I don't buy that. The chances must be astronomical. Somebody else posted that the UK has a law preventing cell phone use in gas stations because of this. That's retarted. Has this ever actually happend before?
A BIND patch wasn't the right way to address the problem anyway.
The legality of the wildcard scheme is what needs to be addressed. If it's illegal then the bind patch isn't needed, and if it's legal then then BIND people would probably find themselves sued.
It's not nearly as good as it used to be, but it's not bad. It's way cheaper than buying music in the store. Everyone is always saying that if CD's were $5 that they'd buy them all the time; well, here they are less than $5 so what's the problem?
You start doing sequels in Final Fantasy, you blow the whole thing. Now you have to worry about continuity and whether it fits in character and whatnot. Blah.
I liked new, completely independant stories. I like that they could completely revamp the game engine, completely change the concept of "magic spells" and whatnot... Truly produce a brand new game that could be enjoyed on its own.
I could play FF8 without playing FF7, it didnt make a difference.
And as I understand it, they are continuing that same tradition with FFXI. X2 is just 'an aside' of sorts, to the main series of games.
I can't get to the review right now becuase it's/.ed, but from what I recall of reading a review a few months ago of the japanese version, it's basically just fluff. An attempt to milk more money from the gamers with fancy graphics and some barely dressed CG hotties.
The DMCA has a subpoena provision which has been interpreted to require an ISP to provide the identity of the Kazaa user (say) in the USA. No such similar provision exists under Canadian law and the DMCA has no applicability in Canada in a civil suit. The closest you could get to it is a Bill of Discovery for an intended action.
Now IANAL, but you seem to be assuming that the ISP will refuse to cooperate until they are legally required to. But with all the media attention surrounding this issue lately, would it not be concievable that a large corporation may be able to bully and intimidate an ISP into revealing a file-sharers identity?
A friend of mine (here in New Brunswick) used to share a lot of media on gnutella and then one day the MPAA sent his ISP (Aliant, the east coast telco) a letter. They immediately forwarded it to my friend and insisted that he stop. If, next time, they (or somebody else) wants to take legal action and requests his identity, what are the chances that the ISP would refuse? Not too good, I would think.
You get a Cease and Desist letter- or more correctly, your ISP gets a C/D letter
Who gets a letter? The person harassing the spammer? I'm still confused.
But, if you're a hard core geek you just might get your site more notice as it gets mirrored out onto sympathetic hosts.
You'll get your site mirrored? Is that some sort or reward for harrassing the spammers? And what does being a "hard core geek" have to do with anything?
It's usually avialable on the shelf next to QuickTax. It lets you print as many times as you want. It just restricts the number of returns you can prepare to six. Actually, that restiction is only for returns having earnings over 25K. If you want to prepare a return for somebody who made less than 25K, it doesn't count toward the limit. You can even install it on a second computer without activating it and it will allow you to print previously prepared returns.
Actually, I sorta screwed up my system after installing this and I had to re-install it. I thought I was going to have major headaches on the support line convincing them to let me re-activate it, but I didn't need to call them at all. For some reason it just let me activate it twice (online) without complaing.:)
Before allowing e-mails through to your in-box, Mailblocks automatically transmits a numerical password to first-time correspondents. The senders must then retype the code into an onscreen dialog box before the system acknowledges them as legitimate.
This will block a lot of legitimate mail. You won't be able to subscribe to mailing lists. You can't recieve those "account authorization/activation emails" that lots of sites use. E-cards won't work. You won't be able to to get daily comics. Bascailly, any system where the mail is sent by an automated system won't work. There are probably others I can't think of.
I see no reason why these people won't just change their numbers.
They will. But then their ads become useless because the number is wrong, and all their previous business contacts have to be informed of the number change. Sounds like a big pain in the ass to me. Eventually they will have to stop using that advertising method. So, no, it won't catch anybody, but it will probably curb the practice.
You shouldn't really think of them as replacements; they're more like enhancements.
When deciding which STL containter to use you have to know the underlying algorithim. The STL "set" container is a linked list. You would use a set over a vector in the cases where you need the advantages of a linked list over an array. The map container is a red-black tree; dito there. So, understanding the stuff you used in school is still important; you just don't actually have to implement any of these structures in the real world (very often).
You imply that inheriting from a base class is always better, but that's not necessarially true.
The guy(s) who wrote the STL Containter Classes did it that way (using templates) because they think it's better than having all the objects inherit from one base. It's a style of programming called Generic Programming.
The basis of Java is dynamic run-time polymorphism. Using templates and generic programming techinques most run-time polymorphic algorithims can be reimplemented using compile-time polymorphism, which is much faster. That's what the C++ STL container classes are. That's where the power of templates are.
p.s. I've looked at the book in the article and I would describe it as an entire book of special cases. It explains things like recursive template definitions. Things that are so confusing that I try and stay away from most of them. They make code un-readable to anyone but a template expert. Then again, I don't write templated libraries either.
