My question would be, if it's supposed to be a worldwide project, how do they plan on pushing the power out from the West to the Eastern continents? I mean, really wouldn't it make more sense to build two reactors, one for Europe and nearby islands, and one for N+S America?
Budget wise, I'd imagine running a "safe" conduit between continents would present a rather significant cost just the same as building two reactors would?
Yes, but the idea is you aren't "partially hosting" anything.
First of all, hosting implies that they are keeping storage of the file, they aren't - just routing - which I believe is one of the reasons why ISPs are (again, finally) protected.
Remember, the RIAA is for the mostpart going after the people sharing the media in the first place (esp in out-of-US areas where downloading is fair use).
"G" never in any way should receive a usable file, so there's nothing to nail them on. If it were to be used as a case in court, what would the RIAA do... you can't play the file, and an indivual song can be encoded many ways in compressed format, so how do you prove a file chunk (esp one just passing through somebody's bandwidth) was a piece or part of copyrighted works?
And with your pr0n arguement... last time I checked you could classify the ISP as "giving away illegal pr0n," but the point is that they are no less liable than anyone else could be for a service that is "abused."
And remember, a lot of people using this service might be more concerned with privacy, not "piracy," so intent arguements will go down the toilet.
Not only that, but the data being moved could be purely a bunch of 1's and zeros. For example, if I pass through a GZIP'ed version of a file... I send it through in chunks through various sources (even Kazaa will chunk files). For example:
(where Z is the final recipient, and A B C are senders of file chunks, others are random users in between)...
A--->G--->Z
B--->H--->Z
C--->J--->Z
Neither G, H, or J have an actual copy of the file, at most they have is a partial-derived work, or a bunch of bits passing through their bandwidth.
Now, Kazaa goes straight with A-->Z, B--->Z etc, by adding middlemen A, B, and C can be virtually unknown from the perspective of Z, and Z somewhat unknown from the perspective of A.
Anonymity for both side... and the middlemen don't actually have anything more than a few bits. How could anyone go after them when they don't have any copyrighted content on their PC's?
As mentioned before, source is open but that doesn't mean they are granting the rights to redistribute.
Open Source=can view source, it's just with traditional OS you often have modification/redistribution rights.
You could modify it... and it also doesn't mention making a fresh piece of coding using the general idea of the original.
No doubt, but given that you can see the code (and obviously have some knowledge of a better level of coding), you can fix it. Couldn't do that with an MS patch, which was my point.
Then nobody would have noticed the stack vulnerability, unless you had either a machine vulnerable to the original exploit, or a machine vulnerable to a new exploit as per being patched
Since it is open-source, however, somebody can fix that bug nice and quick before it becomes another problem (gee, imagine that).
Lack of foresite on the behalf of the patch developer is a bit disturbing, but not a bad reflection on OS code at all:-)
Many people claim MS is behind patching because closed-source doesn't allow 3rd-party patches
A 3rd-party patch fixes a vulnerability in IE
MS is able to announce that closed-sourcedness is not - in fact - so much of a hinderance to the patching process, and that the programming community at large seems to be able to get along regardless.
Just my line of thought, and maybe I'm a pessimist... but I wouldn't try MS not to put their own spin on things.
The article is scarse on details, I'm wondering just how they did manage to patch things without possibly disruption the functionality of IE... considering the close-sourceness leaves one somewhat groping in the dark?
Maybe it's just my penchant for Japan-themed movies, but I found this one to be excellent. Great acting, good plot... and somehow they managed to pull it off without gobs of arterial spray (yes, there is blood, but for the concept of the movie it is limited) and/or gratuitous sex.
In fact... it's the first movie I've seen in a long time that pulled the romance theme without a down-and-dirty-sheets moment. Imagine that.
It also reminded me of Shogun... for any that remember the old miniseries (recently re-released on DVD) with Richard Chamberlain as a European naval pilot stranded in Japan. Could just be that Cruise resembled Blackthorne in this one, but man the guy had style! In fact... not normally being much of a Cruise fan myself, I'd recommend this movie all the movie because he really did do a good job of it.
One could argue that Microsoft uses their monopoly position to strongly urge the OEMs not to include Real software
Be that as it may, I would urg OEMs the same way. The fact is, if your operating system comes shipped with Real and it's bloat/spyware laced BS, you are going to blame one of two people:
a) The hardware vendor that bundled the OS, etc
b) The OS creator
Now on that point, I'd be more or less OK with QuickTime being included as default, or even WinAmp (WA5 any good?), but including Real is a bad deal for not only MS, but the hardware vendor and the end user.
* One-Way Ticket to Nigeria, to meet Rev. Motobu, grand-daughter of the former president, after convincing Motobu that the spammer is the son of a millionaire who loves him deeply.
