Call me pessimistic, but I just don't see a person who wasn't able to upgrade from Windows 98 in the last few years suddenly feeling brave enough to try Linux.
Whether it's ready for the desktop or not, we're talking about a group that obviously isn't into change.
"Defendant is willing to accede to the demands of the Chinese autocrats to block the search term 'democracy,'" the complaint states, "but when it comes to the protection and well-being of our nation's innocent children, Defendant refuses to spend a dime's worth of resources to block child pornography from reaching children."
Yeah. Let's use China as a role model.
I know they're just trying to get in a cheap shot at Google, but the implication that we should somehow control companies the same way China does scares me. Is that where we're heading?
I live in a multilingual household myself (one of them French), and you're right. There's absolutely nothing like French for truly inspirational cursing. It's perfect when you really want to make someone feel like dirt (which maybe isn't surprising, considering the source).
On the other hand, for flat-out obscene, French doesn't work very well. It just seems too damned refined.
Piss off a southeast Asian, like someone Vietnamese or Laotian, if you ever want to hear stuff that puts English, or even French, cursing to shame. They won't think twice about tossing in bestiality, violence, and incest, often all at the same time. Really disgusting stuff. You gotta love it.
A key logger, spying over your shoulder, or a number of other non-magical means can get your password without any telepathy required. Unlike with a constantly-changing password, though, your password will be known forever once someone figures it out.
My Myth box runs all ATI (a 9600 video card, and cheap-as-hell ATI TV Wonder w/ Remote crammed into an Athlon-based Shuttle), and works like a champ.
Anyone who thinks you can't build a decent Myth box out of parts you can find at your local computer hardware place just hasn't done any research on what Linux supports, and shouldn't be modded up for being ignorant.
I *loved* Rom! Back when I was 16 and got my first car, I had my big plastic beeping Rom sitting up proudly on my dashboard.
Jeezus, I was a dork.
I still have all my old Rom comic books, from issue #1 all the way to the end.
Funny, though... I looked them up a few months back, and almost none of them are even worth what I paid for them in the early 80's. You could probably pick up the whole set now for less than you got it for then.
I suspect the three of us that bought Rom: Spaceknight have all posted to this thread. It is good to know, though, that I wasn't the *only* one.
Christ, does *every* Slashdot headline have to be misleading and sesationalistic?
To answer the question in the headline: No, it's not illegal to refill your Lexmark ink cartridges. What's illegal is for a company to buy up empty "one-use" cartridges, fill them back up, and resell them.
Whether it was warranted for the court to uphold this or not, the decision does not mean what the Slashdot editors would like you to believe.
Slashdot: News for the Gullible. Stuff that insults your intelligence.
Those tags are still there, and it was never illegal for the consumer to remove them. It was illegal for the retailer to do it, because they contained information that might be important to the consumer.
In other words, the "do not remove under penalty of law" on furniture tags were there for the protection of the consumer; shrink-wrap licenses and this variant are all about limiting the rights of the consumer.
I know this is a day late, and will never get seen by anyone, but I've got to ask...
Where else but Slashdot would you see a post saying (and I paraphrase), "I don't care" moderated as insightful? In other words, this post is proclaiming a total lack of any insight at all.
Well, whaddayaknow? CNN's wording was a bit strange on that one. I checked to see if I was making an ass out of myself, and I was. The two SpaceShip One pilots *did* receive astronaut wings.
Yep, I realize that. However, a lot of the suggestions here were for how to convert Word HTML to "real" HTML, which obviously isn't possible if you don't have Word HTML to begin with.
Assuming "Save as HTML" isn't an option (if you're getting your Word docs from someone you can't easily have re-save them for you, for example), I've used Antiword (a Word-to-text converter) for this sort of thing. It's been years, though, and I can't say with a whole ton of certainty that it works as well now as it did then.
For the sake of clarity, I'm going to edit that last sentence:
If he has reviewed all the available porn, and intentionally deleted or supressed rubber duckie porn because he could deal with farm animals, scatophilia, and the goatse guy, but rubber duckies were just too damn nasty, then yes, I would be viewing a censored porn collection.
