"A large part of the suit is that Fahrenheit discloses none of this information on the packaging."
My wife just bought a cd (arg! I can't remember the artist name, Toby sumthin-or-other, your basic country crapola [metal rules, imho]). Anyways, there was NO indication anywhere on the cd that it was copy-protected, but it absolutely could not be backed-up with ezcd (she likes the security and convenience of having copied-cd's for use in the car, and leaving the original at the house). After a couple of tries, I moved on to attempting to just rip the tracks to.wav files, which I would burn later -- not all of the tracks could be ripped, and the ones that DID, were full of static noise. Luckily,
CloneCD didn't have any trouble at all.
My point (having wandered a bit away from the original topic), is that more than one record company seems to be trying to sneak this sort of crap past consumers.
I'd like to say something noble, like "donate them to a worthy cause", but c'mon dude, if you're any sort of geek at all, you know you're just gonna toss them into a big cardboard box!
Listened to the program last night on my way home last night.
It's a shame that all there are so many rules being imposed on internet broadcasters, but I doubt many of them would have survived for long anyways -- the bandwidth is expensive, and for the listeners, the typically low bit-rate stream is just annoying (well, at least if you're trying to listen to music).
No, there is nothing the cable company can do if you are using NAT or masq. They will have to ban wireless, and I doubt they have the nuts to do that anymore than they could force Windoze on their users.
And, when more (a number of them already are) broadband ISP's start putting all their vict^h^h^h^h customers behind NAT, then
this isn't going to be worth much at all.
I think I'd go back to dialup if my ISP did that, tho.
we're stuck with Visual Source Safe here at work, and it is a broken turd (doesn't help that we run it with shared drives [via the 'net] across the country). I've shown a couple of people here in the office how SourceForge works, and while they agree that it looks nice, nobody wants to even think about changing. (yes, I work with a big bunch of llamas).
How come the Russian government hasn't been making a big stink about this? The complete irony of the situation has to be more than they can bear to keep quiet about.
Isn't it a bit of a moot point? How in the heck could *anyone* realistically expect to "outlaw proprietary software licences"? Make them a bit less popular (eventually, more people will be clued-in to the fact that no access to the source-code and single-vendor-tie-in are bad), sure, but outlawed? That's ridiculous.
"2 reboots and no downloads", eh? I sure hope your box is behind a very restrictive firewall.
Re:I hope they model it after q2 and not q3.
on
Quake 4 Announced
·
· Score: 1
I gotta agree with the "Q3 player control was too 'soft and squishy'" comment. I really enjoyed Q1 and Q2 (*especially* Q2) though. The other thing that sucked about Q3 was that just about every server I got a good ping to seemed to be infested with complete dorks with no sense of respect for anyone else playing (not that online dorks were id's fault [hmmm, though the player-kick bug that could be foiled by rapid name changing certainly DID contribute]).
I feel so left out...
on
Code Red III
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Ever since Mediaone/AT&T started blocking port 80 (as of 2am last Monday here in Minnesota), I've been jealously watching you guys get to have all the fun.
On the bright side, I have gotten acknowledgement from RRcustomercare (Mediaone/ATT/RR/pick one fscking name already!) that yes, technically it is okay to run a server as long as you don't negatively impact others. Then again, they are still saying that until this worm dies out, none of their customers will be seeing any incoming packets on port 80.:-(
Thanks for that link... I'm a bit worried by this,
however (gotten by clicking on the "Demo" link at freessl.com):
"www.freessl.com" is a web site that uses a security certificate to identify itself. However, Mozilla does not recognize the Certificate Authority that issued this certificate.
Anyone else use them? Sounds promising, but a bit painful to explain the security implications to my rather non-computer-literate family who live far away.
> If they used the driver's license database to
> identify him, and track him down, wouldn't that
> same information also have shown that he was
> NOT who the woman claimed he was?
Well, I'm sure they noted the discrepancy, and probably assumed that meant one of two things:
a) this is the guy, he's just using an alias.
or
b) this isn't the guy.
Either way, seems reasonable to talk to him. (He *wasn't* arrested or anything, just questioned)
I vaguely recall an article (on drudge) a few weeks back about how a number of the city council members who voted in favor of these cameras claimed to have had no idea what they were voting on?
I'm not sure which is more disgusting, that they voted for it, or that they admit (wish I had a link, sorry) that they are incompetent.
> Frankly, I'm getting sick of Code Red myself. I
> use DSL, and it crashes my modem, a lot.
So CHANGE the bloody web-admin port that your DSL
router (presumably a Cisco 675) is listening on.
Poof, just like that, code-red will stop hanging your router.
Instead of turning it off (which doesn't really help until you have the very latest firmware), you should forward incoming port 80 [to some non-existant box on your LAN], and you're router won't try and parse them any more.
