Aw shucks, here we go again... Instead of the article, I was presented with a nag screen telling me 'TechRepublic.com is optimized for the latest versions of Microsoft Internet Explorer and Netscape. You probably received this redirect page because the browser you just used to access our Web site does not meet this criteria.'.
The screen goes on about Techrepublic being 'the IT professional's source for many exciting articles...' and more marketing-drivel, finally trying to coax me into upgrading:
Why not upgrade to a more current Web browser?
You'll be glad you did.
...followed by the usual Download Microsoft Internet Explorer Now! command.
Hm, I'm running a freshly compiled version of Mozilla. Maybe they don't like my Junkbuster proxy?
Anyway, why don't they stop nagging me, and let me decide what browser to use, and let me decide whether their site is 'exciting'? If it is, I'll come again, and I'll spread the word. If it isn't, no matter how often they use those e* words I won't be back.
Cable modems have a shared uplink of about 400Kbps (bits, not bytes)
That, of course, depends on the type of cable modem used. My ISP (Chello, in The Netherlands) uses Terayon (TeraLink S-CDMA) equipment which has a shared uplink of about 3-5 Mbit/s (depending on distance to the headend and quality of the cable infrastructure). Even so, uplink is capped at 128 kbit/s to keep people from running servers on their connections. Problem with this is that TCP connections are not that happy with asymmetric bandwidth, so the downlink suffers a heavy penalty when the (capped) uplink gets saturated. A better solution would be to create a limited data uplink in concert with an unlimited (or less severely limited) control uplink. The latter would only be useable for 'traffic control' type of traffic (SYN/ACK/RSET/etc, ICMP,...) and limited to a small ( 100 bytes?) packet size. I recently had a somewhat heated discussion on this with some people from an organisation which claims to represent customers to the ISP, but in reality often seems to represent the ISP to customers...
OK, so Napster (and related services) will have to block RIAA-owned songs? And they plan to recognize those songs by name, and maybe (in the future) by some digital fingerprint? The solvent for this solution is obvious: encrypt everything you share, using some asymmetric algorithm. If someone wants to leech a song from your box, let them first get your key (from some keyserver, somewhere). Obfuscate the filenames. Whatever...
This is just to say that the proposed method of keeping Napster/P2P RIAA-'clean' does not work. And I can not see how they can make it work either. The cat seems to be out of the bag, it has produced many litters, and its offspring now roam the planet in search for a home...
a whole box dedicated for monitoring? Hmm...ssh and GNU tools seemed good enough for monitoring for me....
For you maybe... for (insert company/organization with big network here) not.
If your company relies on those network/service monitoring boxes, they'd better be stable and left to their job. For these applications, a dedicated monitoring box is probably the best way to go, since you can just install it and put a big 'do not disturb' sign on the console. With hardware prices being what they are now, this will save you both time and money, since it makes management of the monitoring infrastructure a whole lot easier...
Since they can not forbid anyone to donate the fruits of their labour to society, here's how I think they plan to put a halt to all those free software spouting competitors: simply outlaw those 'limited liability' claims in the popular free software licences. Almost every free software license contains something in the line of 'no warranty'. If they outlaw those claims, free software writers can be hauled to court on ridiculous claims, and the well will soon run dry. And if I remember correctly, UCITA contains something along these lines.
Remember, you read it here first...
(or on Linux Today, where I also posted this comment)
Or IE 5.5, which seems to have very good PNG support.
Hmmm, funny you mention this. I just made a web page with a transparent PNG in a table cell, and IE 5.5 totally forgot about the transparency. Mozilla on the other hand had no problems with it, both on Linux as well as Windows it displayed the image the way I made it. I had to go back to a transparent GIF to get IE to render the page correctly.
So, it seems IE's handling of PNG is not quite up to par with the standard...
I point at the utter wastefullness of making disposable products for the sole reason that it is possible to create them, never mind the consequences of those things littering the mullheap.
In reply, I get a couple of trolls calling me a 'commie' (guess that's an insult, or at least meant to be one) and such. Also, the fine moderator corps mark my posting as 'troll' and 'overrated' (overrated? It wasn't even rated to begin with...).
