Delete the original shortcut, since the executable it calls up includes the disk check. Create a shortcut to fallout3.exe instead. No more SecuROM disk check.
The content providers (I'm thinking of Hulu, NBC, etc. that explicitly block GoogleTV) were already providing the content for free to PCs. Hook the PC to the TV, and you've got the same result as GoogleTV. Google TV just made it a lot simpler for the average Joe to plug a box in and view the content on his big screen TV, instead of the PC.
Since the content providers made their decision to block GoogleTV, I've considered them to be little more than hypocrites and their action a petty grab for cash.
I think Xerox Litigation Services would disagree with you. They may not translate from legalese to Common American English, but their services certainly qualify for the "electronically scouring a database of legal decisions and report back related cases" part.
Microsoft hasn't messed with a non-standard MBR, but they will fail certain Windows Updates when a non-standard MBR is present. They don't come right out and say so, too... just give some generic error code.
I've had it happen when trying to install some Vista related Bitlocker update, and SP1 on Windows 7. Both would error out, since GRUB's installed on my primary drive. Yank it, and let the system boot off the WIndows drive (separate drives for Linux & WIndows), and the patch completes fine.
Ideally, MS would toss up a verbose error stating that the MBR's not standard, and that it was refusing to touch it further.
Hence the first two "allowable" incidents. Let the subscriber (or a hired tech) call in, explain the situation, and allow 'net access after the system's being cleaned or the infected system is disconnected from the local network. That's not assuming that the hired tech has access to mobile broadband. Yeah, it's not perfect, but it's better than simply twiddling thumbs while the infected systems are controlled.
Detecting the difference between the encrypted P2P traffic and "normal" P2P traffic's gonna be difficult at best, I'd agree. So approach it from a different angle. Figure out what the infected PCs are being used for, and look for similar behavior. I'm not saying it's easy, but it's something.
Who doesn't have access to a fax machine? My local grocery store has one. My workplace has one. As another poster pointed out, a landline and a scanner (or AiO printer) will function as one. Anyone sufficiently literate to remove the malware from an infected system should be able to reason out how to access a fax machine.
Send the T&C requirement off to marketing. I imagine they'll spin off some blurb about the ISP making the internet a "safer place". Let marketing word it right, and the unwashed masses would probably eat it up. Not everybody, but likely enough.
Thankfully, I'm not running an ISP. The previous has been nothing but an idle thought experiment. It's someone else's problem to deal with.
Just throw a clause in the Terms and Conditions that states the subscriber is required to maintain an outgoing connection free of malware. Otherwise, the ISP gets to redirect all traffic to a "Hey, you're infected!" page for the duration.
The first time the subscriber calls in to say it's rectified, remove the redirection and monitor it. The second time, be nice and request some proof. The third time, require a faxed copy of a receipt/invoice/statement from a third party verifying that all the connected in the residence are clean and all wireless networks are encrypted securely. Rinse, lather, repeat.
It seems the T&C is being used as a catch all for all the other shady business telecom's are pushing down our tubes... may as well as use it for a bit of good, too.
When people in government or other position of power commit crimes, then cover these crimes up (or attempt to) under a guise of "national security", then the people who subsequently "leak unauthorized information" are patriots, true to the nature of the founding of this country and true to the PEOPLE of this nation. It must be encouraged, not prosecuted nor punished.
Contributing to the cover up invites nothing but corruption and tyranny.
Because if "Doesn't Have a Hat Guy" trips over that cord, your data will be very private, and very secure. So much that you won't be able to access it, either.
That might just give you some insight about how much respect the position has these days... then I'd suggest pondering a bit on why it's shown that much respect.
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
Obviously, they have the power to do so. But where has it been stated that the power is limited to Congress and only Congress? I don't see the word "sole" anywhere in that section of the Constitution.
That'd be nice, if I had a reasonable choice of cell providers. VZ supplies great coverage in my area. All the other carriers? Not so much.
Can I go to the carriers and dicker for a better contract? Nope. I'm stuck with whatever they give me. Whatever they give me smells similar to what the other guys are pushing.
A bit is a bit is a bit. I understand why they don't want tethering, and I think it's dirty. If I buy a hammer, I darn well ought to be able to use it however I choose, within legal boundaries. If I buy a data plan, I darn well ought to be able to use it however I choose. They need to quit trying to control my use to boost their profits.
Gentoo: Because I started out on LinuxFromScratch (three times in a month, woot!), and I understand the value of a package manager but enjoy being able to tweak packages at will.
If I get sued by the MPAA for copyright infringment (violating their public performance clause), are you going to blame me because I left my living room blinds open?
Then why aren't the terms provided at the time of purchase?
Last time I bought software at a retail store, nobody asked me if I agreed to any terms before I paid for it.
