I'm using the stock Firefox on Gutsy -- I've found that youtube tends to crash Firefox when I go to a subsequent movie before the first one has completed. If I open links in new windows, it barely ever crashes even when jumping in the middle of a vid. It's sort of a pain, but I just alt-tab back and pause the one I didn't want to finish, and by the time I'm back at the current video, it has loaded enough to start playing. This also works fairly well with tabs, but not as well as new windows.
Anyway, the only time I get a crash is when switching vids midstream in the same window.
Forget the admin -- he/she probably got paid for doing the Flash work and is glad to have the bucks. What you need to do, is walk in and ask to talk to the owner. Tell him/her his website design is causing him to lose business because you can no longer order dinner on your way home. This causes you to patronize other shops. As a small business owner myself, I can tell you that that sort of feedback has a 99.99% chance of getting serious attention. There's always an outlier here or there of course.
OK, I poked around a little -- I'm no copyright expert by any means and the 30 minutes I spent is not a real analysis. That said:
If you make a recording, the statute says (statutes trump regs) you have exclusive right to do a number of things with it, for example "(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;" http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106
Then in the Copyright Board Regs, there is this: " (c) Copyright Owner is a sound recording copyright owner who is entitled to receive royalty payments under 17 U.S.C. 112(e) or 114(g).... (e) Licensee is a person that has obtained statutory licenses under 17 U.S.C. 112 and 114, and the implementing regulations, to make digital audio transmissions as part of a Service (as defined in paragraph (h) of this section), and ephemeral recordings for use in facilitating such transmissions." S 383.2 And if the copyright owner happens to want royalties, here's the payload.
Essentially, if you make something and want it to be covered by the Copyright Board regs -- that's your right. If you want to give it away, that's your right. This idea that the law somehow forces people to take payment for their copyrighted work is silly.
That doesn't make any sense at all -- you can't charge for something you don't own. That's called fraud. Anyone have a citation to the statute or rule that says this? I can't envision such a proposition being legal. To use a bad car analogy, that would be like Avis renting your car to a third party. Just ain't gonna happen.
Internet radio broadcasts of non-RIAA artists will be in no way affected because the RIAA can only charge royalties for music it owns. This will _help_ remove the bubblegum from our ears and encourage "internet radio [to] play anything and everything. No predefined time slots, no specific genres, and each listener can have something different."
Umm... if the RIAA doesn't control the rights to the music, it can't collect any royalties. Internet radio won't be dead, US based broadcasts of RIAA music will be dead.
You're missing the point -- they aren't thinking in terms of "half of something is better than nothing" -- they're thinking in terms of stream rippers. They WANT internet radio to die.
Obvious solution -- broadcast from Venezuela. Chavez probably won't give a rip about the RIAA.
I'm pretty impressed the site is up. It must be serving quite a bit of bandwidth at this point. Not bad hosting selection for a guy who's every link is the "click here" variety (turns out that Yahoo is doing the hosting). Also, somewhere on there he mentions being on dialup -- that's pretty impressive uploading all that material over a phone line.
Correct - the MAC address is not included in the encrypted data. Seems like a next step in security would involve encrypting the MAC address so it can't be sniffed, but then how would a computer know which packet belongs to it? Anyway, if anyone does do MAC address encryption now, it's pretty exotic hardware -- not the type of thing you'd just find on the shelf.
You're right -- I have the 9.3.0 PPC kernel and it worked fine on wired and wireless. I was under the mistaken impression you had to patch the kernel to get it to work. Maybe that was old info.
I'm not sure if you are making a joke, so just in case you aren't, I'll point out that MAC address filtering is no security at all. Your laptop is transmitting it's MAC as part of the regular wifi transmissions so sniffing it out of the air is trivial with Kismet or Kismac. Spoofing a MAC address is trivial on Linux and Windows machines, a bit more involved to make your OS X Leaopard system able to spoof but not rocket science, and apparently trivial with "spoofmac" on Tiger.
Cookies are small files on your computer that websites create to store user preferences, such as language settings. Each time you visit a Cuil page, your computer's cookies automatically provide Cuil with your preferences. You can change or delete your cookies anytime via your Web browser options.
We do not record the information in your cookies on our servers; your browser sends your preferences to us with each search request. This way, we do not store any personal information about you on our servers.
The name may suck, and the layout is unfamiliar, but their privacy policy rocks!
Privacy is a hot topic these days, and we want you to feel totally comfortable using our service, so our privacy policy is very simple: when you search with Cuil, we do not collect any personally identifiable information, period. We have no idea who sends queries: not by name, not by IP address, and not by cookies (more on this later). Your search history is your business, not ours.
More precisely:
Logs
We do not keep logs of our users' search activity.
Except the main feature of Cuil seems to be that they keep no personally identifiable information. Cuil can't be an overlord if they don't know who you are. I kind of like that and I'm going to give it a serious try out.
