I wasn't even going to bother clicking/that/ link 'cuz it didn't have anything I wanted to see. But I'm always game to contribute to a good slashdotting if it's a worthy cause.
While 2 for 2 could be random chance (anybody have any actual numbers?),
Well, I fly 2+ times per week, and I have been hit twice in a row before. I've also gone for stretches of 5 or more flights without being "randomly" searched.
The criteria for being searched, as near as I can tell, is whether or not there are fewer than 2 people waiting in line to be "randomly" searched. If there are fewer, congratulations, you are probably selected. If there are not, then you'll probably pass through.
eDonkey does this by taking a hash (MD4, I belive?) of the files the users are sharing. That way, when you download, you are only downloading from users who have the exact same file as you. Saves you from the skipps that you get when you download from Kazaa, since they match files based on filename instead of a hash.
I think many people, including myself, would actually pay money for mp3s which are:
1. Professionally ripped (no skips or other imperfections) 2. At a high bitrate 3. Downloadable from a high-bandwidth server.
Polluting the P2P networks helps them make their business case for their own music services, and isn't any less nice than what the P2P networks are doing to them.
I don't intend this to be a flame or a troll, but seriously, we shouldn't hold the RIAA to a higher standard than we hold ourselves. I'd much rather see them fighting back through technology than through draconian legislation.
For the users, all of the familiar commands shoud work fine. But maintaining the boxen will have a cost. For instance, I know how to create a disk partition under both Linux and AIX and can say that the process is totally different. Also, you'll have to keep two different platforms up to date with the latest patches. And don't forget your apps, which probably won't have binary compatibility. You'll have to make sure that all of the apps that you wish to run are ported to your new Unix flavor of choice.
Because it costs them virtually nothing to send millions of emails. Even if the response rate is 0.0001% their "ad campaign" will still turn a profit. Think of it like telemarketing or junk mail, only worse, since the cost of their investment is just a 1000 hour AOL free trial.
While I haven't really decided whether or not I personally support LGPL for Wine, I haven't seen the opposing viewpoint posted at all, so I thought I'd just post the link to why GNU backronymed LGPL to "Lesser".
Basically, they argue that releasing code under GPL encourages more free (not as in beer) software development.
I understand and grant that the companies that produce the media that consumers enjoy (music, TV, movies, etc.) must make a profit in order to stay in business and continue production. What I do not understand, is why these media producers feel that the correct course of action is to attack technologies that threaten their current business models.
These companies pay their executives millions of dollars per year to create revenue streams and increase profit margins. Why can't those executives show some crativity and use the new technologies themselves?
For instance, they could seek out new viewiers for their TV shows by distributing content in unencrypted form so consumers can freely share the content with their friends. This would have worked especially well for the music industry who killed Napster instead of channeling their enormous user base into an enormous business opportunity.
For all of the money we pay execs, they ought to be able to come up with something better than "This technology threatens our current business model and must be thwarted." Business models can and must evolve with the changing climate.
Irony of their security explanation
on
AOL vs. Trillian
·
· Score: 2, Funny
I find it hilarious that AOL claims that they don't allow other clients to connect to their networks because of "security" when a short time ago the AIM client millions of people use on their desktops was found to be vulnerable to a remote attack that could execute arbitrary code on the client's system.
Slashdot Mirror
I wasn't even going to bother clicking /that/ link 'cuz it didn't have anything I wanted to see. But I'm always game to contribute to a good slashdotting if it's a worthy cause.
Do I still have to bring the DB down every night to vacuum it?
The criteria for being searched, as near as I can tell, is whether or not there are fewer than 2 people waiting in line to be "randomly" searched. If there are fewer, congratulations, you are probably selected. If there are not, then you'll probably pass through.
eDonkey does this by taking a hash (MD4, I belive?) of the files the users are sharing. That way, when you download, you are only downloading from users who have the exact same file as you. Saves you from the skipps that you get when you download from Kazaa, since they match files based on filename instead of a hash.
I think many people, including myself, would actually pay money for mp3s which are:
1. Professionally ripped (no skips or other imperfections)
2. At a high bitrate
3. Downloadable from a high-bandwidth server.
Polluting the P2P networks helps them make their business case for their own music services, and isn't any less nice than what the P2P networks are doing to them.
I don't intend this to be a flame or a troll, but seriously, we shouldn't hold the RIAA to a higher standard than we hold ourselves. I'd much rather see them fighting back through technology than through draconian legislation.
For the users, all of the familiar commands shoud work fine. But maintaining the boxen will have a cost. For instance, I know how to create a disk partition under both Linux and AIX and can say that the process is totally different. Also, you'll have to keep two different platforms up to date with the latest patches. And don't forget your apps, which probably won't have binary compatibility. You'll have to make sure that all of the apps that you wish to run are ported to your new Unix flavor of choice.
Because it costs them virtually nothing to send millions of emails. Even if the response rate is 0.0001% their "ad campaign" will still turn a profit. Think of it like telemarketing or junk mail, only worse, since the cost of their investment is just a 1000 hour AOL free trial.
... when I purchase a piece of hardware, can't I do whatever I want with it? Recognizing that it might void the warranty, of course...
While I haven't really decided whether or not I personally support LGPL for Wine, I haven't seen the opposing viewpoint posted at all, so I thought I'd just post the link to why GNU backronymed LGPL to "Lesser".
Basically, they argue that releasing code under GPL encourages more free (not as in beer) software development.
I understand and grant that the companies that produce the media that consumers enjoy (music, TV, movies, etc.) must make a profit in order to stay in business and continue production. What I do not understand, is why these media producers feel that the correct course of action is to attack technologies that threaten their current business models.
These companies pay their executives millions of dollars per year to create revenue streams and increase profit margins. Why can't those executives show some crativity and use the new technologies themselves?
For instance, they could seek out new viewiers for their TV shows by distributing content in unencrypted form so consumers can freely share the content with their friends. This would have worked especially well for the music industry who killed Napster instead of channeling their enormous user base into an enormous business opportunity.
For all of the money we pay execs, they ought to be able to come up with something better than "This technology threatens our current business model and must be thwarted." Business models can and must evolve with the changing climate.
I find it hilarious that AOL claims that they don't allow other clients to connect to their networks because of "security" when a short time ago the AIM client millions of people use on their desktops was found to be vulnerable to a remote attack that could execute arbitrary code on the client's system.
Glad to see they're so concerned about security.