I've messed with AFS more than i have NFS (as a student manager at college), so I kinda know what it can do. And i've setup and used NFS.
Could somebody explain the differences (advantages/disadvantages) between AFS and NFS?
Is there anything better in AFS from which NFS could benefit - or vice-versa?
MSN has finally gotten their shit together and made themselves into a decent service, but they will never be on the level that AOL is. They came into the arena when AOL was ten years ahead of them, and they're still paying for it.
Let us harken back to the days of ol', back when Compuserve and Prodigy were far ahead of America Online. Even though this was a different time, when the services were just connecting to the Internet, Prodigy and Compuserve, I believe, were far ahead of AOL, at least in subscribership. But eventually, AOL managed to dominate the market.
I'm not supporting AOL or MSN in the least, but i'm just saying it's not unheard of and is definitely within the realm of possiblilty that someone (MSN, in this context) could get the lead over AOL. I don't really care, though, I'll stick to my real ISP (school!).
I just got the GENUS IV edition of trivial pursuit. It has a lot of modern questions, as one would imagine. Included in the questions was one about the internet search engine named after the UMN mascot. Even though I used Gopher back in the day (I'm 21), i missed the question! I answered Yahoo!, as I knew that had come from a university. Oops!
To reference the cliche'd phrase "actions speak louder than words", Napster is definitely allowing (music) copyrights to be ignored with their software. I understand the parallels to places like Kinko's that this draws, but Napster is on a different level. If Kinko's let you bring in your (copyrighted) books, had a machine that copied books and let you "share" the copies with anyone else who wandered by Kinko's, that would be much closer, and in my opinion, Kinko's should be liable (if not legally yet, at least morally and ethically) for the distribution of the material. I'll admit that the analogy is a tad flakey, in that it's much easier to copy electronic information, while books can't easily (in their tangible form) be served from users' computers. I used the word "seem" in my previous post because I know I can't be sure exactly what Napster (or its employees) believe. But what they are doing, as well as saying, definitely allows, on a BROAD and blatantly obvious scale, the ignoring (ignorance?) of copyrights. I feel this all is evident in the article in this section:
Mr. Barry says that while Napster and the music industry disagree about the rights music owners have to put digital music files on the Internet, the company respects copyright laws and wants to find a way to compensate artists for use of their work
If the company truly respected copyright laws AND wanted to find a way to compensate artists for use of their work, they'd be doing it by now (although, i admit, there's probably not a good way yet to do so). This is just a bleeding-heart statement meant to try to get respect for Napster, even though it's turning around and allowing what it says it wants to do NOT happen. Heck, for a start, they could have an option for users to voluntarily pay compensation (royalties) to the artists whose songs they download. Just a thought...
I don't think the point of calling Napster "two-faced" is the surprise that they're in it for the money. It's the fact that they're in the business of "sharing" pirated music, and seem to hold the belief that music copyrights aren't important and can be ignored, but their own copyrights (their software) are still protected. in the article, Mr. Barry basically said the same thing, which to me is an obvious hypocrisy.
Calling somebody and tricking them (into thinking it's a real call) by hanging up would be a prank call. I've heard both "prank" and "crank" used, however.
My roommate and I were getting annoyed by apparant prank callers (the caller would hangup when we picked up, and would never leave a message). We called the phone company, who forwarded us to some place that deals with (i think) telemarketing calls, and they said that it was perfectly O.K. (I'm in Indiana, by the way). The excuse they gave was that sometimes the telemarketers' machines dial numbers, and when someone picks up, if no human on the telemarketer's side is available to talk, that it simply hangs up. I call it harrasing phone calls; they call it normal business.
Our Supreme Court ruled a while back that parodies are protected (by the freedom of speech, i believe), and peta.org obviously falls well within the parody bounds. It's a good thing the Supreme Court ruled the way they did, or the radio morning show i listen to would be really boring! I expect this to be appealed and overturned. The ruling was so blatantly blind and dumb that I won't attempt to justify my belief for fear of being redundant and repetitive. Animals are tasty, though - no doubt about that!
Point well taken. While i was mainly reacting to people complaining that he wouldn't be able to get a job because he can't touch computers, i do see how the judge seems to be overly harsh (while being uninformed).
Not to be overly rude or anything, but he should've thought about that consequence before he did his cracking et al. If i were a truck driver, and i abused my "privilege" of driving the rig (for instance, by driving through/over cars in a traffic jam, by driving into buildings, cool things like that), then i shouldn't be able to drive a truck for a LONG time.
Does anyone know / think that Katz (or anyone) will publish the text online? I assume that it contains some different (extra) things that the series on Slashdot didn't.
I'd like to thank you for answering my question in a fair and intellectual manner. It has helped me to understand better these issues. You put a lot more effort into this than some other/.ers, who just fanatically say, in short, "Who cares, as long as i get more for free?". Thanks again!
