Examine the case of having six cameras that scan six widely separated areas in a downtown neighborhood. It would take six full time officers to monitor the area as thoroughly as that one officer and six cameras could. This frees up five officers for use as a response team
And exactly how long will it take those 5 officers to get to one of these "widely separated areas"?? I'd rather have one cop on-scene, with backup 10 minutes away than 0 cops on-scene and 5 cops 10 minutes away.
These are all resons to IMPROVE the anti-blaster worm, not get rid of it.
The idea is sound- use a worm that uses exploit 'X' to find vulnerable machines and patch exploit 'X'. This particular implementation sucked, that's all.
One would suspect that if Microsoft/Compaq/HP whoever were smart they would distribute a CD with the most common problems listed and their solutions. Maybe even a little check list you could print out, run through, and if things failed, you'd at least have something when you called support.
Updates would be downloadable.
This would save everybody a LOT of frustration and time.
Most computer magazines have a 'Q&A' column. There are also books. And the internet (web, usenet, irc, etc).
if the lusers don't use those resources, what makes you think they'll use a CDROM???
I'm curious how it would do that. Kazaa, as far as I can tell just acts as a middleman, and your computer makes a direct connection to the computer hosting the file, or vice versa, depending on firewall setups.
That's how it works NOW. Why not funnel the file thru one or two other clients? Then all they have is the 'first link in the chain'. And if the clients don't log the connections, that's where the trail stops.
In both cases, the police know, factually, that until they interfere that the perpetrator will [so long as all three precogs agree] commit that crime.
So why do the police have to "interfere" by busting down the door and arresting the person? Why can't they just call him and say "Hi. We know you're planning on killing someone." Won't that "interference" be enough to change the event?
Pre-cog #1 says you will do something. You read #1's report and you don't do that thing.
Pre-cog #2 factors in #1's report and the fact that you will have read #1's report. #2 gives a different report. Since you read #2's report, your choice changes from what #1 and #2 predicted.
Pre-cog #3 factors in #1's and then #2's report. Pre-cog #3 can correctly predict your actions BECAUSE THERE IS NO PRE-COG #4 TO PROVIDE YOU WITH A PREDICTION.
Um, all three pre-cogs can see the future. Specifically, all three can see the future, which includes you reading/not reading their report(s). So, all three would see and report the same thing.
And even if they do sue you, you can just claim that somebody hacked your computer.
Exactly. So, everyone out there sharing files, be sure to put a copy of BO2K on your machine (passworded of course so no one can get in). Then if sued, claim some cracker compromised your box and shared those files.
but some platforms do have lots of stuff that is not and will never be available on Linux.
Chicken/egg problem.
Game makers aren't going to make games for OS's that no one uses, and no one si going to use an OS without games for it.
Solution: Linux will not enter the marketplace as a 'End User' OS, but rather as a server OS. Then, slowly, more and more people, lured bythe appeal of a free, non-MS OS, will start switching. SLowly, game makers will start making games for linux.
Conclusion: This is how it is actually happening. One can't expect an instant change to happen, whereby all game makers will decide to make their games for Linux. It happens slowly. Deal.
Who's doing the copying? He who shares, or he who downloads? Technically, the sharer. The sharer's computer makes the copy from the hard drive to the network. That is the point at which 2 copies come into existence.
But the sharer's computer does this as a result of a command from the Downloader. So the Downloader is initiating the copy.
It like having a pile of books and a copy machine on your front lawn. If someone comes along and copies a book, it may be your copy machine doing the copying, but it is not YOU doing the copying- it's the person who made the copy.
What someone needs to do is acquire a large collection of MP3s from LEGITIMATE sources (ie: rips of CDs they already own, off the radio, etc) and let the RIAA bust them for that. Then, in court, whip out the source of the files and watch RIAAs case crumble.
Think about that- Lets say that RIAA offered songs for download. Now, RIAA represents the copyright holders, right? SO, they have a legal right to distribute the files.
Car Pooling lanes do NOT cause car pools to form. That is a statistical fact.
The mere existance of the lanes themselves do not cause carpools to come into being. It takes PEOPLE (like you) to care enough about the environment (or, if you need a selfish motive- being able to breath) to get off their asses and form a carpool.
cars produce MORE polution as they sit and idle in a traffic jam than they would if they were operating at speed at their optimum performance
All the more reason to join a carpool, so the car you are in isn't sitting in a traffic jam.
the rest of us paid for them, but only 7% of the population can/does take advantage
100% CAN take advantage. If only 7% does, that's their choice.
P2P networks are encouraging and helping individuals to distribute perfect digital copies of NEAR-PERFECT digital copies of original recordings to millions of strangers simultaneously.
Subtract "to millions of strangers simultaneously"...
I'd like to see a P2P client that can handle "millions" of simultaneous connections!