For those times when my phone is dead or out of range. In that case, I get no caller-id info so if the caller wants to hear back, he or she will have to leave a message. It's easy for the caller to tell though -- the voicemail comes on in one ring.
Everyone who knows me knows to NOT leave voicemail. I hate voicemail -- it's such a waste to have call in, retrieve a message that says "Hi it's Joe -- give me a call", when all the relevant information is on caller-id. People who know me don't leave a message and I just call back based on the "missed calls" menu.
Now, if the phone is dead or out of range, the greeting comes on in one ring. In that case, it is acceptable to leave me a message, in all other cases, it is only acceptable to hang up. It takes just a small amount of time to train your friends, and saves tons of wasted time going through the voicemail message.
Make _intentionally_ having it a crime. Yes, this does create a harder burden for prosecution, but why should someone be prosecuted for something that 1) they didn't actually do, 2) didn't even know was going on, and 3) didn't even know they had. If we prosecute such people, we might as well just admit we're no longer "home of the free" but are rather just another pathetic abusive government.
Having performed a similar operation on a couple g3 iBooks, I know what you mean. The new macbooks are a completely different story though -- remove the battery, remove a metal strip designed to be removed easily (three screws which won't fall out of the strip), pull out the drive, remove holder from old drive, attach to new drive, slide in new drive, replace metal strip, replace battery. 10 minutes max.
I was wondering how long it would take to get to this type of eminently sensible solution. Plainly, the best solution is to just not have the data on your computer. Most laptop drives are easily swapable too. If I'm going to cross the border, I'll just pop in the 60gb drive that came with my laptop (which was quickly replaced with something a bit more spacious) -- It'll be basically blank except for the OS. Any data I really feel a need to get through customs can be mcrypted, put on a machine I can access from the net, and deleted from the machine customs will get to fondle. Once over the border, it's a simple matter to retrieve and decrypt.
Perspective IS a great thing. Let's say I'm stalking you, maybe I'm a law enforcement person with a personal grudge, or a good social engineer with a personal grudge. What better way to get a nice map of your usual hangouts?
This wasn't part of the evidence introduced at trial, at least as indicated in the live-blog -- perhaps the fact of a restraining order was admitted, but I don't recall reading about the accusations. People make all kinds of accusations in divorces.
You know what it takes to get a restraining order in a divorce case? Not much more than a "he/she makes me feel nervous" type statement. There was no violence. You can bet your bottom dollar that if there was, the DA would have trumpeted that to high heaven.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm using the stock Firefox on Gutsy -- I've found that youtube tends to crash Firefox when I go to a subsequent movie before the first one has completed. If I open links in new windows, it barely ever crashes even when jumping in the middle of a vid. It's sort of a pain, but I just alt-tab back and pause the one I didn't want to finish, and by the time I'm back at the current video, it has loaded enough to start playing. This also works fairly well with tabs, but not as well as new windows.
Anyway, the only time I get a crash is when switching vids midstream in the same window.
Forget the admin -- he/she probably got paid for doing the Flash work and is glad to have the bucks. What you need to do, is walk in and ask to talk to the owner. Tell him/her his website design is causing him to lose business because you can no longer order dinner on your way home. This causes you to patronize other shops. As a small business owner myself, I can tell you that that sort of feedback has a 99.99% chance of getting serious attention. There's always an outlier here or there of course.
OK, I poked around a little -- I'm no copyright expert by any means and the 30 minutes I spent is not a real analysis. That said:
... (e) Licensee is a person that has obtained statutory licenses under 17 U.S.C. 112 and 114, and the implementing regulations, to make digital audio transmissions as part of a Service (as defined in paragraph (h) of this section), and ephemeral recordings for use in facilitating such transmissions." S 383.2 And if the copyright owner happens to want royalties, here's the payload.
If you make a recording, the statute says (statutes trump regs) you have exclusive right to do a number of things with it, for example "(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;" http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106
Then in the Copyright Board Regs, there is this: " (c) Copyright Owner is a sound recording copyright owner who is entitled to receive royalty payments under 17 U.S.C. 112(e) or 114(g).
Essentially, if you make something and want it to be covered by the Copyright Board regs -- that's your right. If you want to give it away, that's your right. This idea that the law somehow forces people to take payment for their copyrighted work is silly.
You can read about the 112(e) and 114(g) requirements here: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#114
That doesn't make any sense at all -- you can't charge for something you don't own. That's called fraud. Anyone have a citation to the statute or rule that says this? I can't envision such a proposition being legal. To use a bad car analogy, that would be like Avis renting your car to a third party. Just ain't gonna happen.
Internet radio broadcasts of non-RIAA artists will be in no way affected because the RIAA can only charge royalties for music it owns. This will _help_ remove the bubblegum from our ears and encourage "internet radio [to] play anything and everything. No predefined time slots, no specific genres, and each listener can have something different."
