Biology: first documented case of homosexual necrophilia in the mallard duck species. Links and pictures are available from the official Web site, linked above.
Just in case there are any human necrophiliacs with a case of the 'featheries'.
Everyone keeps talking about the RIAA subpoenas to get user information about IP addresses from ISPs. This is assuming that the RIAA got the IP address from what is reported by KaZaA or Gnutella client right?
Does KaZaA or Gnutella find the actual IP address the user is at, or simply the proxy IP they may be using?
What happens if they subpoena a proxy IP?
All someone has to do is run with a proxy of one of the 'high anonymity' found at this site, one of many, and really smooth people can probably create a chain of proxy servers to run through to hide their true IP.
As has been mentioned several other places on this board, ISPs (that host spammers at least) don't want to implement these broad stroke filters because they need the income generated from the spammers paying for access.
If the ISP is housing spammers, it probably doesn't care too much for the welfare of it's other customers as long as they keep paying their connection fees. If, however, customers of ISPs who house spammers [had the opportunity to] leave to another ISP, then it would cut into their bottom line and losing the spammers would be less detrimental than losing the rest of their customer base to competition!
Do you really want leave the city for a weekend in the future only to find that you can't leave the city?
Naturally, you'll probably be long dead before that happens, but there's a difference between fitting everyone, and living comfortably with everyone. Not to mention the wildlife and plant life that we need to protect to prevent harmful damage to the ecosystem we rely on.
I'm not a tree-hugger or a eco-nut, but unchecked population growth will become a problem sooner than most expect. Even if you don't live in a cramped world now, do you want your decendants to be living out Soylent Green?
What happens when ASUS (or MS in this case) updates your firmware automatically and there was a problem with their firmware inherent in the code (MS never releases bad hotfixes...</sarcasm>) so now your hardware is completely useless until:
you get the next auto-fix OR
you take your hardware in to get fixed
I just don't trust any company enough to automatically update my firmware -- especially since most hardware manufacturers (such as ASUS) do not recommend updating firmware unless you're specifically having a problem or missing some needed new feature.
I believe the updates are to firmware (a type of software specific to modifying the behavior of the hardware -- like BIOS), not to software running on the machine such as WinCE or something.
If it were just updating WinCE (as a bad example, because WinCE is not on the XBox), then they're just doing a software upgrade that they probably have somewhat of a right to do (although the owner of the XBox should at least be notified and given a chance to decline the update at the cost of not being able to use Live). But updates to the firmware are quite often irreversable (unless you can get your hands on an old version of the firmware) and they will modify the behavior of the hardware so that it doesn't function the same way it used to -- almost as though MS had changed the components inside the XBox without your permission.
"For the artists, my ass," said [David] Draiman [of Disturbed]. "I didn't ask them to protect me, and I don't want their protection." [said about the RIAA]
Microsoft has just as much privilige to screw with the unintended bugs you're taking advantage of.
If you were talking about holes in Windows, maybe I could agree more, but we're talking about hardware here.
If you bought a DVD player that played only Region 1 DVDs and you modified it to accept All Region DVDs, there's nothing the DVD manufacturer can/will do about it. Perhaps you like to buy imported anime DVDs that just won't play on Region 1 DVD players. You purchased the hardware, you own the components (not the right to remanufacture and sell it) and your modifications are your own concern.
The point I'm making here is that unlike most of Microsoft's products, this is hardware and not subject to the same property rights as software. Firmware is a little trickier, but in a sense, if you own the hardware, it should be your choice to update the firmware, not Microsoft's.
What if MS sold computers as a whole unit - hardware and OS. If I remove Windows from that computer and replace it with Linux, there's no court in the U.S. that will claim Microsoft has a right to "auto-update" the computer I bought from them which inadvertently removes my Linux installation, or at least makes it unusable. In relation to your argument, it would be the same as saying "well, if you don't want your computer auto-updated, don't ever connect to the internet again". Would you purchase a computer under those restrictions? (if you don't care for Linux, replace "Linux" with the title of your favorite non-MS software)
What happens when you want to play an old Live game that has always worked in the past, but you don't want the auto-update?
What should happen (if you take the NASCAR regulations argument) is if MS wants to put new restrictions on who can use Live, then the current Live subscribers who don't agree to the auto-update feature should be given a pro-rated refund on the service and the XBox should NOT connect to the Live service even on Live-enabled games for the auto-update feature because this user has explicitly stated they do not want to have Live access.
