But don't all the copyright pages say "reproduced or transmitted"? That would implicate the person who is transmitting it, not receiving it. And I don't think "possessing stolen goods" applies here. Maybe it does. IANAL, just a punky teenager who hates the RIAA like the rest of them.;-)
I found an interesting theoretical loophole in fair use and copyright law, albeit one that probably wouldn't stand up in court. Let's say you have a 5-minute song. You get 300 people to rip their CD's (using the same settings to ensure a valid file), and provide only 1 second of the song each. Fair use allows you to quote small portions of something, so the sharers wouldn't be at fault, and since offering a quotation isn't copyright infringement, collating them into a copy (that you don't redistribute) should work. Any thoughts?
Parade isn't a tech mag, but it is still another magazine. I find it odd that Wired, a tech magazine, advertises tech articles in other, less-techy magazines.
You know, I naively had the idea when I read the title of the article in Wired that it might be about distributing Linux with BitTorrent, or something else legal. I should have known better. Wired is a sellout... any tech magazine with articles for vodka and ads for Parade magazine (in Wired magazine--advertising for their competitors?! whatever...) with the caption "Ever seen a magazine decode the digital world?" is a tech magazine that has lost its way.
It plays a high-frequency (I don't remember the frequency, but it's high enough not to disturb the black and white sets) sine wave on top of the luminance signal, and phase-shifts it to indicate hue. What a hack.
I see one major problem with this, related to the fact that it uses URL's: it requires an HTTP server. By requiring an HTTP server, it requires you to either run your own server, get a free account somewhere, or pay someone for one. Running your own is beyond the expertise of many users, and even with a nice program for it, dynamic IP's and stuff will get in the way. The problem with offering this as a free service is that there is little incentive for a site to offer the service alone. There are few chances to display ads, and users won't stay on your site. Lastly, people probably aren't willing to pay for such a service, since it's only a minor convenience. I see two outcomes: it becomes an ISP-based service, like NNTP, or it becomes integrated into other free portal things like Yahoo! or the Google Non-Portal.
Public key authentication is better because it requires less infrastructure... all it requires is a place to store public keys (easier than the requirements of OpenID because they're static data).
It seems like this is only half a solution. All it does right now is allow responsible sites to ensure that you are the owner of a URL. It doesn't have any way (yet) to prove that you wrote a comment, or that you didn't. Basically this means it will be useless, because unless a site operator blatantly forges identities, they can change individual comments to say what they want and there's little that can be done to disprove them.
I don't like the idea of using URL's as an identification system. Sure, within the blogosphere, this is great since most people *are* identified by the URL's of their websites, but what about normal people? It's hard enough to explain the difference between an email address (username@host), a URL (host/resource), and a login (username and password), and it's worse that some sites use your email address to login and some use a username, but this is the worst. It means that URL's, which are supposed to represent a resource, can now be used as usernames. While it's a creative and practical solution, it will be really confusing to people. Jabber got it right with username@host usernames.
From the sound of this, you log in to one site (your homesite) with your real username and password, and after that it uses digital signatures and a list of trusted sites to prove to that site that you are the owner of the URL.
I see several problems with this, one of them being specifically that it doesn't require a password everywhere you login. I know the point of single sign-on is to have one username and password for everything. However, think about your average user: when prompted with a dialog box asking "Would you like to trust this site?" or "Would you like to install our malicious software?", they have an uncanny habit of clicking "Yes" without thinking. I think this will become a problem as well--people authorizing any site just because it asks, and not realizing what it means in the end. Requiring password entry and making the requesting site very clear would make it much easier for users to know what they are doing.
Seriously though, I have less respect for people with AOL addresses, especially adults (other students with AOL usually are forced to use it because it's what their parents use, but adults have free will to choose a better ISP), and almost no respect for businesses that have AOL addresses. Getting a better ISP usually costs less than AOL does, and for businesses, getting a domain name with email usually costs less than a dial up account per month.
Hmm... basically they need a way of changing M2 so that instead of identifying moderators whose choices seem fair to Slashdot readers, it would identify moderators whose choices are fair. Right now Slashdot's moderation is pretty badly biased, so if we could have a static metamoderation system that is fed posts that are likely to trigger biases, we could catch biased moderators instead of having their bias-driven moderation encouraged by biased metamoderation.