Conclusion: don't interrupt the cheering crowd or you'll regret it. Doesn't matter what they cheer about, just cheer along or buzz off.
Virtually everything on OLGA violates a copyright -- it doesn't matter if the transriptions were done by ear, by telepathy, by Zen meditation, or through an Ouija board.
Puhleeze....
What kind of society will this kind of thinking lead to? I am an amateur musician, and I have made many a transcription (or should I say 'interpretation') of songs I like. I have friends who play as well, and I have no qualms whatsoever in giving them these transcriptions. Am I 'stealing' something now? NO.
Music is still a form of art, no matter what the 'music industry' wants us to believe. It is not a 'product'. Pre-packaged recordings may be 'products', but the music itself (the 'composition') it not. Ask any musician, and (s)he'll probably agree. Unless, of course, they're in it *just* for the money. But in that case their music probably won't be interesting enough to transcribe anyway. There's nothing wrong with *making money* on music, but when it becomes the sole purpose there probably won't be any music worth listening to anyway (right, Dr. Dre?).
Where do you think music comes from? What do you think it means when some musician tells you she has her 'roots' in this and that artist or such and so style? Do you think she means she signed a contract with those artists, a licensing agreement whereby she gained the right to use parts of their 'intellectual property' in her own works? Is that how you want the music of the 21st century to be?
Not me. If I hear a song I like, I'll try to play it. If I like the way it came out, I might write it down. If someone else likes it, they can have it. Sue me...
If you 'import' power from outside earth (thereby increasing the amount of energy on the planet), wouldn't that cause the same problems? That energy will eventually be released as heat, unless it is stored inside chemical bonds or directly transformed into mass (as in e=mc^2)...
But there are... Sony makes them (or made them, I don't know if they're still in production). The flat CRT was used in a portable television set called the 'Watchman'. They're also used in all kinds of monitoring and surveillance equipment. My local supermarket until recently had one of these screens at each checkout counter, connected to a camera which was pointed at the floor. These used it to see what you had on the lower side of the cart (the favourite place to place crates of beer, soda, etc. in The Netherlands or so it seems).
Let's face it, without entertainment or leisure of some sort, we go insane.
True, very true. However, nothing says that entertainment and leisure have to come in bite-size chunks, individually packaged and foil-wrapped for your protection. There's a whole world full of entertainment and leisure out there which is (mostly) outside the reach of the 'entertainment industry', from live music at the local pub (or other locations) through learning to make it (no matter what:-) yourself to the 'alternative' media, etc. People, real people, not canned ones, await you at places like that. People who say things they mean to say, not things which have been written into some script 'cause someone paid them to say it.
The 'entertainment industry', and probably the whole 'media industry' has outlived its welcome. They have shown their true colours, which are dark. Pretty soon - when ever more stringent laws prohibit advertising for more and more products - the products of the media industry will be virtually indistinguishable from commercials (if they are even now distinguishable from them...). Who wants to endure hours and hours of commercials?
...
I know I don't...
So, tune out, turn off and live your life the way you want, not the way they tell you to live it...
In my country (The Netherlands) several utility companies now offer two kinds of power: 'conventionally' generated and 'environmentally clean' power. The former is generated mostly by natural-gas fired plants, the latter is generated by wind/sun/tidal/etc. generators. The environmentally 'clean' power is a little more expensive, but that does not keep people from choosing this option. Why, you ask? Well, probably because people know that there are more ways to calculate the cost of energy besides tallying the electric bills. If you add up the EXTRA costs from environmental damage caused by traditional power plants (even natural-gas fired, relatively clean as they may be), you'll probably end up with higher costs than the 'environmentally friendly' generated power.
If you sign a contract with the utility company for 'natuurstroom' ('natural power'), they do not rewire your house so that the power actually comes from windmills etc. Instead, they guarantee that they will add to the amount of your power consumption in environmentally friendly power generation capacity in one form or another. Where I live (in the 'polder' (reclaimed land)) this probably means wind generators. Elsewhere, it might means a tidal power plant, etc.
