1. You have never been able to play EverQuest in Wine or any Windows "emulator" (as they are refered to as)
2. The program to play EverQuest in a window currently works and has always been updated to continue to work ever since it was first released. http://eqwindows.com/
It's pretty obvious as to what his program was designed to do. That is, scan for windows boxes ran by not-so-smart users that didn't password protect their shares, and for him to snoop in on them.
He got caught, now he's going the rightous route to either justify what he is doing or pray on the general additude of the./ community to gain support.
Give me a break.
He got caught, get over it Cliff, "Being treated like criminals", my god, cry me a river.
Sounds like an expensive lesson teaching you to not use such horribly insecure e-mail programs such as Outlook, or Outlook Express. (aka Lookout and Lookout Distress)
http://randomfoo.net/oscon/2002/lessig/free.html
on
Eldred vs. Ashcroft
·
· Score: 1
Windows, and Linux should look, act, and feel the exact same. Choice is so overrated anyways. I mean come on. Creating two sets of configuration tools, two operating systems, and two user interfaces isn't feasible or desirable. I believe that all of operating systems should look and behave consistently. I mean, sharing a similar setup between the two operating systems would also significantly reduces everyone's documentation work.
They are really doing something wrong if a user likes the way a preference is set in one operating system better than it is set in the other. If they were exectly the same, than problem solved! If they have an opinion on what is the better choice is for a particular setting, it would be irresponsible for us not to configure both operating systems that way. If we don't have an opinion, than the problem goes away! It still doesn't make sense to configure one operating system one way, the other the other way.
Who came up with this "choice" BS anyways? In fact, I think all cars should look and feel the same, all houses should look at feel the same, all clothes should look at feel the same, etc... What is it with these wacko supporters of "choice" anyways? Why in the world would anyone want to be able to choose something different, it's obvious that one company should make the choice for us and make all products of that type the same as to what they choose. Sheesh.
Okay, I don't know what it is with people here having such a bias towards Quake, but UT2003's graphics and gameplay are just unbelievable. Absolutely amazing. This game has the most realistic graphics of any game I've ever played, and it's gameplay beats Quake and UT (non-2003). DEFINATELY worth the download. I'm gonna order this game ASAP. No screenshots can even describe how kick ass this game looks or is to play.
Mod me down if you must, but UT2003 > Quake no question.
A better analogy is that Palladium is the gun, and DRM is the ammo. Two seperate things, and sure you can use a gun without ammo but smacking someone across the head with it, but the ammo requires the gun, and the main purpose of the gun is to be used with the ammo.
Palladium in and of itself standalone might *technically* be non-DRM, just as a gun can *technically* be used without ammo, but it is clear to most of us what both were designed for. Palladium designed to show Microsoft's love for Hollywood (hoping for love in return), Palladium being designed with DRM in mind and as a main purpose, and a gun being designed with ammo in mind and it's main purpose being to use the ammo.
You're really splitting hairs over the technical definations imho.
I'm aware of all the ways to change the splash. I have changed the splash. However for it to ship with such an unprofessional splash and start page, I just don't think that is going to help widespread acceptance. As trivial as it sounds, it is the cosmetic things that affect widespread acceptance almost more then anything else.
For the person who told me to stop "trolling" slashdot and make my own, there are plenty available that could be used, most look a like more professional then the current laughably ammature looking Mozilla splash screen.
For the person who told me to file a bug report: http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32218
The start page for releases like this needs to be http://mozilla.org/start/1.0/
This start page (mozilla.org/start/) is ugly, and is thanking users for being beta testers. Very unprofessional (just as unprofessional as the slash screen).
The splash screen looks like something out of some 12 year old's "l33t" vb app.
They setup a trap to block Gnutella users who attempt to download any song on the billboard top 100. It has nothing to do with dragging their server down. They setup fake Gnutella servers with songs that have arbitary file sizes and mislabed (fake songs). Then when users attempt to download these songs they are blocked from the network and if they are "Information Wave" customers, then they need to go find a new ISP.
"Information Wave will also deploy peer-to-peer clients on the Gnutella network from its security research and development network (honeynet) which [we] will offer files with popular song titles derived from the Billboard Top 100 maintained by VNU eMedia. No copyright violations will take place, these files will merely have arbitrary sizes similar to the length of a 3 to 4 minute MP3 audio file encoded at 128kbps. Clients which connect to our peer-to-peer clients, and then afterwards attempt to illegally access the network will be immediately blacklisted from Information Wave's network. The data collected will be actively maintained and distributed from our network operations site."