No, I'm not new here. I know what metamoderation is. My point is that many moderators (and meta-moderators) have biases, and if we could filter out the people who automatically mark any pro-Microsoft or anti-Linux post as Troll, then moderation quality would automatically go up. It's basically like a static meta-moderation done before they can start screwing things up.
I am starting to notice, as others have, that Ask Slashdot has become a generic "Tech Questions" forum. I always thought it was for when you had a thought-provoking or complicated questions that could benefit a large group of people, but lately it's just "I can't get foo to work, does Slashdot know how? I'm using it for psuedo-important-usage and my (boss|significant other|kids|imaginary friend) really wants it to work."
Are the mods on drugs today, or are they just being mods?
Is there a difference?;-)
You are right, it was obviously a joke. Slashdot should have a quiz thing before you moderate that shows a bunch of typical posts and makes sure you moderate them right. Show anti-Microsoft and anti-Linux posts of varying quality, and make sure the moderator rates the post and not the content; show funny posts and make sure they get modded funny... sort of like quality control.
So, unless you've whitelisted the exploit site (which generally would mean it's a site you trusted enough to install an XPI from), or the Mozilla website has been compromised, the exploit won't work.
Yay, let's hear it for multiple lines of defense. If more programs were written intelligently so they didn't allow potentially dangerous things (automatic execution of.EXE files, ActiveX controls, XPI installations, etc...) to happen in the first place, there wouldn't be as many ways to exploit those mechanisms.
You can find the printer here at hp's website. (The link goes to the small business section.)
The models they have are:
1320 (no net, one tray, $400)
1320t (no net, two trays, $500)
1320n (Ethernet, one tray, $500)
1320nt (Ethernet, two trays, $600)
1320nw (802.11b/g, one tray, $550)
Each of the one or two paper trays holds 250 sheets, so you have to load them separately. All of them have a manual feed above the paper tray. All of them have USB 2.0, and the ones without networking (the 1320 and 1320t) have a parallel port as well.
I have an hp LaserJet 1320 and it's quite a nice printer. It's aimed at the home/small-office market, so I don't know if it will be able to handle the capacity you want, but I've printed documents a few hundred pages long and it's worked fine. I believe it supports both PostScript and PCL, and it can duplex. It does 22ppm non-duplexed, but gets quite a bit slower when duplexing (turning a page around takes more time than feeding a new page). You can get versions with Ethernet networking (1320n), Ethernet networking and a larger (500-page) tray (1320tn), or wireless (802.11b I think) networking (1320nw). The base model (the one I have) costs $400. I'd recommend it, with the caveat that it might not be enterprise-grade-enough for what you're doing. It works great for me though.
It's just a code name for the CURRENT REV of their OS.
Um, this isn't a "code name" like Longhorn. It's advertised to the public as Tiger. It's like "XP" or "Me", not like "Longhorn".
If it were only a development code name, the trademark problem would not exist, because consumers wouldn't be able to confuse the two (not that they can now...)
Don't fool yourself -- you get what you pay for. TigerDirect is cheap because their service sucks the big one.
They've always seemed a bit worse than Newegg, both in cost and in service. I have friends who use Newegg often and vouch for it, and Newegg is usually 5-15% cheaper than TigerDirect, even on items like CPU's that don't usually vary.
My point is that, while Windows will probably be extremely restrictive, that Linux will not restrict what you can do itself. The kernel will never work against you.
If you buy a video online, any problems you have are the fault of the company from which you bought the video.
Many people are complaining about what Trusted Computing can/will be used for. Quit whining, for two reasons:
First, Linux is open-source, so you can modify or disable whatever you want. Unlike a binary kernel, you can remove code you don't like, and the rest of the kernel will work without it (if you remove it cleanly). In other words, it's not being forced upon you by the OS distributors. If a company decides to make software that requires it, that will be their decision to make and their problem to solve.
Second, TC has uses other than the oft-cited "make sure the computer only has $OMINOUS_ADJECTIVE software here", for Orwellian values of $OMINOUS_ADJECTIVE such as "permitted", "approved", and so on. In fact, Trusted Gentoo is setting up a system that uses the TPM (Trusted Platform Module--"the chip") to make sure your kernel and bootloader hasn't been tampered with and keep your SSH keys from being compromised. "Trusted" simply means that there is an uncompromisable encryption and verification (signing) system in the computer. It can be used for good or evil. Linux gives you that choice.