Most people seem to misunderstand the point of Freenet. I think that is Freenet's biggest problem.
It is not intended to be a p2p file-sharing app. It is not intended to be an alternative to kazaa or gnutella or any of those apps. It is intended to be a replacement for the web. It is intended to be navigated by using a browser (like a web browser) that displays documents which contain links (hyperlinks) to other documents. That's why searching isn't a big deal. Searching is secondary; it's not the point of the network. Searching would ideally be implemented the same way it is on the real web: with a search engine like google that indexes everything and is itself just a Freenet document.
Nobody seems to understand this and that's where I think Freenet's biggest problem lies. Once people understand this they start to see the possibilites. Freenet content can't be shut down the way web sites can be. People can run "web sites" on Freenet without having to buy server space from anyone. There a lots of advantages over the conventional web. Ofcourse, there are problems too, but the possibilities definetly make it worthwhile to give it a shot and to try and make it work.
Ok, what then would they do next after killing all posts from the UDPed domain?
They wait for the ISP to fix it's problems and then they stop UDPing it.
"Who put you in charge?" Their answer is always the same "We did."
What's wrong with that answer? Who do you think should be in charge? "In charge" meaning, who should decide on the rules? Who should enforce the rules? Seems to me that "the majority" is the best answer. Which is eactly what a UDP represents: a majority decision to enforce certian codes of conduct within the community. Or perhaps you're trying to suggest that there should be no rules? That anybody can do whatever they want? If "whatever they want" didn't affect other people then maybe; but that's rarely the case. Here we're talking about some major spam, which severely affects other people.
I believe that within any community, the majority has the right to decide on rules and to enforce them. That's the way communities work. The problems show up when the minorities have the power to impose their will on the community, but that's not the case here.
No. Firstly, the legal definition of censorship in the USA (where, unfortunately, most of the spammers are, even when they use resources outside the USA) is that it can only be done by the government - private entities can not, by definition, be guilty of censorship. Outside the US, laws are varied.
Secondly, even ignoring that definition, and using the uninformed public's opinion of what censorship is [preventing someone from saying something that they don't like], this does not fall under that criteria, either. The articles being canceled or shunned by pathhost aliasing are not picked and chosen by their content - ALL articles from the offending site are canceled or shunned. It has nothing to do with likes and dislikes - it has to do with abuse by one system of all of the other systems on usenet.
Now perhaps you disagree with that, but I thought I'd point it out. Personally I agree with it. Also, if you haven't read the entire FAQ, you should. There are a lote of interesting points made. Please don't bother to reply to this post unless you have. Here's another good one:
So if you cancel everything from the UDP site, don't legitimate people get canceled, too?
Yes. One of the driving forces behind forcing compliance with generally accepted guidelines is that the ISP's own legitimate users (if any) can bring pressure to bear on their rogue ISP. Remember, the UDP is a near-last-resort measure.
The constant urge many consumers have to buy new toys always amazes me. Sure, it may be "cool", but what the hell do I need all that crap for? I'm not interested. Thanks, but I'll keep my money in the bank.
It seems that the NV30 architecture requires a good deal more optimization to run shader code optimally (read: fast), while R300 deals with standard code much better. This would explain why NVIDIA is so harsh and aggressive in its criticism of the new 3DMark 2003, since the GeForce FX (NV30) seems to have a problem with non-optimized shader code, a trait that its mainstream siblings NV31 and NV34 will obviously share. If word got around - and in this community, it does - this could seriously hurt NVIDIA's sales.
To be fair, in real games this "handicap" will most likely not be nearly as pronounced as in the 3DMark test. After all, NVIDIA is very good at convincing game developers to optimize and adapt their code for their hardware.
So NVidia only runs well with optimized code huh? That's going to be a problem for them I think. It means we won't know how well it works until we get some games to benchmark it with. Sure, we could benchmark it with UT2003 or something; but that doesn't mean much. I don't care about UT2003. My current card runs that fine. I (and other people who buy these cards) care about how they will run the next gen games. We could wait until those games come out, but a lot of people don't have that patience. For those people it might be safer to get the ATI. If you go with NVidia you have to really trust that the games you want are going to be well optimized for it, though as Carmack said, they probably will be. Personally I'm still on the fence about which card I will eventually get.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't buy that. The chances must be astronomical. Somebody else posted that the UK has a law preventing cell phone use in gas stations because of this. That's retarted. Has this ever actually happend before?
Sounds like what happens when you lose your wallet. What's the diff?
A BIND patch wasn't the right way to address the problem anyway.
The legality of the wildcard scheme is what needs to be addressed. If it's illegal then the bind patch isn't needed, and if it's legal then then BIND people would probably find themselves sued.
