I was so really hoping that this was a joke when I read the summary, but then I went to the page, downloaded the source for the VM, and ran the example programs.
Now I think I'm going to go ball up into a fetal position in the darkest corner of my room and beg for a C compiler...
But out concern here at/. isn't really with the environmental issues (though, some/.ers may have concern with that), but rather with the free speeach issues.
Re:Dow complaint seems valid
on
Dow vs. Parody
·
· Score: 1
A lawful use of a trademark as a parody must comment on or inform the original use of the mark by the mark's owner. from http://articles.corporate.findlaw.com/articles/fil e/articles/dlo/dlo000012/title/Subject/topic/Intel lectual%20Property%20Law_Trademark/filename/intell ectualpropertylaw_1_237
They were commenting on the actions of Down, and therefore, were legally using the marks (just as long as the disclaimed it all somewhere).
Now, were they selling T-Shirts, or worse, gases, no.
VNC is so inefficient for that, though. A simple proxy does much more good, and is easily secured. proxy/ssl/ssh is not something they are going to figure out any time soon, plus, I always have a CGI version of the proxy out there on port 80 and port 443.
And vnc as the absolute last resort.
If they really wanted a killer example, they would show the one that says "You have a message waiting". It made it look like, indeed, you had an extremely urgent message waiting. I never did know what it led to, I never fell for it, but I can distinctly remember my mom asking me why she couldn't get the message she had waiting, and why she just got bombarded with ads. It's good that someone is finially doing something about it.
Disabling Javascript not only avoids the pop-up, but completely bypasses their "technology", being as it uses the same Javascript that opened the window to see if the window actually exists... Another stupid attempt to capatalize on something not meant to be charged for pwned by Opera's F12 hotkey... *sigh*
I forgot to mention that ideally C will form a triangle with A and B, but it doesn't necessarily have to.
Re:Triangulation with one receiver?
on
WiFi Triangulation
·
· Score: 4, Informative
One way to do it is to determine the direction the signal is coming from using two known points. This is quite easy, and can be done with even basic direction finders. Imagine that point A and point B are directly east/west of each other. Now, draw a ray from point A outward at, say, 45 degrees. Draw another ray starting at point B at, say, 275 degrees. Where they meet is the location. This form requires only two points.
The other way requires three sites. You use a timing method to determine how far away they are. Imagine points A, B, and C (the location of the points is basically arbitrary, so long as they aren't too far apart). Draw a circle with a radis of one inch from point A (indicating the signal, determined by timing is, we'll say one mile away), and another with a two inche radis from point B. In most (but not all) circumstances, the circles will meet at two points. Thus, in most (but not all) circumstances, two will not be enough. Now draw a circle around C (I can't give you a radis length as I am unwilling to do the math in my head) to intersect with one of the other two intersections. If you've done it right, no matter how hard you try, assuming you've drawn perferct circles, the circle around point C will only meet with one of the two A/B circle intersections. This make any sense???
The internet was designed to be a somewhat peer-to-peer infrastructure.
IRC, while admitedly incorporating a client/server architecture, is still more peer to peer (it is, after all, Internet relay chat) than a news site (which is completely server/client).
The "failures" were those parts of the 'net that didn't obey p2p, and the "successes" were the systems that did.
Even Kazaa lit up with ripped/pirated CNN broadcasts. I didn't have access to a TV that day, either. I got my footage from Kazaa at School.
It's not copyright law if it's in your contract that their work becomes yours.:)
If it were, each one of Microsoft's Windows programmers would have IP rights to their portion of the OS. Microsoft should be paying royalties to each of the programmers for each copy of Windows sold.
But they aren't.
Instead, they are sending them a paycheck.
Microsoft specified that the code produce was work for hire.
A photographer is no different than that to me. You are paying them to perform a service with the end result of creating a product which Inotthey own the rights to. I am hiring them to create their art for me, with the end result of me acquiring the rights to reproduce.
Unless, of course, I didn't bother to read the contract, and got screwed over.:)
I don't think the photographs have a right to claim it's their property to begin with. They are paid for their work, no different than paying a programmer to produce a custom piece of software. Sure, intellectually they produced it, but they produced it for a profit, and it belongs to the people who paid them that profit.
What? They aren't blocking the users of P2P networks, unless that user happens to attack the P2P network shortly after discovering the existance of the file. Pay attention! If you are a normal user, just downloading stuff, you are in the clear. If you make a connection to a server hosting a file, and 5 seconds later have a port scan going, you might be in for a little bit of blockage. Frankly, if you started port scanning ME after you started downloading a file, I'm blocking you right then and there, RIAA or not.