Wouldn't this be overly cruel to Motobu. I wonder though, what kind of person really marries a spammer (don't some have husbands/wives, children) - and if they know his/her primary business activity?
* Starring role in a series of adult films set at a petting zoo. A porcupine and alligator petting zoo.
Please be kind, we don't support abuse of animals here on slashdot!
You can't take 1000+ pages of events that span months and compress them into 9 hours without losing something.
No, but you can make it meaningful and appealing to fans. It's not about getting every detail from the book in, it's about keeping the major ones (instead of subbing in long-winded but not plot-major scenes) , not mangling the story, and maintaining the atmosphere and theme.
The problem is that hollywood tends to take good stories and substitute emotion with "action," and plot with CGI or blowing stuff up.
OK, so the US gov't has blocked countries that weren't yay-war-let's-join-bush-and-bomb-iraq from contributing to the Iraq rebuild, and you expect them to go for open-source?
In light of everything, I think we can expect the US gov't and allies to flood Iraq with moneymongering corporations in order to gain profit for their own countries for such a "job well done."
If I remember correctly, one of the earlier viruses did in fact state something to the affect that "you machine is infected with XX, contact YY for removal assistance"
Why would we sign the FTAA though? If you look at current "free trade" agreements, they are much more "line the pockets of American business and screw Canadian ones" agreements.
Want a good example: try looking up "British Columbia" and "Softwood Lumber." I'm hoping that sometime the Canadian gov't might wake up and realize this, but I think they're too busy listening to the jingle of big-business coin in their pocket instead of the voices of taxpayers.
- Trader A buys DVD in country X for $n
- Trader A sells DVD in country Y for $n+m
It's not quite that. It's more something like:
Buyer A gets DVD in Region X for $n
Buyer B cannot get DVD in Region Y until 3 months after region X release, at which point he buys it for $n (where it is already $n-$m in region X by this time)
As mentioned in another post, this makes it hell to buy somebody in another region a movie as a gift, and generally screws up a lot of internation trade in movies by anyone but monopolistic movie companies. If they want to enforce artificial scarcity, they should accept blame when I get a ripped DVD because I have no other choice
Are they actually illegal, or just scarce? US laws can be dumb, but a law forcing incompatability of players between different countries almost seems to be a violation of one's rights.
DVD regions are a huge pain though. I wanted to get my friend in Australia "X-men 2" for Christmas, but it isn't available there yet, and DVD's from a local region code won't play overseas.
I'll probably end up buying them the DVD, ripping it and re-burning it in a multiregion PAL-friendly format. If I send the original I don't see how anyone can complain, artifical scarcity is an illegal monopolistic activity.
And the Five Golden Rings were wrought by the hand of the Dark Lord Sauron, meaning they extract a price too heavy to be described in monetary terms, as they scorch your very soul, slowly dragging you bodily into a spiritual nether-world where you live as a wraith, neither dead nor alive, eternally locked in a heck-like existence where you live only to serve your dark master.
Is it just me, or do the "Five Golden Rings" sound a heck of a lot like an RIAA contract for music artists?
"Do these people have a legal right to distribute this music?"
No, maybe not. But the problem is that corporations manage to get acts pulled that give legal rights where they have no moral ones. If they wish to sue P2P file traders into oblivion, should they also have a legal right to tax the sh** out of CD sales for everyone (and not just music "pirates") with the premise that it is going to cover the losses due to piracy?
It's a little thing called "having your cake and eating it too" (or vise-verse). These companies not only want to stop P2P, they want to use it as an excuse to tax everybody and fill their own coffers.
Now you might say, "oh, of course a dirty music pirate would say such a thing." But, guess what, I'm pro-rights, no pro "piracy." I don't pirate music, but I do buy CD's. So tell me why my moral rights are being trampled on because some big company is using their horrendous amounts of money to increase their "legal" rights, in order to make more horrendous amounts of money? The law is supposed to represent the people... you might want to remember that when greedy corporations are using it as a weapon to defend their pocketbooks.
But fundamentally a lot less useful than Kazaa, seeing as though selection would be curtained to "contents of 1 audio CD" instead of the vast offering current P2P give.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of people here mentioned that they have seen this feature on their phones, and/or methods for disabling it.
Anyone have a website on phones with this feature and how to disable, etc... if not how about we start one?
My question would be, if it's supposed to be a worldwide project, how do they plan on pushing the power out from the West to the Eastern continents? I mean, really wouldn't it make more sense to build two reactors, one for Europe and nearby islands, and one for N+S America?
Budget wise, I'd imagine running a "safe" conduit between continents would present a rather significant cost just the same as building two reactors would?
