These measures only hurt legitimate customers. It takes only one h@x0r to bypass the protection on that CD in order to freely share the song as MP3.
This will only make more people copy this song as MP3 so they can play it on their PCs, and will probably cause less people to but the CD. They're really mostly hurting themselves here.
You may permit a maximum of ten (10) computers or other electronic devices (each
a "Device") to connect to the Workstation Computer to
utilize the services of the Product solely for File and
Print services, Internet Information Services, and remote
access (including connection sharing and telephony
services). The ten connection maximum includes any
indirect connections made through "multiplexing" or other
software or hardware which pools or aggregates
connections.
Any computer on the net that is communicating with the workstation is utilizing the software (the TCP stack, the checksum calculation). Also, any attempt to access or any backdoor access to the computer is not allowed (up to 10 machines). Note that EULA doesn't say 10 at a time so it can be read as 10 total. That means that you may use WinXP to connect with up to 10 hosts on the net (even though multiplexing etc.). This effecitvely prohibits you from connecting to the net. Just great.
So we'll see next version of MSIE will have a 'feature' to automatically filter out objectionable material.
Ofcourse, MS will decide what the nature of the objectionable material is. I guess/. will be on the filer list as well as all Linux sites.
As usual, MS will make this feature very hard/impossible to disable in order to further cripple the user's web experience.
Any site using Microsoft Frontpage properitary junk tags has to have been made using FrontPage. Nobody in his right mind will put all that junk into his HTML.
Microsoft should now scan the web for pages with FrontPage fingerprint and refrence them negatively. They could write a spider to search for these kind of sites...
There are several large sinks of IPs on the net. For example.edus... Do you really think MIT uses it's entire class A network? Just assume the MIT net admin installs LaBrea.
In my university (technion.ac.il) we have two class B networks. How much of that do you think we use. I have just advised our administrators to install LaBrea on our net.
No they won't!
Either they use good and proven encryption (if they know what they're doing) or none at all (if they don't). In both cases, the government has a problem. If they use strong encryption and stegnography, they can't get any info. If they use nothing, they have a hard time sorting though all the info. As you can see, they used the phone and airports, etc. and still the government didn't know.
If they have used backdoored encryption, plus installation of carnivore, the government would have surely intercepted thier messages. They're not that dumb!
It's sponsored by Microsoft, what would you expect? Microsoft wants backdoor legislation because it's one step away from banning free software.
I guess they made the question in such a way that any average person would think encryption is used only by terrorists and terrorists would actually use the backdoored software... Yeah right...
The "poll" is just cheap propaganda on behalf of Microsoft.
No GUI in AG4Lin although there's an open interface if you wish to write one. However, there's no need as AG works via a web interface. Just run the server and start your favorite web browser.
The article assumes that we give up our rights to privacy in order to have more effectiveness againt terrorists. Well, this doesn't work! If the government is monitoring the net, terroists won't use it. If the government requires backdoors in security software, the terrorists won't use the backdoored software. What we get is that the power-thirsty authorities control all our rights with no change in the terrorists abilities.
Also, monitoring cannot help because terrorists can apply stegnography and hide thier messages in innocent pr0n images. The government can't intercept all this data and could never be able to catch the terrorists.
There is no need to surrender our rights for absolutely nothing.
That's simply wrong. I downloaded and installed Windows AG today and it asked me whether or not to install webhancer. I ran Lavasoft Ad-Aware and it didn't find webhancer installed.
Maybe that was in an older version.
AudioGalaxy for Linux does not force you to install any spyware (I don't think there is something like that for Linux), and it's a really great MP3 sharing network.
All hail AudioGalaxy!
There is no "Gates' world". Copyrights are not owned by a single company. They are owned by whoever creates the code. They are owned by companies when those companies pay people to develop that code for them. It doesn't preclude anyone developing code outside of a company and owning it by themselves.