Information of that nature is widely available from other source, plus the number of free, anonymous proxies is steadily growing. Guardster VPN and Anonymiser come to mind, not to mention Peek-a-booty. It's kindof a protect-the-innocent-unknowing maneuver, whereas anyone who seriously wanted to know such information can aquire it, and it's assumed that they know what they are doing and can protect themselves form the maliciousness of the homepage, wheres people who don't have a clue (who sadly, make up the majority) will be protected by the ISP instead.
Doh! Messed up my tags... Should have previewed... let that be a lesson... let's try again...
"Information Wave will also deploy peer-to-peer clients on the Gnutella network from its security research and development network (honeynet) which [we] will offer files with popular song titles derived from the Billboard Top 100 maintained by VNU eMedia. No copyright violations will take place, these files will merely have arbitrary sizes similar to the length of a 3 to 4 minute MP3 audio file encoded at 128kbps. Clients which connect to our peer-to-peer clients, and then afterwards attempt to illegally access the networkwill be immediately blacklisted from Information Wave's network. The data collected will be actively maintained and distributed from our network operations site."
"Information Wave will also deploy peer-to-peer clients on the Gnutella network from its security research and development network (honeynet) which [we] will offer files with popular song titles derived from the Billboard Top 100 maintained by VNU eMedia. No copyright violations will take place, these files will merely have arbitrary sizes similar to the length of a 3 to 4 minute MP3 audio file encoded at 128kbps. Clients which connect to our peer-to-peer clients, and then afterwards attempt to illegally access the network will be immediately blacklisted from Information Wave's network. The data collected will be actively maintained and distributed from our network operations site."
In other words, they are not looking to trap Gnutella users, but trap people who query and begin downloads of popular songs and then make an attempt to drag their server down, ala. the RIAA's plan to search out music on popular networks and then "hack" (really sounds like cracking, to me) the computers of the people distributing the music.
I say we do exactly the opposite: Use the SDE (Slashdot Effect).
Imagine, the collect power of every/. user, those with Cable, DSL, modems, and the like, all with Opera set to 5-second auto-refreshes, the number of seperate windows running auto-refresh being based on connection speed of the participant.
Yeah, I think we could bring them down. Or at least cause some pain.
Click-through EULA's are anoying, but eh... don't bug me THAT much.>.
All the windows popping up were because he used a recovery CD instead of a real 2k CD. Also, the default admin password was probably caused by the recovery CD (that, or he wasn't paying any attention whatsoever, which seems unlikely by the statistics on the page).
Linux is superior when it comes to reboots, and load time, clearly, however, I believe the install process is much more difficult. I rarely run into a Win2k system where the default driver selections are not suitable. I have run into far more linux installations which required a great deal of customization to get working correctly.
I really think Windows is the easier install. I think the author's combination of the wrong set of Windows CDs and good luck with RH just gave an illusion.
But the reboots are anoying, and I don't like EULAs.
And I'm a total Linux fan anyway. But I prefer Gentoo to RH.
But, but, the Unix community is also trusted with 26 - yes, 26 - addition buttons, known as "keys". They have three whole mouse buttons, compared to the other's two and one, giving them the best redundancy and intelligence, but they also have 26 keys to rely on, if all else fails. How about THAT?;-)
I agree, and I would. I do not mind ads in most programs, so long as they are not too obtrusive. I already am trading an ad for free ues of Opera rather than paying the money for it. Seems like a fair deal to me. Decent, non-M$ browser, for the price of a small banner at the top of the screen.
On the other hand, if we are talking about builtin-popups: No.
Because open source authors choose to waive them in favor of allowing their software to be developed openly by the public.
Most open source projects start out as a person who needs something that isn't available creating it. If they choose then and there to make money off of it, they would have that right. If they decided instead to give it away for free, with only the hope that it will be usefull to someone else looking for the same thing, or just a gerenal benifit to the community, they have that right as well.
Nobody is taking away their right to make money off of their software. They are choosing to waive it. Anyone who produces open source software under a license which permits users of the source to freely modify it, and then expects it not to be modified... Well, I don't know what to say about them. All I can say, is, that when most developers make the decision to release their software for free to the public, they realise the are releasing it for free to the public, and the only money they will be getting is donations.
Slashdot Mirror
I was so really hoping that this was a joke when I read the summary, but then I went to the page, downloaded the source for the VM, and ran the example programs. Now I think I'm going to go ball up into a fetal position in the darkest corner of my room and beg for a C compiler...
