Actually, I'm not sure if this is a result of MPAA lobbying or if it's something different at work. Consider that at least three of the states listed (CO, FL, GA) have Republican governors IIRC; and the MPAA's strongest influence is traditionally within the Democratic camp.
No, this is just as likely some harebrained "antiterrorism" measure designed to render all networks wide-open to government surveillance. And since the lobbying is occurring at the state level, it's going to be more difficult to stop than if it occurred at the Federal level--it's a lobbying effort that more resembles a hydra than a snake.
If you have a home DSL router, or if you use the "Internet Connection Sharing" feature of your favorite operating system product, you're in violation because these connection sharing technologies use NAT. Most operating system products (including every version of Windows introduced in the last five years, and virtually all versions of Linux) would also apparently be banned, because they support connection sharing via NAT.
I'm not concealing the origin or destination of communication, in any of these cases. If I'm using a router to share my network connection, the origin/destination of my ISP's communications is whatever box is doing the routing. After that, if my router routes a copy of the data from my ISP to another PC in my home, that's okay: the transmission between my router and my ISP is complete, and the new transmission is between my router and one or more PCs on my network.
I've always held that, as far as ISPs are concerned, they're responsible for supporting their network until it reaches the access point of my network--whether that's a single PC, a PC that shares its internet connection, a router, whatever. After that, I can accept the liability of supporting my own equipment. This should be handled the same way.
Actually, better yet, it should be shot down outright. But that's more optimistic than I tend to be about such things.
consider your email address invalid whether that bounce is "500 address unrouteable" (a valid, understandable error) *or* "500 I Don't Like You" - which I consider frankly offensive.
You consider "I don't like you" offensive? You're new to/., aren't you?
It's his mailbox. If he wants to run a whitelist, that's his option. If you don't want to send him e-mail, that's yours. But calling whitelisting "unethical" just because it's mildly inconvenient in your opinion is highly pretentious.
I hope slashdot will pay closer attention to who's adds they are promoting
Maybe Slashdot should get government approval for what advertisements they display. Would that satisfy you?
Maybe you don't live in the United States; but for the time being at least, people over here are allowed to display adverts that are paid for by political parties and advocacy groups.
On a somewhat related note, while we may not see opt-in mandated for a while, I'm sure companies will be quick to adapt:
By signing up for our free Britney Spears subscription service, you ackwnoledge you have agreed to our draconian privacy policy which allows us to sell your personal data to anybody we want and spam you from now 'till doomsday. To activate your account, we will send you an e-mail shortly. The spamming will begin soon thereafter.
This is one of the reasons why legislating a technical problem won't make it go away--there's always a loophole; and it takes longer to fix a legal loophole than it does for Microsoft to fix their bugs.
This reminds me alot like a form of DRM, you buy the chip, but Intel tells you what you can and can't do with it, which type of motherboard you're allowed to use it in maybe?
That's all okay with me, because they're not telling me I have to buy it.
Let's face it the only reason overclocking is popular at all is because it is free. If it cost much more money you would just buy faster CPU's on day one.
What, and render my liquid-nitrogen cooling system completely redundant??:)
And if everything that hit the screen was award-worthy, doesn't that imply that it would all get an award of some sort?
Awards are a subjective process. . . but whatever job you work, they can (if used properly) provide a good morale boost and incentive for people to put more of themselves into their work. For instance, if you were recognized for doing what you're paid to do (in terms of an award like "Employee of the Quarter", which comes with a good chunk of bonus money), would that not inspire you to work a little harder, so you could keep getting the recognition and payola? I imagine it might - and it'll more likely than not inspire everyone who cares about recognition and maybe a little more money to work a little harder as well.
Granted, it doesn't need to be televised, in your case. But these people work in the field of TV and movies. . . so televising it makes sense. Additionally, awards typically have more impact on people's morale when they are publicized to an audience of the relevant: other employees, in your case.
Finally. . . it's a bloody party. I'm not sure whether the actors and directors take it as seriously as the sycophants^Wreporters who cover the event, but I'd bet they don't.
Its evolved into an interesting business model. The ignorant masses (oh god, this has turned into an elitist post!!!) click and click and post their generic detail free complaints while those who care can still find useful information
Are you suggesting SlashDot patent "detail-free discussions" (if it hasn't already been done)?