I realize answering anything in a Slashdot post from more than a few hours ago is an exercise in futility, but:
"By using the definition of censorship you have posted, SBC is not _censoring_ anything."
No, read it again. According to that definition, censorship is "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable," which is *exactly* what SBC is doing. They examine the available newsgroups, then delete or supress -- from their servers -- those they find objectionable.
"If they blocked you from accessing the same material from another source using their service, then yes it would be censoring."
So, if I watch an R-rated movie on broadcast TV, and they've bleeped out all the "fucks" and "shits," they haven't censored it because I can hear the original dialog on HBO?
I really think we're using two different definitions of "censorship" here. The one I think you're using would be something different, more like "prohibition." You'll note I'm not claiming SBC is prohibiting, only censoring.
"If you go to your friend's house and he has a huge pr0n collection, but he doesnt have any pr0n concerning rubber ducks, then is he censoring material that you want to view ?"
If he has reviewed all the available porn, and intentionally deleted or supressed rubber duckie porn, then yes, I would be viewing a censored porn collection.
At the risk of becoming repetitive, stating the obvious, and a whole host of other sins:
"They have not been filtering ANYTHING. They simply have not been replicating some of the Usenet groups onto THEIR OWN SERVERS."
So, let's see if I've got this straight: they selectively skip pulling data down to their servers, but it's not filtering? I think we're working with a couple different definitions of filtering here. In my line of work, if you define a set of rules which defines when data will or will not be transferred, replicated, or otherwise processed, we call that a filter.
Of course, it's always possible that they have a cadre of alchemists turning Usenet posts into copper, and running it out to homes in the form of DSL lines, but I think a filter's a lot more likely.
"This is not censorship. They do not have to provide news servers. They do not have to replicate all the groups onto their own news servers."
No, they do not have to provide Usenet servers -- but they do. They then, selectively, choose certain groups not to replicate. If you look at which groups are and are not replicated, you'll find that some groups (binary and otherwise) are replicated, and certain others are not. For example, a quick diff between the offerings of SBC and my current provider shows that SBC has chosen to provide plenty of erotica groups, but is noticeably missing those with "teen" in the name. There are planty of other groups, binary and otherwise, that SBC has chosen not to replicate.
Without making any judgements on whether that's a good thing or not, it's obvious that SBC has examined the available newsgroups, and supressed or deleted (or transmuted, if they've got those alchemists) those they considered objectionable.
From good ol' m-w.com:
Main Entry: censor Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): censored; censoring/'sen(t)-s&-ri[ng], 'sen(t)s-ri[ng]/ : to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
How is that not what they've done?
If you're an SBC alchemist, I sincerely apologize for my ignorance.
That was cool... didn't have to scroll down far at all to one I worked for:
PILOT NETWORK SERVICES INC (PILT) Death date: Aug 16, 2000 Securities fraud alleged. Many class actions pending against the company. Based on data for APR-01-2000 to JUN-30-2000
Oooh, if needing SecurID to log into cisco.com got modified insightful, I'm gettin' me some karma while the gettin's good!
Why stop there? How about requiring a freshly-notarized affidavit proving your identity before logging into E-Bay?
Maybe Amazon should have a representative cruise by for an at-home visit to verify your shipping address (and make sure your mailbox is big enough) before they send you a book?
If match.com required a DNA test to log in, I bet that would save a lot of "he's really a she" embarrassment.
Let's embed an RFID tag in each Slashdot post to increase user accountability while we're at it!
Slashdot Mirror
Call me pessimistic, but I just don't see a person who wasn't able to upgrade from Windows 98 in the last few years suddenly feeling brave enough to try Linux.
Whether it's ready for the desktop or not, we're talking about a group that obviously isn't into change.
No, it's not just a side-wide 404 page.
The web is *not* the entire Internet. There's more than just HTTP out there, and this can break all of it.