This is correct today, but I fear it might not be correct in the future when laws are passed the prevent the creation of open software (such as the DMCA and other suggested laws). Any non-open project is either bought by a giant corporation (Let's call it Microsoft) or driven out of the market using anti-competative steps (such as MSIE vs. Netscape). This is how in Gates' vision the world is headed.
Creating more GPL'd software can stop this from becoming a reality.
However, for some others, concerns such as granting people true freedom to use their creation takes precedence over disallowing someone to profit from it.
That is perfectly fine. I'm not forcing anyone to release their code under the GPL, I'm just suggesting it.
PS: The reference to Gates betrays your age. Stay away from uncalled for remarks or people will figure out your maturity level is as low as RMS with his references to unelected presidents.
My age is not as low as you might think, and I'm not going to reveal it here.
You don't have to specify "or any later version" in your GPL'd code. I agree that it's best to specify a specific version of the GPL you release your code under to prevent FSF control over your code.
In my opinion, a world with only free GNU software ("A brave GNU world") is, in fact, a better place to be. There is a big difference a Gates world and the Stallman world, and that's where the conrol is.
In the GNU world, nobody can tell me not to use a piece of software, and noone can tell me what to do with a piece of code I wrote. Stallman does not control my software any more than the next guy. If Stallman goes crazy and decides to destroy all software in the world, even he can't do it. He is also obliged to the GPL and does not own copyright on any code except his own.
In the Gates world, all software copyrights are assigned to a single company (which owns all developers) and that company can decide what to do with it's developers' code.
I, for one, don't want to see some commerical company using my software to make the next version of windows. That's why I release all my code under the GPL. I hope you will as well.
Slashdot Mirror
These measures only hurt legitimate customers. It takes only one h@x0r to bypass the protection on that CD in order to freely share the song as MP3.
This will only make more people copy this song as MP3 so they can play it on their PCs, and will probably cause less people to but the CD. They're really mostly hurting themselves here.
You may permit a maximum of ten (10) computers or other electronic devices (each a "Device") to connect to the Workstation Computer to utilize the services of the Product solely for File and Print services, Internet Information Services, and remote access (including connection sharing and telephony services). The ten connection maximum includes any indirect connections made through "multiplexing" or other software or hardware which pools or aggregates connections.
Any computer on the net that is communicating with the workstation is utilizing the software (the TCP stack, the checksum calculation). Also, any attempt to access or any backdoor access to the computer is not allowed (up to 10 machines). Note that EULA doesn't say 10 at a time so it can be read as 10 total. That means that you may use WinXP to connect with up to 10 hosts on the net (even though multiplexing etc.). This effecitvely prohibits you from connecting to the net. Just great.
Besides, if you want to make a site which disparages a company, why would you want to use their components in the first place?
A news site, run by pro-M$ people in general cannot use these componenets as they occasionally need to run a story that's not so pro-M$ as can be.
So we'll see next version of MSIE will have a 'feature' to automatically filter out objectionable material. /. will be on the filer list as well as all Linux sites.
Ofcourse, MS will decide what the nature of the objectionable material is. I guess
As usual, MS will make this feature very hard/impossible to disable in order to further cripple the user's web experience.
Any site using Microsoft Frontpage properitary junk tags has to have been made using FrontPage. Nobody in his right mind will put all that junk into his HTML.
Microsoft should now scan the web for pages with FrontPage fingerprint and refrence them negatively. They could write a spider to search for these kind of sites...
There are several large sinks of IPs on the net. For example .edus... Do you really think MIT uses it's entire class A network? Just assume the MIT net admin installs LaBrea.
In my university (technion.ac.il) we have two class B networks. How much of that do you think we use. I have just advised our administrators to install LaBrea on our net.
Microsoft is actually contributing to standartization on the net, as less users will use FrontPage. Great!
No they won't!
Either they use good and proven encryption (if they know what they're doing) or none at all (if they don't). In both cases, the government has a problem. If they use strong encryption and stegnography, they can't get any info. If they use nothing, they have a hard time sorting though all the info. As you can see, they used the phone and airports, etc. and still the government didn't know.