Of course, you have to trust the utility to actually make good on their promises. The contract you sign is co-signed by the WWF (World Wildlife Fund), who are supposed to be a 'trusted third party' to alleviate any doubts you may have about the utility company (which is, after all, a purely commercial entity in The Netherlands...).
Maybe a system like this would work for environmentally-conscious California as well?
Hmmm... Had a look at the second linked webpage. It contains some guff, followed by a bug button saying:
"Click Here to Retain Milberg Weiss"
Now there's a nice target for Amazon to sue... Or maybe they (milbergweiss) already have a patent for 'one click lawyer retaining'?
Sorry, I dislike lawyers and everything related to them. My parents taught me not to lie. Guess their parents did the same, but they obviously interpreted it as 'lie if the price is right'. 'Nuff said...
There's no need to boycott eBay on this (and other) sleazy behaviour. I mean, you knew up-front, when you registered, that they would probably be less than 100% honest. So, you did not give them your real, day-to-day address... Instead, they got stuck with a temporary address, which is only enabled if/when you're active on eBay. For the rest of the time, that address is commented out in your aliases, or.procmailrc, or whatever you use to separate the dead from the living.
At least, that's what I did when I signed up. As soon as I did, the spam started coming (from eBay itself as well as from the usual suspects), but it did not get across the threshold of port 25 on my box. Sorry mailer, address unknown, return to sender...
Well, corps generally have money, and lots of it. They use some of that money to hire people whose job it is to talk to politicians, give money to selected causes, etc. Politicians generally like money, especially when the time comes they have to defend their position. Those two put together sometimes results in politicians becoming indebted in some way to corps. That sometimes leads to politicians doing things which they did not mention in their programs and campaigns, but which please the corps to which they are indebted. Since government is made up of politicians, government sometimes does things which are not the 'will of the people', but only the will of a select number of people (generally those with money to buy lobbyists). I think it is not that hard to find examples of this (UCITA and DMCA being the most popular, but certainly not the only cases where the will of the few was considered more important than the will of the many).
Generally speaking, government is what those who are employed by it make of it. And since people are fallible, so is government. If people were infallible, the best form of government would be a benevolent, all-knowing dictator. Unfortunately, there is no such person, so we'll have to make do with the next best alternative. Which alternative that is is still up to discussion I think, but some form of democracy will probably fit the bill quite well.
BUT... there has to be some way to create a clear separation between business and government... Many European nations have fought long and hard to separate government from religion ('the church'). The USofA was founded on these principles. It now seems business is more and more taking on the role of 'the church' in government, something which causes many problems.
I think there is only one final solution to this: give up on the mass media. Yes, you heard me. No more Hollywood-movies (no great loss). No more Britney Spears (who cares). No more mindboggingly stupid game shows (what a relief!).
Does this mean you can not listen to music anymore? Of course not! People will still make music, and they'll probably still publish that music for wider consumption in 'canned' (or downloadable) formats. They may want to be paid for the privilege, and they will.
But the 'media industry' is on a fast track to extinction they way their heading right now.
Think I am joking?
I'm not. Guess who got rid of his TV set last month? I still have cable, but that's for my modem:-) And if they tighten the thumbscrews on that as well, there's always wireless. Not through some sleazy company, but through a collaborative wireless 'amateur' network like they're building in Seattle.
OK, they can buy some laws to outlaw all this, and we'll find some other means to connect. As long as the true '1984' vision of forced television consumption does not come true, there is a way out. And should such a scheme ever come to pass, well you only have to read Orwell to learn how it will end...
"Omnis enim res, quae dando non deficit, dum habetur et non datur, nondum habetur, quomodo habenda est."
Hmmmm... I've been thinking of building a page-collating proxy app for these sites. It would work somewhat like DejaSearch (for which I created the web front end), in that it fetches all content from the site and presents it in a human readable form, without the marketing-mandated mess. It would be configurable through some database-like system which contains site-specific filters. In this case, it would just follow the 'next page' links, get the content, and put it in your browser. Think this might be useful? Then please comment... Oh, and I do not need rants about 'stealing content' and 'breaking the internet by blocking ads' and such. The Net was there before the suits, and (the interesting part of) it will survive after they are declared bankrupt.
