So you're a 'sit down, take it from behind' kind of American then? Come on, when a Big Company With A Monopoly releases a piece of software that you MUST buy and use in order to open certain file formats, you really DON'T have a choice as to whether to enter into that contract or not. You must do so to read said file formats. That's when it becomes reasonable to tear an unreasonable license agreement to shreads.
1. Software is released under a 'Ransom' license. 2. People don't buy the software, waiting for it to become free once x others have bought it. 3. No one buys the software. 4. The software never becomes free, and no one uses it.
It's wholly unfair that some people get to use it for free whilst others pay for it. Opensource developers SHOULD code apps because they like doing so, and because they're useful, and they should make their wages doing maintainance/individual projects for companies.
Urm, I think this is true. One time with my Athlon 1.4ghz, I took the heatsink and fan off, to see what it would be like if I turned the computer on without them. The CPU kind of... melted, within a couple of seconds.
But the trouble is, most of their customers (present company mostly accepted) are stupid. They think that a higher clock rate IS what they need. If AMD want to stay in the CPU market with Intel, they need to keep increasing clock speed. I know that that's fighting things on Intel's terms, which isn't good, but won't simple-minded people otherwise just go with Intel's 'faster' CPUs?
Yes, I can't really understand why AMD would pull out of potentially the most lucrative area of the chip market, having gained an extremely tough-to-gain foothold there! Maybe they just can't handle the heat against Wintel? Sigh...
But if one person hires a lawyer who is better than the other's lawyer, that's 'unequal protection under the law'. The street cameras are there for the prosecution to build up as much evidence in cases where they may want to prosecute. I don't think that's a crime.
The music industry is reporting today that it has created an 'unbreakable' DRM system which should finally prevent pirates from illegally reproducing music. The system involves setting into law the requirement for everyone to wear headphones at all times which meet the new Digital Rights Management standard. These headphones will not allow users to listen to music which is unencrypted, according to major record labels. However, they do say that the headphones will allow users to hear most languages being spoken for a modest fee, as long as that language has been approved. Currently approved languages include English and Japanese, although the music industry say that more will be added soon, and that a minimal number of nations will need to change their official language to comply with the new standard.
That's "average Joe"s problem. Who cares if they can't be bothered to put in the research to pirate music, or think that stuff like the DMCA is sensible, resulting in them paying for their music? Not a problem for the people who don't want to.
This seems like an extraordinarily extravagent measure just to digitize data on an LP. As most stereos that can play LPs have an audio out jack, you could just connect that to the 'line in' of your computer and hey presto, you have the ability to rip the audio stream.
No, CDs are good! If companies (like Sony) replace CDs with files when supplying music, they *will* be able to implement DRM which will be nearly impossible to circimvent. ie. Requirement of using a proprietary player combined with no need to support an older audio format (as in unencrypted audio tracks on CDs for user with older CD players).
Thing is, if NO computer savvy users buy this stuff, there will be no one around to crack/rip it. The reason music 'ripping' was developed was because of many computer savvy users having access to the original CD to rip it in the first place, and invent ripping software. If no computer savvy users buy the DRM CDs, there will be NO mp3s/whatever of it to download.
It's only the same as the argument people religiously make about not wanting cookies on their machine. Cookies are used almost exclusively by advertisers to better target ads, but many people still insist on disabling them for 'privacy' reasons. Not my opinion though.
You're right, but I don't think your conclusion is. It's not that convicted criminals shouldn't lose some of their rights; I agree with that. The real problem is the ridiculous number of laws we have in society, for meny things which really shouldn't be offences at all. If there was an easier way to erase stupid laws from the books (I believe that in the US a law cannot be 'erased', only amended?), most people WOULDN'T be breaking the law.
Well I just went back to the earliest archive they had of my first ever website, and all I got was a message saying 'page not in archive'. The later snapshots they had were a completely different, more modern design. Impressive indeed.
The point is, if it was a legitimate version of KaZaA, a virus couldn't use it to spread. The throttle should be disabled entirely for certain 'trusted' apps that need many outgoing connections, surely?
Now whether someone has downloaded a hacked version of the software which is trojaned is a different matter...