I could deal with a Macintosh mouse. It's the little "pencil eraser mouse" devices on the laptop keyboards that disgust me. . . right along with the rest of the laptop keyboards, come to think of it.
. ..which is activated, oddly enough, by flipping the switch to the "on" position. MS execs explained this was perfectly logical, given the necessity of hitting "Start" to shutdown and CTRL-ALT-DELETE to start-up in previous versions of their software.
This is primarily going to impact people who have, say, 20% disability for a slipped disc they suffered while in the military that wasn't duty-related. Veterans who were disabled in combat or combat support won't be touched, here. And the ones that will, as far as I know, will not actually lose money--they just won't get any more (through concurrent receipt of disability and retirement benefits) than they are already.
Remember that DC is all about spin. Nine times out of ten, "cuts" in Washington's budgets are spending raises that just weren't approved.
When the hackers' actions are affecting government networks and possibly placing people's lives at risk, you're damn straight it's unpatriotic. I'm all for protesting, but whatever happened to writing a letter (on paper) and mailing it to your elected officials? Exactly what purpose does this protest hope to accomplish?
Actually, John Cleese didn't write this. I did a bit of searching on Google for "Axis of Evil Wannabes" (figuring that'd be a good phrase to catch other copies, since it's the title and all), because I was looking for the Onion webpage where I'd first seen it.
If you want to trace this back to its original author, asking the Onion staff would probably be the place to start.
Kill one Hussein, and one of the others would have stepped into place. Or worse, infighting between Saddam's brats would have created a power vacuum. The best way to prevent a power vacuum is to fill it yourself--ergo, we go in and keep things stable until Iraq can pick itself back up and run itself again.
'Course, I'm a hopeless optimist. Things will probably fall apart as soon as we're outta there, if not before.:(
I guess you missed that Use of Force resolution that passed through Congress back in October of last year? Not that I would blame you. . . I don't think Congress really noticed it, either.
What hardware and software are you running that MAKE you click on a particular story on SlashDot?! You should consider upgrading, or something... Anything that takes away from your freedom of choice or dictates exactly what you must read on a website must be a really, really scary technology.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I'm not sure if this is a result of MPAA lobbying or if it's something different at work. Consider that at least three of the states listed (CO, FL, GA) have Republican governors IIRC; and the MPAA's strongest influence is traditionally within the Democratic camp.
No, this is just as likely some harebrained "antiterrorism" measure designed to render all networks wide-open to government surveillance. And since the lobbying is occurring at the state level, it's going to be more difficult to stop than if it occurred at the Federal level--it's a lobbying effort that more resembles a hydra than a snake.
From the article:
I'm not concealing the origin or destination of communication, in any of these cases. If I'm using a router to share my network connection, the origin/destination of my ISP's communications is whatever box is doing the routing. After that, if my router routes a copy of the data from my ISP to another PC in my home, that's okay: the transmission between my router and my ISP is complete, and the new transmission is between my router and one or more PCs on my network.
I've always held that, as far as ISPs are concerned, they're responsible for supporting their network until it reaches the access point of my network--whether that's a single PC, a PC that shares its internet connection, a router, whatever. After that, I can accept the liability of supporting my own equipment. This should be handled the same way.
Actually, better yet, it should be shot down outright. But that's more optimistic than I tend to be about such things.
You consider "I don't like you" offensive? You're new to /., aren't you?
It's his mailbox. If he wants to run a whitelist, that's his option. If you don't want to send him e-mail, that's yours. But calling whitelisting "unethical" just because it's mildly inconvenient in your opinion is highly pretentious.
I hope slashdot will pay closer attention to who's adds they are promoting
Maybe Slashdot should get government approval for what advertisements they display. Would that satisfy you?
Maybe you don't live in the United States; but for the time being at least, people over here are allowed to display adverts that are paid for by political parties and advocacy groups.
Actually, anyone in this country has the right to say whatever they want about it.
Thank you.
On a somewhat related note, while we may not see opt-in mandated for a while, I'm sure companies will be quick to adapt:
By signing up for our free Britney Spears subscription service, you ackwnoledge you have agreed to our draconian privacy policy which allows us to sell your personal data to anybody we want and spam you from now 'till doomsday. To activate your account, we will send you an e-mail shortly. The spamming will begin soon thereafter.
