That's amusing, the only mod is over-rated. Some anti-opensource idiot I suppose.
Really hope they fix the bug that doesn't cause over/under-rated to show up for meta-moderation soon.
There are some who do Graffiti style art (not gang tags and crap, actual art) only where they have permision to do so. In the minority shure, but they do exist.
Not shure if this 'parisian' is one such though.
I dunno, I waited in line for SW:TPM from about 2 am, on lady had gotten there just as the theatre closed the night before, and she was just getting tickets for her kids. They then did random drawings for line tickets to get actual tickets. The dozen of us who were there all night, or mostly, startled a bunch (approx 100-150) johny-come-latelies by cheering rather loudly when her line ticket was chosen fourth. This was about 10:30am.
I wish the movie had been half the fun of the wait that night with random cool strangers. Including the guy who could answer every question in the starwars trivial pursuit game without effort, the guy with the cool darth maul airbrush on his jeeps spare tire cover and plates that read vader, and the county cop who drove straight from work in his police car just to be in line as early as possible. And of course the lady who camped all night there so her 8 and 10 year olds could have tickets (she'd hadn't even seen all three of the originals yet!).
Folks if your going to mod, try at least reading some comments, knowing somthing about the subjects would help as well. At the very least don't mod if you don't understand the post!!!
Holding the shift key while inserting the cd bypasses this kinda cheapo copy protection, the kind specifically under discussion, the kind that IS the topic for this article.
OK rant done
Actually I believe cd's took over because the record companies pushed it hard.
As I understand it (could be wrong, heard this some time ago) Record companies would take back unsold vinyl and only charge stores for what they actually sold. When cd's first came out no enough people were switching and they were getting stuck with cd's which they shiped to stores with the same deal they shipped vinyl under. So they stoped taking back the vinyl and charging stores for all the ones the store ordered. This forced stores to stock a LOT lower levels of vinyl to avoid getting stuck paying for 100 extra copies of titles that weren't selling. however they could afford to order extra for cd's as they now had even more room for them and the lable would still take those back.
This made it harder for consumers to buy the albums they had without waiting for a new shipment, and gave the illusion that cd's were taking off big time and if they wanted to keep up with the jones they needed to buy a cd player.
At the time the lables wanted cd's to take off because a) they were slightly cheaper to make, and b) you couldn't copy cd's, other than to tape, which was noticably worse quality wich they thought would matter greatly mp3's have finally taught them otherwise.
The riaa have been abusing thier customers over thier crazy anti-copy schemes since the beggining of cd, and I wouldn't be suprise if they tried to kill casset recorders like sony did with betamax as well.
But that's not what he said, he said "...than is typically traded on the internet..."
What is typically traded on the internet is MP3 encoded, a lossy format.
Not so much a standard, it's just that it's cheaper to make one chip (or set of) for both and put both featuresets, especialy since cd-rom is mostly a superset of cd player, on both devices.
Spybot, Adaware, and McAfee anti-virus 8.0 pro do not detect c-dilla and/or do not consider it any sort of malware, at least not the version of c-dilla that puts data in areas not normally touched by a standard windows,nt, or linux format command.
By the way anyone know of a tool that safely removes that crap that c-dilla hides from format commands? Or better yet let's me edit or delete it?
Whatever you do DO NOT upgrade to 8.0 It behaves like malware of all sorts. It loads up even when you tell it not to. If you shut it off it leaves the main task running in the background.
AND get this, it tries to connect to the net EVERY five minutes. If you delete it's entry in the task scheduler it re-install it on next boot. though I dunno why as it tries to connect even without the job being on the system, even when it's 'shut down'.
This connecting every five minutes isn't to bad on xp as it won't do anything if it finds your not currently online, but on the win9x series it pops up a connect dialog every five minutes, or worse just dials out. This has cost some who pay for all phone calls by the minute a lot of $$, in fact it dosen't hang up when it's done eigther. imagine you left home for work only to come home and find out your computer has been online for 8 hours and racked up a nice fat bill for you.
I bought the pro copy so I could install on both my machine and a relatives machine. Then it played it's little tricks and all but rendered the computer unusable. I had to uninstall it then go in and clean out the crap it left behind before the system was useable again.
It was causing one game to crash the system hard, even when 'turned off' by trying to phone home. When the dial up networking box poped up the game would lock, note alt-tab never caused so much as a hickup on the game, it would happily pause and wait till you got back to it.
Not necesarily. It just means the two 'sides' have differing spins. All it realy implies is that both sides are, at times, unhappy they're not getting it all thier way.