Slashdot Mirror
here
If it goes offline (I'm probably taking it down later) someone else please put it up ;-) they can't kill us all...
Hehehe...
But don't all the copyright pages say "reproduced or transmitted"? That would implicate the person who is transmitting it, not receiving it. And I don't think "possessing stolen goods" applies here. Maybe it does. IANAL, just a punky teenager who hates the RIAA like the rest of them. ;-)
I'll bite.
I found an interesting theoretical loophole in fair use and copyright law, albeit one that probably wouldn't stand up in court. Let's say you have a 5-minute song. You get 300 people to rip their CD's (using the same settings to ensure a valid file), and provide only 1 second of the song each. Fair use allows you to quote small portions of something, so the sharers wouldn't be at fault, and since offering a quotation isn't copyright infringement, collating them into a copy (that you don't redistribute) should work. Any thoughts?
Parade isn't a tech mag, but it is still another magazine. I find it odd that Wired, a tech magazine, advertises tech articles in other, less-techy magazines.
You know, I naively had the idea when I read the title of the article in Wired that it might be about distributing Linux with BitTorrent, or something else legal. I should have known better. Wired is a sellout... any tech magazine with articles for vodka and ads for Parade magazine (in Wired magazine--advertising for their competitors?! whatever...) with the caption "Ever seen a magazine decode the digital world?" is a tech magazine that has lost its way.
It plays a high-frequency (I don't remember the frequency, but it's high enough not to disturb the black and white sets) sine wave on top of the luminance signal, and phase-shifts it to indicate hue. What a hack.
I see one major problem with this, related to the fact that it uses URL's: it requires an HTTP server. By requiring an HTTP server, it requires you to either run your own server, get a free account somewhere, or pay someone for one. Running your own is beyond the expertise of many users, and even with a nice program for it, dynamic IP's and stuff will get in the way. The problem with offering this as a free service is that there is little incentive for a site to offer the service alone. There are few chances to display ads, and users won't stay on your site. Lastly, people probably aren't willing to pay for such a service, since it's only a minor convenience. I see two outcomes: it becomes an ISP-based service, like NNTP, or it becomes integrated into other free portal things like Yahoo! or the Google Non-Portal.
Public key authentication is better because it requires less infrastructure... all it requires is a place to store public keys (easier than the requirements of OpenID because they're static data).
It seems like this is only half a solution. All it does right now is allow responsible sites to ensure that you are the owner of a URL. It doesn't have any way (yet) to prove that you wrote a comment, or that you didn't. Basically this means it will be useless, because unless a site operator blatantly forges identities, they can change individual comments to say what they want and there's little that can be done to disprove them.
I don't like the idea of using URL's as an identification system. Sure, within the blogosphere, this is great since most people *are* identified by the URL's of their websites, but what about normal people? It's hard enough to explain the difference between an email address (username@host), a URL (host/resource), and a login (username and password), and it's worse that some sites use your email address to login and some use a username, but this is the worst. It means that URL's, which are supposed to represent a resource, can now be used as usernames. While it's a creative and practical solution, it will be really confusing to people. Jabber got it right with username@host usernames.
From the sound of this, you log in to one site (your homesite) with your real username and password, and after that it uses digital signatures and a list of trusted sites to prove to that site that you are the owner of the URL.
I see several problems with this, one of them being specifically that it doesn't require a password everywhere you login. I know the point of single sign-on is to have one username and password for everything. However, think about your average user: when prompted with a dialog box asking "Would you like to trust this site?" or "Would you like to install our malicious software?", they have an uncanny habit of clicking "Yes" without thinking. I think this will become a problem as well--people authorizing any site just because it asks, and not realizing what it means in the end. Requiring password entry and making the requesting site very clear would make it much easier for users to know what they are doing.
>aol<Me too!>/aol<
Seriously though, I have less respect for people with AOL addresses, especially adults (other students with AOL usually are forced to use it because it's what their parents use, but adults have free will to choose a better ISP), and almost no respect for businesses that have AOL addresses. Getting a better ISP usually costs less than AOL does, and for businesses, getting a domain name with email usually costs less than a dial up account per month.