There's a patch for/version of Junkbuster which adds (some) of these capabilities. It is called 'LeanWeb' by one Carsten Clasohm. I use it to filter out certain HTML constructs, popups, etc. It adds one configuration file to Junkbuster, you can keep on using your other JB config files. I'm sure a search for LeanWeb will turn up something...
Well, now that we have macroscopic quantization of magnetic flux, and fluxon-switching devices, that Flux Capacitor can't be far off now can it? Anyone got a DeLorean sitting in the barn waiting to be refitted? Now's your chance!
1. At least one computer program stored on a computer-readable medium, embodying a method of searching for a match in a database of a plurality of records, where the records in the database include length information and number of segments for recordings corresponding to the records, comprising:
calculating approximate length information for the records in the database and for a selected recording having a number of segments; and
determining at least one approximately matching record in the database for the selected
recording based on the number of segments and the approximate length information.
Hmmm, 'number of elements', 'length of element', 'find match'... So a CDDB lookup - obligatory guff about 'a computer program stored on a computer' aside - is really similar to what you do when you stand in front of a locked door, with a bunch of keys in your hands:
select a key of a certain size (length) and a certain number of bumps (elements)
insert key into lock, try to turn it. If the approximate length and the length of the individual bumps matches with the inverse of the length of the bumps inside the lock, it opens, otherwise repeat...
So, next time I come home in the dark of night and stand there fumbling with that keyring, I'll make sure no lawyer is watching me or I'll have to pay GraceNote? Or is the addition of that 'a computer program stored on a computer' condition really all the innovation needed to get a valid patent?
...what are all those 'Unable to connect to ad server' messages sprinkled around the text? Must be that damn junkbuster proxy again, messing up the good intentions of Dobb's marketeers...
This is an ongoing trend in Europe (and also in Canada I think), levies on equipment and media which CAN be used to copy copyrighted works.
Paper can be used to copy copyrighted works. Why not put a surcharge on paper?
FLASH-RAM can be used to copy copyrighted works. Why not charge that as well?
I know the proceedings are supposed to go to the artists (they do, in fact, go to institutions like BIEM, GEMA, BUMA/STEMRA et al, which are supposed to share the spoils with the artists) for 'legal copying of protected works for personal use'. But why do they have to be paid for that? The law in many countries says it is legal to reproduce a copyrighted work for personal use, as long as you have paid the copyright fees (by buying the CD, video, etc). After you've paid, you may copy the work as many times as you wish, as long as you do not violate the copyright by giving those copies to others who have not paid. So I see no reason why there has to be an extra payment so you can do what is already legal.
Of course, part of the reason for these fees is that people DO in fact give copies to others who have not paid. But by putting a fee on 'suspected' devices and media, buyers are automatically 'fined' for 'crimes' they have not comitted (yet).
All European laws uphold the principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty. By making people pay a fine before they commit a crime, they (state governments) are breaking their own laws. They are violating their own constitution. If the laws can not be upheld, they should either change the law or find ways to make people abide by them. They should NOT make people pay for crimes they have not commited. By doing this, they create the illusion that it is OK to break the law, since the fines have already been paid.
Simple, only that Intel does its best to reach the top by any legal and ethical means. Like many companies do. Nothing else.
Grow up. It is a real world, someday you will find a job in an IT industry and will understand, that still the main motivation of any company is to make money, and not to deliver the best product ever. Get real.
I am 35, and have had many jobs in both ICT and the media. In those jobs, I've seen a lot of companies I like, and some I like less or indeed dislike. So I think I am real enough...
And as for mafioso, rent (if you don't own) a Godfather I and II. See the difference. Or even better, go to Russia, you'll enjoy it there.
I think most people understood that I did not compare Intel with the Mafia. You obviously did not. I referred to the fact that good or beneficial acts are no excuse for unethical or unlegal behaviour.
I agree about Intel (currently) being a major GNU/Linux supporter. Sure, they are probably only thinking of their own interests, but by doing so they add weight to the position that free software can succeed in a commercial/business environment. Good for them, good for us. Everybody happy.
but, I have to take exception to the following statement:
The fact is that Intel is a corporation, and that corporations play hard ball business. They'll use the legal system, contracts, and whatever it takes to sell more product. Its just the nature of corporations.