Yes. What would make this system work well is 2 features; first, a 'temporarily disable throttle' for when you need to connect to many machines at once, and second, a 'disable throttle for these applications' so you could disable it for, say, a web browser. I wouldn't like to have to wait 1 second for each new outgoing connection to a new server; there may be a webpage with links to images/IFRAMEs/etc on many different servers.
I think your understanding is flawed. The way I read it, the throttle will only limit the number of *outgoing* connections, making a DDOS basically impossible, far from making it easy. Incoming connections would not be affected. However if a trojan or whatever tried to open 1000 connections out of your machine for a DDOS, you would be informed, and the trojan would be found out.
Doesn't that sya something about how completely inadequate the antivirus software is, though? My dad keeps having problems with viruses at the moment. One machine connects to the internet, and gets the majority of the viruses although some (Brazil?? Code Red?) have been found on other networked machines. Yet he has the supposedly wonderful Norton Antivirus installed on all machines, and it keeps popping up and 'quaranteening' files, apparently to no avail.
I think a big problem with viruses is the false sense of security given by antivirus programs. People install them and think they can do anything with no worries about getting a virus. Personally I have no antivirus tool installed on my machine, am connected to the net nearly 24/7 with ADSL, and have only ever got about 1 or 2 viruses, ever. And they didn't do any serious damage:-)
There's an idea. Instead of one company researching/detecting viruses, why not have a program similar to those anti-spam implementations, whereby if 10 people report a signature as a virus to the network, the network informs all machines and blocks the virus... somehow?:-) Well it sounded good in my head...
Nah, being lazy tends to mean the exact opposite. You write crap underlying code, and then put in some fancy GUI to try and cover up the sins of the program.
The average 500 message JunkMail folder is not big enough for the purpose.
What? If a Bayesian script was having to go through significantly more than that per e-mail to check whether it was spam, you'd be waiting minutes just to get your e-mail classified.
Slashdot Mirror
So you're a 'sit down, take it from behind' kind of American then? Come on, when a Big Company With A Monopoly releases a piece of software that you MUST buy and use in order to open certain file formats, you really DON'T have a choice as to whether to enter into that contract or not. You must do so to read said file formats. That's when it becomes reasonable to tear an unreasonable license agreement to shreads.
Oh and it's EULA, not ELUA, by the way.
This model seems stupid to me.
1. Software is released under a 'Ransom' license.
2. People don't buy the software, waiting for it to become free once x others have bought it.
3. No one buys the software.
4. The software never becomes free, and no one uses it.
It's wholly unfair that some people get to use it for free whilst others pay for it. Opensource developers SHOULD code apps because they like doing so, and because they're useful, and they should make their wages doing maintainance/individual projects for companies.
Urm, I think this is true. One time with my Athlon 1.4ghz, I took the heatsink and fan off, to see what it would be like if I turned the computer on without them. The CPU kind of... melted, within a couple of seconds.
But the trouble is, most of their customers (present company mostly accepted) are stupid. They think that a higher clock rate IS what they need. If AMD want to stay in the CPU market with Intel, they need to keep increasing clock speed. I know that that's fighting things on Intel's terms, which isn't good, but won't simple-minded people otherwise just go with Intel's 'faster' CPUs?
Yes, I can't really understand why AMD would pull out of potentially the most lucrative area of the chip market, having gained an extremely tough-to-gain foothold there! Maybe they just can't handle the heat against Wintel? Sigh...
But if one person hires a lawyer who is better than the other's lawyer, that's 'unequal protection under the law'. The street cameras are there for the prosecution to build up as much evidence in cases where they may want to prosecute. I don't think that's a crime.
Music industry creates 'unbreakable' DRM system
The music industry is reporting today that it has created an 'unbreakable' DRM system which should finally prevent pirates from illegally reproducing music. The system involves setting into law the requirement for everyone to wear headphones at all times which meet the new Digital Rights Management standard. These headphones will not allow users to listen to music which is unencrypted, according to major record labels. However, they do say that the headphones will allow users to hear most languages being spoken for a modest fee, as long as that language has been approved. Currently approved languages include English and Japanese, although the music industry say that more will be added soon, and that a minimal number of nations will need to change their official language to comply with the new standard.
