What happens if there is a security hole in these? Do they ship new CDs
No hard drive. No user data stored. Nothing of interest on the CD (easy enough to get a copy of it without hacking into you). No place except memory to store an exploit, and that is lost after reboot. No writeable files to infect.
There certainly will be OS updates, or alternate OS's like Knoppix that you can use. They certainly have no need to send you a CD, but you could likely download and burn one (on another system, clearly not on this box). By the way, found out the hard way that you can't download large files under Knoppix even with a hard drive, it must make a copy in memory first, will bomb on too large of a file.
More to the point, is there a link to a bootable image that we can download and try out? I certainly hope the software will be downloadable, as there will sure be a need for this as it continues to evolve. I love Knoppix, but would like to give this a try.
Users without a way to store stuff will find this does get old pretty quick though; having to set up all of your internet access information every time you use it, having to configure your e-mail and having no good way to save either incoming e-mail or even an address book, and so on. Why they are even bothering with Lindows is a mystery to me; it's not like Windows compatability gets you much if you can't even open your CD drive to read a Windows game! Might as well just run a Knoppix system and have good Linux tools and a handful of Linux games rather than Windows compatability but no good way to use it (unless you have a local file server, but if you do is there really much incentive to run the few windows programs that will run without an install on this thing?)
The 5% number is just skewed heavily by the fact that any poorly written app that crashes is counted.
In one word, Bullshit! An OS should not let a badly written ap crash the system or other applications. If it does (and I very much expect that some of the crashes that Bill admits to might well be this) then it is the fault of the operating system.
The bttom like is that Bill releases flawed software, software that is so flawed that even he admits that a not insignificant number of users see Windows crash two or more times a day. A decent OS does not crash once a year, on the average. Now he's not satisified with selling bug fixes as a new version every few years (how many people bought into XP just because it was promoted as more stable than the Win98 or Win ME that was crashing on them multiple times each day but didn't really need or want any of the new "features"?), he also wants to sell the very fixes that he should have a legal obligation to provide.
And does anyone think that, if Microsoft sees a new profit center in selling fix updates, that there will be less problems in any fuure release? Would the department that makes it's profits by selling fixes ever let Microsoft release a version that doesn't crash? If anything they will delay product releases to put additional problems that will need fixes in.
I actually had intended to say a couple of hundred watts, not a few, but the logic still applies. Also, don't forget, these switching supplies are far from 100% efficent (there's a reason they build a fan into them). So a supply that is outputting 300 watts of power is eating a lot more than that, so it's not unreasonable that a supply outputting a couple of hundred watts of power is indeed drawing a few hundred watts of power.
The bottom line is, if you pay for the power (and pay again for the AC to cool it) building an access point from an old computer is expensive in the long run. I'm not sure that this isn't always the case in the short run too; lately I've seen plenty of wireless DSL/Cable routers (some of which can be used as simple access points, do your homework before assuming all can operate without some of the "gateway" features) for less than a simple wireless card for a PC or notebook (after rebates on each)! Clearly this is an artificial marketing situation, but it's what's happening. For example, Staples will have some Netgear stuff on stale starting this coming Sunday. The Routher is $29.99 after rebate. The PC card or the USB wireless adapter are $49.99 after rebate! I've seen several other Wireless routers in local retail stores lately at this same $29.99 (ar) price, but do not see simple wireless network cards as low as this very often.
I have a friend who used to live and work in Texas. He was spending 3 hours a day just commuting to and from work. Was not permitted to Telecommute.
He got the bug to get out of there. Decided to move to Alaska. Once the company knew he was leaving, he was able to strike a deal and telecommute from Alaska!
Makes absolutely no sense business wise, since now he is much too far from the office to come in even if he had too, but if American business always made the choices that made sense then Scott Adams would be out of work.
and if you already have a linux box, much cheaper than an off the shelf access point.