The mere fact that Corps. act as though they own the laws and can do whatever they wish does not mean I have to accept that as a 'fact of life'. Replace 'corporation' with 'mafioso', and that line suddenly looks less appealing, even though the Mafia has been (and probably still is) supporting some causes which might, by some, be seen as beneficial for society. Like ridding neighbourhoods of crime (by criminal means, but still). That does not negate the poisoning role of the Mafia (or other crime syndicates) in several public institutions.
So, cheers to Intel for their insight that free software and business can go together. But boo to them (and all other nasty corporations) for their continued disregard of 'the intent of the law', for their heavy-handedness, their lies and their greed.
Slashdot Mirror
The screen goes on about Techrepublic being 'the IT professional's source for many exciting articles...' and more marketing-drivel, finally trying to coax me into upgrading:
Why not upgrade to a more current Web browser?
You'll be glad you did.
...followed by the usual Download Microsoft Internet Explorer Now! command.
Hm, I'm running a freshly compiled version of Mozilla. Maybe they don't like my Junkbuster proxy?
Anyway, why don't they stop nagging me, and let me decide what browser to use, and let me decide whether their site is 'exciting'? If it is, I'll come again, and I'll spread the word. If it isn't, no matter how often they use those e* words I won't be back.
That, of course, depends on the type of cable modem used. My ISP (Chello, in The Netherlands) uses Terayon (TeraLink S-CDMA) equipment which has a shared uplink of about 3-5 Mbit/s (depending on distance to the headend and quality of the cable infrastructure). Even so, uplink is capped at 128 kbit/s to keep people from running servers on their connections. Problem with this is that TCP connections are not that happy with asymmetric bandwidth, so the downlink suffers a heavy penalty when the (capped) uplink gets saturated. A better solution would be to create a limited data uplink in concert with an unlimited (or less severely limited) control uplink. The latter would only be useable for 'traffic control' type of traffic (SYN/ACK/RSET/etc, ICMP, ...) and limited to a small ( 100 bytes?) packet size. I recently had a somewhat heated discussion on this with some people from an organisation which claims to represent customers to the ISP, but in reality often seems to represent the ISP to customers...
OK, so Napster (and related services) will have to block RIAA-owned songs? And they plan to recognize those songs by name, and maybe (in the future) by some digital fingerprint? The solvent for this solution is obvious: encrypt everything you share, using some asymmetric algorithm. If someone wants to leech a song from your box, let them first get your key (from some keyserver, somewhere). Obfuscate the filenames. Whatever... This is just to say that the proposed method of keeping Napster/P2P RIAA-'clean' does not work. And I can not see how they can make it work either. The cat seems to be out of the bag, it has produced many litters, and its offspring now roam the planet in search for a home...
For you maybe... for (insert company/organization with big network here) not. If your company relies on those network/service monitoring boxes, they'd better be stable and left to their job. For these applications, a dedicated monitoring box is probably the best way to go, since you can just install it and put a big 'do not disturb' sign on the console. With hardware prices being what they are now, this will save you both time and money, since it makes management of the monitoring infrastructure a whole lot easier...
Remember UCITA?
Since they can not forbid anyone to donate the fruits of their labour to society, here's how I think they plan to put a halt to all those free software spouting competitors: simply outlaw those 'limited liability' claims in the popular free software licences. Almost every free software license contains something in the line of 'no warranty'. If they outlaw those claims, free software writers can be hauled to court on ridiculous claims, and the well will soon run dry. And if I remember correctly, UCITA contains something along these lines.
Remember, you read it here first...
(or on Linux Today, where I also posted this comment)
Hmmm, funny you mention this. I just made a web page with a transparent PNG in a table cell, and IE 5.5 totally forgot about the transparency. Mozilla on the other hand had no problems with it, both on Linux as well as Windows it displayed the image the way I made it. I had to go back to a transparent GIF to get IE to render the page correctly.
