Naturally, that's combined with a reconnectable screen session. Or you could use btdownloadheadless [url] --[switches] & and redirect output to a file or/dev/null.
Actually, my anectodal experience is that users DO want to block ads, at least the popup and popunder variety. Note the Earthlink and other ads mentioning providing popup blocker software. And I have some not-so-savvy users who tell each other to install Google toolbar to block popups. (I say not-so-savvy meaning they wouldn't usually go installing their own utilities but make and exception for the toolbar or other popup blockers.)
Witness also the adware/spyware masquerading as a popup blocker. (Some of the toolbars do this; don't recall which ones offhand.)
Oh. I didn't deep scan. So I guess it depends if it will recognize a cookies.txt file (as opposed to IE's cookies folder) which I supposed it would if it can do Netscape.
I don't feel like deep scanning to test, so--assuming Win2k or WinXP--open c:\documents and settings\\Application Data\Phoenix\.slt\cookies.txt and see if doubleclick.net stuff is in there. "Application Data" is probably hidden, and new installs of Firefox may have changed the "Phoenix" folder to "MozillaFirebird" or "MozillaFirefox" or similar, but mine is still under Phoenix.
Ahem, excuse me, but I can be a dumbass sometimes. I tend to do things the hard way. Try this instead: Open Tools->Options, click Privacy, click the plus sign by Cookies then click the "Stored Cookies..." button.
(it's interesting to look at how many hits ad-aware gets for tracking cookies etc. with IE)
I don't think Ad-Aware (or other spyware scanners) checks Firefox cookies. I just ran and older version and it only found an Alexa registry entry, but I opened my Firefox cookies.txt and found a doubleclick.net cookie in there.
I'm a Firefox user/fan and IE hater, but Firefox doesn't inherently block tracking cookies, so I had to pick at your example. (Yes, Firefox does allow forcing per-session cookies, but it's not on by default, and it causes problems with remember-my-login cookies.)
Changing subject:
I noticed McAfee and others now have Anti-Spyware products alongside the AntiVirus products in stores. I'm wondering why the distinction between viruses and spyware? Shouldn't scanning for them and removing them involve the exact same process? Why not just include spyware/adware in the definition files?
Yeah, the obvious answer is "to make more money", but that really pisses me off.
Someone who saw the leaked source code a while back happened to mention to me that Internet Explorer uses libpng for rendering PNG files--it's just broken because it uses such a friggin' old version of it. So there's a good chance that IE is affected too.
Cool! Maybe the update will fix PNG transparency on IE!?
Thanks, those are very interesting articles. At first I couldn't get over the idea that foreign countries were shooting themselves in the foot by reducing or eliminating tarrifs on our dumped excess (i.e. their fault not ours), but I presume the U.S. government and industry is using its muscle to force (or at least strongly encourage) these countries to reduce/eliminate their own tarrifs. And I didn't know the school lunch program had evolved into a surplus food dump program--that pissed me off. It's a lot of stuff to think about.
I have to admit my kneejerk reaction to your last like was "he's calling me a Nazi!?" But I got over that...interesting stuff to think about. It still seems obvious we need to be self-supporting, but then it is also obvious our markets aren't free and we're too protectionist.
We also have enormous government subsidies, paid for by tax payers, to keep farmers happy and in business. It may be good for ensuring a reliable food supply domestically (and give the number of wars we fight, not exactly a bad idea either), but it is causing huge economic problems elsewhere.
Huh? How are our farm subsidies causing problems abroad? U.S. Farming is way outside my realm of knowledge, but it seems obvious being sure we're able to produce our own food is quite necessary.
In fact I've been worrying a bit lately that we're migrating too much to a service economy and moving more and more production and manufacturing out of the country; we need the ability to produce our own goods, too.
The parent poster is using inetd to launch VNC which can be cool--basically a session-based terminal server usable by any VNC client where multiple clients can grab indivual sessions from one port--but of course this doesn't offer reconnecability. (Usually you will start a session using XDMCP to log into a VNC desktop.)
hackel, the 'normal' way of running VNC is to have a VNC server dameon running and listening on one port. It's stateless so you can reconnect to it later. But it's not very good as a terminal server fore more than one person.
I hadn't heard of FreeNX, but another poster in another part of this thread says FreeNX can have multiple reconnectable sessions, but unlike VNC where you have to specify the port FreeNX has a mechanism for listing and choosing one of the available sessions. Okay, that sounds freakin' cool.
As a Canadian reading this thread, I wonder, is everyone in the US a lawyer? Why so much suing going on?
Funny, I was having a similar discussion with a Canadian friend just this weekend. In the U.S. there is a prevalent attitude that if anything bad happens to us or is perceived to happen to us (as indiviuals...sometimes as groups) it's somebody else's fault. I suppose suing is better than some of the alternative remedies. We don't all think this way, and hopefully most of us don't think this way, but it is a widely held and noticable attitude and is my theory as to why our courts stay so busy.