I certainly have too many old boxes laying around. Yes, building your own access point is much more interesting. And you get to customize so that you have the features that you want. But in the long run it will be a lot more expensive to operate that PC that uses a few hundred of watts of power than an access point powered from a small wall wart that uses a few watts of power. If, like most users, you leave your internet connection up 24/7, you will find that any savings that might exist in building a device from spare parts are grossly offset by the cost of running it.
This is not an agrument for or against building your own, just a warning to those who might read the original post and think they can save money by building their own.
Your computer belongs to you. What happens with that computer is your responsibility.
This whole posting makes very little sense, but it's certainly not an issue of who owns a computer or if you can be blamed for what the kids do on your computer. The RIAA is tracking down people by IP addresses. These simply lead to an Internet account belonging to someone who signed up for service. Households are not likley to have more than one account, so the RIAA is going after whoever's name is on the account, if they did anything wrong or not. Most often this is an adult in the household, but it could even be the family dog if his name was on the account, or some non-existant person (I know of several females who have their home phone listed under a male name, cheaper than getting an unlisted number and in their minds better than listing a female name or an innitial rather than a first name).
Forget about the kids, one interesting implication will be when there are two adults in the household. Can they convict you just because the Internet account is in your name if you claim that you downloaded or uploaded nothing and it must have been another adult in the house or bad record keeping on the part of the RIAA? What if you don't even own the computer? (I can certainly imagine a case where there are two or more roommates, pne owns the computer. but the phone is in another's name so that person gets the Internet account).
How they tie this to '9/11 fears' is curious considering the hijackers had valid paperwork.
Obviously this is just another grab at our rights and freedoms by an out of control government in the name of 9/11. Here they are changing U.S. passports, which will have no effect on third world country passports and people using them to gain entry into this country. At the same time the illegal allien problem gets worse in this country by the day, and those not caught at the boarder are free to do whatever they want in this country, and are not even deported when they are caught! Just last night I saw a report on the local news about illegals being arrested on identity theft charges, and the reporter acknowledging that the people caught just post bond and vanish, only to resurface again with a new stolen identity (and post bond again when caught).
The government isn't doing this to protect you; clearly the U.S. passport change will do nothing to protect you. They have no interest in protecting you. Their only interest is in gaining more control over you. These statements may sound crack-pot, but are repeatedly born out by the government's own actions.
So, no, registration does not automatically inject whole code into public domain (the non-copyrightable portions anyway).
While copyright certainly does not move the document into the public domain, one of the stated pouposes of the copyright system is to grant exclusive ownership of the IP for a limited time, after which it does pass into the public domain. Even congress, with their continual extending of the limited time has not eliminated the concept that the copyright is given for a limited time and then the property does pass into the public domain. While I have no expectation that the code would still be of any use after the current insanely long copyrights expire, it would seem completely against the stated intent of the copyright law to provide a corporation such copyright protection, but at the same time have no provision for the work to be available to the public after the copyright protection they provided finally expires.
Worse, it seems insane, has SCO is demonstrating quite well, to let jerks like this have a "copyright" on something that no one can know what it actually is. If they get away with this there is not much (except a Bigger group of lawyers) to stop them from telling anyone who writes code that they have already received a copyright on that code, but the code is secret and they don't have to show it!
I use a cannon BJC-3000 and love it. No problems with it, and individual tanks. Seperate print head/tank holder too, and the cost of a print head and all 4 ink tanks is about the same as the cost of the 4 ink tanks without getting an extra free print head/tank holder! On top of that, unlike all the problems with Lexmark or Epson carts with chips to keep you from refilling, or HP carts continually redesigned to make refilling harder and harder, refilling these little plastic tanks is clean and easy, and does not leave you with anything that leaks ink all over the place. Just drill a tiny hole in the side of the tank near the top (above the ink line), refill, and seal well.
I don't think they offer the BJC3000 any more, and don't know what current Cannon printers (if any) use the same ink tank system, but I wish I had bought a few more of these at the same price when I got my first one.
Can SCO get a copyright and still hide what they claim is the offending material behind trade secret and non-disclosure? This makes no sense at all! (not that any of the rest of it does).