One of the problems here is unless you unplug your XBox forever, knowing MS and their registry with the Windows\CurrentVersion\Run entry, as soon as you plug in the XBox the next time I'm sure it will contact the mothership and download those patches that KOTOR (or whatever) wanted. This is particularly stinging if you just paid your year's subscription to Live right before they pulled the rug out from under your feet.
"Generally speaking, with the exception of Tina on Dilbert, technical writers aren't very funny. This is something of a rare and unintentional exception."
Nope, sorry. This guy is about as funny as wet cardboard. And according to the submitter, he's right up the same alley as most other technical writers.
But I don't blame the writers for being unfunny. Their job isn't to humor us on how this toaster can kill you when soaked in water while plugged in - it's to be serious and prevent injury and death in many cases. As far as a story goes, this isn't one and I see the slashdotting as a benefit to those who will never see the site.
mmmm....honkey crackers and cheese....*ghgllhglhglhg*
...just for the record...I am a white honkey cracker!
Re:not the answer - you got that right!
on
Replacing SMTP?
·
· Score: 1
While I agree verifications need to be in place, don't you think all of this inter-server communication will significantly increase the traffic on the Internet considering how much email is sent around by legitimate people?
Additionally, how would one create a legitimate opt-in mailing list? Joe Blow signed up for a fan club and wants to receive their newsletters - how does the originating site send bulk mail in a trusted fashion without a lot of extra communication with each and every subscriber (since the newsletter sender doesn't care if the subscribers really get their newsletter - it is, after all an opt-in service versus a spam opt-out service)?
It may help, but only if you are intelligent enough to go to court with both:
1. All the documents he had
2. A citation to his case as added support for your complaint
Citing his case alone won't help you -- you have to prove that your case is the same as his and then the citation of his award will make it easier for the judge to rule in your favor (because he's not breaking any new ground). Although, I'm not sure this judge was really thinking that he was breaking new ground when he awarded Steve the judgement.
And of course....IANAL, but I work for Westlaw.com:-)
While I can understand all the hubbub about this/. article because of the sensationalized title, I don't understand why this is so difficult to grasp. If everyone simply looks at section 6a) of the LGPL followed closely by section 6b), it should become quite clear. Allow me to demonstrate:
a) Accompany the work with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code for the Library including whatever changes were used in the work (which must be distributed under Sections 1 and 2 above); and, if the work is an executable linked with the Library, with the complete machine-readable "work that uses the Library", as
object code and/or source code, so that the user can modify the Library and then relink to produce a modified executable containing the modified Library. (It is understood that the user who changes the contents of definitions files in the Library will not necessarily be able to recompile the application to use the modified definitions.)
b) Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the Library. A suitable mechanism is one that (1) uses at run time a copy of the library already present on the user's computer system, rather than copying library functions into the executable, and (2) will operate properly with a modified version of the library, if the user installs one, as long as the modified version is interface-compatible with the version that the work was made with.
The bolded text in subsection a) clearly states that your "work" that "links" the Library does not have to be distributed (assuming you have not changed the Library in any way) in source form. The subsection b) makes it clear that your "work" must simply conform to the interfaces of the library and not do something wierd that would cause your code to break if the user swapped out the Library with a different (new) version that completely changed the implementation but the interfaces stayed the same.
In other words, as long as you don't modify the Library and you keep your source code entirely separate from the Library source and you distribute your object code (or executable) separately from the Library you have nothing to worry about.
I hold no love for Democrats either. They (the ones that make it to office anyway) seem to have this frightening affinity for making the government run everything (and this is the part that surprises me about Bush, what with the Patriot Act and the Dept. of Homeland Security). Don't delude yourself into thinking all blame falls squarely on one party or another. The truth of the matter is the blame falls on both parties and on the people of the United States for having such a complacient attitude towards right-revoking (or restricting) laws that are proposed and passed through Congress and the White House.
My point was not that it's a Republican problem or a Democrat problem - its a rogue government problem and not enough people are actively involved in the democratic process and who possess an educated opinion on the matters of state.
Of course Microsoft was playing dirty pool before Bush. Of course large corporations were lying about the profits during a democrat-controlled Senate, but the inactions of the U.S. government with regard to Microsoft put MS into a golden halo for other unethical businesses to idolize. Hell, Bill Clinton was probably idolized by many because of his amazing charisma and his ability to slip out of even the most bleek situations (think Lewinski) -- he wasn't Slick Willy because he got stuck. And I don't think anyone besides Adobe, DirectTV, and other content providers think the DMCA is (or ever was) a good idea.