I *think* SCO sued Novell because Novell publicly claimed they didn't sell ownership of Unix to SCO, only distribution rights. That kinda puts a damper on SCO suing their customers, so they're suing Novell to clarify what was sold to SCO. I don't believe the suit mentions Suse or NetWare at all. But in any case SCO pays a large percentage of its Unix revenue to Novell, so they're still suing people they do business with over their business dealings because they don't have a leg to stand on to sue anyone over using Linux. They're hoping to buy a leg through one of these lawsuits, but it's a long shot.
The only question I have is this: Isn't Netware a competing product to SCO's Unix product? Technically, I believe it is. When you think about it, it is really kind of funny. SCO could have sued Novell for having a competing product once they purchased UnixWare.
I have a feeling Novell thought of that when they sold the rights to SCO since they had NetWare long before they bought Unix. They probably have plenty of language in the agreement to protect their flagship product.
This is a simple contractual issue. By buying the music you agree to the terms. If you violate those terms, they sue you for damages. It's that simple.
Please do not respond to this post with pseudo-legal or pseudo-Socialist rants. This is a VERY SIMPLE CONTRACTUAL ISSUE. If you don't agree to the contract, don't buy the music.
If it's a contractual issue, why are they suing for unlicensed distribution? The people they are suing didn't necessarily obtain the song from their personal bought CD. It's not a contractual issue, it's a copyright issue.
Anyway, I quit buying the music a long time ago. Happy?
In criminal law, sure. Not in a civil matter. So far, all the suits filed have been civil.
Uh, how do you figure that? The burden is still on the plaintiff to prove his case, it's just that in civil court the burden of proof is much lower: preponderance of evidence as opposed to the criminal system's "beyond a reasonable doubt". And the defendant more or less must present a defense to try to obtain a preponderance of evidence on his side. Maybe that's what you mean: you can't just ignore it and it goes away if you're "innocent"; you must present a defense or likely lose as long as the plaintiff has some sort of evidence.
SCO isn't suing its consumers. It's suing companies that use a competing product that they claim infringes on their property.
BZZZZZZZZZT. Wrong.
SCO wants the public to believe that, but it ain't true. SCO hasn't sued anybody for using Linux. They've sued IBM for breaking copyright and/or license contract with respect to their tech contributions to Linux, but IBM is a licensee of Unix; remember SCO "revoking" their AIX license? SCO is is suing Autozone because SCO claims Autozone--a SCO Unix licensee--is using libraries from SCO Unix in their Linux systems and violating the license and contract. They are suing DaimlerChrysler--a SCO licensee--for, uh...I forget.
But everybody they've sued is a current or former licensee of SCO's, and in at least the Autozone case they say they quit using SCO Unix over 7 years ago and aren't required to submit to the demands of SCO, yet SCO claims they never terminated the contract and must submit a list of processors SCO Unix is running on.
SCO has not sued anyone who is not their customer. They have not sued anyone for using Linux. They have not sued anyone claiming a Linux user owes them a license fee. They want you to think that, though.
I always thought the Borg were great villians because they were superior in strengh and technology of mysterious origin and could not be reasoned or negotiated with. I think any show worth watching would have to humanize them (or be utterly boring). Having a sympathetic Borg nation would ruin the whole concept of Borg I think.
What could be more cool would be to follow Gainan's people as their worlds were destroyed by the Borg and they dispersed and were pursued. Or perhaps go back and follow one of the long extinct but mysteriously high tech peoples who leave artifacts to build later STNG episodes around.
Everything is encrypted, but they keys for public content is publicy posted. In theory a large organization could obtain a large number of nodes and attempt to discern where certain keys are by request response times, but Freenet does a few things like alter the "hops to live" setting and some routing tricks to make these types of attacks much more difficult.
But even if they can determine if a certain bit of content is on a particular nodes' store they can't through Freenet prove that that node requested the information because every node acts as a router and storer (even transient nodes now; actually the working differences between a transient and permanent node are gone except perhaps some announcing).
I'm far from an expert; they discuss stuff like this on the mailing lists from time to time.
The big scare is a government that doesn't respect plausible deniability and is willing to search your home and computer based on the fact that you're running a Freenet node, because you can't hide that you're running a node and your browser--unless you're very paranoid--will have some history and cached files from the Freenet proxy.
Actually I stay away from the questionable/objectionable content, anyway, so my scare is that I would get blamed for having that in my store even though I didn't request it. (If it even is in my store...I dunno!)
Slashdot Mirror
Are you kidding? That would mean Dick Cheney is president. Egads...out of the frying pan and into the fire.
