. two words for you; "Bittersweet Symphony". A few seconds of sampling in a Verve song, and 100% of the royaties gets awarded to the Rolling Stones. Fair use is dead and buried.
It's because she's a girl. Girls just don't understand technology.
No, it's because they're a retail outlet and most of their business is appliances. They employ people based on retail experience only and it's a lucky coincidence if any of their staff can even recognise a capacitor.
A crowbar is a perfectly legal, commonly available tool to anyone who can buy one. What's your point?
I think his point was that when you use a crowbar to break into a building, you should be prosecuted for breaking in, not for using a crowbar.
Besides, we're not even talking of a crowbar-level violation. EXPN and VRFY are testing features that should be switched off on a live server. In real-world terms this 'crime' ranks about the level of taking a piss down a back-alley at night.
That is to say, we'll suddenly see a lot more careless e-mail blocks being placed on large swaths of entire countries, some by individuals, and most likely often by ISPs.
Which reminds me; could you all kindly remind your ISP's that APNIC's address space is not JUST China, Korea and the Phillipines. It includes some friendly, non-spammy countries too (NZ and Australia).
I'm not concerned about one-off commercial emails. If someone's actually read a posting or my webpage and knows I'm looking for something they sell, then I guess it's not strictly 'unsolicited' anyway.
OTOH I would be mighty annoyed if I started getting bulk mail from (non-profit/non-commercial) political or religious groups.
Probably redundent, because every other linux/BSD sysadmin will say the same thing, but it's just plain common sense to firewall off EVERYTHING that doesn't need to be exposed. It doesn't matter if it's MSSQL or MySQL or Postgres or Oracle or LDAP or SMTP/IMAP or any of a dozen other services your scripts might want. If a user can connect directly to ANY backend service, you've opened up a completely unnecessary potential security problem.
So if I wanted to get my competators in hot water, all I'd have to do is spam people with a link to their product. Sounds like a good idea to me.
The same arguement theoretically applies to junk faxes and telemarketing calls, but I've yet to hear of any company 'junk faxing' adverts for a competitor's product or service in order to get the competitor in trouble.
If it's an FM signal (which it probably is) then it exhibits the 'capture effect'; If one signal is significantly stronger (3-6dB is probably enough) than the other, the weaker signal is completely masked.
Re:WARNING: GOATSE.CX REDIRECT LINK IN PARENT!!
on
Hamvention
·
· Score: 1
WARNING; CLUELESS WARNING IN PARENT!!
It's TUBGIRL, not GOATSE. Get it right!!
Re:Encapsulating IP into RF
on
Hamvention
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Stuff to google for;
AlohaNet - TCP/IP over RF back in 1970
Phil Karn/KA9Q - was keen on TCP/IP and wrote his own OS for doing TCP/IP over packet radio back in 1985.. Most hams were happy with AX25 and TCP/IP got to be known as "That Crap Phil Is Pushing"
Post starts at 1 or perhaps 2, gets three or four upwards mods until it reaches +5(Worthy), then someone mods it down so it's +4(Flamebait) or +4(Troll) or whatever.
Then the fun part happens; someone mods it "Underrated", and it appears as +5(Flamebait) or +5(Troll) because an Underrated mod only affects the score.
I think he means have more 'intake' fans than 'extraction' fans.. this results in the case having a slightly higher pressure inside, so any air leaking through unfiltered holes in the case will be going out, rather than sucking dusty air in.
On a related note; a friend of mine wrapped his entire computer in a towel to reduce noise. It doesn't appear to be cause any heat problems (he's had it that way for more than a year now) and I guess it probably reduces dust too..
They always give you a valid reply address (although often it's not valid for very long).
English is usually not their first language, plus they're already expecting replies from stupid people so the replies don't have to make perfect sense or be gramatically correct.
SpamAssassin identifies 419 scams very reliably.
I was thinking about writing an eliza-like autoresponder for 419 scammers. They'd have to treat every reply as a possible victim, and if there were a few hundred of these things replying it would be almost impossible for them to continue working the scam.
Is it ethical for people to take things that are not being given freely and not reimburse those that provide it?
According to the Constitution, Copyright exists "to promote the sciences and useful arts". If 80% of recorded music is simply unavailable for purchase, then argueably the current situation is 'not promoting' a fairly substantial amount of art. If indie music can't get air time because of the 'payola' system, then the current situation is not promoting the arts.
Is it ethical for large corporations to pervert a law that was intended to promote the arts, effectively doing the exact opposite in the name of 'profit'?
There's two sides to the coin... and right now, there are laws that govern the side I'm talking about...
The constitution does not read "In order to promote corporate profit and monopoly control.. "
The law needs to be changed. The DMCA and perpetual copyrights promote corporate profits only, they don't promote the arts. That 80% of older music that the pigopoly won't release should already be public domain!