Bought it for my daughter for Christmas a week ago. Looking foreward to seeing the three un-aired episodes.
:-)
She's looking forward to it or you are? Perhaps you both are firefly fans, in which case you might end up trading copies of FF for Christmas
Yes, but the idea is you aren't "partially hosting" anything.
First of all, hosting implies that they are keeping storage of the file, they aren't - just routing - which I believe is one of the reasons why ISPs are (again, finally) protected.
Remember, the RIAA is for the mostpart going after the people sharing the media in the first place (esp in out-of-US areas where downloading is fair use).
"G" never in any way should receive a usable file, so there's nothing to nail them on. If it were to be used as a case in court, what would the RIAA do... you can't play the file, and an indivual song can be encoded many ways in compressed format, so how do you prove a file chunk (esp one just passing through somebody's bandwidth) was a piece or part of copyrighted works?
And with your pr0n arguement... last time I checked you could classify the ISP as "giving away illegal pr0n," but the point is that they are no less liable than anyone else could be for a service that is "abused."
And remember, a lot of people using this service might be more concerned with privacy, not "piracy," so intent arguements will go down the toilet.
Not only that, but the data being moved could be purely a bunch of 1's and zeros. For example, if I pass through a GZIP'ed version of a file... I send it through in chunks through various sources (even Kazaa will chunk files). For example:
(where Z is the final recipient, and A B C are senders of file chunks, others are random users in between)...
A--->G--->Z
B--->H--->Z
C--->J--->Z
Neither G, H, or J have an actual copy of the file, at most they have is a partial-derived work, or a bunch of bits passing through their bandwidth.
Now, Kazaa goes straight with A-->Z, B--->Z etc, by adding middlemen A, B, and C can be virtually unknown from the perspective of Z, and Z somewhat unknown from the perspective of A.
Anonymity for both side... and the middlemen don't actually have anything more than a few bits. How could anyone go after them when they don't have any copyrighted content on their PC's?
As mentioned before, source is open but that doesn't mean they are granting the rights to redistribute.
Open Source=can view source, it's just with traditional OS you often have modification/redistribution rights.
You could modify it... and it also doesn't mention making a fresh piece of coding using the general idea of the original.
No doubt, but given that you can see the code (and obviously have some knowledge of a better level of coding), you can fix it. Couldn't do that with an MS patch, which was my point.
Then nobody would have noticed the stack vulnerability, unless you had either a machine vulnerable to the original exploit, or a machine vulnerable to a new exploit as per being patched
:-)
Since it is open-source, however, somebody can fix that bug nice and quick before it becomes another problem (gee, imagine that).
Lack of foresite on the behalf of the patch developer is a bit disturbing, but not a bad reflection on OS code at all
I was thinking more along the lines that:
Many people claim MS is behind patching because closed-source doesn't allow 3rd-party patches
A 3rd-party patch fixes a vulnerability in IE
MS is able to announce that closed-sourcedness is not - in fact - so much of a hinderance to the patching process, and that the programming community at large seems to be able to get along regardless.
Just my line of thought, and maybe I'm a pessimist... but I wouldn't try MS not to put their own spin on things.
The article is scarse on details, I'm wondering just how they did manage to patch things without possibly disruption the functionality of IE... considering the close-sourceness leaves one somewhat groping in the dark?
Maybe it's just my penchant for Japan-themed movies, but I found this one to be excellent. Great acting, good plot... and somehow they managed to pull it off without gobs of arterial spray (yes, there is blood, but for the concept of the movie it is limited) and/or gratuitous sex.
In fact... it's the first movie I've seen in a long time that pulled the romance theme without a down-and-dirty-sheets moment. Imagine that.
It also reminded me of Shogun... for any that remember the old miniseries (recently re-released on DVD) with Richard Chamberlain as a European naval pilot stranded in Japan. Could just be that Cruise resembled Blackthorne in this one, but man the guy had style! In fact... not normally being much of a Cruise fan myself, I'd recommend this movie all the movie because he really did do a good job of it.
One could argue that Microsoft uses their monopoly position to strongly urge the OEMs not to include Real software
Be that as it may, I would urg OEMs the same way. The fact is, if your operating system comes shipped with Real and it's bloat/spyware laced BS, you are going to blame one of two people:
a) The hardware vendor that bundled the OS, etc
b) The OS creator
Now on that point, I'd be more or less OK with QuickTime being included as default, or even WinAmp (WA5 any good?), but including Real is a bad deal for not only MS, but the hardware vendor and the end user.
Any mouse has 'em... they tend to grow on the front :-)
How else do you think they feed the baby mice?
Perhaps you'd be better to look at rats to satisfy some of your cravings?