IIRC, one of the reason to use non-ribbon cables is to reduce the crosstalk, so long as they aren't wound like a coil (but rather braided).
Before they grab this too!
There must be some violation of copyright going on their...
*sigh*
Agreed.
/. isn't really with the environmental issues (though, some /.ers may have concern with that), but rather with the free speeach issues.
But out concern here at
A lawful use of a trademark as a parody must comment on or inform the original use of the mark by the mark's owner. from http://articles.corporate.findlaw.com/articles/fil e/articles/dlo/dlo000012/title/Subject/topic/Intel lectual%20Property%20Law_Trademark/filename/intell ectualpropertylaw_1_237
They were commenting on the actions of Down, and therefore, were legally using the marks (just as long as the disclaimed it all somewhere).
Now, were they selling T-Shirts, or worse, gases, no.
VNC is so inefficient for that, though. A simple proxy does much more good, and is easily secured. proxy/ssl/ssh is not something they are going to figure out any time soon, plus, I always have a CGI version of the proxy out there on port 80 and port 443. And vnc as the absolute last resort.
If they really wanted a killer example, they would show the one that says "You have a message waiting". It made it look like, indeed, you had an extremely urgent message waiting. I never did know what it led to, I never fell for it, but I can distinctly remember my mom asking me why she couldn't get the message she had waiting, and why she just got bombarded with ads. It's good that someone is finially doing something about it.
Hahaha! I'm going to run it now. Yes, I know what it does, but I don't want a gold star.
Disabling Javascript not only avoids the pop-up, but completely bypasses their "technology", being as it uses the same Javascript that opened the window to see if the window actually exists... Another stupid attempt to capatalize on something not meant to be charged for pwned by Opera's F12 hotkey... *sigh*
I don't know weather this is funny or insightful, but right on!
I forgot to mention that ideally C will form a triangle with A and B, but it doesn't necessarily have to.
One way to do it is to determine the direction the signal is coming from using two known points. This is quite easy, and can be done with even basic direction finders. Imagine that point A and point B are directly east/west of each other. Now, draw a ray from point A outward at, say, 45 degrees. Draw another ray starting at point B at, say, 275 degrees. Where they meet is the location. This form requires only two points.
The other way requires three sites. You use a timing method to determine how far away they are. Imagine points A, B, and C (the location of the points is basically arbitrary, so long as they aren't too far apart). Draw a circle with a radis of one inch from point A (indicating the signal, determined by timing is, we'll say one mile away), and another with a two inche radis from point B. In most (but not all) circumstances, the circles will meet at two points. Thus, in most (but not all) circumstances, two will not be enough. Now draw a circle around C (I can't give you a radis length as I am unwilling to do the math in my head) to intersect with one of the other two intersections. If you've done it right, no matter how hard you try, assuming you've drawn perferct circles, the circle around point C will only meet with one of the two A/B circle intersections. This make any sense???
The internet was designed to be a somewhat peer-to-peer infrastructure.
IRC, while admitedly incorporating a client/server architecture, is still more peer to peer (it is, after all, Internet relay chat) than a news site (which is completely server/client).
The "failures" were those parts of the 'net that didn't obey p2p, and the "successes" were the systems that did.
Even Kazaa lit up with ripped/pirated CNN broadcasts. I didn't have access to a TV that day, either. I got my footage from Kazaa at School.
It's not copyright law if it's in your contract that their work becomes yours. :)
If it were, each one of Microsoft's Windows programmers would have IP rights to their portion of the OS. Microsoft should be paying royalties to each of the programmers for each copy of Windows sold.
But they aren't.
Instead, they are sending them a paycheck.
Microsoft specified that the code produce was work for hire.
A photographer is no different than that to me. You are paying them to perform a service with the end result of creating a product which I not they own the rights to. I am hiring them to create their art for me, with the end result of me acquiring the rights to reproduce.
Unless, of course, I didn't bother to read the contract, and got screwed over. :)
I don't think the photographs have a right to claim it's their property to begin with. They are paid for their work, no different than paying a programmer to produce a custom piece of software. Sure, intellectually they produced it, but they produced it for a profit, and it belongs to the people who paid them that profit.
What? They aren't blocking the users of P2P networks, unless that user happens to attack the P2P network shortly after discovering the existance of the file. Pay attention! If you are a normal user, just downloading stuff, you are in the clear. If you make a connection to a server hosting a file, and 5 seconds later have a port scan going, you might be in for a little bit of blockage. Frankly, if you started port scanning ME after you started downloading a file, I'm blocking you right then and there, RIAA or not.