Abortions might be legal, but a lot of people don't think they're ethical. Dope might be illegal, but a lot of people smoke it anyhow. Alcohol was illegal for a while, but many people distilled, obtained or drank it illegally anyway.. Was that unethical? did drinking suddenly become OK again when the law got changed?
I personally think the DMCA and perpetual extension of copyright are highly unethical. I think that the recording industry's stranglehold over radio and store promotion is unethical. I think that the resulting lack of competition, unfair contracts, and artificially high prices that result are also unethical, but apparently they're mostly legal too.
I think that deliberately crippling your own sales and profits short term (as the RIAA member companies have clearly done) as a strategy to kill a possibly competing distribution channel and maintain that stranglehold is stupid, dangerous, and highly unethical.
However it looks like long term this strategy won't work. I think the RIAA may have seriously shot themselves in the foot this time. They're not going to kill internet distribution, and the harder they continue to try the more they set themselves back. .
And I don't think it's ethical to share stuff the RIAA owns because (ironically) I think that would actually help them in the long term. I don't think they deserve that.
The Nazi Government was in power. Hell, they were even democratically elected by the people.
Once a government is in power they make the laws.
Texas and some other states say it's OK for the state to execute criminals. Nazi Germany said it was OK for the state to execute Jews. From a strictly legal standpoint there's very little difference.
So it really comes down to ethics.
Is it ethical to kill an entire race of people? Most people say not. We make some new laws to reflect this.
Is it ethical for a small group of companies (remember this is the RIAA member companies; the artists no longer own their own work) to lie about profits and losses, maintain a stranglehold over distribution, maintain artificially high prices, lobby to perpetually extend copyright, and keep 80% of art unavailable (depriving both the artists from potential revenue, and the buying public from legally purchasable content?)
If most people think not, then it's time to change the law. That's how a democracy is supposed to wor isn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
I love Linux, and sit down all day, every day, at a Linux box, but in this case I would tend to agree with Ashcroft. The market is taking care of Microsoft without any problem whatsoever.
What market, exactly?
Have you ever considered this; Microsoft has NO real commercial competitors. The one remaining 'threat' to them is an operating system that was written by a collection of hobbiest programmers with little or no financial backing, and is given away for free. And they're even trying to kill THAT.
Or Auckland..
There is a list of the 180 worst spammers here if you want someone to blacklist or harass.
And yes, Alan Ralsky appears at the top of the list. But only because it's in alphabetical order.
And some of Microsoft's 'temp's should probably be considered permanent staff.
:)
(Google for "microsoft permatemp" some time
Perhaps I'm wrong; I've never actually heard "The Last Time" but I've heard Bittersweet Symphony and it sounds like just one bar of orchestral music repeated throughout the song.
So apart from queueing Last Time on p2p, I did a quick google search and turned up this too;
George Michael had to turn over some of his royalties on his song "Waiting For That Day" because he quoted the Stones lyric "You Can't Always Get What You Want." Janet Jackson had to give up part of her copyright for "What'll I Do" for using the "Satisfaction" refrain "Hey hey hey, that's what I say."
So apparently 'fair use' of lyrics means 'no more than six consecutive words.'
Fetch me a spade.
I cannot use bits and pieces of the movie trailer in another work
I stoped reading right there. You sir need to brush up on fair use and copyright law
Yeah, right.. two words for you; "Bittersweet Symphony". A few seconds of sampling in a Verve song, and 100% of the royaties gets awarded to the Rolling Stones. Fair use is dead and buried.
It's because she's a girl. Girls just don't understand technology.
No, it's because they're a retail outlet and most of their business is appliances. They employ people based on retail experience only and it's a lucky coincidence if any of their staff can even recognise a capacitor.
A crowbar is a perfectly legal, commonly available tool to anyone who can buy one. What's your point?
I think his point was that when you use a crowbar to break into a building, you should be prosecuted for breaking in, not for using a crowbar.
Besides, we're not even talking of a crowbar-level violation. EXPN and VRFY are testing features that should be switched off on a live server. In real-world terms this 'crime' ranks about the level of taking a piss down a back-alley at night.
That is to say, we'll suddenly see a lot more careless e-mail blocks being placed on large swaths of entire countries, some by individuals, and most likely often by ISPs.
Which reminds me; could you all kindly remind your ISP's that APNIC's address space is not JUST China, Korea and the Phillipines. It includes some friendly, non-spammy countries too (NZ and Australia).
I hope it's unsolicited BULK email..
I'm not concerned about one-off commercial emails. If someone's actually read a posting or my webpage and knows I'm looking for something they sell, then I guess it's not strictly 'unsolicited' anyway.
OTOH I would be mighty annoyed if I started getting bulk mail from (non-profit/non-commercial) political or religious groups.
Probably redundent, because every other linux/BSD sysadmin will say the same thing, but it's just plain common sense to firewall off EVERYTHING that doesn't need to be exposed. It doesn't matter if it's MSSQL or MySQL or Postgres or Oracle or LDAP or SMTP/IMAP or any of a dozen other services your scripts might want. If a user can connect directly to ANY backend service, you've opened up a completely unnecessary potential security problem.