If you patent the term "lawsuit spam" and it's process then you can sue DirectTV, the RIAA, and any other corporation for illegally using your patented process of generating income.
In the past 5-10 years it seems lawsuits of this sort have increased in quantity, and it's not just the RIAA -- it's every big corporation.
My gut feeling points at two major contributing factors in this timeframe: the Microsoft/Netscape case and the DMCA. Why these two? Firstly, as is clear to anyone who even walks into a Best Buy or other software retailer, Microsoft is not being punished for unethical business practices. This precedent of a slap on the wrist (at worst) for large corporations who misbehave has taken hold of the greedy upper management in these businesses. They are not afraid of the U.S. government because it's clear to them as long as G. W. Bush is in place with an all-republican congress, big business has nothing to worry about.
Which leads me to the second point - the DMCA. It's a wonderful little piece of legislation that content providers of copyrighted material have been able to use to blungent anyone who so much as think about how to get around copyprotection mechanisms.
Therefore:
1. Scare your customers $h1^less
2. ???
3. Profit!
Seems to be a plausable business model to these people.
I'm not sure it's fair to say 'tipjars' are designed to compensate artists for illegal MP3 downloads. I can think of two situations in particular that can justify a 'tipjar' and be perfectly legal:
band allows live concerts to be taped and the band itself posts these recordings as MP3s, WAVs, or OGG files - the tips are exactly that: "thanks for the wonderful music -- keep it up!"
the tipster simply has pity for the band and a strong principle of not funding the RIAA's cartel by only listening to music broadcast over the radio and buying only purely independent work. This implies, however, that the tipster likes the band enough to desire to show appreciation even if he/she doesn't purchase albums or attend tours (anymore)
Slashdot Mirror
Just in case there are any human necrophiliacs with a case of the 'featheries'.
Does KaZaA or Gnutella find the actual IP address the user is at, or simply the proxy IP they may be using?
What happens if they subpoena a proxy IP?
All someone has to do is run with a proxy of one of the 'high anonymity' found at this site, one of many, and really smooth people can probably create a chain of proxy servers to run through to hide their true IP.
If the ISP is housing spammers, it probably doesn't care too much for the welfare of it's other customers as long as they keep paying their connection fees. If, however, customers of ISPs who house spammers [had the opportunity to] leave to another ISP, then it would cut into their bottom line and losing the spammers would be less detrimental than losing the rest of their customer base to competition!
Linux....I am your father!
It's called Longhorn -- just so you don't have to deal with numbers at all. :-)
Naturally, you'll probably be long dead before that happens, but there's a difference between fitting everyone, and living comfortably with everyone. Not to mention the wildlife and plant life that we need to protect to prevent harmful damage to the ecosystem we rely on.
I'm not a tree-hugger or a eco-nut, but unchecked population growth will become a problem sooner than most expect. Even if you don't live in a cramped world now, do you want your decendants to be living out Soylent Green?
- you get the next auto-fix OR
- you take your hardware in to get fixed
I just don't trust any company enough to automatically update my firmware -- especially since most hardware manufacturers (such as ASUS) do not recommend updating firmware unless you're specifically having a problem or missing some needed new feature.If it were just updating WinCE (as a bad example, because WinCE is not on the XBox), then they're just doing a software upgrade that they probably have somewhat of a right to do (although the owner of the XBox should at least be notified and given a chance to decline the update at the cost of not being able to use Live). But updates to the firmware are quite often irreversable (unless you can get your hands on an old version of the firmware) and they will modify the behavior of the hardware so that it doesn't function the same way it used to -- almost as though MS had changed the components inside the XBox without your permission.
Bracketed text mine.
If you were talking about holes in Windows, maybe I could agree more, but we're talking about hardware here.
If you bought a DVD player that played only Region 1 DVDs and you modified it to accept All Region DVDs, there's nothing the DVD manufacturer can/will do about it. Perhaps you like to buy imported anime DVDs that just won't play on Region 1 DVD players. You purchased the hardware, you own the components (not the right to remanufacture and sell it) and your modifications are your own concern.
The point I'm making here is that unlike most of Microsoft's products, this is hardware and not subject to the same property rights as software. Firmware is a little trickier, but in a sense, if you own the hardware, it should be your choice to update the firmware, not Microsoft's.
