Your post looks kind-of like a "plant," might you be employed by Moxi? The box looks way cool, but what I'd like to know is, will this box (or TiVo 2, for that matter) include "Digital Rights Management?"
Consider yourself lucky you've been replied to not down-modded.
You pompous git. Learn to read yourself:
From the posted article:
"Update: 01/08 22:47 GMT by T: bdavenport adds: "this report on Yahoo lists a new Shockwave virus as low grade due to the need of manual downloading. infoworld is reporting that McAfee has upgraded to high risk after several Fortune 500 firms have reported it in the wild, arriving as an email attachment."
Note the article says Infoworld is reporting (present tense) that McAfee has upgraded to high risk.and links to an article over a year old.
The submitter and the/. editor made the mistake here, by thinking the Infoworld article was current. As I pointed out, in what I meant to be a humorous manner, it is not.
Stuff your fucking mod points up your too-tight ass, at the moment I am karma-capped.
Putting aside your belief that bandwidth from the head-end to your house is free and non-system affecting, I've got two words for you: server capacity. If you're demanding a gig a day from your ISP's servers, the ISP is carrying you at a loss, and other people are paying for your services. That's why the cap. Do you suppose they are just doing this to piss you off?
Defining what is acceptable as "whatever I want?" I know why 640kb is an outmoded limit, and I paid for my 512MB of memory. Name one sane reason why a consumer service is obligated to provide 30 gigs of usenet to you, in addition to the connection that you are paying for, at no additional cost to you? If I invited you to dinner, how long would it take you to clear out my refridgerator?
Grow up and learn to pay for what you want. Why should the 99.99% who have no use or need for 30 gigs/mo. pay for your obsessive-compulsive pr0n/warez/media addiction?
A paranoid sort would see that the upload BW cap would KILL file sharing like gnutella
And would be wrong, unless the cap is made somewhat lower. With a 128 cap, a 128kbps mp3 theoretically would stream/download in real time, especially after a few seconds for buffering. Plus, next-gen clients should be able to combine the bandwidth of 2 machines with identical files to effectively double download speed. So, at least for mp3's the download cap would be an annoyance, not doom. Movies and such are another matter.
Why should anyone pay for USENET service when it's included with the service? Simply don't offer it, offer text only services and advertise that, or sell USENET extra.
Please adjust to the realities of bandwidth cost. Here's one of the more reasonable pricelists for pure Usenet usage. They charge $44.95 for one month of Usenet. Bring your own connection.
You may not like getting a gig a day of Usenet at no extra charge to your broadband, but I like it...I also subscribe to EZNews, but I only have to pay them for 6 gigs a month, cause I get most of my filez from my ISP's server.
When an ISP gives you webspace, they don't hand you your own server. What an ISP "owes" its users is defined by the market (what the competition offers, what is affordable/profitable, etcetera), not your concept of what is appropriate.
Just bought a CD burner, too. I was hoping to make an installation of Solaris for educational purposes.
What makes you think that an upload cap and a cap of a gigabyte per day on Usenet usage, would make this difficult? Are you trying to install it remotely over the Internet?
And faster than that if the v.92 protocols are in use (not much of that yet).
Still, 128kb is plenty for most "consumer" uses of the Internet. It's a drag for servers, and for filetrading in p2p, ftp and irc. Most users don't care about these issues, and "most users" pay the freight for the high-bandwidth users.
Face it, folks, you will have to pay cmmercial rates to get commercial-level bandwidth.
The Usenet cap is even more laughable -- 3 gigabytes for every three days? I wouldn't call that a cap! If you are pulling 30 gigs a month off Usenet, I'd like to know the retail value of the equivalent audio cd's, software, and movies you're downloading. It can't be just pr0n, you'd run yourself raw!
As it's all tied to "anaonymous" cookies, and since most people lose their cookies after some time (at the longest, when they change PCs or reinstall OS), it seems to me it'll become rapidly worthless.
This article is amazingly low on details about the cases
It's USA Today. Their biggest gift to journalism is the colored piechart. It's not surprising that their "articles" offer little more than a chart does; they prefer "trendspotting" to news.
I would especially like to know more about the content of the posted/mailed messages, and their veracity or lack thereof. I'd like to know were the email addresses on Intel's servers, as the article seems to suggest? Were all messages/postings from each poster identical?