It seems that every time something that someone created gets copied and reused in an alternate form, that the/.ers get all hyped up about it. Maybe i'm just a die-hard conservative, or i have a lot to learn (which i admit is true), but i always had felt that if someone created something (to market it), that they had every right to sell it how they wanted, without someone else's taking it and selling it (or giving it away) however they want to. And every time one of these cases comes up, whether it be DeCSS, Connectix, or even the much-hated Microsoft, it seems that everyone on/. gets all excited, but they don't actually explain WHY it's a good (and ethical) thing. So i'm asking that someone please explain to me, without using emotional words, what is good and right about all this. I'm just asking so that i'll be better informed. Thanks! =)
Just out of curiosity, why are whoever is doing these attacks called "crackers"? I understand the push for the term cracker instead of hacker, but i don't think someone who's doing a DoS attack is either one. Heck, if anything, they're more of a hacker, since they probably put together code to perform the attack(s). Personally, i'd break from the geek speak for this one and call them what they are - attackers. What do you think?
First, i want to say i'm not passing judgment or anything of the sort, i'm just sorting through all the issues surrounding this. I understand the purpose behind DeCSS - to finally get a DVD player in Linux (and wherever else one is wanted). My question, though, is about the morality of it. Legally, the keys and encryption are (i believe) the intelectual property of the MPAA (or someone related). By cracking the keys - i.e., by the making of DeCSS - you may be violating their property, regardless of your intentions (which were good, i agree). It's like breaking into someone's home (by whatever means, violent or nonviolent) to steal or copy something of theirs that you feel you should have. Since they're still the creaters/owners of the encryption, it's their right to determine who has access to the keys. And while their not including Linux does suck (i agree!), how do you feel that what you did for DeCSS is justified?
I don't think this person saw the commercial and immediately thought to himself, "Wow, Pepsi's really giving away a Harrier Jet?!?!? I gotta get me one before they're all out!" I'm assuming (and yes, we all know what happens when one assumes, but i would hope this is the correct assumption) that he knew Pepsi was "joking", but saw that there was no disclaimer, so attempted to show Pepsi up (using the truth in advertising thing) and make them give him what they promised. (i think pepsi could have avoided this with a simple (albeit annoying) disclaimer, which they happened to put into the commercial as soon as this guy popped up with his points.)
Slashdot Mirror
Mod the above post by Anon. Coward down please! The link is false and leads to something that, well, just isn't what you'd think it'd lead to.
I've messed with AFS more than i have NFS (as a student manager at college), so I kinda know what it can do. And i've setup and used NFS.
Could somebody explain the differences (advantages/disadvantages) between AFS and NFS?
Is there anything better in AFS from which NFS could benefit - or vice-versa?
Justin
Let us harken back to the days of ol', back when Compuserve and Prodigy were far ahead of America Online. Even though this was a different time, when the services were just connecting to the Internet, Prodigy and Compuserve, I believe, were far ahead of AOL, at least in subscribership. But eventually, AOL managed to dominate the market.
I'm not supporting AOL or MSN in the least, but i'm just saying it's not unheard of and is definitely within the realm of possiblilty that someone (MSN, in this context) could get the lead over AOL. I don't really care, though, I'll stick to my real ISP (school!).
I just got the GENUS IV edition of trivial pursuit. It has a lot of modern questions, as one would imagine. Included in the questions was one about the internet search engine named after the UMN mascot. Even though I used Gopher back in the day (I'm 21), i missed the question! I answered Yahoo!, as I knew that had come from a university. Oops!
To reference the cliche'd phrase "actions speak louder than words", Napster is definitely allowing (music) copyrights to be ignored with their software. I understand the parallels to places like Kinko's that this draws, but Napster is on a different level. If Kinko's let you bring in your (copyrighted) books, had a machine that copied books and let you "share" the copies with anyone else who wandered by Kinko's, that would be much closer, and in my opinion, Kinko's should be liable (if not legally yet, at least morally and ethically) for the distribution of the material. I'll admit that the analogy is a tad flakey, in that it's much easier to copy electronic information, while books can't easily (in their tangible form) be served from users' computers.
I used the word "seem" in my previous post because I know I can't be sure exactly what Napster (or its employees) believe. But what they are doing, as well as saying, definitely allows, on a BROAD and blatantly obvious scale, the ignoring (ignorance?) of copyrights.
I feel this all is evident in the article in this section:
Mr. Barry says that while Napster and the music industry disagree about the rights music owners have to put digital music files on the Internet, the company respects copyright laws and wants to find a way to compensate artists for use of their work
If the company truly respected copyright laws AND wanted to find a way to compensate artists for use of their work, they'd be doing it by now (although, i admit, there's probably not a good way yet to do so). This is just a bleeding-heart statement meant to try to get respect for Napster, even though it's turning around and allowing what it says it wants to do NOT happen. Heck, for a start, they could have an option for users to voluntarily pay compensation (royalties) to the artists whose songs they download.