What if MS sold computers as a whole unit - hardware and OS. If I remove Windows from that computer and replace it with Linux, there's no court in the U.S. that will claim Microsoft has a right to "auto-update" the computer I bought from them which inadvertently removes my Linux installation, or at least makes it unusable. In relation to your argument, it would be the same as saying "well, if you don't want your computer auto-updated, don't ever connect to the internet again". Would you purchase a computer under those restrictions? (if you don't care for Linux, replace "Linux" with the title of your favorite non-MS software)
What should happen (if you take the NASCAR regulations argument) is if MS wants to put new restrictions on who can use Live, then the current Live subscribers who don't agree to the auto-update feature should be given a pro-rated refund on the service and the XBox should NOT connect to the Live service even on Live-enabled games for the auto-update feature because this user has explicitly stated they do not want to have Live access.
One of the problems here is unless you unplug your XBox forever, knowing MS and their registry with the Windows\CurrentVersion\Run entry, as soon as you plug in the XBox the next time I'm sure it will contact the mothership and download those patches that KOTOR (or whatever) wanted. This is particularly stinging if you just paid your year's subscription to Live right before they pulled the rug out from under your feet.
Nope, sorry. This guy is about as funny as wet cardboard. And according to the submitter, he's right up the same alley as most other technical writers.
But I don't blame the writers for being unfunny. Their job isn't to humor us on how this toaster can kill you when soaked in water while plugged in - it's to be serious and prevent injury and death in many cases. As far as a story goes, this isn't one and I see the slashdotting as a benefit to those who will never see the site.
Damn purple apes don't stand a chance...nor do aligators with nothing to gain. *groan*
PROFIT!!!
At first, I thought the infamous spelling ability of our editors managed to munge the article title of "Three Short Books Reviewed"!
mmmm....honkey crackers and cheese....*ghgllhglhglhg*
Additionally, how would one create a legitimate opt-in mailing list? Joe Blow signed up for a fan club and wants to receive their newsletters - how does the originating site send bulk mail in a trusted fashion without a lot of extra communication with each and every subscriber (since the newsletter sender doesn't care if the subscribers really get their newsletter - it is, after all an opt-in service versus a spam opt-out service)?
1. All the documents he had
2. A citation to his case as added support for your complaint
Citing his case alone won't help you -- you have to prove that your case is the same as his and then the citation of his award will make it easier for the judge to rule in your favor (because he's not breaking any new ground). Although, I'm not sure this judge was really thinking that he was breaking new ground when he awarded Steve the judgement.
And of course....IANAL, but I work for Westlaw.com :-)
FBI man #1: I think I found another one.
FBI man #2: Who is it this time?
FBI man #1: JohanSBach@freemail.ms -- he claims to be 4 years old and living at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
FBI man #2: I think I got one too! GWBushy@mailrus.gov claims to live in the same place!
FBI man #1: You know, when I started this project, I thought it would be a little easier than this.
FBI man #2: I know what you mean...we've gone though 150,000 email accounts so far and have found only 5 accounts that weren't fraudulent.
In other words, as long as you don't modify the Library and you keep your source code entirely separate from the Library source and you distribute your object code (or executable) separately from the Library you have nothing to worry about.
My point was not that it's a Republican problem or a Democrat problem - its a rogue government problem and not enough people are actively involved in the democratic process and who possess an educated opinion on the matters of state.
Of course Microsoft was playing dirty pool before Bush. Of course large corporations were lying about the profits during a democrat-controlled Senate, but the inactions of the U.S. government with regard to Microsoft put MS into a golden halo for other unethical businesses to idolize. Hell, Bill Clinton was probably idolized by many because of his amazing charisma and his ability to slip out of even the most bleek situations (think Lewinski) -- he wasn't Slick Willy because he got stuck. And I don't think anyone besides Adobe, DirectTV, and other content providers think the DMCA is (or ever was) a good idea.
dammit! now I have to stop planning my murders.
1. Patent "lawsuit spam"
2. ???
3. Profit!
My gut feeling points at two major contributing factors in this timeframe: the Microsoft/Netscape case and the DMCA. Why these two? Firstly, as is clear to anyone who even walks into a Best Buy or other software retailer, Microsoft is not being punished for unethical business practices. This precedent of a slap on the wrist (at worst) for large corporations who misbehave has taken hold of the greedy upper management in these businesses. They are not afraid of the U.S. government because it's clear to them as long as G. W. Bush is in place with an all-republican congress, big business has nothing to worry about.
Which leads me to the second point - the DMCA. It's a wonderful little piece of legislation that content providers of copyrighted material have been able to use to blungent anyone who so much as think about how to get around copyprotection mechanisms.
Therefore:
1. Scare your customers $h1^less
2. ???
3. Profit!
Seems to be a plausable business model to these people.