The article tries to spot a trend, but the cases it picks are so egregious it's hard to imagine the precedence being applied to less spectacular efforts to criticize a company. Of course, if the piece had answered a few of the above questions, we'd have a much better idea of its applicability to other situations.
Time is a weekly. Could be that the Canada edition is set to the "off-sale" date.... Now let's see...14-7=...hmmm...any math majors here?
The article opens with the phrase "this week at Macworld" in the first graf. So I don't think this is debuting a week ahead of time, probably just a few hours.
Plus, consider the possibility that this pre-launch leak may have been allowed in order to secure a place on the cover. Canada is not an insignificant market.
With Windows, you pay for Office 97 and you run it for 4 years; the operating environment changes from W95 to 98, maybe to ME or NT, then 2000 and then to XP. Because you paid for Office 97, you keep running it in each environment, even though it becomes more and more like a fish out of water (no matter what MS claims about backward compatibility). Same for any paid-for app you run.
With Linux or FreeBSD, updates and upgrades are always free, the apps you run get the environment that is expected. Stuff works.
So the choice is clear: either get with Linux, or start trading warez so you can have the appz that are written for the specific Win environment you need to run. The third choice, to buy all-new software with each new platform, is for the Rockefellers only.
Slashdot Mirror
That is, in fact, what I use, being a non-driver and holding a dislike for "state id cards," which is the non-driver's alternative from the DMV.
The fact is, though, that many places that list acceptable options for identification do not include "passport."
Look at this handsome dreamboat and tell me that there's anything he can't do! I dare ya!
The easy part is writing them, the hard part is licensing the rights without going broke.
Your post looks kind-of like a "plant," might you be employed by Moxi? The box looks way cool, but what I'd like to know is, will this box (or TiVo 2, for that matter) include "Digital Rights Management?"
We know it was a department that lacks any knowledge of web logging. I guess the lack of privacy on the web isn't all bad.
By the way, "Hank the Angry Dwarf," the most beautiful person on the web according to a Time-Warner online poll, is dead.
Consider yourself lucky you've been replied to not down-modded.
You pompous git. Learn to read yourself:
From the posted article:
"Update: 01/08 22:47 GMT by T: bdavenport adds: "this report on Yahoo lists a new Shockwave virus as low grade due to the need of manual downloading. infoworld is reporting that McAfee has upgraded to high risk after several Fortune 500 firms have reported it in the wild, arriving as an email attachment."
Note the article says Infoworld is reporting (present tense) that McAfee has upgraded to high risk.and links to an article over a year old.
The submitter and the /. editor made the mistake here, by thinking the Infoworld article was current. As I pointed out, in what I meant to be a humorous manner, it is not.
Stuff your fucking mod points up your too-tight ass, at the moment I am karma-capped.
Jeezus fucking christ.
Putting aside your belief that bandwidth from the head-end to your house is free and non-system affecting, I've got two words for you: server capacity. If you're demanding a gig a day from your ISP's servers, the ISP is carrying you at a loss, and other people are paying for your services. That's why the cap. Do you suppose they are just doing this to piss you off?
Defining what is acceptable as "whatever I want?" I know why 640kb is an outmoded limit, and I paid for my 512MB of memory. Name one sane reason why a consumer service is obligated to provide 30 gigs of usenet to you, in addition to the connection that you are paying for, at no additional cost to you? If I invited you to dinner, how long would it take you to clear out my refridgerator?
Grow up and learn to pay for what you want. Why should the 99.99% who have no use or need for 30 gigs/mo. pay for your obsessive-compulsive pr0n/warez/media addiction?
And would be wrong, unless the cap is made somewhat lower. With a 128 cap, a 128kbps mp3 theoretically would stream/download in real time, especially after a few seconds for buffering. Plus, next-gen clients should be able to combine the bandwidth of 2 machines with identical files to effectively double download speed. So, at least for mp3's the download cap would be an annoyance, not doom. Movies and such are another matter.
Please adjust to the realities of bandwidth cost. Here's one of the more reasonable pricelists for pure Usenet usage. They charge $44.95 for one month of Usenet. Bring your own connection.
You may not like getting a gig a day of Usenet at no extra charge to your broadband, but I like it...I also subscribe to EZNews, but I only have to pay them for 6 gigs a month, cause I get most of my filez from my ISP's server.
When an ISP gives you webspace, they don't hand you your own server. What an ISP "owes" its users is defined by the market (what the competition offers, what is affordable/profitable, etcetera), not your concept of what is appropriate.