* One-Way Ticket to Nigeria, to meet Rev. Motobu, grand-daughter of the former president, after convincing Motobu that the spammer is the son of a millionaire who loves him deeply.
Wouldn't this be overly cruel to Motobu. I wonder though, what kind of person really marries a spammer (don't some have husbands/wives, children) - and if they know his/her primary business activity?
* Starring role in a series of adult films set at a petting zoo. A porcupine and alligator petting zoo.
Please be kind, we don't support abuse of animals here on slashdot!
You can't take 1000+ pages of events that span months and compress them into 9 hours without losing something.
No, but you can make it meaningful and appealing to fans. It's not about getting every detail from the book in, it's about keeping the major ones (instead of subbing in long-winded but not plot-major scenes) , not mangling the story, and maintaining the atmosphere and theme.
The problem is that hollywood tends to take good stories and substitute emotion with "action," and plot with CGI or blowing stuff up.
OK, so the US gov't has blocked countries that weren't yay-war-let's-join-bush-and-bomb-iraq from contributing to the Iraq rebuild, and you expect them to go for open-source?
In light of everything, I think we can expect the US gov't and allies to flood Iraq with moneymongering corporations in order to gain profit for their own countries for such a "job well done."
Yes, but wouldn't this also mean they couldn't accept incoming emails?
If I remember correctly, one of the earlier viruses did in fact state something to the affect that "you machine is infected with XX, contact YY for removal assistance"
I was looking at that one, in fact. Will have to call tonight and figure out if they've got it.
Meanwhilst, don't suppose you know any good places to order chocolates etc, also in Au?
You sir, are my savior!
How long has it been around? I haven't been able to find it elsewhere, so if I'm lucky perhaps my friend will not have it quite yet.
Why would we sign the FTAA though? If you look at current "free trade" agreements, they are much more "line the pockets of American business and screw Canadian ones" agreements.
Want a good example: try looking up "British Columbia" and "Softwood Lumber." I'm hoping that sometime the Canadian gov't might wake up and realize this, but I think they're too busy listening to the jingle of big-business coin in their pocket instead of the voices of taxpayers.
- Trader A buys DVD in country X for $n
- Trader A sells DVD in country Y for $n+m
It's not quite that. It's more something like:
Buyer A gets DVD in Region X for $n
Buyer B cannot get DVD in Region Y until 3 months after region X release, at which point he buys it for $n (where it is already $n-$m in region X by this time)
As mentioned in another post, this makes it hell to buy somebody in another region a movie as a gift, and generally screws up a lot of internation trade in movies by anyone but monopolistic movie companies. If they want to enforce artificial scarcity, they should accept blame when I get a ripped DVD because I have no other choice
no Sir, they're illegal in this country. (U.S.)
Are they actually illegal, or just scarce? US laws can be dumb, but a law forcing incompatability of players between different countries almost seems to be a violation of one's rights.
DVD regions are a huge pain though. I wanted to get my friend in Australia "X-men 2" for Christmas, but it isn't available there yet, and DVD's from a local region code won't play overseas.
I'll probably end up buying them the DVD, ripping it and re-burning it in a multiregion PAL-friendly format. If I send the original I don't see how anyone can complain, artifical scarcity is an illegal monopolistic activity.
And the Five Golden Rings were wrought by the hand of the Dark Lord Sauron, meaning they extract a price too heavy to be described in monetary terms, as they scorch your very soul, slowly dragging you bodily into a spiritual nether-world where you live as a wraith, neither dead nor alive, eternally locked in a heck-like existence where you live only to serve your dark master.
Is it just me, or do the "Five Golden Rings" sound a heck of a lot like an RIAA contract for music artists?
"Do these people have a legal right to distribute this music?"
No, maybe not. But the problem is that corporations manage to get acts pulled that give legal rights where they have no moral ones. If they wish to sue P2P file traders into oblivion, should they also have a legal right to tax the sh** out of CD sales for everyone (and not just music "pirates") with the premise that it is going to cover the losses due to piracy?
It's a little thing called "having your cake and eating it too" (or vise-verse). These companies not only want to stop P2P, they want to use it as an excuse to tax everybody and fill their own coffers.
Now you might say, "oh, of course a dirty music pirate would say such a thing." But, guess what, I'm pro-rights, no pro "piracy." I don't pirate music, but I do buy CD's. So tell me why my moral rights are being trampled on because some big company is using their horrendous amounts of money to increase their "legal" rights, in order to make more horrendous amounts of money? The law is supposed to represent the people... you might want to remember that when greedy corporations are using it as a weapon to defend their pocketbooks.
But fundamentally a lot less useful than Kazaa, seeing as though selection would be curtained to "contents of 1 audio CD" instead of the vast offering current P2P give.
Still, not a bad theory to start with.