I'm not exactly normal. And I am actually able to do some things that are sort of unusual, but whether that is the result of mutation, or just good genetics....
I'll be pretty shocked if anything actually of use turns up. I'll definitely try to take a look myself; I've been searching for years for some of the info on the nuclear tests done in the late 50's, as my dad was in 13 of them. Hearing him talking about how much fun it was being in a foxhole 1.5 miles from ground zero, and digging out the rad badges and other stuff he kept as a souveneir, then seeing that there is no record to be found ANYWHERE that his unit was anywhere near where the tests were done has always fascinated me with the subject; hopefully someone will slip up and release a unit list for the Guinea Pig troops.
very interesting; I hadn't really thought of the Brit Police State being in answer to a specific, outlined threat; I was under the assumption that it was just a general power grab. That almost mkes me sympathetic to the people responsible. Don't get me wrong, I still think any right-thinking person should disable or destroy any surveillance camera they come across on public land, but at least they may have a reason.
I don't think I expressed myself as clearly as I was hoping I did; I also fail at the analogy game, I used to try to do it, but frankly, it never worked for me. So instead, i'll try this: Before this, if i had 3 links on my site, A] pointing to an article which popped up in a new window, B] pointing to a video which popped up in a new window, and C] which caused a inline frame to display the video from B on the same page as my ads, then you could only hope to sue me with a reasonable chance of success for example C; I'm taking your stuff, denying you profit from ad revenue, while I'm enriching myself. However, it would have been reasonable for the other webmaster to attempt to make use of web technology to prevent this from happening; blocking refer's from my website, or using more complex file obfuscation; only if that failed would you have, in my opinion, a real leg to stand on for going to court. As to the other 2 examples, A is obviously standard practice; and for B, well, there is nothing saying the person didn't copy that link from another website; you might be able to get a judge to have you stop linking to it, but if you did it without trying a tech solution first, or maybe even just asking, well, then you would just be a jerk.
With the new decision, as I read it, the situation is this: all a person has to do is sue you. using your google example, you wouldn't have to make an entry in your robots.txt, you can sue! No, not everyone would be such a jerk. But a hell of a lot of people would be; this opens the door to so many things its ridiculous. Think about the spammers; they send out 100 cease-and-desist orders to 100 different sites, with the knowledge that a small percentage of those people will ignore it, leaving the way open to a slam-dunk punitive judgement. The sites that DO comply have increased cost due to the neccesity of changing their sites everytime some idiot wants to screw with them.
I guess what we need is a registry of sane websites, that allow normal linking methods; if you aren't on the list, you don't get linked to by anybody who wants to avoid litigation.... There is a good business model somewhere in that for somebody with more time on their hands than I have.
I'm just curious why I'm not seeing "prior restraint" anywhere; this should have only been decided by a federal magistrate. Oh, sorry, forgot what century it was. all that posse comitatus, ex post facto, habeas corpus & prior restraint crap is Sooooo 20th century!
I'm tempted to post anonymously, but... the point I was trying to make is that the judge imposed a penalty against linking to materal, because it was copyrighted. well, guess what. any web page I myself create has "copyright 2006, paganizer's alias"; If IRTFA correctly, that means I can sue someone for linking to anything I've ever created. as can any website writer. anything indexed by google can be penalized, unless specifically in the public domain. and the standard, BTW, is not to embed. do not make it appear that someone else's stuff is an integral part of YOUR website.
There ARE other reasons. I have a few provisional patents for stopping denial of service attacks; the reason I don't do anything with them is that there would be no way to keep it out of government hands, and by definition the concept can be used to really put the hurt on freedom of speech....and I'm keeping the patent so that if anyone else comes out with it, I can sue them into oblivion, or failing that, release it into the wild. And I see a problem with your statement; what about someone like Robert Heinlein? when he died, his copyrighted works went to supporting his wife of a gazillion years, ginny, which I just can't see anyone having a problem with.
I may be way, way off here, but the usual argument is that DRM & by association the DMCA are Evil because they can restrict your "fair use" rights. The reason it sucks that analog recorders are going away is that even though copy protection schemes for VCR's exist, they are laughably easy to get around, thereby providing a means to exercise your Fair Use rights. Unfortunately, DRM is starting to get to the point where it is NOT easy to get around; DRM 11 is actually damn near impossible to get around, thereby making it near impossible to exert your fair use right to make a backup of something you have purchased; without a analog recording device, you won't be able to exploit the analog hole and make a low res fair use copy either.