Just a thought...
I don't think the point of calling Napster "two-faced" is the surprise that they're in it for the money. It's the fact that they're in the business of "sharing" pirated music, and seem to hold the belief that music copyrights aren't important and can be ignored, but their own copyrights (their software) are still protected. in the article, Mr. Barry basically said the same thing, which to me is an obvious hypocrisy.
Explain how it is FUD, please.
By whose definition? From dictionary.com:
prank1 (prngk)
n.
A mischievous trick or practical joke.
Calling somebody and tricking them (into thinking it's a real call) by hanging up would be a prank call. I've heard both "prank" and "crank" used, however.
My roommate and I were getting annoyed by apparant prank callers (the caller would hangup when we picked up, and would never leave a message). We called the phone company, who forwarded us to some place that deals with (i think) telemarketing calls, and they said that it was perfectly O.K. (I'm in Indiana, by the way). The excuse they gave was that sometimes the telemarketers' machines dial numbers, and when someone picks up, if no human on the telemarketer's side is available to talk, that it simply hangs up. I call it harrasing phone calls; they call it normal business.
Our Supreme Court ruled a while back that parodies are protected (by the freedom of speech, i believe), and peta.org obviously falls well within the parody bounds. It's a good thing the Supreme Court ruled the way they did, or the radio morning show i listen to would be really boring!
I expect this to be appealed and overturned. The ruling was so blatantly blind and dumb that I won't attempt to justify my belief for fear of being redundant and repetitive.
Animals are tasty, though - no doubt about that!
Point well taken.
While i was mainly reacting to people complaining that he wouldn't be able to get a job because he can't touch computers, i do see how the judge seems to be overly harsh (while being uninformed).
Not to be overly rude or anything, but he should've thought about that consequence before he did his cracking et al.
If i were a truck driver, and i abused my "privilege" of driving the rig (for instance, by driving through/over cars in a traffic jam, by driving into buildings, cool things like that), then i shouldn't be able to drive a truck for a LONG time.
Does anyone know / think that Katz (or anyone) will publish the text online? I assume that it contains some different (extra) things that the series on Slashdot didn't.
I'd like to thank you for answering my question in a fair and intellectual manner. It has helped me to understand better these issues. You put a lot more effort into this than some other /.ers, who just fanatically say, in short, "Who cares, as long as i get more for free?". Thanks again!
It seems that every time something that someone created gets copied and reused in an alternate form, that the /.ers get all hyped up about it. Maybe i'm just a die-hard conservative, or i have a lot to learn (which i admit is true), but i always had felt that if someone created something (to market it), that they had every right to sell it how they wanted, without someone else's taking it and selling it (or giving it away) however they want to. /. gets all excited, but they don't actually explain WHY it's a good (and ethical) thing. So i'm asking that someone please explain to me, without using emotional words, what is good and right about all this. I'm just asking so that i'll be better informed. Thanks! =)
And every time one of these cases comes up, whether it be DeCSS, Connectix, or even the much-hated Microsoft, it seems that everyone on
Just out of curiosity, why are whoever is doing these attacks called "crackers"? I understand the push for the term cracker instead of hacker, but i don't think someone who's doing a DoS attack is either one. Heck, if anything, they're more of a hacker, since they probably put together code to perform the attack(s). Personally, i'd break from the geek speak for this one and call them what they are - attackers. What do you think?
First, i want to say i'm not passing judgment or anything of the sort, i'm just sorting through all the issues surrounding this.
I understand the purpose behind DeCSS - to finally get a DVD player in Linux (and wherever else one is wanted). My question, though, is about the morality of it. Legally, the keys and encryption are (i believe) the intelectual property of the MPAA (or someone related). By cracking the keys - i.e., by the making of DeCSS - you may be violating their property, regardless of your intentions (which were good, i agree). It's like breaking into someone's home (by whatever means, violent or nonviolent) to steal or copy something of theirs that you feel you should have. Since they're still the creaters/owners of the encryption, it's their right to determine who has access to the keys. And while their not including Linux does suck (i agree!), how do you feel that what you did for DeCSS is justified?
I don't think this person saw the commercial and immediately thought to himself, "Wow, Pepsi's really giving away a Harrier Jet?!?!? I gotta get me one before they're all out!" I'm assuming (and yes, we all know what happens when one assumes, but i would hope this is the correct assumption) that he knew Pepsi was "joking", but saw that there was no disclaimer, so attempted to show Pepsi up (using the truth in advertising thing) and make them give him what they promised. (i think pepsi could have avoided this with a simple (albeit annoying) disclaimer, which they happened to put into the commercial as soon as this guy popped up with his points.)