You just can't reason with those people who in the end say, "Corporations get rich, poor get poorer, less job, blah blah blah." (Nevermi nd anyone can buy shares of a corporation and enjoy the profits too).
If you're poor YOU DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO BUY SHARES OF A CORPORATION!
Idiot.
Re:Why do people do this?
on
I, Spammer
·
· Score: 1
Well, fine. Let AOL/Yahoo/whoever offer their customers a choice- spam or no spam. (Don't they already do this? I know Hotmail lets you choose the level of spam filtering, from 'let it all thru' to whitelist only.)
Then, anyone who CHOOSES 'no-spam' is clearly not the target audience a spammer wants to reach.
Another way to do this is to make the subject line of ALL spam emails start with "[ADV]". Then people can choose to filter for it or not.
Re:Why do people do this?
on
I, Spammer
·
· Score: 1
But again, if these people have spam filters running (whether on their own, or thru their ISP), THEY DON'T WANT SPAM.
Why go thru a lot of effort to reach people who aren't interested?
(Or are you saying a lot of AOL/Yahoo email users WANT spam, but were stupid enough to sign up with an ISP that blocks it?)
Re:Why do people do this?
on
I, Spammer
·
· Score: 1
the business groups see that sales go up every time we spam, so they keep doing it.
Spamming is one thing. Sending out lots of unsolicited email with legitimate headers and a real opt-out option is fine, in my opinion.
But when spammers start forging headers (why hide? because they know they're doing wrong!), using 'real' sounding subject lines ("I missed you the other day..."), and other such tricks to bypass spam filters, then I think they've gone too far.
Think about it- if a person has anti-spam software running, then they obviously don't want spam, right? And if they don't want spam, they are certainly not going to buy anything from a spammer.
SO, all these efforts to bypass anti-spam software are useless- the people you will reach ain't gonna buy your stuff!
Slashdot Mirror
Examine the case of having six cameras that scan six widely separated areas in a downtown neighborhood. It would take six full time officers to monitor the area as thoroughly as that one officer and six cameras could. This frees up five officers for use as a response team
And exactly how long will it take those 5 officers to get to one of these "widely separated areas"?? I'd rather have one cop on-scene, with backup 10 minutes away than 0 cops on-scene and 5 cops 10 minutes away.
1)...
2)...
3)...
These are all resons to IMPROVE the anti-blaster worm, not get rid of it.
The idea is sound- use a worm that uses exploit 'X' to find vulnerable machines and patch exploit 'X'. This particular implementation sucked, that's all.
They were assuming a greater base knowledge than he has.
This is a computer.
It is composed of a system unit, keyboard, mouse, and monitor.
{demonstrate for 30 seconds how each works)
There- he now knows enough to take a "inroduction to computers" course. You mean he couldn't figure this out on his own???
One would suspect that if Microsoft/Compaq/HP whoever were smart they would distribute a CD with the most common problems listed and their solutions. Maybe even a little check list you could print out, run through, and if things failed, you'd at least have something when you called support.
Updates would be downloadable.
This would save everybody a LOT of frustration and time.
Most computer magazines have a 'Q&A' column. There are also books. And the internet (web, usenet, irc, etc).
if the lusers don't use those resources, what makes you think they'll use a CDROM???
By accepting the word "theft", the seed of the notion that this is about tangible property... are planted.
This can work to our advantage. If it's about 'theft', then a Downloader should get the same sentence as a shoplifter who shoplifts a CD.
I'm curious how it would do that. Kazaa, as far as I can tell just acts as a middleman, and your computer makes a direct connection to the computer hosting the file, or vice versa, depending on firewall setups.
That's how it works NOW. Why not funnel the file thru one or two other clients? Then all they have is the 'first link in the chain'. And if the clients don't log the connections, that's where the trail stops.
They're finding records for people who bought this stuff with a credit card and then S.L.A.P.P.ing them with a lawsuit.
Wonder what would happen if someone bought one of these and then sent a letter to DirecTV, demanding that they be sued.
Would DirecTV actually do it?
But the prosecutor(s) CHOOSE which laws to enforce.
In both cases, the police know, factually, that until they interfere that the perpetrator will [so long as all three precogs agree] commit that crime.
So why do the police have to "interfere" by busting down the door and arresting the person? Why can't they just call him and say "Hi. We know you're planning on killing someone." Won't that "interference" be enough to change the event?
Pre-cog #1 says you will do something. You read #1's report and you don't do that thing.
Pre-cog #2 factors in #1's report and the fact that you will have read #1's report. #2 gives a different report. Since you read #2's report, your choice changes from what #1 and #2 predicted.
Pre-cog #3 factors in #1's and then #2's report. Pre-cog #3 can correctly predict your actions BECAUSE THERE IS NO PRE-COG #4 TO PROVIDE YOU WITH A PREDICTION.
