OK, yes WMP from version 7 onwards is a nasty beast.
This article is mostly scare tactics, as ever since the beginning of time there's been a file named CDPLAYER.INI in the windows folder that stores CDDB info. A local cache should actually enhance your privacy as it will reduce calls to central servers when you play your CDs or whatever.
WMP 7+ however doesn't use this file. If you look in your Windows folder again, you'll notice a couple of files named WMSysPrx.prx and another one named similarly that actually stores the song database. That's how the 'media library' feature works, it's all stored in there -- you would expect a program that catalogues songs to store a list of media played somewhere, wouldn't you?
It's true WMP does track how many times you play a song. But discovering the fact isn't aexactly a journalistic coup, it's listed in the program itself. Look in the 'Media Library', this is listed along with all the rest of the ID3 information (at least in WMP 7)... not exactly a huge secret. I have never heard of MS sending this info off to its site before... that sounds a lot like how Real got into trouble a few years back, and also a lot like a very inventive and paranoid reporter. If you're worried, delete those files mentioned above every so often.
The unique ID is more interesting. I really recommend turning this off in your WMP options, as it's only really useful if you're buying proprietry WMA files online... and somehow I don't think many slashdotters will be doing that;).
The worst part is that it opens up the recently discovered SuperCookie exploit in which websites can embed a player in a page and get it's ID number. Since it's globablly unique and installed on most computers, it's a great way of tracking users who are savvy enough to turn off cookies.
So nuke the ID feature quickly from your player options... even if you use *AMP to play your sounds, you could still be vulnerable to this.
Vorbis, you say? Surely we can get something 'cool' out of that, let's rearrange a few letters....
.VBS files they are then. The immediate upshot of this is that.VBS files will suddenly be the most popular format on the Internet, as after all everyone will be emailing them to each other.
Outlook Express 6 has been tweaked, luckily, to address this complaint.
By default, (which for millions of newbies is the only setting that will ever count), OE6 now loads emails within IE's "Restricted" sites zone. Translation: JavaScript totally disabled, so that gets rid of all your DHTML, scripting, cookies and all that other crap.
If anyone is running an older version, the change is very easy. Tools->Options, Security, change to 'Restricted'. This makes sense and was a change I made in OE5, as it reduces the number of JavaScript-based viruses like KAK that have an opportunity to infect your system, and the amount of tricks spammers can pull against you.
As an aside, moving back to the main topic, I have actually encountered a virus recently that sent itself as a.COM file attached with a mimetype of "image/gif". Luckily OE6 displayed a "broken image" link rather than run this... from memory it was a variant of the common Magistr worm. I've also seen the "image/wav" mimetype set for executable files, and that exploit is months old for any reading Slashdot editors;).
Now all we need is a filter for this sort of crap in Mozilla and I'll go back to using it.
Perhaps not. After all, how are you going to filter these out? They can be any shape and size.
Mozilla filters popups via disabling the window.open() JavaScript function on page load. Fait enough... although this got me in trouble yesterday as a client requested a splash page that preloads images then, on load, pops up the main site. Damn.
And it would be much harder to filter these. The only real way is as another poster suggested, disable active scripting. These ads have really only one thing on common -- they're all DHTML/JavaScript based (at least, I assume the release versions will be, I don't know why they're obfuscating these via Flash as any competent DHTML designer can make a simple animated logo of sorts). That should make it hard to patent, at least, my site for instance slides it loading message offscreen on load, and I've seen quite a few DHTML-based (annoying) ads before.
So if these ads trigger on load, you'd find code similar to:
<body onload="animateAdvert()">
or
window.onload = animateAdvert;
or equivalent in the document. Disabling the onload event will stuff up most the dynamic sites on the Internet, not just ones that use these ads, as the dirty secret of DHTML is that document modification is very hard to do in a cross-browser page while it's still loading.
Having said that, hopefully these advertisers stick to IE, as it'll leave an optional out for Opera/Mozilla users. Or perhaps the Mozilla project should encourage them, with a few surprises -- set the body fontsize to 150% and make it green if the phrase 'Shoshkele' is detected:). Should discourage the debuggers there no end...