All I know is if the constitution says A, the founding fathers say in thier dialogs at the time discussing what they wrote, that yes indeed A is A and scotus asserts !a, then scotus is wrong.
A clear example might be the first amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;<b> or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press</b>; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." [emphasis mine]
Note the emphasized portion. Yet SCOTUS has held, iirc, a compelling intrest or some such, in allowing 'obscenity' laws. And even said they couldn't define obscenity. My response is: so , the first says nothing about obscenity, just no law.
I use this example because it's a fairly black and white case, not because I think we should have billboards with graphic sex on them to advertise strip bars or some such nonsense.
And there are other examples. The point behind such strict and absolute restriction on the federal government is not because the founders were so absolute minded, or because they were lazy.
The simple matter is they understood the slow encroachment that would happen without very strong restraint on a government and a watchfull, intelligent, citizenry. Unfortunately for all they gave us the first we are often failing to be the second.
They also used such blunt uncomplicated language to lower the bar so that the common man could see plainly when thier government was breaking the rules. Many of them were very well educated, some in law, and could have quite easily wrote a nicely complicated piece of leagalize that would require a degree to decipher.
Remember these men had just succesfully tossed one bad government and had no desire to replace it with another.
Fighting? what fight... oh you mean the dog and pony show they distract us with.
Trust me, the minute it even begins to look like a three party system they close ranks so fast it'll make your head spin.
Just look at the 'presidential debates' in 1992.
They let in one guy to rich to ignore, while refusing to let in a candidate that repeatedly met thier ever moving 'requirements' to join untill they simply refused point blank to even say what the new 'requirements' were.
Actually the senate HAS NOT made this a law, they only passed it, it still has to pass the house. Then the President has to sign it. considering it was Unanimous, these seem fairly likely though.
In fact since the house hasn't passed it(unless I missed that in the article), they could quite easily drop it, or change it 1 year / 2 years or 10/50 years or whatever they feel like. Of course if they change it the senate has to re-pass the changed version and so on till they both agree and then Bush still has to sign it.
Well actually it's they tend to only get caught in one (or one related set of) crime(s) then wise up and become a professional crook by running for office.
And the first amendment is how we know when to use the 2nd and encourage our neighbors to do likewise.
I always found the relationship of the first two amendments a beautiful case of mutual recursion.
Saddly enough, if it's imposed slowly enough and a few things are not overdone (starvation mostly), People will gladly accept slavery or even meer opression.
And it's not that an oppressive government is caused primarily by evil maelfactors out to opress, thoug a few along the way usually help, but by the well meaning crying out about security or the children, or imposing thier narrow prejudices of right and wrong on thier nieghbors for thier own good.
Even the founding fathers understood that if we didn't stay informed, and didn't constantly strive to remain free, that any constitution would be just words on paper.
Actually multi stage and somtimes even the tricky multi enginge first stage rockets are often built.
The in the latter case big stabilization fins are recomended.
I'm shure you could get more than 200 grams moving, and going farther than 350ft with a bit of work, in fact I rember adds in the late 70's - early 80's for camera rockets that caried more wiegth higher with cameras in the nose and tiny electronic devices to cause the camera to start taking pictures on the way down.
Now I'm shure that with more modern tech some, err, interesting things could be done.
"Anyway, regulating the trade of rocket engines clearly falls within Congress power to regulate interstate commerce. So this discussion has been moot."
Eh only if there is interstate commerce involved. If I build and test a model rocket with local (my state only) suplies. It's no longer within federal jurisdiction and does NOT fall under the INTERSTATE commerce clause.
They may not have use the words 'inalienable right' within the constitution But the founders certainly believed in inalienable rights as can be seen in thier writings and a certain other famous document they wrote.
The fact that scotus has seen fit to allow errosion of our rights in many cases doesn't make it right or contitutionaly correct except in a purely pragmatic sense.
The whole concept of the 'interest of the state' having any value when said value would erode the rights of the individual would almost certainly be seen repugnant, or at least suspicious in the extreem, by the founding fathers. I would tend to agree.
No kidding, I remember reading about a man arrested for growing several hundred marijuana plants in California.
The problem is he was growing it with a license to do so from the State of California under thier medical marijuana law and was in full compliance with said law. None was leaving the state or being used by other than citizens of the state.
He was tried and convicted in federal court under the federal statutes and was not allowed to introduce the fact of his autorization from the state to do what he was doing.
After convicting him the jury found out this little detail and to a member signed a petition claiming that they had essentialy been duped into a false verdict.