I live in a multilingual household myself (one of them French), and you're right. There's absolutely nothing like French for truly inspirational cursing. It's perfect when you really want to make someone feel like dirt (which maybe isn't surprising, considering the source).
On the other hand, for flat-out obscene, French doesn't work very well. It just seems too damned refined.
Piss off a southeast Asian, like someone Vietnamese or Laotian, if you ever want to hear stuff that puts English, or even French, cursing to shame. They won't think twice about tossing in bestiality, violence, and incest, often all at the same time. Really disgusting stuff. You gotta love it.
I gotta wonder if people actually read any more.
That's what I said! It's a new exploit to an older vulnerability.
Argh.
From November 8th: http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/15352
New metasploit plugin = new exploit
New metasploit plugin != new vulnerability
This is hardly a "prevously unknown security hole." In fact, MS released a patch for it two weeks ago.
The exploit's new, but the vulnerability has been known for a while and is only still around because the patch doesn't work.
A key logger, spying over your shoulder, or a number of other non-magical means can get your password without any telepathy required. Unlike with a constantly-changing password, though, your password will be known forever once someone figures it out.
Ahem... Mods? Are you on crack?
My Myth box runs all ATI (a 9600 video card, and cheap-as-hell ATI TV Wonder w/ Remote crammed into an Athlon-based Shuttle), and works like a champ.
Anyone who thinks you can't build a decent Myth box out of parts you can find at your local computer hardware place just hasn't done any research on what Linux supports, and shouldn't be modded up for being ignorant.
I *loved* Rom! Back when I was 16 and got my first car, I had my big plastic beeping Rom sitting up proudly on my dashboard.
Jeezus, I was a dork.
I still have all my old Rom comic books, from issue #1 all the way to the end.
Funny, though... I looked them up a few months back, and almost none of them are even worth what I paid for them in the early 80's. You could probably pick up the whole set now for less than you got it for then.
I suspect the three of us that bought Rom: Spaceknight have all posted to this thread. It is good to know, though, that I wasn't the *only* one.
Christ, does *every* Slashdot headline have to be misleading and sesationalistic?
To answer the question in the headline: No, it's not illegal to refill your Lexmark ink cartridges. What's illegal is for a company to buy up empty "one-use" cartridges, fill them back up, and resell them.
Whether it was warranted for the court to uphold this or not, the decision does not mean what the Slashdot editors would like you to believe.
Slashdot: News for the Gullible. Stuff that insults your intelligence.
Those tags are still there, and it was never illegal for the consumer to remove them. It was illegal for the retailer to do it, because they contained information that might be important to the consumer.
In other words, the "do not remove under penalty of law" on furniture tags were there for the protection of the consumer; shrink-wrap licenses and this variant are all about limiting the rights of the consumer.
I know this is a day late, and will never get seen by anyone, but I've got to ask...
Where else but Slashdot would you see a post saying (and I paraphrase), "I don't care" moderated as insightful? In other words, this post is proclaiming a total lack of any insight at all.
My irony meter just pegged.
Well, if you're not going to troll, you might want to RTFA. They aren't running Windows.
Lots of carriers charge to receive SMS.
t xt.jsp?action=textMessaging
Verizon charges a dime a message:
http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/mobileoptions/
Cingular charges a nickel, I believe. Their site's "under maintenance" right now, so no link.
It's probably more common to charge to receive SMS than not to.
Well, whaddayaknow? CNN's wording was a bit strange on that one. I checked to see if I was making an ass out of myself, and I was. The two SpaceShip One pilots *did* receive astronaut wings.
Yummy. Foot.
Those would be figurative wings, not literal ones.
Last I checked, NASA didn't hand out any *commercial* wings.
Yep, I realize that. However, a lot of the suggestions here were for how to convert Word HTML to "real" HTML, which obviously isn't possible if you don't have Word HTML to begin with.
Assuming "Save as HTML" isn't an option (if you're getting your Word docs from someone you can't easily have re-save them for you, for example), I've used Antiword (a Word-to-text converter) for this sort of thing. It's been years, though, and I can't say with a whole ton of certainty that it works as well now as it did then.