I think the solution to the MS problem is to regulate their real problem behavior
Agreed.
The court found Microsoft had a monopoly on Windows. Fair enough, I read an article on the currently-down Kuro5hin that detailed how Be was forced out of business by Microsoft's hardware vendor license that (supposedly) said, in effect, install mulitple operating systems on any box and lose your license to Windows.
That and the whole browser integration shambles gives compelling evidence that Microsoft has a monopoly on operating systems.
But when did this extend to Office applications? MS Office is pretty good, not perfect, but most importantly it doesn't HAVE to be bundled with new computers under threat of license revokation. Businesses like it because it's easy to use. It's largely a de facto standard.
So, why are the courts suggesting that MS open up Office? In my book, that's pointless. You don't see them ordering a Windows version of ClarisWorks, for instance, or iTunes. I don't like some of Microsoft's business practices, but this seems like overstepping the boundaries between fair regulation and harrassment.
Start with IE4 installed, this rules out any OS later than Win98... which could make things hard for us developers once MS phases all the earlier ones out:).
Install IE5, clicking 'advanced' and tick the 'compatibility mode' checkbox that allows you to run IE 4 and 5 side-by-side. It then installs IE5 as per normal but backs up IE4 to c:\prgram files\Internet Explorer 4 - Compatible (from memory). Bingo. That's the easy bit.
Getting 3 to go together is much harder. Let's just say I made a complete backup of \windows\system and the IE program folder. Then install IE6, the copy from microsoft.com was noticably missing the compatibility mode install option. Damn, I know were all supposed to be coding for IE6.NET XP and higher only by now but doesn't anyone care about backwards-compatibility?
I hope that one day MS distributes stand-alone bugs and all versions of IE4 and IE5, as it could come in useful... otherwise I'll have to keep this old box of mine for the best part of eternity.
Anyway, make a new folder for IE5 and copy in these files manually:
IE5.exe
(old IE5 executable, renamed)
iesqrl.exe
iesqrl.inf
(both from your IE4 backup folder)
BROWSELC.DLL
BROWSEUI.DLL
JSCRIPT.DLL
MSHTML.DLL
MSHTML.TLB
SHDOCLC.DLL
SHDOCVW.DLL
URLMON.DLL
vbscript.dll
(from your backup of \windows\system).
I don't know if any more are needed but that's what I'm running. Run the iesqrl.exe file, it sets up some registry keys. Cross fingers. Hope.
BTW, don't try this at home, back up your hard disk first, I'm not liable for anything, etc. etc.
My installations work, reasonably well. IE5's error and about dialog boxes crash, claiming some illegal operation, but IE4 seems to still go OK for basic work. If you find any other DLLs are necessary, email me from my site.
You won't find Internet Explorer 6 or Windows Media Player 7 for Win95 either, on that vein. Go to MS's site and it'll say "Windows 95 users, experience the wonderous yada yada of IE5.5 / WMP 6.4 in all its glory, because it's all you're getting".
I also found that IE5.01 is out of support as well, and installed IE6 (which I need to test pages, as a web developer, don't worry I have a couple of Mozilla versions to make up for it;). It's not that flash, just more integrated junk and a bit more advanced DOM support like Mozilla.
My old PII 333 can't keep up with the latest XP.NET shenanigans, and doesn't have enough disk space for more than one OS. So it's Win98 for me, at least until 2003 when I have to start reg hacking my way into installations;).
Seriously, most Windows INF (installation script) files have $CHICAGO$ at the top as their version signature, the codename of Windows 95. I've yet to meet one that says '$MEMPHIS$' or similar. Surely it's just an exercise of finding the right installation/'advpack' DLL versions to get these programs going, as the core system API can't be that different once installed? Perhaps just install DX8, and manually copy over the DLLs and any relevant registry settings for DX8.1?
At the moment I'm running IE4, 5 and 6 concurrently. Come 2003, I'll relish the challange of adding 7 and 8 to the mix;).