The guy says he's paying $89 a month. That is about $40 more than AT&T's consumer service. This is not referring to him.
Plus, he stresses that he's moving 8 gigabytes of data a day, as if he thinks that the usenet cap of a gig a day somehow is related to that.
It looks from here like he's just all confused.
Well, I guess 'acceptable usage' is defined by what ONE SPECIAL PREDEFINED user will use, and not what the user can use.
Simply, it is defeating the purpose of BB access.
I guess, even legit binary groups are out. There are plenty of groups which deal with trading your OWN art. Bryce works etc....
We're talking about a 3 gigabyte per 3 day cap. That is a gigabyte per day.
For whom is 1GB/day not well beyond "acceptable?"
What makes you think that an upload cap and a cap of a gigabyte per day on Usenet usage, would make this difficult? Are you trying to install it remotely over the Internet?
And faster than that if the v.92 protocols are in use (not much of that yet).
Still, 128kb is plenty for most "consumer" uses of the Internet. It's a drag for servers, and for filetrading in p2p, ftp and irc. Most users don't care about these issues, and "most users" pay the freight for the high-bandwidth users.
Face it, folks, you will have to pay cmmercial rates to get commercial-level bandwidth.
The Usenet cap is even more laughable -- 3 gigabytes for every three days? I wouldn't call that a cap! If you are pulling 30 gigs a month off Usenet, I'd like to know the retail value of the equivalent audio cd's, software, and movies you're downloading. It can't be just pr0n, you'd run yourself raw!
Macaffee says the virus was discovered January 8, 2002.
Am I the only one to notice that the Infoworld article is dated December 1, 2000 4:24 pm PT?
As it's all tied to "anaonymous" cookies, and since most people lose their cookies after some time (at the longest, when they change PCs or reinstall OS), it seems to me it'll become rapidly worthless.
He probably didn't want to try Thief, either.
It's USA Today. Their biggest gift to journalism is the colored piechart. It's not surprising that their "articles" offer little more than a chart does; they prefer "trendspotting" to news.
I would especially like to know more about the content of the posted/mailed messages, and their veracity or lack thereof. I'd like to know were the email addresses on Intel's servers, as the article seems to suggest? Were all messages/postings from each poster identical?
The article tries to spot a trend, but the cases it picks are so egregious it's hard to imagine the precedence being applied to less spectacular efforts to criticize a company. Of course, if the piece had answered a few of the above questions, we'd have a much better idea of its applicability to other situations.
This moderator just PROVED that Dave Barry fans have No Sense Of Humor
In conclusion, I would ask that you please introduce me to the person who died and made you The Arbiter of What Is and What Is Not Humor
My post was itself a joke. You may not find it funny, as numerous moderators didn't. What can I tell ya? YMMV and all that. Toodle-loo.
Looks like a table lamp. See?
An ugly one.
Time is a weekly. Could be that the Canada edition is set to the "off-sale" date.... Now let's see...14-7=
The article opens with the phrase "this week at Macworld" in the first graf. So I don't think this is debuting a week ahead of time, probably just a few hours.
Plus, consider the possibility that this pre-launch leak may have been allowed in order to secure a place on the cover. Canada is not an insignificant market.
Doesn't that have to be funny?
Funny:
Dilbert, Robot Monster, South Park, Jon Katz falling out of a window.
Not Funny:
Teen comedies, Jim Carrey, Recycled/Out-Of-Date 'Windows is unreliable' jokes, Dave Berry.
Crack-Smokers: Mod this down again and I will post it again at +1. I'm too close to the karma-cap anyway.
But didn't Arthur C. once say, a well-patched Win2k system run by a knowledgable user is indistinguishable from magic?
With Windows, you pay for Office 97 and you run it for 4 years; the operating environment changes from W95 to 98, maybe to ME or NT, then 2000 and then to XP. Because you paid for Office 97, you keep running it in each environment, even though it becomes more and more like a fish out of water (no matter what MS claims about backward compatibility). Same for any paid-for app you run.
With Linux or FreeBSD, updates and upgrades are always free, the apps you run get the environment that is expected. Stuff works.
So the choice is clear: either get with Linux, or start trading warez so you can have the appz that are written for the specific Win environment you need to run. The third choice, to buy all-new software with each new platform, is for the Rockefellers only.