Actually, my anectodal experience is that users DO want to block ads, at least the popup and popunder variety. Note the Earthlink and other ads mentioning providing popup blocker software. And I have some not-so-savvy users who tell each other to install Google toolbar to block popups. (I say not-so-savvy meaning they wouldn't usually go installing their own utilities but make and exception for the toolbar or other popup blockers.)
Witness also the adware/spyware masquerading as a popup blocker. (Some of the toolbars do this; don't recall which ones offhand.)
Sorry, that was me. I installed FireFox on 4 PC's last week, and they must've been overexcited by the increase.
Plus IE is dependent upon Windows (Mac IE excepted) and integrates with MS Office and MS Money.
Oh. I didn't deep scan. So I guess it depends if it will recognize a cookies.txt file (as opposed to IE's cookies folder) which I supposed it would if it can do Netscape.
I don't feel like deep scanning to test, so--assuming Win2k or WinXP--open c:\documents and settings\\Application Data\Phoenix\.slt\cookies.txt and see if doubleclick.net stuff is in there. "Application Data" is probably hidden, and new installs of Firefox may have changed the "Phoenix" folder to "MozillaFirebird" or "MozillaFirefox" or similar, but mine is still under Phoenix.
Ahem, excuse me, but I can be a dumbass sometimes. I tend to do things the hard way. Try this instead: Open Tools->Options, click Privacy, click the plus sign by Cookies then click the "Stored Cookies..." button.
(it's interesting to look at how many hits ad-aware gets for tracking cookies etc. with IE)
I don't think Ad-Aware (or other spyware scanners) checks Firefox cookies. I just ran and older version and it only found an Alexa registry entry, but I opened my Firefox cookies.txt and found a doubleclick.net cookie in there.
I'm a Firefox user/fan and IE hater, but Firefox doesn't inherently block tracking cookies, so I had to pick at your example. (Yes, Firefox does allow forcing per-session cookies, but it's not on by default, and it causes problems with remember-my-login cookies.)
Changing subject:
I noticed McAfee and others now have Anti-Spyware products alongside the AntiVirus products in stores. I'm wondering why the distinction between viruses and spyware? Shouldn't scanning for them and removing them involve the exact same process? Why not just include spyware/adware in the definition files?
Yeah, the obvious answer is "to make more money", but that really pisses me off.
Someone who saw the leaked source code a while back happened to mention to me that Internet Explorer uses libpng for rendering PNG files--it's just broken because it uses such a friggin' old version of it. So there's a good chance that IE is affected too.
Cool! Maybe the update will fix PNG transparency on IE!?
Wake me up when there's an SQL interface to DB.
Wake up! mySQL is a SQL interface on top of Berkeley DB.
However I agree the grandparent post is wrong in comparing BDB to Cloudscape.
Thanks, those are very interesting articles. At first I couldn't get over the idea that foreign countries were shooting themselves in the foot by reducing or eliminating tarrifs on our dumped excess (i.e. their fault not ours), but I presume the U.S. government and industry is using its muscle to force (or at least strongly encourage) these countries to reduce/eliminate their own tarrifs. And I didn't know the school lunch program had evolved into a surplus food dump program--that pissed me off. It's a lot of stuff to think about.
I have to admit my kneejerk reaction to your last like was "he's calling me a Nazi!?" But I got over that...interesting stuff to think about. It still seems obvious we need to be self-supporting, but then it is also obvious our markets aren't free and we're too protectionist.
We also have enormous government subsidies, paid for by tax payers, to keep farmers happy and in business. It may be good for ensuring a reliable food supply domestically (and give the number of wars we fight, not exactly a bad idea either), but it is causing huge economic problems elsewhere.
Huh? How are our farm subsidies causing problems abroad? U.S. Farming is way outside my realm of knowledge, but it seems obvious being sure we're able to produce our own food is quite necessary.
In fact I've been worrying a bit lately that we're migrating too much to a service economy and moving more and more production and manufacturing out of the country; we need the ability to produce our own goods, too.
How is this any different from those novelty coke can telephones and coke can radios.
Or worse yet: dancing coke cans in disguise.
Using a key to gouge expletives on another's vehicle is a sign of trust and friendship.
-Inignot
The parent poster is using inetd to launch VNC which can be cool--basically a session-based terminal server usable by any VNC client where multiple clients can grab indivual sessions from one port--but of course this doesn't offer reconnecability. (Usually you will start a session using XDMCP to log into a VNC desktop.)
hackel, the 'normal' way of running VNC is to have a VNC server dameon running and listening on one port. It's stateless so you can reconnect to it later. But it's not very good as a terminal server fore more than one person.
I hadn't heard of FreeNX, but another poster in another part of this thread says FreeNX can have multiple reconnectable sessions, but unlike VNC where you have to specify the port FreeNX has a mechanism for listing and choosing one of the available sessions. Okay, that sounds freakin' cool.