The Shadow has my very favorite-of-all-time dialogue in it.
Margo: Oh, God I dreamed.
Lamont: So did I. What did you dream?
Margo: I was lying naked on a beach in the South Seas. The tide was coming up to my toes. The sun was beating down. My skin hot and cool at the same time. It was wonderful. What was yours?
Lamont: I dreamed I tore all the skin off my face and was somebody else underneath.
Margo: You have problems.
Lamont: I'm aware of that.
I disagree. Unless an application makes use of multicore/hyperthreading instead of single/multi CPU, if it runs in XP, it'll run in win2k. Aside from that distinction, XP is just a bloated shell, integrated DRM, product activation, and a mess of 2nd rate utilities thrown on to the Win2k/NT5 platform.
I'm betting that is your AV; I've had win2k server running on a machine with 64mb & McAfee, no problems. even symantec corporate 7.5 is a resource hog, in comparison.
I think you are sort-of right. MS killed the 64-bit kernel they had completed for win2k (they had ia64 done, and released Win2k ASLE, which no one could afford, with it), so if you have a 64-bit CPU, it's gonna run better on xp-64 or better. And you are half right on the cpu/core thing; A Multiprocessor machine will scream like a banshee on Win2k, but support for hyperthread/multicore CPU's requires code that was originally designed for win2k, then canceled and rolled in to XP. (seeing a trend here?) Amount of RAM.... sorry, you are just wrong on that one. Win2003 server can handle memory a little better than win2k server, but not at a level you would ever notice. Unless I am wrong, I don't have my old companies research sitting in front of me.
Just finished installing it on my only computer that will run it; the two search bars sort of freaked me out. First impression: it's a skinned firefox 2nd impression: you can't seem to move the tool bars to a better position; I can't help but think this is possible, but it's not obvious. 3rd impression: They moved things, like standard windows file/edit stuff, to buttons. why? just to show a difference from IE6? it's not easier, and EVERY FLIPPIN' microsoft user knows how to do things that way. final thoughts: kinda neat, will still use firefox/seamonkey by default.
One of my best friends sons is Air Force, and is doing convoy escort, guarding prisoners, and he didn't volunteer for it; he is a Radar Technician. The FACT is is that while the combat services are claiming that there is no shortage, it is a very far thing from the truth.
I'm not offended. I joined in 1987, to fight the godless communists. Apparently, this event was enough to push them over the edge, resulting in the fall of their Evil Empire(tm 2006 microsoft).
I was injured during GW1, and got out about the same time it was mainly over. I still think GW1 was righteous, even if it was caused by Bush Sr. giving a wink and a nod to Iraq; that information didn't come out until after the shooting was over.
I don't think I would have participated in GW2; I never thought that Iraq had anything to do.... well, with anything. I would have been OK with going to Afghanistan, if for no other reason than that the Taliban were assholes and were destroying ancient works of art.
If GW2 is still ongoing when my son turns 18 in a couple of years, I'm probably going to look into moving the family to Canada.
I hate to be a cliche, but one of the reasons I joined (in addition to it being a family tradition) was to defend your right to have that opinion. Which, by the way, I agree with: The Draft is unconstitutional, and I would have, I think, gone to jail (well, canada actually) if drafted.
Hate to tell you this, but.. They are forcing Navy & Air Farce types into combat positions, due to the shortage of Army & Marine types. Which means I have started talking up the Coast Guard to my son, even though they are being forced to do things just as immoral as the other services, just less dangerous. Ah, well. He may decide to go to college. or Canada. Note: As a Service Connected Disabled Vet, I feel I have an obligation to comment on this.
This will probably be the first time a large number of customers begins to "get it" in regards to having DRM force-fed down our throats.
In addition, this will probably be the first time that the lack of a analog hole will actually result in a large number of people being screwed. (its a joke)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not exactly normal.
And I am actually able to do some things that are sort of unusual, but whether that is the result of mutation, or just good genetics....
Nope, not unless they found someone who looked EXACTLY like him.
I'll be pretty shocked if anything actually of use turns up. I'll definitely try to take a look myself; I've been searching for years for some of the info on the nuclear tests done in the late 50's, as my dad was in 13 of them.