Some Linux contributer (copyright holder) needs to contact his congressman and have him get information on what was copyrighted, so that all Linux contributers can verify that SCO has not hijacked their code.
I keep seeing that TI will not release the programming information for the ACX100. But the seem to want to sell the ACX100 as well as the smaller but compatable TNETW100B. They even promote the use of the TNETW1100B for embedded applications. How is an engineer expected to design with these chips if they can't get the programming specs? Do they all deal through non-disclosure agreements? And do all the companies that buy these chips really let TI limit their market this way?
I'm hard pressed to understand how this information could be staying so restricted. People building embedded devices are not limited to a half dozen or so wireless router companies, there are tens of thousands of engineers out there in everything from large companies to one man shops that must be trying to get this information for hardware projects that would use the TI chips. How is it that this information has not come out yet? Or is it that the Linux developers will not touch it because of concerns over trade secret issues and prefer to reverse engineer it so that TI has no say in the use of the information?
Actually, no. I've had doubleclick and many varants of them in my host files for years. I've still seen these false error messages. And lately I've seen my computer installing "something" when I reboot, even though I know I haven't installed anything! The truth is that scum like doubleclick know about host files and are constantly adding new domains and changing ip addresses to keep them from being blocked on your system. You can only play catch-up, but you can't keep them out this way. It's far from an ultimate answer, or effective.
let's be honest here... the 'class' will get jack shit if this case is successful.
If it puts doubleclick out of business, I win, even if I get no money.
If it hurts doubleclick, I win, even if I get no money.
If it sends a message to doubleclick and others that some of the things they are doing on the internet are illegal and helps curb partices like installing crap on your system that you don't want and never accepted, then I really win, even if I get no money.
And if it keep these lawyers busy in a suit against doubleclick rather than asuit against someone who does not deserve it, I'll consider that a win too.
What if that sign is in the middle of a billboard? Banner ads are not dialog windows, nor do they act like dialog windows.
You know, the billboard analogy just doesn't hold up. Some times doubleclick uses pop-ups, but even when they use banners, they deceptively make these banners look like error dialog messages. They are right there in the middle of the screen and look pixel-for-pixel like an error message would look, not 300 yards off to the side of the screen like a billboard would be. Read the acutal complaint, they are going after the deceptive ads, and make it clear that normal banners that don't try to deceive the user are not the issue.
A billboard is clearly not a road sign, by it's very nature and placement. If it was placed right on the road and made to look like a road sign then it would be deceptive. You screen is a 2d surface, not the 3d world of highways and roadside signs. When something is placed on that screen with the intent to be deceptive, with the look of an actual error alert, and in a location where an actual error alert could be, then it cannot hide behind a banner ad or billboard defense.
I agree with the original poster. Clearly the intent of these ads is to deceive. It can hardly be a defense, when an ad is deceptive and made to look like something that it is not, that the victim should not have been deceived after all. And these ads are not just in banners, they are also in pop-ups that look very much like a pop-up error message. Anywhere else this would be false and deceptive advertising; I see no reason laws against false and deceptive advertising should not apply to the Internet too.
" If you've ever been tricked by one of
those ads telling you that your "connection is not optimized" or that you have "1 new message waiting," you could be part of the class.
sure, this makes lots of sense, particularly since no one ever takes an item from a shelf and then looks it over and puts it back. And no one ever goes shopping with some one else, and picks up at item at the other person's request and hands it to the other person before they get to the checkout counter. Such persons are clearly criminal and deserve to be confronted as they leave the store, arrested, and strip searched to find the article they were photographed picking up at the shelf but never buying at the register.
And with OS X, why would you want Linux in the first place?
That's the point I was trying to make. It's almost as bad as suggesting that the original poster could solve his dual booting problem by erasing Windows and then installing both Red Hat and Mandrake in a dual boot configuration (and make it even better with a little Debian on the side). But that really doesn't address the issue that is some situations you just have to be able to support and run applications that only run on Windows.