Hmm... basically they need a way of changing M2 so that instead of identifying moderators whose choices seem fair to Slashdot readers, it would identify moderators whose choices are fair. Right now Slashdot's moderation is pretty badly biased, so if we could have a static metamoderation system that is fed posts that are likely to trigger biases, we could catch biased moderators instead of having their bias-driven moderation encouraged by biased metamoderation.
No, I'm not new here. I know what metamoderation is. My point is that many moderators (and meta-moderators) have biases, and if we could filter out the people who automatically mark any pro-Microsoft or anti-Linux post as Troll, then moderation quality would automatically go up. It's basically like a static meta-moderation done before they can start screwing things up.
I am starting to notice, as others have, that Ask Slashdot has become a generic "Tech Questions" forum. I always thought it was for when you had a thought-provoking or complicated questions that could benefit a large group of people, but lately it's just "I can't get foo to work, does Slashdot know how? I'm using it for psuedo-important-usage and my (boss|significant other|kids|imaginary friend) really wants it to work."
Is there a difference? ;-)
You are right, it was obviously a joke. Slashdot should have a quiz thing before you moderate that shows a bunch of typical posts and makes sure you moderate them right. Show anti-Microsoft and anti-Linux posts of varying quality, and make sure the moderator rates the post and not the content; show funny posts and make sure they get modded funny... sort of like quality control.
Yay, let's hear it for multiple lines of defense. If more programs were written intelligently so they didn't allow potentially dangerous things (automatic execution of .EXE files, ActiveX controls, XPI installations, etc...) to happen in the first place, there wouldn't be as many ways to exploit those mechanisms.
You can find the printer here at hp's website. (The link goes to the small business section.)
The models they have are:
Each of the one or two paper trays holds 250 sheets, so you have to load them separately. All of them have a manual feed above the paper tray. All of them have USB 2.0, and the ones without networking (the 1320 and 1320t) have a parallel port as well.
I have an hp LaserJet 1320 and it's quite a nice printer. It's aimed at the home/small-office market, so I don't know if it will be able to handle the capacity you want, but I've printed documents a few hundred pages long and it's worked fine. I believe it supports both PostScript and PCL, and it can duplex. It does 22ppm non-duplexed, but gets quite a bit slower when duplexing (turning a page around takes more time than feeding a new page). You can get versions with Ethernet networking (1320n), Ethernet networking and a larger (500-page) tray (1320tn), or wireless (802.11b I think) networking (1320nw). The base model (the one I have) costs $400. I'd recommend it, with the caveat that it might not be enterprise-grade-enough for what you're doing. It works great for me though.
Um, this isn't a "code name" like Longhorn. It's advertised to the public as Tiger. It's like "XP" or "Me", not like "Longhorn".
If it were only a development code name, the trademark problem would not exist, because consumers wouldn't be able to confuse the two (not that they can now...)
Hey, all my systems have motherboard graphics. :-p
If you don't need heavy pixel-pushing power, there's no point in a real graphics card.
Good to hear that Newegg has fast shipping... having to wait to get something is one of the reasons I sometimes don't shop online.
They've always seemed a bit worse than Newegg, both in cost and in service. I have friends who use Newegg often and vouch for it, and Newegg is usually 5-15% cheaper than TigerDirect, even on items like CPU's that don't usually vary.
My point is that, while Windows will probably be extremely restrictive, that Linux will not restrict what you can do itself. The kernel will never work against you.
If you buy a video online, any problems you have are the fault of the company from which you bought the video.
Many people are complaining about what Trusted Computing can/will be used for. Quit whining, for two reasons:
First, Linux is open-source, so you can modify or disable whatever you want. Unlike a binary kernel, you can remove code you don't like, and the rest of the kernel will work without it (if you remove it cleanly). In other words, it's not being forced upon you by the OS distributors. If a company decides to make software that requires it, that will be their decision to make and their problem to solve.
Second, TC has uses other than the oft-cited "make sure the computer only has $OMINOUS_ADJECTIVE software here", for Orwellian values of $OMINOUS_ADJECTIVE such as "permitted", "approved", and so on. In fact, Trusted Gentoo is setting up a system that uses the TPM (Trusted Platform Module--"the chip") to make sure your kernel and bootloader hasn't been tampered with and keep your SSH keys from being compromised. "Trusted" simply means that there is an uncompromisable encryption and verification (signing) system in the computer. It can be used for good or evil. Linux gives you that choice.
Nickname: Anonymous Coward
Password: *********