Umm ... if the RIAA doesn't control the rights to the music, it can't collect any royalties. Internet radio won't be dead, US based broadcasts of RIAA music will be dead.
You're missing the point -- they aren't thinking in terms of "half of something is better than nothing" -- they're thinking in terms of stream rippers. They WANT internet radio to die.
Obvious solution -- broadcast from Venezuela. Chavez probably won't give a rip about the RIAA.
I'm pretty impressed the site is up. It must be serving quite a bit of bandwidth at this point. Not bad hosting selection for a guy who's every link is the "click here" variety (turns out that Yahoo is doing the hosting). Also, somewhere on there he mentions being on dialup -- that's pretty impressive uploading all that material over a phone line.
Correct - the MAC address is not included in the encrypted data. Seems like a next step in security would involve encrypting the MAC address so it can't be sniffed, but then how would a computer know which packet belongs to it? Anyway, if anyone does do MAC address encryption now, it's pretty exotic hardware -- not the type of thing you'd just find on the shelf.
You're right -- I have the 9.3.0 PPC kernel and it worked fine on wired and wireless. I was under the mistaken impression you had to patch the kernel to get it to work. Maybe that was old info.
I'm not sure if you are making a joke, so just in case you aren't, I'll point out that MAC address filtering is no security at all. Your laptop is transmitting it's MAC as part of the regular wifi transmissions so sniffing it out of the air is trivial with Kismet or Kismac. Spoofing a MAC address is trivial on Linux and Windows machines, a bit more involved to make your OS X Leaopard system able to spoof but not rocket science, and apparently trivial with "spoofmac" on Tiger.
Here's an overview:
http://www.irongeek.com/i.php?page=security/changemac
For Linux, if you just want a random MAC to make yourself even more anonymous:
http://www.alobbs.com/macchanger
Similar software exists for windows (google "windows macchanger")
It stands to reason that we keep electing pricks when all we have is a choice amongst various colors of pricks.
http://www.cuil.com/info/privacy
Except the main feature of Cuil seems to be that they keep no personally identifiable information. Cuil can't be an overlord if they don't know who you are. I kind of like that and I'm going to give it a serious try out.
For those times when my phone is dead or out of range. In that case, I get no caller-id info so if the caller wants to hear back, he or she will have to leave a message. It's easy for the caller to tell though -- the voicemail comes on in one ring.
Everyone who knows me knows to NOT leave voicemail. I hate voicemail -- it's such a waste to have call in, retrieve a message that says "Hi it's Joe -- give me a call", when all the relevant information is on caller-id. People who know me don't leave a message and I just call back based on the "missed calls" menu.
Now, if the phone is dead or out of range, the greeting comes on in one ring. In that case, it is acceptable to leave me a message, in all other cases, it is only acceptable to hang up. It takes just a small amount of time to train your friends, and saves tons of wasted time going through the voicemail message.
Make _intentionally_ having it a crime. Yes, this does create a harder burden for prosecution, but why should someone be prosecuted for something that 1) they didn't actually do, 2) didn't even know was going on, and 3) didn't even know they had. If we prosecute such people, we might as well just admit we're no longer "home of the free" but are rather just another pathetic abusive government.
Having performed a similar operation on a couple g3 iBooks, I know what you mean. The new macbooks are a completely different story though -- remove the battery, remove a metal strip designed to be removed easily (three screws which won't fall out of the strip), pull out the drive, remove holder from old drive, attach to new drive, slide in new drive, replace metal strip, replace battery. 10 minutes max.
I was wondering how long it would take to get to this type of eminently sensible solution. Plainly, the best solution is to just not have the data on your computer. Most laptop drives are easily swapable too. If I'm going to cross the border, I'll just pop in the 60gb drive that came with my laptop (which was quickly replaced with something a bit more spacious) -- It'll be basically blank except for the OS. Any data I really feel a need to get through customs can be mcrypted, put on a machine I can access from the net, and deleted from the machine customs will get to fondle. Once over the border, it's a simple matter to retrieve and decrypt.
Perspective IS a great thing. Let's say I'm stalking you, maybe I'm a law enforcement person with a personal grudge, or a good social engineer with a personal grudge. What better way to get a nice map of your usual hangouts?
Japanese whale hunting ship.
Don't get your hopes up. The Yushin Maru will be on its way soon.
This wasn't part of the evidence introduced at trial, at least as indicated in the live-blog -- perhaps the fact of a restraining order was admitted, but I don't recall reading about the accusations. People make all kinds of accusations in divorces.
You know what it takes to get a restraining order in a divorce case? Not much more than a "he/she makes me feel nervous" type statement. There was no violence. You can bet your bottom dollar that if there was, the DA would have trumpeted that to high heaven.