So you're arguing that private content put on a Web site should be password protected, meaning that content without a password is public, by definition. You then claim that just even though someone doesn't set a password on their WiFi setup, it should still be considered private? And the reason being that it's too hard to set a password/passphrase? Last time I checked it wasn't exactly easy to password protect content if you don't know how (and don't have a tool to make things easier), and I would argue that setting up WEP can be easier.
And if you think that transfer for web sites doesn't cost money, you are wrong - it's expensive.
Sorry, that should have read "How can you come to physical harm online, unless you give out traceable information?" A subtle distinction, but makes more sense...
Viruses can spread in other ways. Reputable download sites and/or official mirrors can get infected (e.g. TeamSpeak had this happen recently). The Linux kernel's BK repository was recently compromised (by that I mean the code was compromised at some point and got into the BK repository) and a priv elevation "feature" was inserted for a day or so. There are still users out there running old, vulnerable versions of Outlook/OE, although this most likely doesn't apply to the grandparent (? I lost track). Also witness the recent worms which didn't require user interaction to spread.
Oh, and I use Linux exclusively, I'm just pointing out that you can't be too careful.
Why does everyone seem to think that it is a given that any national healthcare system will be granted a monopoly? I really just don't get it, it's perfectly possible with a national health care service to still have the private sector...
Damnit, stop posting stuff which gets modded down unfairly which I then have to metamoderate unfair; It's starting to get annoying having to M2 in favour of a former-foe so many times...:-/
How do you know you've not got a malicious programme running if you never check? It's not like viruses randomly start games of casino with the stake being your HD any more...
From your sig I'm guessing (HUGE guess here) that you support the GPL, or at least Linux. If there was no copyright, nothing would stop companies from taking it and sticking it into a closed product.
Well, you don't really have to circumvent anything to get the pages, otherwise just looking at them would be against the DMCA... robots.txt isn't a law, it's just a generally followed guideline.
They're only interested in making old copies of information available. They don't want to annoy webmasters; hence the robots.txt usage. I don't think they actually remove the pages, just flag them as "not for public" or something.
Queue somebody to take a crawler (hell, even a bash script using wget) to specifically archive these pages. Hell, they could even use a user-agent which doesn't look like a bot.
Of course, people would be less likely to trust random-Joe from the Internet than, say, The Wayback Machine, but I expect this is what will happen...
Slashdot Mirror
"Our new XML transaction system just saved us a nickel!" -- MS Windows Server 2003 ad. In the UK.
Bleh.
When we speak of free STDs, we are referring to freedom, not price.
So you're arguing that private content put on a Web site should be password protected, meaning that content without a password is public, by definition. You then claim that just even though someone doesn't set a password on their WiFi setup, it should still be considered private? And the reason being that it's too hard to set a password/passphrase? Last time I checked it wasn't exactly easy to password protect content if you don't know how (and don't have a tool to make things easier), and I would argue that setting up WEP can be easier.
And if you think that transfer for web sites doesn't cost money, you are wrong - it's expensive.
Of course it is possible IHBT...
Sorry, that should have read "How can you come to physical harm online, unless you give out traceable information?" A subtle distinction, but makes more sense...
How can you come to physical harm online without giving out traceable information?
One of my machines is on the other side of my room. I can hear it. It is on the other side of the house
Viruses can spread in other ways. Reputable download sites and/or official mirrors can get infected (e.g. TeamSpeak had this happen recently). The Linux kernel's BK repository was recently compromised (by that I mean the code was compromised at some point and got into the BK repository) and a priv elevation "feature" was inserted for a day or so. There are still users out there running old, vulnerable versions of Outlook/OE, although this most likely doesn't apply to the grandparent (? I lost track). Also witness the recent worms which didn't require user interaction to spread.
Oh, and I use Linux exclusively, I'm just pointing out that you can't be too careful.
Why does everyone seem to think that it is a given that any national healthcare system will be granted a monopoly? I really just don't get it, it's perfectly possible with a national health care service to still have the private sector...
Damnit, stop posting stuff which gets modded down unfairly which I then have to metamoderate unfair; It's starting to get annoying having to M2 in favour of a former-foe so many times... :-/
How do you know you've not got a malicious programme running if you never check? It's not like viruses randomly start games of casino with the stake being your HD any more...
Yes, but they would also be free to do the things the GPL specifically denies, e.g. publish binaries without making source code available.
From your sig I'm guessing (HUGE guess here) that you support the GPL, or at least Linux. If there was no copyright, nothing would stop companies from taking it and sticking it into a closed product.
Of course it's highly likely IHBT.
Are you sure you don't work at the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant?
"secure" perhaps?
Well, you don't really have to circumvent anything to get the pages, otherwise just looking at them would be against the DMCA... robots.txt isn't a law, it's just a generally followed guideline.
They're only interested in making old copies of information available. They don't want to annoy webmasters; hence the robots.txt usage. I don't think they actually remove the pages, just flag them as "not for public" or something.
Yeah, but it removes any pages it has stored when it finds itself disallowed from the page, IIRC.
Uhh... yes, dunno why I had queue on my mind :-/.
Queue somebody to take a crawler (hell, even a bash script using wget) to specifically archive these pages. Hell, they could even use a user-agent which doesn't look like a bot.
Of course, people would be less likely to trust random-Joe from the Internet than, say, The Wayback Machine, but I expect this is what will happen...
Nah, sounds like Othello to me...
It's been like that all the time I've been here...
Same here... I'd never even heard of X10 until I heard people complaining about the popups on /.
Then again, I doubt US residents get NatWest ads, for example, it could just be with a UK host...
Yeah, sorry, humour doesn't tend to work well in text unless it's surrounded by tags... It's hard to tell what people are thinking.
Sorry, it'd probably be better to e-mail the maintainer of the Radeon framebuffer ( ajoshi "at" kernel crashing [dot] org ) than to e-mail LKML.
:-/.
And if you know all this and I'm annoying you, please say
Have you tried the MM patches though? Not trying to be pushy or anything, just wondering...
If not, have you reported it to LKML?