No, I'm pretty sure the fonts cannot be copywritted, only the names. It also looks like <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=38224&t<nobr>h<wbr></wbr></nobr> reshold=1&commentsort=1&tid=109&mode=thread&cid=4<nobr>0<wbr></wbr></nobr> 96167">I'm not the only one who knows this</a>.
If I understand it fonts themselfs cannot be copywritted, only their name. So you could theoretically take all the WebFonts, and redistribute them under different names with all the distros.
If all the other major IM networks (MSN, Yahoo, Jabber, etc...) got together and merged with one standard IM system that was totally interoperable with each other, then the only way for other IM systems to survive would be to be completely ineroperable. Because if you start a phone company called LOA, and you make it so only LOA customers can talk to LOA customers, nobody will use your service, because you would be the *only* phone service that isn't interoperable. But if all the phone companies are like that, then you wouldn't have any problems, because nobody would have the expectation of being able to talk to people on other networks.
If all the other major IM networks used a standard and were interopable, we're talking about over 60 million people being able to talk to each other regardless of what client they use. And only AOL/AIM users would be the ones who couldn't talk to "everyone else" and "everyone else" wouldn't be able to talk to them. So what would happen is that nobody would use it. Same as if AT&T suddenly said that only AT&T customers can talk to AT&T customers, being the only one that isn't interoperable, everyone would drop AT&T.
Hey, it's not Apache org's fault that the bug is around. If those damned security news sites wouldn't release the exploits so soon then it wouldn't be a problem. It's those irresponsible bastards that are the problem here. Sheesh, the nerve.
Mozilla doesn't handle borders as well on tags? This coming from someone trying to defend a browser that isn't even fully CSS1 compliant?! rofl. Please give me an example of this, I've had no such issues.
Slashdot Mirror
You're obviously very uninformed.
1. You have never been able to play EverQuest in Wine or any Windows "emulator" (as they are refered to as)
2. The program to play EverQuest in a window currently works and has always been updated to continue to work ever since it was first released. http://eqwindows.com/
It's pretty obvious as to what his program was designed to do. That is, scan for windows boxes ran by not-so-smart users that didn't password protect their shares, and for him to snoop in on them.
./ community to gain support.
He got caught, now he's going the rightous route to either justify what he is doing or pray on the general additude of the
Give me a break.
He got caught, get over it Cliff, "Being treated like criminals", my god, cry me a river.
At least he's not using MSN.
Sounds like an expensive lesson teaching you to not use such horribly insecure e-mail programs such as Outlook, or Outlook Express. (aka Lookout and Lookout Distress)
http://randomfoo.net/oscon/2002/lessig/free.html
Windows, and Linux should look, act, and feel the exact same. Choice is so overrated anyways. I mean come on. Creating two sets of configuration tools, two operating systems, and two user interfaces isn't feasible or desirable. I believe that all of operating systems should look and behave consistently. I mean, sharing a similar setup between the two operating systems would also significantly reduces everyone's documentation work.
They are really doing something wrong if a user likes the way a preference is set in one operating system better than it is set in the other. If they were exectly the same, than problem solved! If they have an opinion on what is the better choice is for a particular setting, it would be irresponsible for us not to configure both operating systems that way. If we don't have an opinion, than the problem goes away! It still doesn't make sense to configure one operating system one way, the other the other way.
Who came up with this "choice" BS anyways? In fact, I think all cars should look and feel the same, all houses should look at feel the same, all clothes should look at feel the same, etc... What is it with these wacko supporters of "choice" anyways? Why in the world would anyone want to be able to choose something different, it's obvious that one company should make the choice for us and make all products of that type the same as to what they choose. Sheesh.
Okay, I don't know what it is with people here having such a bias towards Quake, but UT2003's graphics and gameplay are just unbelievable. Absolutely amazing. This game has the most realistic graphics of any game I've ever played, and it's gameplay beats Quake and UT (non-2003). DEFINATELY worth the download. I'm gonna order this game ASAP. No screenshots can even describe how kick ass this game looks or is to play.
Mod me down if you must, but UT2003 > Quake no question.
A better analogy is that Palladium is the gun, and DRM is the ammo. Two seperate things, and sure you can use a gun without ammo but smacking someone across the head with it, but the ammo requires the gun, and the main purpose of the gun is to be used with the ammo.
Palladium in and of itself standalone might *technically* be non-DRM, just as a gun can *technically* be used without ammo, but it is clear to most of us what both were designed for. Palladium designed to show Microsoft's love for Hollywood (hoping for love in return), Palladium being designed with DRM in mind and as a main purpose, and a gun being designed with ammo in mind and it's main purpose being to use the ammo.