Information of that nature is widely available from other source, plus the number of free, anonymous proxies is steadily growing. Guardster VPN and Anonymiser come to mind, not to mention Peek-a-booty. It's kindof a protect-the-innocent-unknowing maneuver, whereas anyone who seriously wanted to know such information can aquire it, and it's assumed that they know what they are doing and can protect themselves form the maliciousness of the homepage, wheres people who don't have a clue (who sadly, make up the majority) will be protected by the ISP instead.
Or, that's the aim, anyway...
Doh! Messed up my tags... Should have previewed... let that be a lesson... let's try again...
"Information Wave will also deploy peer-to-peer clients on the Gnutella network from its security research and development network (honeynet) which [we] will offer files with popular song titles derived from the Billboard Top 100 maintained by VNU eMedia. No copyright violations will take place, these files will merely have arbitrary sizes similar to the length of a 3 to 4 minute MP3 audio file encoded at 128kbps. Clients which connect to our peer-to-peer clients, and then afterwards attempt to illegally access the network will be immediately blacklisted from Information Wave's network. The data collected will be actively maintained and distributed from our network operations site."
"Information Wave will also deploy peer-to-peer clients on the Gnutella network from its security research and development network (honeynet) which [we] will offer files with popular song titles derived from the Billboard Top 100 maintained by VNU eMedia. No copyright violations will take place, these files will merely have arbitrary sizes similar to the length of a 3 to 4 minute MP3 audio file encoded at 128kbps.
Clients which connect to our peer-to-peer clients, and then afterwards attempt to illegally access the network will be immediately blacklisted from Information Wave's network. The data collected will be actively maintained and distributed from our network operations site."
In other words, they are not looking to trap Gnutella users, but trap people who query and begin downloads of popular songs and then make an attempt to drag their server down, ala. the RIAA's plan to search out music on popular networks and then "hack" (really sounds like cracking, to me) the computers of the people distributing the music.
I say we do exactly the opposite: Use the SDE (Slashdot Effect). Imagine, the collect power of every /. user, those with Cable, DSL, modems, and the like, all with Opera set to 5-second auto-refreshes, the number of seperate windows running auto-refresh being based on connection speed of the participant.
Yeah, I think we could bring them down. Or at least cause some pain.
Click-through EULA's are anoying, but eh... don't bug me THAT much.>. All the windows popping up were because he used a recovery CD instead of a real 2k CD. Also, the default admin password was probably caused by the recovery CD (that, or he wasn't paying any attention whatsoever, which seems unlikely by the statistics on the page). Linux is superior when it comes to reboots, and load time, clearly, however, I believe the install process is much more difficult. I rarely run into a Win2k system where the default driver selections are not suitable. I have run into far more linux installations which required a great deal of customization to get working correctly. I really think Windows is the easier install. I think the author's combination of the wrong set of Windows CDs and good luck with RH just gave an illusion. But the reboots are anoying, and I don't like EULAs. And I'm a total Linux fan anyway. But I prefer Gentoo to RH.
Because you had to PAY for the Windows OS you didn't want.
But, but, the Unix community is also trusted with 26 - yes, 26 - addition buttons, known as "keys". They have three whole mouse buttons, compared to the other's two and one, giving them the best redundancy and intelligence, but they also have 26 keys to rely on, if all else fails. How about THAT? ;-)
I agree, and I would. I do not mind ads in most programs, so long as they are not too obtrusive. I already am trading an ad for free ues of Opera rather than paying the money for it. Seems like a fair deal to me. Decent, non-M$ browser, for the price of a small banner at the top of the screen.
On the other hand, if we are talking about builtin-popups: No.
Because open source authors choose to waive them in favor of allowing their software to be developed openly by the public.
Most open source projects start out as a person who needs something that isn't available creating it. If they choose then and there to make money off of it, they would have that right. If they decided instead to give it away for free, with only the hope that it will be usefull to someone else looking for the same thing, or just a gerenal benifit to the community, they have that right as well.
Nobody is taking away their right to make money off of their software. They are choosing to waive it. Anyone who produces open source software under a license which permits users of the source to freely modify it, and then expects it not to be modified... Well, I don't know what to say about them. All I can say, is, that when most developers make the decision to release their software for free to the public, they realise the are releasing it for free to the public, and the only money they will be getting is donations.