Lineage has been mentioned on Slashdot previously, as part of a furore over violence in games resulting to aggression in the real world.
For anyone who doesn't want to load that page up, it linked a very interesting TIME article here. I suggest reading it -- in the Western world, the whole dollars-for-Diablo-items routine is normally as bad as this gets, but this is (if true) several steps beyond that entirely.
Alien Commander: Are you sure this thing is secure?
Alien MCSE Tech: Trust us, it's unhackable. We built it with our reliable DRM 2 encryption code, and we've told the puny Earthlings not to publish exploits...
Concept: Using the brain for information originally stored elsewhere, possibly encrypted, or indeed upgrading human memory using plug-in chips, PC-style.
"Encrypted"? Suddenly the DMCA brings a whole new meaning to the term "thought crime":).
"Copy protected" CDs are going to be a shambles, good on the owner of that site for starting a list! And even better for compiling ways to, ahem, deal with the problem:).
These CDs will do little to stop online piracy. Everyone knows, if it can be heard it can be copied. Working a line-in jack on a stereo or computer isn't hard. Heck, you probably lose more fidelity in the MP3/OGG/Whatever compression than the digital-to-analog conversion with good audio equipment. All it takes is one good copy to be released and online music piracy will be off again.
Basically, if you want to stop the problem of music piracy, you've got to go back to the root issue -- the users themselves versus the bands in question.
I have a friend who was firmly on Metallica's side during the Lars Ulrich vs. Napster debacle. Why? He respected them as artists, and as a result owns every album they have ever put out.
This is what the RIAA doesn't get. The bands themselves are the only ones who can convince users not to copy, not any fancy technical or legal hurdles -- or have they forgotten that the bands exist apart from phony marketing images?
So here's a plan to decrease piracy. Every band has a back catalogue of covers, garage recordings, and so on that will probably never get released and are next to worthless commerically. All they have to do is say "From now on, we're monitoring KaZaA/Morpheus/Gnutella/etc, and every fortnight where there's an average of less than XYZ files shared from us, we release new material for you to legally download free of charge".
Think about it. Dedicated fans, who already respect the band for their abilities, will start to police these file-sharing services for them. Problem halved.
Does this stand a chance, Slashdot? Ideas?
The great thing about Mozilla
on
Mozilla 0.9.5
·
· Score: 1
One fo the best things about Mozilla, from a DHTML web developer's view like myself, is its excellent JavaScript support.
One of the best features is that every HTML element in the DOM, such as 'document' and 'select' and all the other objects you can implement, has a real-time modifiable JavaScript prototype/class. That means you can add properties, methods, etc. to eny and every object.
For instance, now you can actually say things like "I wish they included a.highlight() method for every button on the page", and do it with a few lines fo code.
The upshot of this is that Mozilla is very extensible. I seriously urge everyone to check out this site which offers an Internet Explorer emulation library for Mozilla. It's interesting, to say the least, as it emulates a decent portion of the IE DOM in JavaScript.
Everyone knows it... if it can be heard it can be copied.
Working a line-in jack on a stereo or computer isn't hard. Basically, if you want to stop the problem, you've got to go back to the root issue -- the users themselves versus the bands in question.
I have a friend who was firmly on Metallica's side during the Lars Ulrich vs. Napster debacle. Why? He respected them as artists, and as a result owns every album they have ever put out.
This is what the RIAA doesn't get. The bands themselves are the only ones who can convince users not to copy -- or have they forgotten that the bands exist apart from phony marketing images?
So here's the plan. Every band has a back catalogue of covers, garage recordings, and so on that will probably never get released and are next to worthless commerically. All they have to do is say "From now on, we're monitoring KaZaA/Morpheus/Gnutella/etc, and every fortnight where there's an average of less than XYZ files shared from us, we release new material for you to legally download free of charge".
Think about it. Dedicated fans, who already respect the band for their abilities, will start to police these file-sharing services for them. Problem halved.
This guy might have a valid point about the OSS business models at the start of the article. However, don't let that put anyone off!
