I'd really like a Proxomitron [wikipedia.org] workalike, which would imply that functionality.
Privoxy should be able to do everything you need. On Debian it's just a matter of 'aptitude install privoxy' but it is available for Microsoft Windows as well with somewhat more hassle.
> My Internet seems to be pretty much as fast as always and I don't do filesharing.
Same here (in the rural US. Of course, I also don't download any ads.
> The reason Granny waits for her webpages is because she still uses dial-up and webpages > have become increasingly dial-up unfriendly.
You're right, but granny still doesn't think broadband is worth the extra cost. She's willing to wait a few minutes to see the pictures of the grandkids.
Use your head. The drive elcetronics, by design, can only read back what they themselves wrote most recently. How else could the drive be of any use?
Are any of your secrets worth the cost of disassembling the drives and analyzing the disk surface with special equipment? If so, destroy the drives. If not, zero them with dd and be happy.
...did these guys get the idea that anyone who knew what they were talking about claimed that it was possible to recover data from an overwritten drive without taking it apart?
> What's next: breaking up entertaining ads with more commercials from subsidiaries, or > commercial breaks that are just one big blipvert of company logos? (I.e. more meta > levels or a collapse of them?)
Back in the last century some ad people at a business school did an experiment that indicated that thirty seconds of the name of the product being repeated in a loud, obnoxious voice was just as effective as an entertaining ad.
You figured out that it was a Microsoft ad, didn't you? Since this is Slashdot I will spell it out. They are not selling a specific product. They are attempting to create positive feelings about Microsoft in general. They are also trying to get people to discuss the ad. In that they clearly succeeded.
They copy back and forth, each worse than the last. But it doesn't matter, because the "original" TV shows were knock-offs of radio shows which were knock-offs of vaudeville acts.
Yes. You can grant them a non-exclusive license without giving up ownership of the copyright. Just because they can sell copies of your photos doesn't mean you can't. None of your rights are being revoked. You are just granting a right to them.
> The problem is that they put them in legalese, which might as well be japanese for most > people.
And yet 99.999% click "Agree" without even attempting to read the terms. Only fools agree to contracts which they have not read and understood.
And most are not that hard to understand anyway. "It's legalese and so I can't understand it" is usually code for "I can't be arsed to make the effort to understand it."
"According to Ars Technica, Google's EULA for Chrome was just copy-and-pasted from its EULA for other services, a practice that is apparently common at Google."
Why the hell do they think they need an "EULA" or "TOS" for a supposedly Open Source program at all? Doesn't Google run these things pas their lawyers? Or do they and this is the result?
*Sigh*. I didn't say it was _literally_ assembly. It's the same sort of thinking as "Let's code the critical parts in assembly for speed". It hurts portability, but of course Google couldn't care less about that.
Theft, in common parlance, involves depriving someone of rightful possession of property. No one was deprived of possession of property here, and so there was no theft. In fact, it appears that there wasn't even any copyright infringement.
What they did was unethical. Why can't you just call it that? Why the need to attach a dramatic and inappropriate label such as "theft"?
Slashdot Mirror
Privoxy should be able to do everything you need. On Debian it's just a matter of 'aptitude install privoxy' but it is available for Microsoft Windows as well with somewhat more hassle.
> For grannies here, DSL is still an advantage, simply because they'd pay per minute for
> dial-up.
No per-minute charges here. Granny can go bake a cherry pie while the pictures download.
> Is this a US phenomenon?
It's a personal problem.
> My Internet seems to be pretty much as fast as always and I don't do filesharing.
Same here (in the rural US. Of course, I also don't download any ads.
> The reason Granny waits for her webpages is because she still uses dial-up and webpages
> have become increasingly dial-up unfriendly.
You're right, but granny still doesn't think broadband is worth the extra cost. She's willing to wait a few minutes to see the pictures of the grandkids.
Use your head. The drive elcetronics, by design, can only read back what they themselves wrote most recently. How else could the drive be of any use?
Are any of your secrets worth the cost of disassembling the drives and analyzing the disk surface with special equipment? If so, destroy the drives. If not, zero them with dd and be happy.
> First person to arrive with the key...
How do all the competitors work on the same drive at the same time?
...did these guys get the idea that anyone who knew what they were talking about claimed that it was possible to recover data from an overwritten drive without taking it apart?
It is not in Microsoft's interest to inform users.
They are not making a decision as to which OS to buy. They can't: they don't know what an OS is.
> What's next: breaking up entertaining ads with more commercials from subsidiaries, or
> commercial breaks that are just one big blipvert of company logos? (I.e. more meta
> levels or a collapse of them?)
Back in the last century some ad people at a business school did an experiment that indicated that thirty seconds of the name of the product being repeated in a loud, obnoxious voice was just as effective as an entertaining ad.
You figured out that it was a Microsoft ad, didn't you? Since this is Slashdot I will spell it out. They are not selling a specific product. They are attempting to create positive feelings about Microsoft in general. They are also trying to get people to discuss the ad. In that they clearly succeeded.
They copy back and forth, each worse than the last. But it doesn't matter, because the "original" TV shows were knock-offs of radio shows which were knock-offs of vaudeville acts.
> As another poster continuing this wishlist, I want a pony.
As the owner of a horse farm, I'll sell you one.
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
It's init that sorts out the zombies.
The BSD license is not an End User License Agreement. It does not impact end users at all. It is about copying the source.
> Am I wrong here?
Yes. You can grant them a non-exclusive license without giving up ownership of the copyright. Just because they can sell copies of your photos doesn't mean you can't. None of your rights are being revoked. You are just granting a right to them.
Why does it need "terms of service" at all? It's supposedly Open Source.
> The problem is that they put them in legalese, which might as well be japanese for most
> people.
And yet 99.999% click "Agree" without even attempting to read the terms. Only fools agree to contracts which they have not read and understood.
And most are not that hard to understand anyway. "It's legalese and so I can't understand it" is usually code for "I can't be arsed to make the effort to understand it."
"According to Ars Technica, Google's EULA for Chrome was just copy-and-pasted from its EULA for other services, a practice that is apparently common at Google."
Why the hell do they think they need an "EULA" or "TOS" for a supposedly Open Source program at all? Doesn't Google run these things pas their lawyers? Or do they and this is the result?
*Sigh*. I didn't say it was _literally_ assembly. It's the same sort of thinking as "Let's code the critical parts in assembly for speed". It hurts portability, but of course Google couldn't care less about that.
> It is illegal to copyright the law since people are required to know it.
Copyrights on laws may be unenforceable but they are not illegal.
"if it's not running Linux it's zombied"
It isn't that easy. It might also be running BSD.
So we are back to coding in assembly for speed.
Oh. Wait...
Theft, in common parlance, involves depriving someone of rightful possession of property. No one was deprived of possession of property here, and so there was no theft. In fact, it appears that there wasn't even any copyright infringement.
What they did was unethical. Why can't you just call it that? Why the need to attach a dramatic and inappropriate label such as "theft"?
That does not explain the observations.