The problem with that is, now you're holding the responsiblity of discovering these infringing activities on the patent holders. This would lead to companies purposely infringing on a product and doing it in such a way as to avoid detection for a period of time, say selling only 1 piece of the product in some remote town.
feel no compunction for the advertisers. They are parasites, stealing the bandwidth I have paid for. If a mosquito flies harmlessly around me, I have no right to harm it; but the instant it tries to drink my blood, it has indicated to me that I have a right to take any necessary action against it.
Parasite? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You expect to go online and use everything for free without paying in return for view an ad or two, and you're complaining that THEY are the parasites? In case you haven't noticed, the advertisers are PAYING for your free experience.
Sure it may not be effective, and you may never buy. Does this mean these site owners should have the right then to bar you from going there in the first place? If not, why should they let you use their bandwidth, their CPU cycles, their maintenance of the servers, their programming/creative efforts, etc.?
Paying bandwidth? You gotta be kidding me. This is the age of eat-all-you-want internet access. If you are paying by the megabyte still then you need to read more of those magazines you speak of and find a better ISP.
People shouldn't just jump to the conclusion that the perpetrator of this is some commercial spammer. I visit some webmaster forums and many have commplained that some of these sites like SPEWS often go overboard in their blackholing, ending up block innocent bystanders who have a tough time getting out of these blocks.
I say it could have been the work of some pissed-off admins who were frustrated.
You seriously believe M$ cannot remove IE from Windows? If you believe that line from M$ (used in its antitrust case) then you've fallen for their BS hook, line and sinkered.
Exactly how is the sitefinder service any different than some domain name squatter using a commonly misspelled version of a domain name for commercial gain?
Verisign puts up ads on these misspelled domains, and will probably in the future start charging people for placement in certain domain name variations. This is EXACTLY domain name squatting.
When compiling the source code I get the following error. Anyone have a clue on how to fix this? I'm trying to apply the update on a redhat 6.2 machine (patched and updated):
gcc -g -O2 -Wall -Wpointer-arith -Wno-uninitialized -I. -I. -DSSHDIR=\"/usr/local/etc\" -D_PATH_SSH_PROGRAM=\"/usr/local/bin/ssh\" -D_PATH_SSH_ASKPASS_DEFAULT=\"/usr/local/libexec/s sh-askpass\" -D_PATH_SFTP_SERVER=\"/usr/local/libexec/sftp-serv er\" -D_PATH_SSH_KEY_SIGN=\"/usr/local/libexec/ssh-keys ign\" -D_PATH_SSH_PIDDIR=\"/var/run\" -D_PATH_PRIVSEP_CHROOT_DIR=\"/var/empty\" -DSSH_RAND_HELPER=\"/usr/local/libexec/ssh-rand-he lper\" -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -c cipher.c cipher.c:68: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type cipher.c:69: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type cipher.c:73: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type cipher.c:74: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type cipher.c:75: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type cipher.c:76: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type cipher.c: In function `cipher_init': cipher.c:230: warning: assignment discards `const' from pointer target type cipher.c:209: warning: unused variable `klen' cipher.c: In function `cipher_get_keycontext': cipher.c:403: warning: comparison of distinct pointer types lacks a cast cipher.c: In function `cipher_set_keycontext': cipher.c:418: warning: comparison of distinct pointer types lacks a cast gcc -g -O2 -Wall -Wpointer-arith -Wno-uninitialized -I. -I. -DSSHDIR=\"/usr/local/etc\" -D_PATH_SSH_PROGRAM=\"/usr/local/bin/ssh\" -D_PATH_SSH_ASKPASS_DEFAULT=\"/usr/local/libexec/s sh-askpass\" -D_PATH_SFTP_SERVER=\"/usr/local/libexec/sftp-serv er\" -D_PATH_SSH_KEY_SIGN=\"/usr/local/libexec/ssh-keys ign\" -D_PATH_SSH_PIDDIR=\"/var/run\" -D_PATH_PRIVSEP_CHROOT_DIR=\"/var/empty\" -DSSH_RAND_HELPER=\"/usr/local/libexec/ssh-rand-he lper\" -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -c cipher-aes.c cipher-aes.c: In function `ssh_rijndael_init': cipher-aes.c:50: warning: assignment from incompatible pointer type cipher-aes.c: In function `ssh_rijndael_cbc': cipher-aes.c:78: warning: assignment from incompatible pointer type cipher-aes.c: In function `ssh_rijndael_cleanup': cipher-aes.c:116: warning: assignment from incompatible pointer type cipher-aes.c: In function `ssh_rijndael_iv': cipher-aes.c:129: warning: assignment from incompatible pointer type cipher-aes.c: In function `evp_rijndael': cipher-aes.c:147: warning: assignment from incompatible pointer type cipher-aes.c:148: warning: assignment from incompatible pointer type cipher-aes.c:149: warning: assignment from incompatible pointer type cipher-aes.c:151: structure has no member named `flags' cipher-aes.c:151: `EVP_CIPH_CBC_MODE' undeclared (first use in this function) cipher-aes.c:151: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once cipher-aes.c:151: for each function it appears in.) cipher-aes.c:151: `EVP_CIPH_VARIABLE_LENGTH' undeclared (first use in this function) cipher-aes.c:152: `EVP_CIPH_ALWAYS_CALL_INIT' undeclared (first use in this function) cipher-aes.c:152: `EVP_CIPH_CUSTOM_IV' undeclared (first use in this function) make: *** [cipher-aes.o] Error 1
The artists, record companies, and/or Apple would be very foolish if they wanted to stop this practice. After all, someone who is familiar with mp3 technology is more than willing to pay for a tune. If you piss them off and not let them buy used music, where do you think they're gonna end up?