Now since everything took place within california, and according to it's laws. HOW the HELL does the federal gvt thing they have ANY jurisdiction.
You know, coinincidently that same question, no not about nukes in your basement, about what are arms in the second amendment.
The reply was "Every sword of soldier, however terrible" Jefferson IIRC.
I'm not shure, but didn't Bush sign an extension on the so called 'assault weapons ban'.
Of course the only difference in many cases was the stock of the rifle. on banned weapons it's lightwieght plastic, on 'approved' weapons it's heavy hardwood.
Just currious why you don't like guns. The bad guys will always have them. But if the good guys have them then the bad guys are much less able to terrorize the good guys. Note that bad guys aren't just the muggers and rapist.
Still your a lot more honest and reasonable than most anti-gun people. Most are nutcases who can only see the rare tragedy and scream 'what about the children' almost incoherently.
"I don't want to get much into guns because it is a bit of a charged subject. The issue is where do we set limits between the right to bear a squirt-pistol and the right to bear crew-served artillery? Obviously there needs to be a ceiling somewhere, but quantifying it is hard."
Well we could set it were the guys that wrote the second amendment did.
"What are arms? Every sword of the soldier, however terrible" - Thomas Jefferson (IIRC)
I think a reasonable level however would be any single man usable weapon, preferably also excluding NBC, especially Bio. (nuclear and chemical are finite per release, biologicals have a nasty habit of reproduction and mutation)
Problem is to be totatly in compliance with the 2nd here in the usa, you need a new amendment to ban ANY weapon from the citizens if you are not going to ingnore the actual meaning of the 2nd.
"only a self-contained non-internet access network is 100% safe."
Not even that. I've had to de-louse a computer in exactly that situation. cause: student with floppy. This was just before win98 came out.
Now if you remove the floppy drive and lock down any ability to boot from cd-rom it'll help some. But even still unless you completely remove every non-sysadmins ability to install anything or run most things, you still have the potential for malware to find it's way onto the system.
Slashdot Mirror
That's amusing, the only mod is over-rated. Some anti-opensource idiot I suppose.
Really hope they fix the bug that doesn't cause over/under-rated to show up for meta-moderation soon.
Mycroft
There are some who do Graffiti style art (not gang tags and crap, actual art) only where they have permision to do so. In the minority shure, but they do exist.
Not shure if this 'parisian' is one such though.
Mycroft
I dunno, I waited in line for SW:TPM from about 2 am, on lady had gotten there just as the theatre closed the night before, and she was just getting tickets for her kids. They then did random drawings for line tickets to get actual tickets. The dozen of us who were there all night, or mostly, startled a bunch (approx 100-150) johny-come-latelies by cheering rather loudly when her line ticket was chosen fourth. This was about 10:30am.
I wish the movie had been half the fun of the wait that night with random cool strangers. Including the guy who could answer every question in the starwars trivial pursuit game without effort, the guy with the cool darth maul airbrush on his jeeps spare tire cover and plates that read vader, and the county cop who drove straight from work in his police car just to be in line as early as possible. And of course the lady who camped all night there so her 8 and 10 year olds could have tickets (she'd hadn't even seen all three of the originals yet!).
Mycroft
Glad it's nod thier heads and not shake thier heads.
Mcyroft
OFF TOPIC!?!?!?!?!?!
Folks if your going to mod, try at least reading some comments, knowing somthing about the subjects would help as well. At the very least don't mod if you don't understand the post!!!
Holding the shift key while inserting the cd bypasses this kinda cheapo copy protection, the kind specifically under discussion, the kind that IS the topic for this article.
OK rant done
Mycroft
Uhm, no offence, but those are useless links.
"sorry your search is only retained for a limited time" or some such nonsense.
Mycroft
Actually I believe cd's took over because the record companies pushed it hard.
As I understand it (could be wrong, heard this some time ago) Record companies would take back unsold vinyl and only charge stores for what they actually sold. When cd's first came out no enough people were switching and they were getting stuck with cd's which they shiped to stores with the same deal they shipped vinyl under. So they stoped taking back the vinyl and charging stores for all the ones the store ordered. This forced stores to stock a LOT lower levels of vinyl to avoid getting stuck paying for 100 extra copies of titles that weren't selling. however they could afford to order extra for cd's as they now had even more room for them and the lable would still take those back.
This made it harder for consumers to buy the albums they had without waiting for a new shipment, and gave the illusion that cd's were taking off big time and if they wanted to keep up with the jones they needed to buy a cd player.