As a Canadian reading this thread, I wonder, is everyone in the US a lawyer? Why so much suing going on?
Funny, I was having a similar discussion with a Canadian friend just this weekend. In the U.S. there is a prevalent attitude that if anything bad happens to us or is perceived to happen to us (as indiviuals...sometimes as groups) it's somebody else's fault. I suppose suing is better than some of the alternative remedies. We don't all think this way, and hopefully most of us don't think this way, but it is a widely held and noticable attitude and is my theory as to why our courts stay so busy.
I *think* SCO sued Novell because Novell publicly claimed they didn't sell ownership of Unix to SCO, only distribution rights. That kinda puts a damper on SCO suing their customers, so they're suing Novell to clarify what was sold to SCO. I don't believe the suit mentions Suse or NetWare at all. But in any case SCO pays a large percentage of its Unix revenue to Novell, so they're still suing people they do business with over their business dealings because they don't have a leg to stand on to sue anyone over using Linux. They're hoping to buy a leg through one of these lawsuits, but it's a long shot.
The only question I have is this: Isn't Netware a competing product to SCO's Unix product? Technically, I believe it is. When you think about it, it is really kind of funny. SCO could have sued Novell for having a competing product once they purchased UnixWare.
I have a feeling Novell thought of that when they sold the rights to SCO since they had NetWare long before they bought Unix. They probably have plenty of language in the agreement to protect their flagship product.
This is a simple contractual issue. By buying the music you agree to the terms. If you violate those terms, they sue you for damages. It's that simple.
Please do not respond to this post with pseudo-legal or pseudo-Socialist rants. This is a VERY SIMPLE CONTRACTUAL ISSUE. If you don't agree to the contract, don't buy the music.
If it's a contractual issue, why are they suing for unlicensed distribution? The people they are suing didn't necessarily obtain the song from their personal bought CD. It's not a contractual issue, it's a copyright issue.
Anyway, I quit buying the music a long time ago. Happy?
SCO isn't suing its consumers. It's suing companies that use a competing product that they claim infringes on their property.
BZZZZZZZZZT. Wrong.
SCO wants the public to believe that, but it ain't true. SCO hasn't sued anybody for using Linux. They've sued IBM for breaking copyright and/or license contract with respect to their tech contributions to Linux, but IBM is a licensee of Unix; remember SCO "revoking" their AIX license? SCO is is suing Autozone because SCO claims Autozone--a SCO Unix licensee--is using libraries from SCO Unix in their Linux systems and violating the license and contract. They are suing DaimlerChrysler--a SCO licensee--for, uh...I forget.
But everybody they've sued is a current or former licensee of SCO's, and in at least the Autozone case they say they quit using SCO Unix over 7 years ago and aren't required to submit to the demands of SCO, yet SCO claims they never terminated the contract and must submit a list of processors SCO Unix is running on.
SCO has not sued anyone who is not their customer. They have not sued anyone for using Linux. They have not sued anyone claiming a Linux user owes them a license fee. They want you to think that, though.
Its (possibly) called attitude because it resembles a person's mood - whether the face is pointing up or down ;)
I kinda thought attitude was more spatial in origin and later applied to moods. A quick check of the dictionary leaves me unsure.
I always thought the Borg were great villians because they were superior in strengh and technology of mysterious origin and could not be reasoned or negotiated with. I think any show worth watching would have to humanize them (or be utterly boring). Having a sympathetic Borg nation would ruin the whole concept of Borg I think.
What could be more cool would be to follow Gainan's people as their worlds were destroyed by the Borg and they dispersed and were pursued. Or perhaps go back and follow one of the long extinct but mysteriously high tech peoples who leave artifacts to build later STNG episodes around.
That's a good way to save money on actors, too, because all ST villians are ugly, deformed or damaged in some way. :-)
Everything is encrypted, but they keys for public content is publicy posted. In theory a large organization could obtain a large number of nodes and attempt to discern where certain keys are by request response times, but Freenet does a few things like alter the "hops to live" setting and some routing tricks to make these types of attacks much more difficult.
But even if they can determine if a certain bit of content is on a particular nodes' store they can't through Freenet prove that that node requested the information because every node acts as a router and storer (even transient nodes now; actually the working differences between a transient and permanent node are gone except perhaps some announcing).
I'm far from an expert; they discuss stuff like this on the mailing lists from time to time.
The big scare is a government that doesn't respect plausible deniability and is willing to search your home and computer based on the fact that you're running a Freenet node, because you can't hide that you're running a node and your browser--unless you're very paranoid--will have some history and cached files from the Freenet proxy.
Actually I stay away from the questionable/objectionable content, anyway, so my scare is that I would get blamed for having that in my store even though I didn't request it. (If it even is in my store...I dunno!)
Stupid, that's the loopback address!
By the way, I'm at 10.0.0.1 at work and 192.168.0.1 at home.