That's "average Joe"s problem. Who cares if they can't be bothered to put in the research to pirate music, or think that stuff like the DMCA is sensible, resulting in them paying for their music? Not a problem for the people who don't want to.
This seems like an extraordinarily extravagent measure just to digitize data on an LP. As most stereos that can play LPs have an audio out jack, you could just connect that to the 'line in' of your computer and hey presto, you have the ability to rip the audio stream.
No, CDs are good! If companies (like Sony) replace CDs with files when supplying music, they *will* be able to implement DRM which will be nearly impossible to circimvent. ie. Requirement of using a proprietary player combined with no need to support an older audio format (as in unencrypted audio tracks on CDs for user with older CD players).
Thing is, if NO computer savvy users buy this stuff, there will be no one around to crack/rip it. The reason music 'ripping' was developed was because of many computer savvy users having access to the original CD to rip it in the first place, and invent ripping software. If no computer savvy users buy the DRM CDs, there will be NO mp3s/whatever of it to download.
It's only the same as the argument people religiously make about not wanting cookies on their machine. Cookies are used almost exclusively by advertisers to better target ads, but many people still insist on disabling them for 'privacy' reasons. Not my opinion though.
You're right, but I don't think your conclusion is. It's not that convicted criminals shouldn't lose some of their rights; I agree with that. The real problem is the ridiculous number of laws we have in society, for meny things which really shouldn't be offences at all. If there was an easier way to erase stupid laws from the books (I believe that in the US a law cannot be 'erased', only amended?), most people WOULDN'T be breaking the law.
http://web.archive.org/web/19971221012817/http://s lashdot.org/
With quality website snapshots like this, I can see how it will be a great resource for future historians!
Well I just went back to the earliest archive they had of my first ever website, and all I got was a message saying 'page not in archive'. The later snapshots they had were a completely different, more modern design. Impressive indeed.
The point is, if it was a legitimate version of KaZaA, a virus couldn't use it to spread. The throttle should be disabled entirely for certain 'trusted' apps that need many outgoing connections, surely?
Now whether someone has downloaded a hacked version of the software which is trojaned is a different matter...
Looks like you failed.
Yes. What would make this system work well is 2 features; first, a 'temporarily disable throttle' for when you need to connect to many machines at once, and second, a 'disable throttle for these applications' so you could disable it for, say, a web browser. I wouldn't like to have to wait 1 second for each new outgoing connection to a new server; there may be a webpage with links to images/IFRAMEs/etc on many different servers.
I think your understanding is flawed. The way I read it, the throttle will only limit the number of *outgoing* connections, making a DDOS basically impossible, far from making it easy. Incoming connections would not be affected. However if a trojan or whatever tried to open 1000 connections out of your machine for a DDOS, you would be informed, and the trojan would be found out.
Doesn't that sya something about how completely inadequate the antivirus software is, though? My dad keeps having problems with viruses at the moment. One machine connects to the internet, and gets the majority of the viruses although some (Brazil?? Code Red?) have been found on other networked machines. Yet he has the supposedly wonderful Norton Antivirus installed on all machines, and it keeps popping up and 'quaranteening' files, apparently to no avail.
:-)
I think a big problem with viruses is the false sense of security given by antivirus programs. People install them and think they can do anything with no worries about getting a virus. Personally I have no antivirus tool installed on my machine, am connected to the net nearly 24/7 with ADSL, and have only ever got about 1 or 2 viruses, ever. And they didn't do any serious damage
There's an idea. Instead of one company researching/detecting viruses, why not have a program similar to those anti-spam implementations, whereby if 10 people report a signature as a virus to the network, the network informs all machines and blocks the virus... somehow? :-) Well it sounded good in my head...
Nah, being lazy tends to mean the exact opposite. You write crap underlying code, and then put in some fancy GUI to try and cover up the sins of the program.
What makes you think that your 'new government' (read: Democrats) will be any better?
The average 500 message JunkMail folder is not big enough for the purpose.
What? If a Bayesian script was having to go through significantly more than that per e-mail to check whether it was spam, you'd be waiting minutes just to get your e-mail classified.
20 MINUTES of work? I could do that webpage in 1 minute.