Let me guess... some judge somewhere says that the purchase is not complete until I proceed to install the software, and it asks me to agree to the EULA. If I don't agree, I'm free to return the software or not use it. Even if the retailer won't allow the return (the box is open) and the manufacturer directs me to the retailer.
If you can't tell, I have little respect for EULAs.
Maybe I'm self-centered, but the way I see it, Linux doesn't *need* to compete with Windows on the desktop front. I'm perfectly happy with Linux just doing its own thing and Microsoft doing theirs. Linux does what I need it to, with the exception of playing games. So I use Linux for the majority of my desktop activities. I might say that most of my activities are actually easier under Linux, since I've got it set up the way I want to. If I have a piece of software or hardware that doesn't play nicely under Linux... well, a reboot and a minute or so later and I'm in Windows.
I'm running Gentoo, and quite comfortably, so I'm not your average (Linux) user. It's the right tool for most jobs for me. Do I want Linux in the hands of everyone? Nah, not really... only if it's the right tool for their jobs, too.
Problem is, you've got to get enough consumers together that actually give a shit. Seems like most folk these days just shrug their shoulders and look at me sideways when I mention why I avoid certain companies. These are the same people that go "OOooohhhh, shiny!" when some new product with new features arrives.
Actually... yeah. Radiant AI was going to be *huge* when they first announced it. Then discussion of it quietly went away, for the most part.
If I remember correctly, it was "toned down", due to an unforeseen complication. The example given: a NPC has a "goal" of sweeping. They don't have a broom handy, so now they have a new goal of obtaining a broom. Oddly enough, their neighbor happens to have a broom on their front porch. The NPC wanders over to get the broom, whereupon the broom's true owner declares the NPC a thief, and initiates a fight. Guards may or may not intercede. Someone, or a lot of someone, dies. All of that over a broom.
Even after the revamp, it's fairly easy to get Radiant AI to bug out. Guards attacking other guards, due to improperly aimed arrows or melee weapon swings. Check out YouTube.
Um, ok. Instead of "4th amendment violations are not the appropriate response," how 'bout we take a different approach:
"No touch my balls." (Unless you're a hot babe in a bikini with a written permission slip from my wife.)
"No radar to see my balls." (Hot babe with a bikini is *NOT* excepted here. All she's gotta do is ask politely and provide the aforementioned paperwork from my wife, and I'll be happy to show her without any possibly cancer inducing radiation).
That ought to get the message across pretty well. Furthermore, the likelihood of my wife providing permission is just as likely as a terrorist taking the plane down, so...
Slashdot Mirror
Delete the original shortcut, since the executable it calls up includes the disk check. Create a shortcut to fallout3.exe instead. No more SecuROM disk check.
Yes, it really is that simple.
The content providers (I'm thinking of Hulu, NBC, etc. that explicitly block GoogleTV) were already providing the content for free to PCs. Hook the PC to the TV, and you've got the same result as GoogleTV. Google TV just made it a lot simpler for the average Joe to plug a box in and view the content on his big screen TV, instead of the PC.
Since the content providers made their decision to block GoogleTV, I've considered them to be little more than hypocrites and their action a petty grab for cash.
No, there are a few good lawyers out there. It's other 99% that give them a bad name.
I think Xerox Litigation Services would disagree with you. They may not translate from legalese to Common American English, but their services certainly qualify for the "electronically scouring a database of legal decisions and report back related cases" part.
Microsoft hasn't messed with a non-standard MBR, but they will fail certain Windows Updates when a non-standard MBR is present. They don't come right out and say so, too... just give some generic error code.
I've had it happen when trying to install some Vista related Bitlocker update, and SP1 on Windows 7. Both would error out, since GRUB's installed on my primary drive. Yank it, and let the system boot off the WIndows drive (separate drives for Linux & WIndows), and the patch completes fine.
Ideally, MS would toss up a verbose error stating that the MBR's not standard, and that it was refusing to touch it further.
Hence the first two "allowable" incidents. Let the subscriber (or a hired tech) call in, explain the situation, and allow 'net access after the system's being cleaned or the infected system is disconnected from the local network. That's not assuming that the hired tech has access to mobile broadband. Yeah, it's not perfect, but it's better than simply twiddling thumbs while the infected systems are controlled.
Detecting the difference between the encrypted P2P traffic and "normal" P2P traffic's gonna be difficult at best, I'd agree. So approach it from a different angle. Figure out what the infected PCs are being used for, and look for similar behavior. I'm not saying it's easy, but it's something.
Who doesn't have access to a fax machine? My local grocery store has one. My workplace has one. As another poster pointed out, a landline and a scanner (or AiO printer) will function as one. Anyone sufficiently literate to remove the malware from an infected system should be able to reason out how to access a fax machine.