And applications, because sometimes, even if your church is better, you have to support an application that only runs on the church of Microsoft's OS, and your clent is a heathen who is more concerned about actually getting work done than converting to Linux.
I am all for protecting personal rights but, it is really hard to condemn a case like this, where a man has been brought to justice as a result.
Very fundamental to American justice is that we do not wholesale give away rights when there is no reasonable suspicion of crime. That's why your home (and even your car) can't be searched without a warrant or your permision. In theory you can't be arrested and held indefinately without a lawyer and without even being told what your crime is, although after 9/11 this has indeed been happening to a large number of American citizens; so it's pretty reasonable for people to be concerned about errosion of our rights and mistrust of the government. This search of supposedly private DNA information for a purpose that is not why it was originally given (as well as it was not given freely by rather by coersion) certainly constitutes an illegal search, even a greater invasion than an illegal search of a home. Over the years the courts have often released the known guilty in order to protect our individual rights and keep the U.S. from becoming a police state. I for one hope it happens again.
Slashdot Mirror
No hard drive. No user data stored. Nothing of interest on the CD (easy enough to get a copy of it without hacking into you). No place except memory to store an exploit, and that is lost after reboot. No writeable files to infect.
There certainly will be OS updates, or alternate OS's like Knoppix that you can use. They certainly have no need to send you a CD, but you could likely download and burn one (on another system, clearly not on this box). By the way, found out the hard way that you can't download large files under Knoppix even with a hard drive, it must make a copy in memory first, will bomb on too large of a file.
More to the point, is there a link to a bootable image that we can download and try out? I certainly hope the software will be downloadable, as there will sure be a need for this as it continues to evolve. I love Knoppix, but would like to give this a try.
Users without a way to store stuff will find this does get old pretty quick though; having to set up all of your internet access information every time you use it, having to configure your e-mail and having no good way to save either incoming e-mail or even an address book, and so on. Why they are even bothering with Lindows is a mystery to me; it's not like Windows compatability gets you much if you can't even open your CD drive to read a Windows game! Might as well just run a Knoppix system and have good Linux tools and a handful of Linux games rather than Windows compatability but no good way to use it (unless you have a local file server, but if you do is there really much incentive to run the few windows programs that will run without an install on this thing?)
and I'd rather have a free bottle in front of me than a pre-frontal lobotomy.
You talking about the Heathkit company that went out of business more than a decade ago?
In one word, Bullshit! An OS should not let a badly written ap crash the system or other applications. If it does (and I very much expect that some of the crashes that Bill admits to might well be this) then it is the fault of the operating system.
The bttom like is that Bill releases flawed software, software that is so flawed that even he admits that a not insignificant number of users see Windows crash two or more times a day. A decent OS does not crash once a year, on the average. Now he's not satisified with selling bug fixes as a new version every few years (how many people bought into XP just because it was promoted as more stable than the Win98 or Win ME that was crashing on them multiple times each day but didn't really need or want any of the new "features"?), he also wants to sell the very fixes that he should have a legal obligation to provide.
And does anyone think that, if Microsoft sees a new profit center in selling fix updates, that there will be less problems in any fuure release? Would the department that makes it's profits by selling fixes ever let Microsoft release a version that doesn't crash? If anything they will delay product releases to put additional problems that will need fixes in.
The bottom line is, if you pay for the power (and pay again for the AC to cool it) building an access point from an old computer is expensive in the long run. I'm not sure that this isn't always the case in the short run too; lately I've seen plenty of wireless DSL/Cable routers (some of which can be used as simple access points, do your homework before assuming all can operate without some of the "gateway" features) for less than a simple wireless card for a PC or notebook (after rebates on each)! Clearly this is an artificial marketing situation, but it's what's happening. For example, Staples will have some Netgear stuff on stale starting this coming Sunday. The Routher is $29.99 after rebate. The PC card or the USB wireless adapter are $49.99 after rebate! I've seen several other Wireless routers in local retail stores lately at this same $29.99 (ar) price, but do not see simple wireless network cards as low as this very often.