You're really splitting hairs over the technical definations imho.
I'm aware of all the ways to change the splash. I have changed the splash. However for it to ship with such an unprofessional splash and start page, I just don't think that is going to help widespread acceptance. As trivial as it sounds, it is the cosmetic things that affect widespread acceptance almost more then anything else.
For the person who told me to stop "trolling" slashdot and make my own, there are plenty available that could be used, most look a like more professional then the current laughably ammature looking Mozilla splash screen.
For the person who told me to file a bug report: http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32218
This is America. People have as much of a right to burn the US Flag as they do to burn a Nazi flag. We would be hypocrites to hold a double-standard.
http://tinyurl.com/
The start page for releases like this needs to be http://mozilla.org/start/1.0/
This start page (mozilla.org/start/) is ugly, and is thanking users for being beta testers. Very unprofessional (just as unprofessional as the slash screen).
The splash screen looks like something out of some 12 year old's "l33t" vb app.
"...we'll see more of realistic-looking special effects in future titles."
Do we really need an MIT student to tell us that?
They setup a trap to block Gnutella users who attempt to download any song on the billboard top 100. It has nothing to do with dragging their server down. They setup fake Gnutella servers with songs that have arbitary file sizes and mislabed (fake songs). Then when users attempt to download these songs they are blocked from the network and if they are "Information Wave" customers, then they need to go find a new ISP.
"Information Wave will also deploy peer-to-peer clients on the Gnutella network from its security research and development network (honeynet) which [we] will offer files with popular song titles derived from the Billboard Top 100 maintained by VNU eMedia. No copyright violations will take place, these files will merely have arbitrary sizes similar to the length of a 3 to 4 minute MP3 audio file encoded at 128kbps. Clients which connect to our peer-to-peer clients, and then afterwards attempt to illegally access the network will be immediately blacklisted from Information Wave's network. The data collected will be actively maintained and distributed from our network operations site."
No, I'm pretty sure the fonts cannot be copywritted, only the names. It also looks like <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=38224&t<nobr>h<wbr></wbr></nobr> reshold=1&commentsort=1&tid=109&mode=thread&cid=4<nobr>0<wbr></wbr></nobr> 96167">I'm not the only one who knows this</a>.
If I understand it fonts themselfs cannot be copywritted, only their name. So you could theoretically take all the WebFonts, and redistribute them under different names with all the distros.
* 2002-08-15 09:38:44 Microsoft Pulls Free Web Fonts (articles,microsoft) (rejected)
If all the other major IM networks (MSN, Yahoo, Jabber, etc...) got together and merged with one standard IM system that was totally interoperable with each other, then the only way for other IM systems to survive would be to be completely ineroperable. Because if you start a phone company called LOA, and you make it so only LOA customers can talk to LOA customers, nobody will use your service, because you would be the *only* phone service that isn't interoperable. But if all the phone companies are like that, then you wouldn't have any problems, because nobody would have the expectation of being able to talk to people on other networks.
If all the other major IM networks used a standard and were interopable, we're talking about over 60 million people being able to talk to each other regardless of what client they use. And only AOL/AIM users would be the ones who couldn't talk to "everyone else" and "everyone else" wouldn't be able to talk to them. So what would happen is that nobody would use it. Same as if AT&T suddenly said that only AT&T customers can talk to AT&T customers, being the only one that isn't interoperable, everyone would drop AT&T.
One word (prolly not spelled right either): Kryptonite
Relevant reference: http://www.prb.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PRB/Educ ators/Human_Population/Population_Growth/Populatio n_Growth.htm
http://jscript.dk/unpatched/ -- Some of those have been out for months. Microsoft has been contacted. Yet no patch? Hmm
0 6
Or how about this article from June 13th http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/06/13/04172
"...eEye Digital Security discovered the flaw in mid-April but it wasn't announced publicly because of an agreement with Microsoft."
A few days, a few hours, rofl. Riiight...
Until my logs show something close to 50/50 for IE/Mozilla I don't believe it. Still showing 90% for IE, and I promote Mozilla on my site.
Hey, it's not Apache org's fault that the bug is around. If those damned security news sites wouldn't release the exploits so soon then it wouldn't be a problem. It's those irresponsible bastards that are the problem here. Sheesh, the nerve.
Mozilla doesn't handle borders as well on tags? This coming from someone trying to defend a browser that isn't even fully CSS1 compliant?! rofl. Please give me an example of this, I've had no such issues.