If they have used backdoored encryption, plus installation of carnivore, the government would have surely intercepted thier messages. They're not that dumb!
How much time till someone registers sex.god? Who will the luck celeb be?
Returns 403 Forbidden via its Apache server.
It's sponsored by Microsoft, what would you expect? Microsoft wants backdoor legislation because it's one step away from banning free software.
I guess they made the question in such a way that any average person would think encryption is used only by terrorists and terrorists would actually use the backdoored software... Yeah right...
The "poll" is just cheap propaganda on behalf of Microsoft.
I'll be really impressed when a doctor in Paris helps survivors of the WTC...
No GUI in AG4Lin although there's an open interface if you wish to write one. However, there's no need as AG works via a web interface. Just run the server and start your favorite web browser.
The article assumes that we give up our rights to privacy in order to have more effectiveness againt terrorists. Well, this doesn't work! If the government is monitoring the net, terroists won't use it. If the government requires backdoors in security software, the terrorists won't use the backdoored software. What we get is that the power-thirsty authorities control all our rights with no change in the terrorists abilities.
Also, monitoring cannot help because terrorists can apply stegnography and hide thier messages in innocent pr0n images. The government can't intercept all this data and could never be able to catch the terrorists.
There is no need to surrender our rights for absolutely nothing.
Mod this up +1 Funny!
That's simply wrong. I downloaded and installed Windows AG today and it asked me whether or not to install webhancer. I ran Lavasoft Ad-Aware and it didn't find webhancer installed.
Maybe that was in an older version.
The software installed is called WebHancer and the info about it's spyware nature is available here.
AudioGalaxy for Linux does not force you to install any spyware (I don't think there is something like that for Linux), and it's a really great MP3 sharing network.
All hail AudioGalaxy!
Have you heard of "IN_ADDR.ARPA"?
There is no "Gates' world". Copyrights are not owned by a single company. They are owned by whoever creates the code. They are owned by companies when those companies pay people to develop that code for them. It doesn't preclude anyone developing code outside of a company and owning it by themselves.
This is correct today, but I fear it might not be correct in the future when laws are passed the prevent the creation of open software (such as the DMCA and other suggested laws). Any non-open project is either bought by a giant corporation (Let's call it Microsoft) or driven out of the market using anti-competative steps (such as MSIE vs. Netscape). This is how in Gates' vision the world is headed.
Creating more GPL'd software can stop this from becoming a reality.
However, for some others, concerns such as granting people true freedom to use their creation takes precedence over disallowing someone to profit from it.
That is perfectly fine. I'm not forcing anyone to release their code under the GPL, I'm just suggesting it.
PS: The reference to Gates betrays your age. Stay away from uncalled for remarks or people will figure out your maturity level is as low as RMS with his references to unelected presidents.
My age is not as low as you might think, and I'm not going to reveal it here.
You don't have to specify "or any later version" in your GPL'd code. I agree that it's best to specify a specific version of the GPL you release your code under to prevent FSF control over your code.
In the Stallman World, there won't be any software. No one will create any.
I will, and so will Stallman, and so will many other people who actually need the software
Ain't there GPL software created today?
The same rules of open source, applied to music.
The works are licensed under the Open audio license. There is a listing of open music works available here.In my opinion, a world with only free GNU software ("A brave GNU world") is, in fact, a better place to be. There is a big difference a Gates world and the Stallman world, and that's where the conrol is.
In the GNU world, nobody can tell me not to use a piece of software, and noone can tell me what to do with a piece of code I wrote. Stallman does not control my software any more than the next guy. If Stallman goes crazy and decides to destroy all software in the world, even he can't do it. He is also obliged to the GPL and does not own copyright on any code except his own.
In the Gates world, all software copyrights are assigned to a single company (which owns all developers) and that company can decide what to do with it's developers' code.
I, for one, don't want to see some commerical company using my software to make the next version of windows. That's why I release all my code under the GPL. I hope you will as well.
I got it from 132.254.96.22. I'm on 132.69.xxx.xxx.