I have a friend who used to live and work in Texas. He was spending 3 hours a day just commuting to and from work. Was not permitted to Telecommute.
He got the bug to get out of there. Decided to move to Alaska. Once the company knew he was leaving, he was able to strike a deal and telecommute from Alaska!
Makes absolutely no sense business wise, since now he is much too far from the office to come in even if he had too, but if American business always made the choices that made sense then Scott Adams would be out of work.
I certainly have too many old boxes laying around. Yes, building your own access point is much more interesting. And you get to customize so that you have the features that you want. But in the long run it will be a lot more expensive to operate that PC that uses a few hundred of watts of power than an access point powered from a small wall wart that uses a few watts of power. If, like most users, you leave your internet connection up 24/7, you will find that any savings that might exist in building a device from spare parts are grossly offset by the cost of running it.
This is not an agrument for or against building your own, just a warning to those who might read the original post and think they can save money by building their own.
No, your Honor. I did not pay this woman for sex. I bought a share into the corporation that she is married to.
This whole posting makes very little sense, but it's certainly not an issue of who owns a computer or if you can be blamed for what the kids do on your computer. The RIAA is tracking down people by IP addresses. These simply lead to an Internet account belonging to someone who signed up for service. Households are not likley to have more than one account, so the RIAA is going after whoever's name is on the account, if they did anything wrong or not. Most often this is an adult in the household, but it could even be the family dog if his name was on the account, or some non-existant person (I know of several females who have their home phone listed under a male name, cheaper than getting an unlisted number and in their minds better than listing a female name or an innitial rather than a first name).
Forget about the kids, one interesting implication will be when there are two adults in the household. Can they convict you just because the Internet account is in your name if you claim that you downloaded or uploaded nothing and it must have been another adult in the house or bad record keeping on the part of the RIAA? What if you don't even own the computer? (I can certainly imagine a case where there are two or more roommates, pne owns the computer. but the phone is in another's name so that person gets the Internet account).
Obviously this is just another grab at our rights and freedoms by an out of control government in the name of 9/11. Here they are changing U.S. passports, which will have no effect on third world country passports and people using them to gain entry into this country. At the same time the illegal allien problem gets worse in this country by the day, and those not caught at the boarder are free to do whatever they want in this country, and are not even deported when they are caught! Just last night I saw a report on the local news about illegals being arrested on identity theft charges, and the reporter acknowledging that the people caught just post bond and vanish, only to resurface again with a new stolen identity (and post bond again when caught).
The government isn't doing this to protect you; clearly the U.S. passport change will do nothing to protect you. They have no interest in protecting you. Their only interest is in gaining more control over you. These statements may sound crack-pot, but are repeatedly born out by the government's own actions.
While copyright certainly does not move the document into the public domain, one of the stated pouposes of the copyright system is to grant exclusive ownership of the IP for a limited time , after which it does pass into the public domain. Even congress, with their continual extending of the limited time has not eliminated the concept that the copyright is given for a limited time and then the property does pass into the public domain. While I have no expectation that the code would still be of any use after the current insanely long copyrights expire, it would seem completely against the stated intent of the copyright law to provide a corporation such copyright protection, but at the same time have no provision for the work to be available to the public after the copyright protection they provided finally expires.
Worse, it seems insane, has SCO is demonstrating quite well, to let jerks like this have a "copyright" on something that no one can know what it actually is. If they get away with this there is not much (except a Bigger group of lawyers) to stop them from telling anyone who writes code that they have already received a copyright on that code, but the code is secret and they don't have to show it!
I don't think they offer the BJC3000 any more, and don't know what current Cannon printers (if any) use the same ink tank system, but I wish I had bought a few more of these at the same price when I got my first one.
Some Linux contributer (copyright holder) needs to contact his congressman and have him get information on what was copyrighted, so that all Linux contributers can verify that SCO has not hijacked their code.