This is exactly what we want to see -- hobbyists helping hobbyists. It might not make money, but it's a valuable contribution to the community, both real-world and virtual.
I assume that conducting the Freenet experiment with less-versed people might not be feasible altogether. At least not with today's technology.
True, not everyone has the expertise available to set up several servers/firewalls/NAT boxes, and this could well be the major challenge facing Open Source. Someone should put together a wireless_net.rpm 'For Idiots' or similar, then finally things will start to change.
Local networks are probably going to be the wave of the future as costs decrease and several-PC homes start to become more common. Experiments like this, pushing forward the mass application of such technology, should be happening everywhere.
This seems pretty damn cool from a desktop-wallpaper point of view, but how practical is this?
The 'net is pretty fluid and dynamic, as companies are going bankrupt and starting up all the time. Soon we'll be able to build the map from just a couple of major carriers' networks;).
Seriously, these things are probably outdated as soon as they're finished. What are the chances of a real-time distributed mapping effort, where networks are dynamically scanned and the data is collated every few days on a few central nodes? It would be very interesting to see not just how the 'net is wired, but to view the shifting dynamics of traffic and connections in a handy animated format.
Sites like Internet Traffic Report get a little bit of the way there, but are too numeric. Ideas?
Even though I support any move against spammers, as would most/.ers, does it worry anyone how much influence these groups can freely wield over the net? We complain about ICANN being undemocratic, but when it comes to spam... argh, between a rock and a hard place:).
If that situation did perpetuate itself, would there be any legal liability on behalf of either Optus or spews.org for the intentional breach of service to the rest of Optus' customers? You would think that after a while the customers would start suing either or both parties to the dispute.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, yes WMP from version 7 onwards is a nasty beast.
;).
This article is mostly scare tactics, as ever since the beginning of time there's been a file named CDPLAYER.INI in the windows folder that stores CDDB info. A local cache should actually enhance your privacy as it will reduce calls to central servers when you play your CDs or whatever.
WMP 7+ however doesn't use this file. If you look in your Windows folder again, you'll notice a couple of files named WMSysPrx.prx and another one named similarly that actually stores the song database. That's how the 'media library' feature works, it's all stored in there -- you would expect a program that catalogues songs to store a list of media played somewhere, wouldn't you?
It's true WMP does track how many times you play a song. But discovering the fact isn't aexactly a journalistic coup, it's listed in the program itself. Look in the 'Media Library', this is listed along with all the rest of the ID3 information (at least in WMP 7)... not exactly a huge secret. I have never heard of MS sending this info off to its site before... that sounds a lot like how Real got into trouble a few years back, and also a lot like a very inventive and paranoid reporter. If you're worried, delete those files mentioned above every so often.
The unique ID is more interesting. I really recommend turning this off in your WMP options, as it's only really useful if you're buying proprietry WMA files online... and somehow I don't think many slashdotters will be doing that
The worst part is that it opens up the recently discovered SuperCookie exploit in which websites can embed a player in a page and get it's ID number. Since it's globablly unique and installed on most computers, it's a great way of tracking users who are savvy enough to turn off cookies.
So nuke the ID feature quickly from your player options... even if you use *AMP to play your sounds, you could still be vulnerable to this.
For anyone wondering about the 'dept' line of this story, here's the missing [?]
Vorbis, you say? Surely we can get something 'cool' out of that, let's rearrange a few letters....
.VBS files they are then. The immediate upshot of this is that .VBS files will suddenly be the most popular format on the Internet, as after all everyone will be emailing them to each other.
;).
Outlook Express 6 has been tweaked, luckily, to address this complaint.
.COM file attached with a mimetype of "image/gif". Luckily OE6 displayed a "broken image" link rather than run this... from memory it was a variant of the common Magistr worm. I've also seen the "image/wav" mimetype set for executable files, and that exploit is months old for any reading Slashdot editors ;).
By default, (which for millions of newbies is the only setting that will ever count), OE6 now loads emails within IE's "Restricted" sites zone. Translation: JavaScript totally disabled, so that gets rid of all your DHTML, scripting, cookies and all that other crap.