For the sake of clarity, I'm going to edit that last sentence:
If he has reviewed all the available porn, and intentionally deleted or supressed rubber duckie porn because he could deal with farm animals, scatophilia, and the goatse guy, but rubber duckies were just too damn nasty, then yes, I would be viewing a censored porn collection.
I left out the intent, which is important.
I realize answering anything in a Slashdot post from more than a few hours ago is an exercise in futility, but:
"By using the definition of censorship you have posted, SBC is not _censoring_ anything."
No, read it again. According to that definition, censorship is "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable," which is *exactly* what SBC is doing. They examine the available newsgroups, then delete or supress -- from their servers -- those they find objectionable.
"If they blocked you from accessing the same material from another source using their service, then yes it would be censoring."
So, if I watch an R-rated movie on broadcast TV, and they've bleeped out all the "fucks" and "shits," they haven't censored it because I can hear the original dialog on HBO?
I really think we're using two different definitions of "censorship" here. The one I think you're using would be something different, more like "prohibition." You'll note I'm not claiming SBC is prohibiting, only censoring.
"If you go to your friend's house and he has a huge pr0n collection, but he doesnt have any pr0n concerning rubber ducks, then is he censoring material that you want to view ?"
If he has reviewed all the available porn, and intentionally deleted or supressed rubber duckie porn, then yes, I would be viewing a censored porn collection.
At the risk of becoming repetitive, stating the obvious, and a whole host of other sins:
/'sen(t)-s&-ri[ng], 'sen(t)s-ri[ng]/
"They have not been filtering ANYTHING. They simply have not been replicating some of the Usenet groups onto THEIR OWN SERVERS."
So, let's see if I've got this straight: they selectively skip pulling data down to their servers, but it's not filtering? I think we're working with a couple different definitions of filtering here. In my line of work, if you define a set of rules which defines when data will or will not be transferred, replicated, or otherwise processed, we call that a filter.
Of course, it's always possible that they have a cadre of alchemists turning Usenet posts into copper, and running it out to homes in the form of DSL lines, but I think a filter's a lot more likely.
"This is not censorship. They do not have to provide news servers. They do not have to replicate all the groups onto their own news servers."
No, they do not have to provide Usenet servers -- but they do. They then, selectively, choose certain groups not to replicate. If you look at which groups are and are not replicated, you'll find that some groups (binary and otherwise) are replicated, and certain others are not. For example, a quick diff between the offerings of SBC and my current provider shows that SBC has chosen to provide plenty of erotica groups, but is noticeably missing those with "teen" in the name. There are planty of other groups, binary and otherwise, that SBC has chosen not to replicate.
Without making any judgements on whether that's a good thing or not, it's obvious that SBC has examined the available newsgroups, and supressed or deleted (or transmuted, if they've got those alchemists) those they considered objectionable.
From good ol' m-w.com:
Main Entry: censor
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): censored; censoring
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
How is that not what they've done?
If you're an SBC alchemist, I sincerely apologize for my ignorance.
That was cool... didn't have to scroll down far at all to one I worked for:
PILOT NETWORK SERVICES INC (PILT)
Death date: Aug 16, 2000
Securities fraud alleged. Many class actions pending against the company.
Based on data for APR-01-2000 to JUN-30-2000
Ahhh, the good old days.
To some extent, they've already been doing this. For years, SBC's been filtering out large chunks of Usenet they don't want you seeing.
Oooh, if needing SecurID to log into cisco.com got modified insightful, I'm gettin' me some karma while the gettin's good!
Why stop there? How about requiring a freshly-notarized affidavit proving your identity before logging into E-Bay?
Maybe Amazon should have a representative cruise by for an at-home visit to verify your shipping address (and make sure your mailbox is big enough) before they send you a book?
If match.com required a DNA test to log in, I bet that would save a lot of "he's really a she" embarrassment.
Let's embed an RFID tag in each Slashdot post to increase user accountability while we're at it!
Check me out. I'm so insightful I can't stand it.