I'm hard pressed to understand how this information could be staying so restricted. People building embedded devices are not limited to a half dozen or so wireless router companies, there are tens of thousands of engineers out there in everything from large companies to one man shops that must be trying to get this information for hardware projects that would use the TI chips. How is it that this information has not come out yet? Or is it that the Linux developers will not touch it because of concerns over trade secret issues and prefer to reverse engineer it so that TI has no say in the use of the information?
Actually, no. I've had doubleclick and many varants of them in my host files for years. I've still seen these false error messages. And lately I've seen my computer installing "something" when I reboot, even though I know I haven't installed anything! The truth is that scum like doubleclick know about host files and are constantly adding new domains and changing ip addresses to keep them from being blocked on your system. You can only play catch-up, but you can't keep them out this way. It's far from an ultimate answer, or effective.
If it puts doubleclick out of business, I win, even if I get no money.
If it hurts doubleclick, I win, even if I get no money.
If it sends a message to doubleclick and others that some of the things they are doing on the internet are illegal and helps curb partices like installing crap on your system that you don't want and never accepted, then I really win, even if I get no money.
And if it keep these lawyers busy in a suit against doubleclick rather than asuit against someone who does not deserve it, I'll consider that a win too.
You know, the billboard analogy just doesn't hold up. Some times doubleclick uses pop-ups, but even when they use banners, they deceptively make these banners look like error dialog messages. They are right there in the middle of the screen and look pixel-for-pixel like an error message would look, not 300 yards off to the side of the screen like a billboard would be. Read the acutal complaint, they are going after the deceptive ads, and make it clear that normal banners that don't try to deceive the user are not the issue.
A billboard is clearly not a road sign, by it's very nature and placement. If it was placed right on the road and made to look like a road sign then it would be deceptive. You screen is a 2d surface, not the 3d world of highways and roadside signs. When something is placed on that screen with the intent to be deceptive, with the look of an actual error alert, and in a location where an actual error alert could be, then it cannot hide behind a banner ad or billboard defense.
I agree with the original poster. Clearly the intent of these ads is to deceive. It can hardly be a defense, when an ad is deceptive and made to look like something that it is not, that the victim should not have been deceived after all. And these ads are not just in banners, they are also in pop-ups that look very much like a pop-up error message. Anywhere else this would be false and deceptive advertising; I see no reason laws against false and deceptive advertising should not apply to the Internet too.
And if you don't take double-click's ill gotten money from them because you didn't want to say you were stupid, then you really are stupid!
So only stupid people get to be in this class?
sure, this makes lots of sense, particularly since no one ever takes an item from a shelf and then looks it over and puts it back. And no one ever goes shopping with some one else, and picks up at item at the other person's request and hands it to the other person before they get to the checkout counter. Such persons are clearly criminal and deserve to be confronted as they leave the store, arrested, and strip searched to find the article they were photographed picking up at the shelf but never buying at the register.
That's the point I was trying to make. It's almost as bad as suggesting that the original poster could solve his dual booting problem by erasing Windows and then installing both Red Hat and Mandrake in a dual boot configuration (and make it even better with a little Debian on the side). But that really doesn't address the issue that is some situations you just have to be able to support and run applications that only run on Windows.
And applications, because sometimes, even if your church is better, you have to support an application that only runs on the church of Microsoft's OS, and your clent is a heathen who is more concerned about actually getting work done than converting to Linux.
Wow, I had no idea an Apple laptop would dual boot Windows and Linux!
Very fundamental to American justice is that we do not wholesale give away rights when there is no reasonable suspicion of crime. That's why your home (and even your car) can't be searched without a warrant or your permision. In theory you can't be arrested and held indefinately without a lawyer and without even being told what your crime is, although after 9/11 this has indeed been happening to a large number of American citizens; so it's pretty reasonable for people to be concerned about errosion of our rights and mistrust of the government. This search of supposedly private DNA information for a purpose that is not why it was originally given (as well as it was not given freely by rather by coersion) certainly constitutes an illegal search, even a greater invasion than an illegal search of a home. Over the years the courts have often released the known guilty in order to protect our individual rights and keep the U.S. from becoming a police state. I for one hope it happens again.