So if I wanted to get my competators in hot water, all I'd have to do is spam people with a link to their product. Sounds like a good idea to me.
The same arguement theoretically applies to junk faxes and telemarketing calls, but I've yet to hear of any company 'junk faxing' adverts for a competitor's product or service in order to get the competitor in trouble.
If it's an FM signal (which it probably is) then it exhibits the 'capture effect'; If one signal is significantly stronger (3-6dB is probably enough) than the other, the weaker signal is completely masked.
WARNING; CLUELESS WARNING IN PARENT!!
It's TUBGIRL, not GOATSE. Get it right!!
i think you missed the point; www == pr0nsites == WorldWideWank.. the world's largest porno mag.
Square root of FOUR?!!
Yeah.. ok.
--SPOILER WARNING--
The answer is 2. Append a decimal place and as many zeros as you wish for a more precise approximation.
Yawn, seen this before..
Post starts at 1 or perhaps 2, gets three or four upwards mods until it reaches +5(Worthy), then someone mods it down so it's +4(Flamebait) or +4(Troll) or whatever.
Then the fun part happens; someone mods it "Underrated", and it appears as +5(Flamebait) or +5(Troll) because an Underrated mod only affects the score.
I think he means have more 'intake' fans than 'extraction' fans.. this results in the case having a slightly higher pressure inside, so any air leaking through unfiltered holes in the case will be going out, rather than sucking dusty air in.
On a related note; a friend of mine wrapped his entire computer in a towel to reduce noise. It doesn't appear to be cause any heat problems (he's had it that way for more than a year now) and I guess it probably reduces dust too..
I'm still wondering why they wanted to change the name in the first place. What was wrong with Phoenix for a name?
They always give you a valid reply address (although often it's not valid for very long).
English is usually not their first language, plus they're already expecting replies from stupid people so the replies don't have to make perfect sense or be gramatically correct.
SpamAssassin identifies 419 scams very reliably.
I was thinking about writing an eliza-like autoresponder for 419 scammers. They'd have to treat every reply as a possible victim, and if there were a few hundred of these things replying it would be almost impossible for them to continue working the scam.
Is it ethical for people to take things that are not being given freely and not reimburse those that provide it?
According to the Constitution, Copyright exists "to promote the sciences and useful arts". If 80% of recorded music is simply unavailable for purchase, then argueably the current situation is 'not promoting' a fairly substantial amount of art. If indie music can't get air time because of the 'payola' system, then the current situation is not promoting the arts.
Is it ethical for large corporations to pervert a law that was intended to promote the arts, effectively doing the exact opposite in the name of 'profit'?
There's two sides to the coin... and right now, there are laws that govern the side I'm talking about...
The constitution does not read "In order to promote corporate profit and monopoly control.. "
The law needs to be changed. The DMCA and perpetual copyrights promote corporate profits only, they don't promote the arts. That 80% of older music that the pigopoly won't release should already be public domain!
Don't confuse laws with ethics.
Abortions might be legal, but a lot of people don't think they're ethical. Dope might be illegal, but a lot of people smoke it anyhow. Alcohol was illegal for a while, but many people distilled, obtained or drank it illegally anyway.. Was that unethical? did drinking suddenly become OK again when the law got changed?
I personally think the DMCA and perpetual extension of copyright are highly unethical. I think that the recording industry's stranglehold over radio and store promotion is unethical. I think that the resulting lack of competition, unfair contracts, and artificially high prices that result are also unethical, but apparently they're mostly legal too.
I think that deliberately crippling your own sales and profits short term (as the RIAA member companies have clearly done) as a strategy to kill a possibly competing distribution channel and maintain that stranglehold is stupid, dangerous, and highly unethical.
However it looks like long term this strategy won't work. I think the RIAA may have seriously shot themselves in the foot this time. They're not going to kill internet distribution, and the harder they continue to try the more they set themselves back.
.
And I don't think it's ethical to share stuff the RIAA owns because (ironically) I think that would actually help them in the long term. I don't think they deserve that.
Interesting persepctive for you to consider.
The Nazi Government was in power. Hell, they were even democratically elected by the people.
Once a government is in power they make the laws.
Texas and some other states say it's OK for the state to execute criminals. Nazi Germany said it was OK for the state to execute Jews. From a strictly legal standpoint there's very little difference.
So it really comes down to ethics.
Is it ethical to kill an entire race of people? Most people say not. We make some new laws to reflect this.
Is it ethical for a small group of companies (remember this is the RIAA member companies; the artists no longer own their own work) to lie about profits and losses, maintain a stranglehold over distribution, maintain artificially high prices, lobby to perpetually extend copyright, and keep 80% of art unavailable (depriving both the artists from potential revenue, and the buying public from legally purchasable content?)
If most people think not, then it's time to change the law. That's how a democracy is supposed to wor isn't it?