This is a very dangerous and stupid idea. It won't be long until black hats figure out a way to exploit this technique and send out a major DDOS attack on someone they don't like.
This type of user is a big headache too. I used to do support for a hosting company. There were customers would would open tickets saying "my website doesn't work", without specifying their account usernames nor the specifics of their problems. Now suddenly we have to waste another couple of emails just to get them to give the details needed for troubleshooting.
Finally when it's clear what his account is and the problem he's having, I tell him "please open up a ms-dos prompt and type 'tracert domain.com'". I then get yelled at for being condescending to him. What a jerk. How am I supposed to know how much this guy already knows? I ask a simple question and instead of getting a "I already did that", I get scolded.
This is just one of the typical scenarios you run into as a tech. If you've worked in this field for any length of time, you'll begin to realize that a huge percentage of support is dealing with ignorant users with attitude problems.
Pirates that download copyrighted materials are just opportunist thieves. They don't care unless it's their work that's being pirated.
Like in the past when Asia was known to produce lots of "knockoffs". Ask any typical American and they'd react with disgust and anger. And now when it's their turn, it's all about the evil RIAA, the artists not getting paid, etc etc. One excuse after another, they pretend they're actually the good guys. HA!
And yet they complain about the GPL being violated. What a joke. Do they or do they not believe in the institution of copyright? I can smell hypocricy a mile away.
Piraters are no better than Microsoft and all these other big "evil" corporations/.ers seem to hate so much. They're just opportunist thieves.
This is the hypocrisy right there. One type of IP should be enforcible but not another? Nonsense. Either you believe in the whole concept or none of it.
You forgot to mention the guy that opens the attachment to become infected with the Melissa virus (not everyone updates their antivirus software you know).
Or the extra admin/programming effort it takes to combat spam.
Or the additional cpu processing and hard drive space required to deal with spam.
Whatever! Like all the little thieves REALLY care about the artists. They just want to justify their immoral activities with any excuse. At least if you're gonna rip people off, be honest about it. Hiding under this pretencious veil is so hypocritical.
In all the previous/. articles I've seen regarding piracy, most of this "starving artist" act has been nothing but lip service. Where's the movement to get these artists more money? Where's the protest?
And mind telling me EXACTLY how ripping off their work does these "starving" artists any good?
My real comment is that I though we were all Innocent until proven Guilty? If the device in question is not illegal then how can someone be sued when they have done nothing wrong.
Actually that's not true. You are presumed not guilty until proven guilty is closer to reality (even though it's still not quite it). If one were presumed innocent then there wouldn't be cause for suspicion in the first place. That phrase is nonsense if you ask any lawyer. It's nothing but a mere catch-phrase for the common folks.:)
As for the lawsuit, they can sue anyone they damn well please. Now winning the suit is another matter altogether. So no, being sued is not the same as being guilty.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with that is, now you're holding the responsiblity of discovering these infringing activities on the patent holders. This would lead to companies purposely infringing on a product and doing it in such a way as to avoid detection for a period of time, say selling only 1 piece of the product in some remote town.
feel no compunction for the advertisers. They are parasites, stealing the bandwidth I have paid for. If a mosquito flies harmlessly around me, I have no right to harm it; but the instant it tries to drink my blood, it has indicated to me that I have a right to take any necessary action against it.
Parasite? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You expect to go online and use everything for free without paying in return for view an ad or two, and you're complaining that THEY are the parasites? In case you haven't noticed, the advertisers are PAYING for your free experience.