At the time the lables wanted cd's to take off because a) they were slightly cheaper to make, and b) you couldn't copy cd's, other than to tape, which was noticably worse quality wich they thought would matter greatly mp3's have finally taught them otherwise.
The riaa have been abusing thier customers over thier crazy anti-copy schemes since the beggining of cd, and I wouldn't be suprise if they tried to kill casset recorders like sony did with betamax as well.
Mycroft
But that's not what he said, he said "...than is typically traded on the internet..."
What is typically traded on the internet is MP3 encoded, a lossy format.
Mycroft
Not so much a standard, it's just that it's cheaper to make one chip (or set of) for both and put both featuresets, especialy since cd-rom is mostly a superset of cd player, on both devices.
Mycroft
Spybot, Adaware, and McAfee anti-virus 8.0 pro do not detect c-dilla and/or do not consider it any sort of malware, at least not the version of c-dilla that puts data in areas not normally touched by a standard windows,nt, or linux format command.
By the way anyone know of a tool that safely removes that crap that c-dilla hides from format commands? Or better yet let's me edit or delete it?
Mycroft
Whatever you do DO NOT upgrade to 8.0
It behaves like malware of all sorts. It loads up even when you tell it not to. If you shut it off it leaves the main task running in the background.
AND get this, it tries to connect to the net EVERY five minutes. If you delete it's entry in the task scheduler it re-install it on next boot. though I dunno why as it tries to connect even without the job being on the system, even when it's 'shut down'.
This connecting every five minutes isn't to bad on xp as it won't do anything if it finds your not currently online, but on the win9x series it pops up a connect dialog every five minutes, or worse just dials out. This has cost some who pay for all phone calls by the minute a lot of $$, in fact it dosen't hang up when it's done eigther. imagine you left home for work only to come home and find out your computer has been online for 8 hours and racked up a nice fat bill for you.
I bought the pro copy so I could install on both my machine and a relatives machine. Then it played it's little tricks and all but rendered the computer unusable. I had to uninstall it then go in and clean out the crap it left behind before the system was useable again.
It was causing one game to crash the system hard, even when 'turned off' by trying to phone home. When the dial up networking box poped up the game would lock, note alt-tab never caused so much as a hickup on the game, it would happily pause and wait till you got back to it.
Mycroft
Mycroft
Not necesarily. It just means the two 'sides' have differing spins. All it realy implies is that both sides are, at times, unhappy they're not getting it all thier way.
All I know is if the constitution says A, the founding fathers say in thier dialogs at the time discussing what they wrote, that yes indeed A is A and scotus asserts !a, then scotus is wrong.
A clear example might be the first amendment
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;<b> or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press</b>; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." [emphasis mine]
Note the emphasized portion. Yet SCOTUS has held, iirc, a compelling intrest or some such, in allowing 'obscenity' laws. And even said they couldn't define obscenity. My response is: so , the first says nothing about obscenity, just no law.
I use this example because it's a fairly black and white case, not because I think we should have billboards with graphic sex on them to advertise strip bars or some such nonsense.
And there are other examples. The point behind such strict and absolute restriction on the federal government is not because the founders were so absolute minded, or because they were lazy.
The simple matter is they understood the slow encroachment that would happen without very strong restraint on a government and a watchfull, intelligent, citizenry. Unfortunately for all they gave us the first we are often failing to be the second.
They also used such blunt uncomplicated language to lower the bar so that the common man could see plainly when thier government was breaking the rules. Many of them were very well educated, some in law, and could have quite easily wrote a nicely complicated piece of leagalize that would require a degree to decipher.
Remember these men had just succesfully tossed one bad government and had no desire to replace it with another.
Mycroft
Fighting? what fight... oh you mean the dog and pony show they distract us with.
Trust me, the minute it even begins to look like a three party system they close ranks so fast it'll make your head spin.
Just look at the 'presidential debates' in 1992.
They let in one guy to rich to ignore, while refusing to let in a candidate that repeatedly met thier ever moving 'requirements' to join untill they simply refused point blank to even say what the new 'requirements' were.
Mycroft
Actually the senate HAS NOT made this a law, they only passed it, it still has to pass the house. Then the President has to sign it. considering it was Unanimous, these seem fairly likely though.
In fact since the house hasn't passed it(unless I missed that in the article), they could quite easily drop it, or change it 1 year / 2 years or 10/50 years or whatever they feel like. Of course if they change it the senate has to re-pass the changed version and so on till they both agree and then Bush still has to sign it.
Mycroft
Well actually it's they tend to only get caught in one (or one related set of) crime(s) then wise up and become a professional crook by running for office.