Um, all three pre-cogs can see the future. Specifically, all three can see the future, which includes you reading/not reading their report(s).
So, all three would see and report the same thing.
And even if they do sue you, you can just claim that somebody hacked your computer.
Exactly. So, everyone out there sharing files, be sure to put a copy of BO2K on your machine (passworded of course so no one can get in). Then if sued, claim some cracker compromised your box and shared those files.
but some platforms do have lots of stuff that is not and will never be available on Linux.
Chicken/egg problem.
Game makers aren't going to make games for OS's that no one uses, and no one si going to use an OS without games for it.
Solution:
Linux will not enter the marketplace as a 'End User' OS, but rather as a server OS. Then, slowly, more and more people, lured bythe appeal of a free, non-MS OS, will start switching. SLowly, game makers will start making games for linux.
Conclusion:
This is how it is actually happening. One can't expect an instant change to happen, whereby all game makers will decide to make their games for Linux. It happens slowly. Deal.
I wish people would stop trying to defend STUPID PEOPLE who are too dumb to handle hot beverages with care.
Who's doing the copying? He who shares, or he who downloads?
Technically, the sharer. The sharer's computer makes the copy from the hard drive to the network. That is the point at which 2 copies come into existence.
But the sharer's computer does this as a result of a command from the Downloader. So the Downloader is initiating the copy.
It like having a pile of books and a copy machine on your front lawn. If someone comes along and copies a book, it may be your copy machine doing the copying, but it is not YOU doing the copying- it's the person who made the copy.
What someone needs to do is acquire a large collection of MP3s from LEGITIMATE sources (ie: rips of CDs they already own, off the radio, etc) and let the RIAA bust them for that. Then, in court, whip out the source of the files and watch RIAAs case crumble.
Think about that- Lets say that RIAA offered songs for download. Now, RIAA represents the copyright holders, right? SO, they have a legal right to distribute the files.
So, how can it be illegal to download the files?
until the law is changed, it IS the law.
There is a law, still on the books, that says women cannot drive in Pennsylvania unless someone walks ahead of the car, waving a red flag.
Would you obey this law? Remember, "until the law is changed, it IS the law."
Double-decker the ones already there.
Duh.
Car Pooling lanes do NOT cause car pools to form. That is a statistical fact.
The mere existance of the lanes themselves do not cause carpools to come into being. It takes PEOPLE (like you) to care enough about the environment (or, if you need a selfish motive- being able to breath) to get off their asses and form a carpool.
cars produce MORE polution as they sit and idle in a traffic jam than they would if they were operating at speed at their optimum performance
All the more reason to join a carpool, so the car you are in isn't sitting in a traffic jam.
the rest of us paid for them, but only 7% of the population can/does take advantage
100% CAN take advantage. If only 7% does, that's their choice.
P2P networks are encouraging and helping individuals to distribute perfect digital copies of NEAR-PERFECT digital copies of original recordings to millions of strangers simultaneously.
Subtract "to millions of strangers simultaneously"...
I'd like to see a P2P client that can handle "millions" of simultaneous connections!
You just can't reason with those people who in the end say, "Corporations get rich, poor get poorer, less job, blah blah blah." (Nevermi nd anyone can buy shares of a corporation and enjoy the profits too).
If you're poor YOU DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO BUY SHARES OF A CORPORATION!
Idiot.
Well, fine. Let AOL/Yahoo/whoever offer their customers a choice- spam or no spam. (Don't they already do this? I know Hotmail lets you choose the level of spam filtering, from 'let it all thru' to whitelist only.)
Then, anyone who CHOOSES 'no-spam' is clearly not the target audience a spammer wants to reach.
Another way to do this is to make the subject line of ALL spam emails start with "[ADV]". Then people can choose to filter for it or not.
But again, if these people have spam filters running (whether on their own, or thru their ISP), THEY DON'T WANT SPAM.
Why go thru a lot of effort to reach people who aren't interested?
(Or are you saying a lot of AOL/Yahoo email users WANT spam, but were stupid enough to sign up with an ISP that blocks it?)
the business groups see that sales go up every time we spam, so they keep doing it.
::sigh::
Spamming is one thing. Sending out lots of unsolicited email with legitimate headers and a real opt-out option is fine, in my opinion.
But when spammers start forging headers (why hide? because they know they're doing wrong!), using 'real' sounding subject lines ("I missed you the other day..."), and other such tricks to bypass spam filters, then I think they've gone too far.
Think about it- if a person has anti-spam software running, then they obviously don't want spam, right? And if they don't want spam, they are certainly not going to buy anything from a spammer.
SO, all these efforts to bypass anti-spam software are useless- the people you will reach ain't gonna buy your stuff!
Then again: Rule 1- Spammers are Stupid.
Had the thief gotten the keys...
What, like these are impossible to hot-wire??