If anyone is running an older version, the change is very easy. Tools->Options, Security, change to 'Restricted'. This makes sense and was a change I made in OE5, as it reduces the number of JavaScript-based viruses like KAK that have an opportunity to infect your system, and the amount of tricks spammers can pull against you.
As an aside, moving back to the main topic, I have actually encountered a virus recently that sent itself as a
Now all we need is a filter for this sort of crap in Mozilla and I'll go back to using it.
:). Should discourage the debuggers there no end...
Perhaps not. After all, how are you going to filter these out? They can be any shape and size.
Mozilla filters popups via disabling the window.open() JavaScript function on page load. Fait enough... although this got me in trouble yesterday as a client requested a splash page that preloads images then, on load, pops up the main site. Damn.
And it would be much harder to filter these. The only real way is as another poster suggested, disable active scripting. These ads have really only one thing on common -- they're all DHTML/JavaScript based (at least, I assume the release versions will be, I don't know why they're obfuscating these via Flash as any competent DHTML designer can make a simple animated logo of sorts). That should make it hard to patent, at least, my site for instance slides it loading message offscreen on load, and I've seen quite a few DHTML-based (annoying) ads before.
So if these ads trigger on load, you'd find code similar to:
<body onload="animateAdvert()">
or
window.onload = animateAdvert;
or equivalent in the document. Disabling the onload event will stuff up most the dynamic sites on the Internet, not just ones that use these ads, as the dirty secret of DHTML is that document modification is very hard to do in a cross-browser page while it's still loading.
Having said that, hopefully these advertisers stick to IE, as it'll leave an optional out for Opera/Mozilla users. Or perhaps the Mozilla project should encourage them, with a few surprises -- set the body fontsize to 150% and make it green if the phrase 'Shoshkele' is detected
I think the solution to the MS problem is to regulate their real problem behavior
Agreed.
The court found Microsoft had a monopoly on Windows. Fair enough, I read an article on the currently-down Kuro5hin that detailed how Be was forced out of business by Microsoft's hardware vendor license that (supposedly) said, in effect, install mulitple operating systems on any box and lose your license to Windows.
That and the whole browser integration shambles gives compelling evidence that Microsoft has a monopoly on operating systems.
But when did this extend to Office applications? MS Office is pretty good, not perfect, but most importantly it doesn't HAVE to be bundled with new computers under threat of license revokation. Businesses like it because it's easy to use. It's largely a de facto standard.
So, why are the courts suggesting that MS open up Office? In my book, that's pointless. You don't see them ordering a Windows version of ClarisWorks, for instance, or iTunes. I don't like some of Microsoft's business practices, but this seems like overstepping the boundaries between fair regulation and harrassment.
Start with IE4 installed, this rules out any OS later than Win98... which could make things hard for us developers once MS phases all the earlier ones out :).
;).
Install IE5, clicking 'advanced' and tick the 'compatibility mode' checkbox that allows you to run IE 4 and 5 side-by-side. It then installs IE5 as per normal but backs up IE4 to c:\prgram files\Internet Explorer 4 - Compatible (from memory). Bingo. That's the easy bit.
Getting 3 to go together is much harder. Let's just say I made a complete backup of \windows\system and the IE program folder. Then install IE6, the copy from microsoft.com was noticably missing the compatibility mode install option. Damn, I know were all supposed to be coding for IE6.NET XP and higher only by now but doesn't anyone care about backwards-compatibility?
I hope that one day MS distributes stand-alone bugs and all versions of IE4 and IE5, as it could come in useful... otherwise I'll have to keep this old box of mine for the best part of eternity.
Anyway, make a new folder for IE5 and copy in these files manually:
IE5.exe
(old IE5 executable, renamed)
iesqrl.exe
iesqrl.inf
(both from your IE4 backup folder)
BROWSELC.DLL
BROWSEUI.DLL
JSCRIPT.DLL
MSHTML.DLL
MSHTML.TLB
SHDOCLC.DLL
SHDOCVW.DLL
URLMON.DLL
vbscript.dll
(from your backup of \windows\system).