Hearing him talking about how much fun it was being in a foxhole 1.5 miles from ground zero, and digging out the rad badges and other stuff he kept as a souveneir, then seeing that there is no record to be found ANYWHERE that his unit was anywhere near where the tests were done has always fascinated me with the subject; hopefully someone will slip up and release a unit list for the Guinea Pig troops.
very interesting; I hadn't really thought of the Brit Police State being in answer to a specific, outlined threat; I was under the assumption that it was just a general power grab.
That almost mkes me sympathetic to the people responsible.
Don't get me wrong, I still think any right-thinking person should disable or destroy any surveillance camera they come across on public land, but at least they may have a reason.
Yes, Exactly! great video, BTW.
I said this on fark a few days ago, but...
All you need is a Catapult, and a big Circus-type net on top of the building you work at, repeat at your house.
I don't think I expressed myself as clearly as I was hoping I did; I also fail at the analogy game, I used to try to do it, but frankly, it never worked for me.
So instead, i'll try this:
Before this, if i had 3 links on my site, A] pointing to an article which popped up in a new window, B] pointing to a video which popped up in a new window, and C] which caused a inline frame to display the video from B on the same page as my ads, then you could only hope to sue me with a reasonable chance of success for example C; I'm taking your stuff, denying you profit from ad revenue, while I'm enriching myself.
However, it would have been reasonable for the other webmaster to attempt to make use of web technology to prevent this from happening; blocking refer's from my website, or using more complex file obfuscation; only if that failed would you have, in my opinion, a real leg to stand on for going to court.
As to the other 2 examples, A is obviously standard practice; and for B, well, there is nothing saying the person didn't copy that link from another website; you might be able to get a judge to have you stop linking to it, but if you did it without trying a tech solution first, or maybe even just asking, well, then you would just be a jerk.
With the new decision, as I read it, the situation is this: all a person has to do is sue you. using your google example, you wouldn't have to make an entry in your robots.txt, you can sue!
No, not everyone would be such a jerk. But a hell of a lot of people would be; this opens the door to so many things its ridiculous. Think about the spammers; they send out 100 cease-and-desist orders to 100 different sites, with the knowledge that a small percentage of those people will ignore it, leaving the way open to a slam-dunk punitive judgement. The sites that DO comply have increased cost due to the neccesity of changing their sites everytime some idiot wants to screw with them.
I guess what we need is a registry of sane websites, that allow normal linking methods; if you aren't on the list, you don't get linked to by anybody who wants to avoid litigation....
There is a good business model somewhere in that for somebody with more time on their hands than I have.
I'm just curious why I'm not seeing "prior restraint" anywhere; this should have only been decided by a federal magistrate.
Oh, sorry, forgot what century it was. all that posse comitatus, ex post facto, habeas corpus & prior restraint crap is Sooooo 20th century!
I'm tempted to post anonymously, but...
the point I was trying to make is that the judge imposed a penalty against linking to materal, because it was copyrighted.
well, guess what. any web page I myself create has "copyright 2006, paganizer's alias"; If IRTFA correctly, that means I can sue someone for linking to anything I've ever created. as can any website writer. anything indexed by google can be penalized, unless specifically in the public domain.
and the standard, BTW, is not to embed. do not make it appear that someone else's stuff is an integral part of YOUR website.
Wow. They made the entire Internet illegal.
There ARE other reasons. ...and I'm keeping the patent so that if anyone else comes out with it, I can sue them into oblivion, or failing that, release it into the wild.
I have a few provisional patents for stopping denial of service attacks; the reason I don't do anything with them is that there would be no way to keep it out of government hands, and by definition the concept can be used to really put the hurt on freedom of speech.
And I see a problem with your statement; what about someone like Robert Heinlein? when he died, his copyrighted works went to supporting his wife of a gazillion years, ginny, which I just can't see anyone having a problem with.
I may be way, way off here, but the usual argument is that DRM & by association the DMCA are Evil because they can restrict your "fair use" rights.
The reason it sucks that analog recorders are going away is that even though copy protection schemes for VCR's exist, they are laughably easy to get around, thereby providing a means to exercise your Fair Use rights.
Unfortunately, DRM is starting to get to the point where it is NOT easy to get around; DRM 11 is actually damn near impossible to get around, thereby making it near impossible to exert your fair use right to make a backup of something you have purchased; without a analog recording device, you won't be able to exploit the analog hole and make a low res fair use copy either.