So, it seems IE's handling of PNG is not quite up to par with the standard...
Right.
I give up.
I point at the utter wastefullness of making disposable products for the sole reason that it is possible to create them, never mind the consequences of those things littering the mullheap.
In reply, I get a couple of trolls calling me a 'commie' (guess that's an insult, or at least meant to be one) and such. Also, the fine moderator corps mark my posting as 'troll' and 'overrated' (overrated? It wasn't even rated to begin with...).
Conclusion: don't interrupt the cheering crowd or you'll regret it. Doesn't matter what they cheer about, just cheer along or buzz off.
I'll buzz off...
Puhleeze....
What kind of society will this kind of thinking lead to? I am an amateur musician, and I have made many a transcription (or should I say 'interpretation') of songs I like. I have friends who play as well, and I have no qualms whatsoever in giving them these transcriptions. Am I 'stealing' something now? NO.
Music is still a form of art, no matter what the 'music industry' wants us to believe. It is not a 'product'. Pre-packaged recordings may be 'products', but the music itself (the 'composition') it not. Ask any musician, and (s)he'll probably agree. Unless, of course, they're in it *just* for the money. But in that case their music probably won't be interesting enough to transcribe anyway. There's nothing wrong with *making money* on music, but when it becomes the sole purpose there probably won't be any music worth listening to anyway (right, Dr. Dre?).
Where do you think music comes from? What do you think it means when some musician tells you she has her 'roots' in this and that artist or such and so style? Do you think she means she signed a contract with those artists, a licensing agreement whereby she gained the right to use parts of their 'intellectual property' in her own works? Is that how you want the music of the 21st century to be?
Not me. If I hear a song I like, I'll try to play it. If I like the way it came out, I might write it down. If someone else likes it, they can have it. Sue me...
If you 'import' power from outside earth (thereby increasing the amount of energy on the planet), wouldn't that cause the same problems? That energy will eventually be released as heat, unless it is stored inside chemical bonds or directly transformed into mass (as in e=mc^2)...
But there are... Sony makes them (or made them, I don't know if they're still in production). The flat CRT was used in a portable television set called the 'Watchman'. They're also used in all kinds of monitoring and surveillance equipment. My local supermarket until recently had one of these screens at each checkout counter, connected to a camera which was pointed at the floor. These used it to see what you had on the lower side of the cart (the favourite place to place crates of beer, soda, etc. in The Netherlands or so it seems).
True, very true. However, nothing says that entertainment and leisure have to come in bite-size chunks, individually packaged and foil-wrapped for your protection. There's a whole world full of entertainment and leisure out there which is (mostly) outside the reach of the 'entertainment industry', from live music at the local pub (or other locations) through learning to make it (no matter what :-) yourself to the 'alternative' media, etc. People, real people, not canned ones, await you at places like that. People who say things they mean to say, not things which have been written into some script 'cause someone paid them to say it.
The 'entertainment industry', and probably the whole 'media industry' has outlived its welcome. They have shown their true colours, which are dark. Pretty soon - when ever more stringent laws prohibit advertising for more and more products - the products of the media industry will be virtually indistinguishable from commercials (if they are even now distinguishable from them...). Who wants to endure hours and hours of commercials?
...
I know I don't...
So, tune out, turn off and live your life the way you want, not the way they tell you to live it...
In my country (The Netherlands) several utility companies now offer two kinds of power: 'conventionally' generated and 'environmentally clean' power. The former is generated mostly by natural-gas fired plants, the latter is generated by wind/sun/tidal/etc. generators. The environmentally 'clean' power is a little more expensive, but that does not keep people from choosing this option. Why, you ask? Well, probably because people know that there are more ways to calculate the cost of energy besides tallying the electric bills. If you add up the EXTRA costs from environmental damage caused by traditional power plants (even natural-gas fired, relatively clean as they may be), you'll probably end up with higher costs than the 'environmentally friendly' generated power.
If you sign a contract with the utility company for 'natuurstroom' ('natural power'), they do not rewire your house so that the power actually comes from windmills etc. Instead, they guarantee that they will add to the amount of your power consumption in environmentally friendly power generation capacity in one form or another. Where I live (in the 'polder' (reclaimed land)) this probably means wind generators. Elsewhere, it might means a tidal power plant, etc.