It's not nearly as good as it used to be, but it's not bad. It's way cheaper than buying music in the store. Everyone is always saying that if CD's were $5 that they'd buy them all the time; well, here they are less than $5 so what's the problem?
After X comes XI, not X 2.
/.ed, but from what I recall of reading a review a few months ago of the japanese version, it's basically just fluff. An attempt to milk more money from the gamers with fancy graphics and some barely dressed CG hotties.
You start doing sequels in Final Fantasy, you blow the whole thing. Now you have to worry about continuity and whether it fits in character and whatnot. Blah.
I liked new, completely independant stories. I like that they could completely revamp the game engine, completely change the concept of "magic spells" and whatnot... Truly produce a brand new game that could be enjoyed on its own.
I could play FF8 without playing FF7, it didnt make a difference.
And as I understand it, they are continuing that same tradition with FFXI. X2 is just 'an aside' of sorts, to the main series of games.
I can't get to the review right now becuase it's
The DMCA has a subpoena provision which has been interpreted to require an ISP to provide the identity of the Kazaa user (say) in the USA. No such similar provision exists under Canadian law and the DMCA has no applicability in Canada in a civil suit. The closest you could get to it is a Bill of Discovery for an intended action.
Now IANAL, but you seem to be assuming that the ISP will refuse to cooperate until they are legally required to. But with all the media attention surrounding this issue lately, would it not be concievable that a large corporation may be able to bully and intimidate an ISP into revealing a file-sharers identity?
A friend of mine (here in New Brunswick) used to share a lot of media on gnutella and then one day the MPAA sent his ISP (Aliant, the east coast telco) a letter. They immediately forwarded it to my friend and insisted that he stop. If, next time, they (or somebody else) wants to take legal action and requests his identity, what are the chances that the ISP would refuse? Not too good, I would think.
If you're 200 shy of grandmaster then you're in the category he was talking about.
the constant harrassment of spammers has a price
Huh? Who's harrassing spammers?
You get a Cease and Desist letter- or more correctly, your ISP gets a C/D letter
Who gets a letter? The person harassing the spammer? I'm still confused.
But, if you're a hard core geek you just might get your site more notice as it gets mirrored out onto sympathetic hosts.
You'll get your site mirrored? Is that some sort or reward for harrassing the spammers? And what does being a "hard core geek" have to do with anything?
It's usually avialable on the shelf next to QuickTax. It lets you print as many times as you want. It just restricts the number of returns you can prepare to six. Actually, that restiction is only for returns having earnings over 25K. If you want to prepare a return for somebody who made less than 25K, it doesn't count toward the limit. You can even install it on a second computer without activating it and it will allow you to print previously prepared returns.
:)
Actually, I sorta screwed up my system after installing this and I had to re-install it. I thought I was going to have major headaches on the support line convincing them to let me re-activate it, but I didn't need to call them at all. For some reason it just let me activate it twice (online) without complaing.
You can buy a mod chip and install it. That's not illegal. Selling mod chips is illegal.
Before allowing e-mails through to your in-box, Mailblocks automatically transmits a numerical password to first-time correspondents. The senders must then retype the code into an onscreen dialog box before the system acknowledges them as legitimate.
This will block a lot of legitimate mail. You won't be able to subscribe to mailing lists. You can't recieve those "account authorization/activation emails" that lots of sites use. E-cards won't work. You won't be able to to get daily comics. Bascailly, any system where the mail is sent by an automated system won't work. There are probably others I can't think of.
I see no reason why these people won't just change their numbers.
They will. But then their ads become useless because the number is wrong, and all their previous business contacts have to be informed of the number change. Sounds like a big pain in the ass to me. Eventually they will have to stop using that advertising method. So, no, it won't catch anybody, but it will probably curb the practice.
Opps. Right. Temporary dyslexia there. Thanks for the correction.
You shouldn't really think of them as replacements; they're more like enhancements.
When deciding which STL containter to use you have to know the underlying algorithim. The STL "set" container is a linked list. You would use a set over a vector in the cases where you need the advantages of a linked list over an array. The map container is a red-black tree; dito there. So, understanding the stuff you used in school is still important; you just don't actually have to implement any of these structures in the real world (very often).
You imply that inheriting from a base class is always better, but that's not necessarially true.
The guy(s) who wrote the STL Containter Classes did it that way (using templates) because they think it's better than having all the objects inherit from one base. It's a style of programming called Generic Programming.
The basis of Java is dynamic run-time polymorphism. Using templates and generic programming techinques most run-time polymorphic algorithims can be reimplemented using compile-time polymorphism, which is much faster. That's what the C++ STL container classes are. That's where the power of templates are.
p.s. I've looked at the book in the article and I would describe it as an entire book of special cases. It explains things like recursive template definitions. Things that are so confusing that I try and stay away from most of them. They make code un-readable to anyone but a template expert. Then again, I don't write templated libraries either.