Very, Very well said.
And even then, it would not apply to copies made for "fair use".
The Shadow has my very favorite-of-all-time dialogue in it. Margo: Oh, God I dreamed. Lamont: So did I. What did you dream? Margo: I was lying naked on a beach in the South Seas. The tide was coming up to my toes. The sun was beating down. My skin hot and cool at the same time. It was wonderful. What was yours? Lamont: I dreamed I tore all the skin off my face and was somebody else underneath. Margo: You have problems. Lamont: I'm aware of that.
I disagree.
Unless an application makes use of multicore/hyperthreading instead of single/multi CPU, if it runs in XP, it'll run in win2k.
Aside from that distinction, XP is just a bloated shell, integrated DRM, product activation, and a mess of 2nd rate utilities thrown on to the Win2k/NT5 platform.
I'm betting that is your AV; I've had win2k server running on a machine with 64mb & McAfee, no problems. even symantec corporate 7.5 is a resource hog, in comparison.
You forgot about the paranoid weirdos that like having a modern operating system that doesn't come with integrated DRM.
But aside from that, ROFL.
I think you are sort-of right.
MS killed the 64-bit kernel they had completed for win2k (they had ia64 done, and released Win2k ASLE, which no one could afford, with it), so if you have a 64-bit CPU, it's gonna run better on xp-64 or better.
And you are half right on the cpu/core thing; A Multiprocessor machine will scream like a banshee on Win2k, but support for hyperthread/multicore CPU's requires code that was originally designed for win2k, then canceled and rolled in to XP.
(seeing a trend here?)
Amount of RAM.... sorry, you are just wrong on that one. Win2003 server can handle memory a little better than win2k server, but not at a level you would ever notice.
Unless I am wrong, I don't have my old companies research sitting in front of me.
Just finished installing it on my only computer that will run it; the two search bars sort of freaked me out.
First impression: it's a skinned firefox
2nd impression: you can't seem to move the tool bars to a better position; I can't help but think this is possible, but it's not obvious.
3rd impression: They moved things, like standard windows file/edit stuff, to buttons. why? just to show a difference from IE6? it's not easier, and EVERY FLIPPIN' microsoft user knows how to do things that way.
final thoughts: kinda neat, will still use firefox/seamonkey by default.
Anonymous coward... how appropriate.
I never said I had a Purple Heart, Do I know you?
It is no joke; here are some links; you have to read between the lines a little.s _2_5/ai_n16057511o n.asp
/ 20060922.aspx
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123011448
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBW/i
http://www.afa.org/magazine/July2005/0705expediti
and for Navy types:
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmoral/articles
One of my best friends sons is Air Force, and is doing convoy escort, guarding prisoners, and he didn't volunteer for it; he is a Radar Technician.
The FACT is is that while the combat services are claiming that there is no shortage, it is a very far thing from the truth.
I'm not offended.
I joined in 1987, to fight the godless communists. Apparently, this event was enough to push them over the edge, resulting in the fall of their Evil Empire(tm 2006 microsoft).
I was injured during GW1, and got out about the same time it was mainly over. I still think GW1 was righteous, even if it was caused by Bush Sr. giving a wink and a nod to Iraq; that information didn't come out until after the shooting was over.
I don't think I would have participated in GW2; I never thought that Iraq had anything to do.... well, with anything. I would have been OK with going to Afghanistan, if for no other reason than that the Taliban were assholes and were destroying ancient works of art.
If GW2 is still ongoing when my son turns 18 in a couple of years, I'm probably going to look into moving the family to Canada.
I hate to be a cliche, but one of the reasons I joined (in addition to it being a family tradition) was to defend your right to have that opinion. Which, by the way, I agree with: The Draft is unconstitutional, and I would have, I think, gone to jail (well, canada actually) if drafted.
Hate to tell you this, but..
They are forcing Navy & Air Farce types into combat positions, due to the shortage of Army & Marine types.
Which means I have started talking up the Coast Guard to my son, even though they are being forced to do things just as immoral as the other services, just less dangerous.
Ah, well. He may decide to go to college. or Canada.
Note: As a Service Connected Disabled Vet, I feel I have an obligation to comment on this.
This will probably be the first time a large number of customers begins to "get it" in regards to having DRM force-fed down our throats.
In addition, this will probably be the first time that the lack of a analog hole will actually result in a large number of people being screwed.
(its a joke)