I don't know if any more are needed but that's what I'm running. Run the iesqrl.exe file, it sets up some registry keys. Cross fingers. Hope.
BTW, don't try this at home, back up your hard disk first, I'm not liable for anything, etc. etc.
My installations work, reasonably well. IE5's error and about dialog boxes crash, claiming some illegal operation, but IE4 seems to still go OK for basic work. If you find any other DLLs are necessary, email me from my site.
And good luck
You won't find Internet Explorer 6 or Windows Media Player 7 for Win95 either, on that vein. Go to MS's site and it'll say "Windows 95 users, experience the wonderous yada yada of IE5.5 / WMP 6.4 in all its glory, because it's all you're getting".
;). It's not that flash, just more integrated junk and a bit more advanced DOM support like Mozilla.
.NET shenanigans, and doesn't have enough disk space for more than one OS. So it's Win98 for me, at least until 2003 when I have to start reg hacking my way into installations ;).
;).
I also found that IE5.01 is out of support as well, and installed IE6 (which I need to test pages, as a web developer, don't worry I have a couple of Mozilla versions to make up for it
My old PII 333 can't keep up with the latest XP
Seriously, most Windows INF (installation script) files have $CHICAGO$ at the top as their version signature, the codename of Windows 95. I've yet to meet one that says '$MEMPHIS$' or similar. Surely it's just an exercise of finding the right installation/'advpack' DLL versions to get these programs going, as the core system API can't be that different once installed? Perhaps just install DX8, and manually copy over the DLLs and any relevant registry settings for DX8.1?
At the moment I'm running IE4, 5 and 6 concurrently. Come 2003, I'll relish the challange of adding 7 and 8 to the mix
Lineage has been mentioned on Slashdot previously, as part of a furore over violence in games resulting to aggression in the real world.
For anyone who doesn't want to load that page up, it linked a very interesting TIME article here. I suggest reading it -- in the Western world, the whole dollars-for-Diablo-items routine is normally as bad as this gets, but this is (if true) several steps beyond that entirely.
Microsoft is also here with some Xboxes...
:-).
I guess if you're going to keep the temperature at your comfy 27C... anything that burns must be welcome
Yeah, it's not like he could out-spell them, so I hope those "mind-bullets" do the trick ;).
...that this overhaul of DNS is sponsored by the RIAA?
"I'm sorry sir, but your website contains copyrighted material -- I trust your users have noted your IP address somewhere?"
:).
Scene from the alien mothership:
Alien Commander: Are you sure this thing is secure?
Alien MCSE Tech: Trust us, it's unhackable. We built it with our reliable DRM 2 encryption code, and we've told the puny Earthlings not to publish exploits...
:)
"Encrypted"? Suddenly the DMCA brings a whole new meaning to the term "thought crime"
...everyone will still get 99% of their predictions wrong :).
"Copy protected" CDs are going to be a shambles, good on the owner of that site for starting a list! And even better for compiling ways to, ahem, deal with the problem :).
These CDs will do little to stop online piracy. Everyone knows, if it can be heard it can be copied. Working a line-in jack on a stereo or computer isn't hard. Heck, you probably lose more fidelity in the MP3/OGG/Whatever compression than the digital-to-analog conversion with good audio equipment. All it takes is one good copy to be released and online music piracy will be off again.
Basically, if you want to stop the problem of music piracy, you've got to go back to the root issue -- the users themselves versus the bands in question.
I have a friend who was firmly on Metallica's side during the Lars Ulrich vs. Napster debacle. Why? He respected them as artists, and as a result owns every album they have ever put out.
This is what the RIAA doesn't get. The bands themselves are the only ones who can convince users not to copy, not any fancy technical or legal hurdles -- or have they forgotten that the bands exist apart from phony marketing images?
So here's a plan to decrease piracy. Every band has a back catalogue of covers, garage recordings, and so on that will probably never get released and are next to worthless commerically. All they have to do is say "From now on, we're monitoring KaZaA/Morpheus/Gnutella/etc, and every fortnight where there's an average of less than XYZ files shared from us, we release new material for you to legally download free of charge".