Mycroft
And the first amendment is how we know when to use the 2nd and encourage our neighbors to do likewise.
I always found the relationship of the first two amendments a beautiful case of mutual recursion.
Mycroft
Saddly enough, if it's imposed slowly enough and a few things are not overdone (starvation mostly), People will gladly accept slavery or even meer opression.
And it's not that an oppressive government is caused primarily by evil maelfactors out to opress, thoug a few along the way usually help, but by the well meaning crying out about security or the children, or imposing thier narrow prejudices of right and wrong on thier nieghbors for thier own good.
Even the founding fathers understood that if we didn't stay informed, and didn't constantly strive to remain free, that any constitution would be just words on paper.
Mycroft
Actually multi stage and somtimes even the tricky multi enginge first stage rockets are often built.
The in the latter case big stabilization fins are recomended.
I'm shure you could get more than 200 grams moving, and going farther than 350ft with a bit of work, in fact I rember adds in the late 70's - early 80's for camera rockets that caried more wiegth higher with cameras in the nose and tiny electronic devices to cause the camera to start taking pictures on the way down.
Now I'm shure that with more modern tech some, err, interesting things could be done.
Mycroft
"Anyway, regulating the trade of rocket engines clearly falls within Congress power to regulate interstate commerce. So this discussion has been moot."
Eh only if there is interstate commerce involved.
If I build and test a model rocket with local (my state only) suplies. It's no longer within federal jurisdiction and does NOT fall under the INTERSTATE commerce clause.
Mycroft
They may not have use the words 'inalienable right' within the constitution But the founders certainly believed in inalienable rights as can be seen in thier writings and a certain other famous document they wrote.
The fact that scotus has seen fit to allow errosion of our rights in many cases doesn't make it right or contitutionaly correct except in a purely pragmatic sense.
The whole concept of the 'interest of the state' having any value when said value would erode the rights of the individual would almost certainly be seen repugnant, or at least suspicious in the extreem, by the founding fathers. I would tend to agree.
Mycroft
No kidding, I remember reading about a man arrested for growing several hundred marijuana plants in California.
The problem is he was growing it with a license to do so from the State of California under thier medical marijuana law and was in full compliance with said law. None was leaving the state or being used by other than citizens of the state.
He was tried and convicted in federal court under the federal statutes and was not allowed to introduce the fact of his autorization from the state to do what he was doing.
After convicting him the jury found out this little detail and to a member signed a petition claiming that they had essentialy been duped into a false verdict.
Now since everything took place within california, and according to it's laws. HOW the HELL does the federal gvt thing they have ANY jurisdiction.
Mycroft
You know, coinincidently that same question, no not about nukes in your basement, about what are arms in the second amendment.
The reply was "Every sword of soldier, however terrible" Jefferson IIRC.
Mycroft
I'm not shure, but didn't Bush sign an extension on the so called 'assault weapons ban'.
Of course the only difference in many cases was the stock of the rifle. on banned weapons it's lightwieght plastic, on 'approved' weapons it's heavy hardwood.
Just currious why you don't like guns. The bad guys will always have them. But if the good guys have them then the bad guys are much less able to terrorize the good guys. Note that bad guys aren't just the muggers and rapist.
Still your a lot more honest and reasonable than most anti-gun people. Most are nutcases who can only see the rare tragedy and scream 'what about the children' almost incoherently.
Mycroft
"I don't want to get much into guns because it is a bit of a charged subject. The issue is where do we set limits between the right to bear a squirt-pistol and the right to bear crew-served artillery? Obviously there needs to be a ceiling somewhere, but quantifying it is hard."
Well we could set it were the guys that wrote the second amendment did.
"What are arms? Every sword of the soldier, however terrible" - Thomas Jefferson (IIRC)
I think a reasonable level however would be any single man usable weapon, preferably also excluding NBC, especially Bio. (nuclear and chemical are finite per release, biologicals have a nasty habit of reproduction and mutation)
Problem is to be totatly in compliance with the 2nd here in the usa, you need a new amendment to ban ANY weapon from the citizens if you are not going to ingnore the actual meaning of the 2nd.
Mycroft
"only a self-contained non-internet access network is 100% safe."
Not even that. I've had to de-louse a computer in exactly that situation. cause: student with floppy. This was just before win98 came out.
Now if you remove the floppy drive and lock down any ability to boot from cd-rom it'll help some. But even still unless you completely remove every non-sysadmins ability to install anything or run most things, you still have the potential for malware to find it's way onto the system.
Mycroft