Of course, you have to trust the utility to actually make good on their promises. The contract you sign is co-signed by the WWF (World Wildlife Fund), who are supposed to be a 'trusted third party' to alleviate any doubts you may have about the utility company (which is, after all, a purely commercial entity in The Netherlands...).
Maybe a system like this would work for environmentally-conscious California as well?
Hmmm... Had a look at the second linked webpage. It contains some guff, followed by a bug button saying:
"Click Here to Retain Milberg Weiss"
Now there's a nice target for Amazon to sue... Or maybe they (milbergweiss) already have a patent for 'one click lawyer retaining'?
Sorry, I dislike lawyers and everything related to them. My parents taught me not to lie. Guess their parents did the same, but they obviously interpreted it as 'lie if the price is right'. 'Nuff said...
There's no need to boycott eBay on this (and other) sleazy behaviour. I mean, you knew up-front, when you registered, that they would probably be less than 100% honest. So, you did not give them your real, day-to-day address... Instead, they got stuck with a temporary address, which is only enabled if/when you're active on eBay. For the rest of the time, that address is commented out in your aliases, or .procmailrc, or whatever you use to separate the dead from the living.
At least, that's what I did when I signed up. As soon as I did, the spam started coming (from eBay itself as well as from the usual suspects), but it did not get across the threshold of port 25 on my box. Sorry mailer, address unknown, return to sender...
...or mozilla, since that browser also shows the webpage in its full - and to me undecipherable - splendor...
Well, corps generally have money, and lots of it. They use some of that money to hire people whose job it is to talk to politicians, give money to selected causes, etc. Politicians generally like money, especially when the time comes they have to defend their position. Those two put together sometimes results in politicians becoming indebted in some way to corps. That sometimes leads to politicians doing things which they did not mention in their programs and campaigns, but which please the corps to which they are indebted. Since government is made up of politicians, government sometimes does things which are not the 'will of the people', but only the will of a select number of people (generally those with money to buy lobbyists). I think it is not that hard to find examples of this (UCITA and DMCA being the most popular, but certainly not the only cases where the will of the few was considered more important than the will of the many).
Generally speaking, government is what those who are employed by it make of it. And since people are fallible, so is government. If people were infallible, the best form of government would be a benevolent, all-knowing dictator. Unfortunately, there is no such person, so we'll have to make do with the next best alternative. Which alternative that is is still up to discussion I think, but some form of democracy will probably fit the bill quite well.
BUT... there has to be some way to create a clear separation between business and government... Many European nations have fought long and hard to separate government from religion ('the church'). The USofA was founded on these principles. It now seems business is more and more taking on the role of 'the church' in government, something which causes many problems.
I think there is only one final solution to this: give up on the mass media. Yes, you heard me. No more Hollywood-movies (no great loss). No more Britney Spears (who cares). No more mindboggingly stupid game shows (what a relief!).
:-) And if they tighten the thumbscrews on that as well, there's always wireless. Not through some sleazy company, but through a collaborative wireless 'amateur' network like they're building in Seattle.
Does this mean you can not listen to music anymore? Of course not! People will still make music, and they'll probably still publish that music for wider consumption in 'canned' (or downloadable) formats. They may want to be paid for the privilege, and they will.
But the 'media industry' is on a fast track to extinction they way their heading right now.
Think I am joking?
I'm not. Guess who got rid of his TV set last month? I still have cable, but that's for my modem
OK, they can buy some laws to outlaw all this, and we'll find some other means to connect. As long as the true '1984' vision of forced television consumption does not come true, there is a way out. And should such a scheme ever come to pass, well you only have to read Orwell to learn how it will end...
"Omnis enim res, quae dando non deficit, dum habetur et non datur, nondum habetur, quomodo habenda est."