This is one of the reasons why legislating a technical problem won't make it go away--there's always a loophole; and it takes longer to fix a legal loophole than it does for Microsoft to fix their bugs.
That's all okay with me, because they're not telling me I have to buy it.
What, and render my liquid-nitrogen cooling system completely redundant?? :)
And if everything that hit the screen was award-worthy, doesn't that imply that it would all get an award of some sort?
Awards are a subjective process. . . but whatever job you work, they can (if used properly) provide a good morale boost and incentive for people to put more of themselves into their work. For instance, if you were recognized for doing what you're paid to do (in terms of an award like "Employee of the Quarter", which comes with a good chunk of bonus money), would that not inspire you to work a little harder, so you could keep getting the recognition and payola? I imagine it might - and it'll more likely than not inspire everyone who cares about recognition and maybe a little more money to work a little harder as well.
Granted, it doesn't need to be televised, in your case. But these people work in the field of TV and movies. . . so televising it makes sense. Additionally, awards typically have more impact on people's morale when they are publicized to an audience of the relevant: other employees, in your case.
Finally. . . it's a bloody party. I'm not sure whether the actors and directors take it as seriously as the sycophants^Wreporters who cover the event, but I'd bet they don't.
Are you suggesting SlashDot patent "detail-free discussions" (if it hasn't already been done)?
Actually, just make the goth chick the UI. No Geek would ever figure it out. :P
Are these things shock-and-awe-proof? Or just shock-proof?
Does the Army trust its officers with rifles? I thought they only got to play with the M9's. . . :)
Solution: Upgrade it to the newest, slowest version of Windows!
I could deal with a Macintosh mouse. It's the little "pencil eraser mouse" devices on the laptop keyboards that disgust me. . . right along with the rest of the laptop keyboards, come to think of it.
. . .which is activated, oddly enough, by flipping the switch to the "on" position. MS execs explained this was perfectly logical, given the necessity of hitting "Start" to shutdown and CTRL-ALT-DELETE to start-up in previous versions of their software.
This is primarily going to impact people who have, say, 20% disability for a slipped disc they suffered while in the military that wasn't duty-related. Veterans who were disabled in combat or combat support won't be touched, here. And the ones that will, as far as I know, will not actually lose money--they just won't get any more (through concurrent receipt of disability and retirement benefits) than they are already.
Remember that DC is all about spin. Nine times out of ten, "cuts" in Washington's budgets are spending raises that just weren't approved.
Two years later, the "All Your Base" joke still gets +5 Funny. . . I love this place. :)
When the hackers' actions are affecting government networks and possibly placing people's lives at risk, you're damn straight it's unpatriotic. I'm all for protesting, but whatever happened to writing a letter (on paper) and mailing it to your elected officials? Exactly what purpose does this protest hope to accomplish?
Actually, John Cleese didn't write this. I did a bit of searching on Google for "Axis of Evil Wannabes" (figuring that'd be a good phrase to catch other copies, since it's the title and all), because I was looking for the Onion webpage where I'd first seen it.
If you want to trace this back to its original author, asking the Onion staff would probably be the place to start.
Is it still self-congratulation when it's true? How many other armed forces can intimidate the enemy into surrendering before the war even begins?
Kill one Hussein, and one of the others would have stepped into place. Or worse, infighting between Saddam's brats would have created a power vacuum. The best way to prevent a power vacuum is to fill it yourself--ergo, we go in and keep things stable until Iraq can pick itself back up and run itself again.
'Course, I'm a hopeless optimist. Things will probably fall apart as soon as we're outta there, if not before. :(
I guess you missed that Use of Force resolution that passed through Congress back in October of last year? Not that I would blame you. . . I don't think Congress really noticed it, either.
A) Sounds like Patton.
B) Sounds like Zathras.
Cannot run out of time. There is infinite time! You are finite; Zathras is finite. This. . . is wrong tool. No, never use this.
What hardware and software are you running that MAKE you click on a particular story on SlashDot?! You should consider upgrading, or something... Anything that takes away from your freedom of choice or dictates exactly what you must read on a website must be a really, really scary technology.
Maybe he has a beta of MSIE w/ DRM?