Think about it. Dedicated fans, who already respect the band for their abilities, will start to police these file-sharing services for them. Problem halved.
Does this stand a chance, Slashdot? Ideas?
One fo the best things about Mozilla, from a DHTML web developer's view like myself, is its excellent JavaScript support.
.highlight() method for every button on the page", and do it with a few lines fo code.
One of the best features is that every HTML element in the DOM, such as 'document' and 'select' and all the other objects you can implement, has a real-time modifiable JavaScript prototype/class. That means you can add properties, methods, etc. to eny and every object.
For instance, now you can actually say things like "I wish they included a
The upshot of this is that Mozilla is very extensible. I seriously urge everyone to check out this site which offers an Internet Explorer emulation library for Mozilla. It's interesting, to say the least, as it emulates a decent portion of the IE DOM in JavaScript.
/me wonders how long all the smaller companies in the Net business will last at this rate...
Everyone knows it... if it can be heard it can be copied.
Working a line-in jack on a stereo or computer isn't hard. Basically, if you want to stop the problem, you've got to go back to the root issue -- the users themselves versus the bands in question.
I have a friend who was firmly on Metallica's side during the Lars Ulrich vs. Napster debacle. Why? He respected them as artists, and as a result owns every album they have ever put out.
This is what the RIAA doesn't get. The bands themselves are the only ones who can convince users not to copy -- or have they forgotten that the bands exist apart from phony marketing images?
So here's the plan. Every band has a back catalogue of covers, garage recordings, and so on that will probably never get released and are next to worthless commerically. All they have to do is say "From now on, we're monitoring KaZaA/Morpheus/Gnutella/etc, and every fortnight where there's an average of less than XYZ files shared from us, we release new material for you to legally download free of charge".
Think about it. Dedicated fans, who already respect the band for their abilities, will start to police these file-sharing services for them. Problem halved.
Does this stand a chance, Slashdot? Ideas?
...or is CmdrTaco going down the tubes again? ;)
OTOH, I can see the benefits: "Target acquired: Redmond is onscreen..."
This is exactly what we want to see -- hobbyists helping hobbyists. It might not make money, but it's a valuable contribution to the community, both real-world and virtual.
True, not everyone has the expertise available to set up several servers/firewalls/NAT boxes, and this could well be the major challenge facing Open Source. Someone should put together a wireless_net.rpm 'For Idiots' or similar, then finally things will start to change.
Local networks are probably going to be the wave of the future as costs decrease and several-PC homes start to become more common. Experiments like this, pushing forward the mass application of such technology, should be happening everywhere.
This seems pretty damn cool from a desktop-wallpaper point of view, but how practical is this?
;).
The 'net is pretty fluid and dynamic, as companies are going bankrupt and starting up all the time. Soon we'll be able to build the map from just a couple of major carriers' networks
Seriously, these things are probably outdated as soon as they're finished. What are the chances of a real-time distributed mapping effort, where networks are dynamically scanned and the data is collated every few days on a few central nodes? It would be very interesting to see not just how the 'net is wired, but to view the shifting dynamics of traffic and connections in a handy animated format.
Sites like Internet Traffic Report get a little bit of the way there, but are too numeric. Ideas?
Even though I support any move against spammers, as would most /.ers, does it worry anyone how much influence these groups can freely wield over the net? We complain about ICANN being undemocratic, but when it comes to spam... argh, between a rock and a hard place :).
If that situation did perpetuate itself, would there be any legal liability on behalf of either Optus or spews.org for the intentional breach of service to the rest of Optus' customers? You would think that after a while the customers would start suing either or both parties to the dispute.
That post was intended as humorous, and not offtopic.
As in "funny"? Anyone? I fully support modding trolls down, but c'mon, aren't we allowed to laugh sometimes at their expense?
We should stop modding down the goatse trolls as 'offtopic'.
;)
After all, backdoors are pretty relevant in an encryption discussion