Most people seem to misunderstand the point of Freenet. I think that is Freenet's biggest problem.
It is not intended to be a p2p file-sharing app. It is not intended to be an alternative to kazaa or gnutella or any of those apps. It is intended to be a replacement for the web. It is intended to be navigated by using a browser (like a web browser) that displays documents which contain links (hyperlinks) to other documents. That's why searching isn't a big deal. Searching is secondary; it's not the point of the network. Searching would ideally be implemented the same way it is on the real web: with a search engine like google that indexes everything and is itself just a Freenet document.
Nobody seems to understand this and that's where I think Freenet's biggest problem lies. Once people understand this they start to see the possibilites. Freenet content can't be shut down the way web sites can be. People can run "web sites" on Freenet without having to buy server space from anyone. There a lots of advantages over the conventional web. Ofcourse, there are problems too, but the possibilities definetly make it worthwhile to give it a shot and to try and make it work.
Are they allowed to do that? Doesn't Microsoft own some sort of copyright (or something) on thier graphics?
Ok, what then would they do next after killing all posts from the UDPed domain?
They wait for the ISP to fix it's problems and then they stop UDPing it.
"Who put you in charge?" Their answer is always the same "We did."
What's wrong with that answer? Who do you think should be in charge? "In charge" meaning, who should decide on the rules? Who should enforce the rules? Seems to me that "the majority" is the best answer. Which is eactly what a UDP represents: a majority decision to enforce certian codes of conduct within the community. Or perhaps you're trying to suggest that there should be no rules? That anybody can do whatever they want? If "whatever they want" didn't affect other people then maybe; but that's rarely the case. Here we're talking about some major spam, which severely affects other people.
I believe that within any community, the majority has the right to decide on rules and to enforce them. That's the way communities work. The problems show up when the minorities have the power to impose their will on the community, but that's not the case here.
From the UDP FAQ:
Isn't this censorship?
No. Firstly, the legal definition of censorship in the USA (where, unfortunately, most of the spammers are, even when they use resources outside the USA) is that it can only be done by the government - private entities can not, by definition, be guilty of censorship. Outside the US, laws are varied. Secondly, even ignoring that definition, and using the uninformed public's opinion of what censorship is [preventing someone from saying something that they don't like], this does not fall under that criteria, either. The articles being canceled or shunned by pathhost aliasing are not picked and chosen by their content - ALL articles from the offending site are canceled or shunned. It has nothing to do with likes and dislikes - it has to do with abuse by one system of all of the other systems on usenet.
Now perhaps you disagree with that, but I thought I'd point it out. Personally I agree with it. Also, if you haven't read the entire FAQ, you should. There are a lote of interesting points made. Please don't bother to reply to this post unless you have. Here's another good one:
So if you cancel everything from the UDP site, don't legitimate people get canceled, too?
Yes. One of the driving forces behind forcing compliance with generally accepted guidelines is that the ISP's own legitimate users (if any) can bring pressure to bear on their rogue ISP. Remember, the UDP is a near-last-resort measure.
The constant urge many consumers have to buy new toys always amazes me. Sure, it may be "cool", but what the hell do I need all that crap for? I'm not interested. Thanks, but I'll keep my money in the bank.
I didn't mean the email. I mean you didn't read the really long LawMeme discussion article about the email that was also linked.
Dell ships and fully supports RedHat on their servers.
You didn't read the article did you?
Carmack says:
It seems that the NV30 architecture requires a good deal more optimization to run shader code optimally (read: fast), while R300 deals with standard code much better. This would explain why NVIDIA is so harsh and aggressive in its criticism of the new 3DMark 2003, since the GeForce FX (NV30) seems to have a problem with non-optimized shader code, a trait that its mainstream siblings NV31 and NV34 will obviously share. If word got around - and in this community, it does - this could seriously hurt NVIDIA's sales.
To be fair, in real games this "handicap" will most likely not be nearly as pronounced as in the 3DMark test. After all, NVIDIA is very good at convincing game developers to optimize and adapt their code for their hardware.
So NVidia only runs well with optimized code huh? That's going to be a problem for them I think. It means we won't know how well it works until we get some games to benchmark it with. Sure, we could benchmark it with UT2003 or something; but that doesn't mean much. I don't care about UT2003. My current card runs that fine. I (and other people who buy these cards) care about how they will run the next gen games. We could wait until those games come out, but a lot of people don't have that patience. For those people it might be safer to get the ATI. If you go with NVidia you have to really trust that the games you want are going to be well optimized for it, though as Carmack said, they probably will be. Personally I'm still on the fence about which card I will eventually get.
Good summary of the premise. The "review" made no sense but now I have an idea what he's talking about. Thanks.