Hmmmm... I've been thinking of building a page-collating proxy app for these sites. It would work somewhat like DejaSearch (for which I created the web front end), in that it fetches all content from the site and presents it in a human readable form, without the marketing-mandated mess. It would be configurable through some database-like system which contains site-specific filters. In this case, it would just follow the 'next page' links, get the content, and put it in your browser. Think this might be useful? Then please comment... Oh, and I do not need rants about 'stealing content' and 'breaking the internet by blocking ads' and such. The Net was there before the suits, and (the interesting part of) it will survive after they are declared bankrupt.
Cheers//Frank
There's a patch for/version of Junkbuster which adds (some) of these capabilities. It is called 'LeanWeb' by one Carsten Clasohm. I use it to filter out certain HTML constructs, popups, etc. It adds one configuration file to Junkbuster, you can keep on using your other JB config files. I'm sure a search for LeanWeb will turn up something...
Well, now that we have macroscopic quantization of magnetic flux, and fluxon-switching devices, that Flux Capacitor can't be far off now can it? Anyone got a DeLorean sitting in the barn waiting to be refitted? Now's your chance!
Hmmm, 'number of elements', 'length of element', 'find match'... So a CDDB lookup - obligatory guff about 'a computer program stored on a computer' aside - is really similar to what you do when you stand in front of a locked door, with a bunch of keys in your hands:
So, next time I come home in the dark of night and stand there fumbling with that keyring, I'll make sure no lawyer is watching me or I'll have to pay GraceNote? Or is the addition of that 'a computer program stored on a computer' condition really all the innovation needed to get a valid patent?
...what are all those 'Unable to connect to ad server' messages sprinkled around the text? Must be that damn junkbuster proxy again, messing up the good intentions of Dobb's marketeers...
/me renices junkbuster to -10
This is an ongoing trend in Europe (and also in Canada I think), levies on equipment and media which CAN be used to copy copyrighted works.
Paper can be used to copy copyrighted works. Why not put a surcharge on paper?
FLASH-RAM can be used to copy copyrighted works. Why not charge that as well?
I know the proceedings are supposed to go to the artists (they do, in fact, go to institutions like BIEM, GEMA, BUMA/STEMRA et al, which are supposed to share the spoils with the artists) for 'legal copying of protected works for personal use'. But why do they have to be paid for that? The law in many countries says it is legal to reproduce a copyrighted work for personal use, as long as you have paid the copyright fees (by buying the CD, video, etc). After you've paid, you may copy the work as many times as you wish, as long as you do not violate the copyright by giving those copies to others who have not paid. So I see no reason why there has to be an extra payment so you can do what is already legal.
Of course, part of the reason for these fees is that people DO in fact give copies to others who have not paid. But by putting a fee on 'suspected' devices and media, buyers are automatically 'fined' for 'crimes' they have not comitted (yet).
All European laws uphold the principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty. By making people pay a fine before they commit a crime, they (state governments) are breaking their own laws. They are violating their own constitution. If the laws can not be upheld, they should either change the law or find ways to make people abide by them. They should NOT make people pay for crimes they have not commited. By doing this, they create the illusion that it is OK to break the law, since the fines have already been paid.
[I also posted this comment on linuxtoday btw.]
Simple, only that Intel does its best to reach the top by any legal and ethical means. Like many companies do. Nothing else.
I am 35, and have had many jobs in both ICT and the media. In those jobs, I've seen a lot of companies I like, and some I like less or indeed dislike. So I think I am real enough...
I think most people understood that I did not compare Intel with the Mafia. You obviously did not. I referred to the fact that good or beneficial acts are no excuse for unethical or unlegal behaviour.
but, I have to take exception to the following statement:
The mere fact that Corps. act as though they own the laws and can do whatever they wish does not mean I have to accept that as a 'fact of life'. Replace 'corporation' with 'mafioso', and that line suddenly looks less appealing, even though the Mafia has been (and probably still is) supporting some causes which might, by some, be seen as beneficial for society. Like ridding neighbourhoods of crime (by criminal means, but still). That does not negate the poisoning role of the Mafia (or other crime syndicates) in several public institutions.
So, cheers to Intel for their insight that free software and business can go together. But boo to them (and all other nasty corporations) for their continued disregard of 'the intent of the law', for their heavy-handedness, their lies and their greed.