Sure it may not be effective, and you may never buy. Does this mean these site owners should have the right then to bar you from going there in the first place? If not, why should they let you use their bandwidth, their CPU cycles, their maintenance of the servers, their programming/creative efforts, etc.?
Paying bandwidth? You gotta be kidding me. This is the age of eat-all-you-want internet access. If you are paying by the megabyte still then you need to read more of those magazines you speak of and find a better ISP.
People shouldn't just jump to the conclusion that the perpetrator of this is some commercial spammer. I visit some webmaster forums and many have commplained that some of these sites like SPEWS often go overboard in their blackholing, ending up block innocent bystanders who have a tough time getting out of these blocks.
I say it could have been the work of some pissed-off admins who were frustrated.
You seriously believe M$ cannot remove IE from Windows? If you believe that line from M$ (used in its antitrust case) then you've fallen for their BS hook, line and sinkered.
Exactly how is the sitefinder service any different than some domain name squatter using a commonly misspelled version of a domain name for commercial gain?
Verisign puts up ads on these misspelled domains, and will probably in the future start charging people for placement in certain domain name variations. This is EXACTLY domain name squatting.
When compiling the source code I get the following error. Anyone have a clue on how to fix this? I'm trying to apply the update on a redhat 6.2 machine (patched and updated):
s sh-askpass\" -D_PATH_SFTP_SERVER=\"/usr/local/libexec/sftp-serv er\" -D_PATH_SSH_KEY_SIGN=\"/usr/local/libexec/ssh-keys ign\" -D_PATH_SSH_PIDDIR=\"/var/run\" -D_PATH_PRIVSEP_CHROOT_DIR=\"/var/empty\" -DSSH_RAND_HELPER=\"/usr/local/libexec/ssh-rand-he lper\" -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -c cipher.cs sh-askpass\" -D_PATH_SFTP_SERVER=\"/usr/local/libexec/sftp-serv er\" -D_PATH_SSH_KEY_SIGN=\"/usr/local/libexec/ssh-keys ign\" -D_PATH_SSH_PIDDIR=\"/var/run\" -D_PATH_PRIVSEP_CHROOT_DIR=\"/var/empty\" -DSSH_RAND_HELPER=\"/usr/local/libexec/ssh-rand-he lper\" -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -c cipher-aes.c
gcc -g -O2 -Wall -Wpointer-arith -Wno-uninitialized -I. -I. -DSSHDIR=\"/usr/local/etc\" -D_PATH_SSH_PROGRAM=\"/usr/local/bin/ssh\" -D_PATH_SSH_ASKPASS_DEFAULT=\"/usr/local/libexec/
cipher.c:68: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type
cipher.c:69: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type
cipher.c:73: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type
cipher.c:74: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type
cipher.c:75: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type
cipher.c:76: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type
cipher.c: In function `cipher_init':
cipher.c:230: warning: assignment discards `const' from pointer target type
cipher.c:209: warning: unused variable `klen'
cipher.c: In function `cipher_get_keycontext':
cipher.c:403: warning: comparison of distinct pointer types lacks a cast
cipher.c: In function `cipher_set_keycontext':
cipher.c:418: warning: comparison of distinct pointer types lacks a cast
gcc -g -O2 -Wall -Wpointer-arith -Wno-uninitialized -I. -I. -DSSHDIR=\"/usr/local/etc\" -D_PATH_SSH_PROGRAM=\"/usr/local/bin/ssh\" -D_PATH_SSH_ASKPASS_DEFAULT=\"/usr/local/libexec/
cipher-aes.c: In function `ssh_rijndael_init':
cipher-aes.c:50: warning: assignment from incompatible pointer type
cipher-aes.c: In function `ssh_rijndael_cbc':
cipher-aes.c:78: warning: assignment from incompatible pointer type
cipher-aes.c: In function `ssh_rijndael_cleanup':
cipher-aes.c:116: warning: assignment from incompatible pointer type
cipher-aes.c: In function `ssh_rijndael_iv':
cipher-aes.c:129: warning: assignment from incompatible pointer type
cipher-aes.c: In function `evp_rijndael':
cipher-aes.c:147: warning: assignment from incompatible pointer type
cipher-aes.c:148: warning: assignment from incompatible pointer type
cipher-aes.c:149: warning: assignment from incompatible pointer type
cipher-aes.c:151: structure has no member named `flags'
cipher-aes.c:151: `EVP_CIPH_CBC_MODE' undeclared (first use in this function)
cipher-aes.c:151: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
cipher-aes.c:151: for each function it appears in.)
cipher-aes.c:151: `EVP_CIPH_VARIABLE_LENGTH' undeclared (first use in this function)
cipher-aes.c:152: `EVP_CIPH_ALWAYS_CALL_INIT' undeclared (first use in this function)
cipher-aes.c:152: `EVP_CIPH_CUSTOM_IV' undeclared (first use in this function)
make: *** [cipher-aes.o] Error 1
Is there a temporary workaround for Redhat while I wait for the updated RPM?