...and I want to know if I'll get spanked for sending my log (367 entries and growing quite quickly) of these default.ida? requests to abuse@microsoft.com;-)
Slashdot Mirror
My wife just bought a cd (arg! I can't remember the artist name, Toby sumthin-or-other, your basic country crapola [metal rules, imho]). Anyways, there was NO indication anywhere on the cd that it was copy-protected, but it absolutely could not be backed-up with ezcd (she likes the security and convenience of having copied-cd's for use in the car, and leaving the original at the house). After a couple of tries, I moved on to attempting to just rip the tracks to
My point (having wandered a bit away from the original topic), is that more than one record company seems to be trying to sneak this sort of crap past consumers.
I'd like to say something noble, like "donate them to a worthy cause", but c'mon dude, if you're any sort of geek at all, you know you're just gonna toss them into a big cardboard box!
Listened to the program last night on my way home last night.
It's a shame that all there are so many rules being imposed on internet broadcasters, but I doubt many of them would have survived for long anyways -- the bandwidth is expensive, and for the listeners, the typically low bit-rate stream is just annoying (well, at least if you're trying to listen to music).
http://joseph.gutnick.wasarrested.com/
http://joseph.gutnick.isgay.com/
I think I'd go back to dialup if my ISP did that, tho.
we're stuck with Visual Source Safe here at work, and it is a broken turd (doesn't help that we run it with shared drives [via the 'net] across the country). I've shown a couple of people here in the office how SourceForge works, and while they agree that it looks nice, nobody wants to even think about changing. (yes, I work with a big bunch of llamas).
How come the Russian government hasn't been making a big stink about this? The complete irony of the situation has to be more than they can bear to keep quiet about.
Isn't it a bit of a moot point? How in the heck could *anyone* realistically expect to "outlaw proprietary software licences"? Make them a bit less popular (eventually, more people will be clued-in to the fact that no access to the source-code and single-vendor-tie-in are bad), sure, but outlawed? That's ridiculous.
"2 reboots and no downloads", eh? I sure hope your box is behind a very restrictive firewall.
I gotta agree with the "Q3 player control was too 'soft and squishy'" comment. I really enjoyed Q1 and Q2 (*especially* Q2) though. The other thing that sucked about Q3 was that just about every server I got a good ping to seemed to be infested with complete dorks with no sense of respect for anyone else playing (not that online dorks were id's fault [hmmm, though the player-kick bug that could be foiled by rapid name changing certainly DID contribute]).
Ever since Mediaone/AT&T started blocking port 80 (as of 2am last Monday here in Minnesota), I've been jealously watching you guys get to have all the fun.
:-(
On the bright side, I have gotten acknowledgement from RRcustomercare (Mediaone/ATT/RR/pick one fscking name already!) that yes, technically it is okay to run a server as long as you don't negatively impact others. Then again, they are still saying that until this worm dies out, none of their customers will be seeing any incoming packets on port 80.
Lol! You might be onto something!
Thanks for that link... I'm a bit worried by this,
however (gotten by clicking on the "Demo" link at freessl.com):
"www.freessl.com" is a web site that uses a security certificate to identify itself. However, Mozilla does not recognize the Certificate Authority that issued this certificate.
Anyone else use them? Sounds promising, but a bit painful to explain the security implications to my rather non-computer-literate family who live far away.
> If they used the driver's license database to
> identify him, and track him down, wouldn't that
> same information also have shown that he was
> NOT who the woman claimed he was?
Well, I'm sure they noted the discrepancy, and probably assumed that meant one of two things:
a) this is the guy, he's just using an alias.
or
b) this isn't the guy.
Either way, seems reasonable to talk to him. (He *wasn't* arrested or anything, just questioned)
Here's a link to what I was talking about...
= 20 01/July/6/camera
http://www.baynews9.com/newsstory.asp?storyname
(pull the space out in the "20 01" part)
I vaguely recall an article (on drudge) a few weeks back about how a number of the city council members who voted in favor of these cameras claimed to have had no idea what they were voting on?
I'm not sure which is more disgusting, that they voted for it, or that they admit (wish I had a link, sorry) that they are incompetent.
> Frankly, I'm getting sick of Code Red myself. I
> use DSL, and it crashes my modem, a lot.
So CHANGE the bloody web-admin port that your DSL
router (presumably a Cisco 675) is listening on.
Poof, just like that, code-red will stop hanging your router.
My first one was:
/default.ida?XXXXXX[...snip...]
24.31.114.57 - - [04/Aug/2001:08:38:56 -0500] "GET
Instead of turning it off (which doesn't really help until you have the very latest firmware), you should forward incoming port 80 [to some non-existant box on your LAN], and you're router won't try and parse them any more.
...and I want to know if I'll get spanked for sending my log (367 entries and growing quite quickly) of these default.ida? requests to abuse@microsoft.com ;-)
Here's a speedy one...
/var/log/httpd-access.log | cut -f 1 -d ' ' | sort
#!/bin/sh
grep default.ida