Other domain registrars were doing this way before Verisign. If you typed in a non-existent domain name for .tv or .cc you'd get the registrar's page.
To me it's a stupid tactic to make more money. But I've moved all 50 of my domains away from Verisign a long time ago anyways.
but it's only a matter of time before we're arguing here about what looks better in 3D, Gnome or KDE."
Methinks CowBoyNeal has been deprived of sex for too long...
Here's a link to the original video and a later-remixed video:
w ar s
http://www.bitflood.org/filelist.pl?terms=star+
The artists, record companies, and/or Apple would be very foolish if they wanted to stop this practice. After all, someone who is familiar with mp3 technology is more than willing to pay for a tune. If you piss them off and not let them buy used music, where do you think they're gonna end up?
;)
Ever heard of P2P?
That's right... They forgot the epitome of fads. The one that scares the living daylight out of kids and adults alike....
goats*e`.cx
WTF is this? This guy posted the same exact thing twice in this topic, and both have been modded 3+ funny.
:rolleyes:
I think this guy is a karma whore.
This is a very dangerous and stupid idea. It won't be long until black hats figure out a way to exploit this technique and send out a major DDOS attack on someone they don't like.
This type of user is a big headache too. I used to do support for a hosting company. There were customers would would open tickets saying "my website doesn't work", without specifying their account usernames nor the specifics of their problems. Now suddenly we have to waste another couple of emails just to get them to give the details needed for troubleshooting.
Finally when it's clear what his account is and the problem he's having, I tell him "please open up a ms-dos prompt and type 'tracert domain.com'". I then get yelled at for being condescending to him. What a jerk. How am I supposed to know how much this guy already knows? I ask a simple question and instead of getting a "I already did that", I get scolded.
This is just one of the typical scenarios you run into as a tech. If you've worked in this field for any length of time, you'll begin to realize that a huge percentage of support is dealing with ignorant users with attitude problems.
Welcome to last week pic:
Welcome to last week!
Pirates that download copyrighted materials are just opportunist thieves. They don't care unless it's their work that's being pirated.
/.ers seem to hate so much. They're just opportunist thieves.
Like in the past when Asia was known to produce lots of "knockoffs". Ask any typical American and they'd react with disgust and anger. And now when it's their turn, it's all about the evil RIAA, the artists not getting paid, etc etc. One excuse after another, they pretend they're actually the good guys. HA!
And yet they complain about the GPL being violated. What a joke. Do they or do they not believe in the institution of copyright? I can smell hypocricy a mile away.
Piraters are no better than Microsoft and all these other big "evil" corporations
I'll bet he does now that it's been modded up to a 4!! Doh...
This is the hypocrisy right there. One type of IP should be enforcible but not another? Nonsense. Either you believe in the whole concept or none of it.
Does that mean if you wear pants with a belt you will become impotent?
You forgot to mention the guy that opens the attachment to become infected with the Melissa virus (not everyone updates their antivirus software you know).
Or the extra admin/programming effort it takes to combat spam.
Or the additional cpu processing and hard drive space required to deal with spam.
And the next thing you know, hackers and crackers will have the playground all to themselves without fear of getting caught!
I have bad news for you... it's the other way around!
Featuring starving artists in the movie industry
/. articles I've seen regarding piracy, most of this "starving artist" act has been nothing but lip service. Where's the movement to get these artists more money? Where's the protest?
Whatever! Like all the little thieves REALLY care about the artists. They just want to justify their immoral activities with any excuse. At least if you're gonna rip people off, be honest about it. Hiding under this pretencious veil is so hypocritical.
In all the previous
And mind telling me EXACTLY how ripping off their work does these "starving" artists any good?
My real comment is that I though we were all Innocent until proven Guilty? If the device in question is not illegal then how can someone be sued when they have done nothing wrong.
:)
Actually that's not true. You are presumed not guilty until proven guilty is closer to reality (even though it's still not quite it). If one were presumed innocent then there wouldn't be cause for suspicion in the first place. That phrase is nonsense if you ask any lawyer. It's nothing but a mere catch-phrase for the common folks.
As for the lawsuit, they can sue anyone they damn well please. Now winning the suit is another matter altogether. So no, being sued is not the same as being guilty.
Hope that clears up a couple of things.