Send the T&C requirement off to marketing. I imagine they'll spin off some blurb about the ISP making the internet a "safer place". Let marketing word it right, and the unwashed masses would probably eat it up. Not everybody, but likely enough.
Thankfully, I'm not running an ISP. The previous has been nothing but an idle thought experiment. It's someone else's problem to deal with.
Just throw a clause in the Terms and Conditions that states the subscriber is required to maintain an outgoing connection free of malware. Otherwise, the ISP gets to redirect all traffic to a "Hey, you're infected!" page for the duration.
The first time the subscriber calls in to say it's rectified, remove the redirection and monitor it. The second time, be nice and request some proof. The third time, require a faxed copy of a receipt/invoice/statement from a third party verifying that all the connected in the residence are clean and all wireless networks are encrypted securely. Rinse, lather, repeat.
It seems the T&C is being used as a catch all for all the other shady business telecom's are pushing down our tubes... may as well as use it for a bit of good, too.
Bullshit.
When people in government or other position of power commit crimes, then cover these crimes up (or attempt to) under a guise of "national security", then the people who subsequently "leak unauthorized information" are patriots, true to the nature of the founding of this country and true to the PEOPLE of this nation. It must be encouraged, not prosecuted nor punished.
Contributing to the cover up invites nothing but corruption and tyranny.
Because if "Doesn't Have a Hat Guy" trips over that cord, your data will be very private, and very secure. So much that you won't be able to access it, either.
That might just give you some insight about how much respect the position has these days... then I'd suggest pondering a bit on why it's shown that much respect.
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
Obviously, they have the power to do so. But where has it been stated that the power is limited to Congress and only Congress? I don't see the word "sole" anywhere in that section of the Constitution.
That'd be nice, if I had a reasonable choice of cell providers. VZ supplies great coverage in my area. All the other carriers? Not so much.
Can I go to the carriers and dicker for a better contract? Nope. I'm stuck with whatever they give me. Whatever they give me smells similar to what the other guys are pushing.
A bit is a bit is a bit. I understand why they don't want tethering, and I think it's dirty. If I buy a hammer, I darn well ought to be able to use it however I choose, within legal boundaries. If I buy a data plan, I darn well ought to be able to use it however I choose. They need to quit trying to control my use to boost their profits.
Gentoo: Because I started out on LinuxFromScratch (three times in a month, woot!), and I understand the value of a package manager but enjoy being able to tweak packages at will.
If I get sued by the MPAA for copyright infringment (violating their public performance clause), are you going to blame me because I left my living room blinds open?
Then why aren't the terms provided at the time of purchase?
Last time I bought software at a retail store, nobody asked me if I agreed to any terms before I paid for it.
Let me guess... some judge somewhere says that the purchase is not complete until I proceed to install the software, and it asks me to agree to the EULA. If I don't agree, I'm free to return the software or not use it. Even if the retailer won't allow the return (the box is open) and the manufacturer directs me to the retailer.
If you can't tell, I have little respect for EULAs.
Maybe I'm self-centered, but the way I see it, Linux doesn't *need* to compete with Windows on the desktop front. I'm perfectly happy with Linux just doing its own thing and Microsoft doing theirs. Linux does what I need it to, with the exception of playing games. So I use Linux for the majority of my desktop activities. I might say that most of my activities are actually easier under Linux, since I've got it set up the way I want to. If I have a piece of software or hardware that doesn't play nicely under Linux... well, a reboot and a minute or so later and I'm in Windows. I'm running Gentoo, and quite comfortably, so I'm not your average (Linux) user. It's the right tool for most jobs for me. Do I want Linux in the hands of everyone? Nah, not really... only if it's the right tool for their jobs, too.
Goatse, for those of you who's retinas/brain/psyche haven't been burned so badly that it Goatse no longer affects you...
Jimmy Page
Problem is, you've got to get enough consumers together that actually give a shit. Seems like most folk these days just shrug their shoulders and look at me sideways when I mention why I avoid certain companies. These are the same people that go "OOooohhhh, shiny!" when some new product with new features arrives.
Come on... this is Slashdot. Aren't we all more comfortable with currency like platinum, gold, silver, copper?
Actually... yeah. Radiant AI was going to be *huge* when they first announced it. Then discussion of it quietly went away, for the most part.
If I remember correctly, it was "toned down", due to an unforeseen complication. The example given: a NPC has a "goal" of sweeping. They don't have a broom handy, so now they have a new goal of obtaining a broom. Oddly enough, their neighbor happens to have a broom on their front porch. The NPC wanders over to get the broom, whereupon the broom's true owner declares the NPC a thief, and initiates a fight. Guards may or may not intercede. Someone, or a lot of someone, dies. All of that over a broom.
Even after the revamp, it's fairly easy to get Radiant AI to bug out. Guards attacking other guards, due to improperly aimed arrows or melee weapon swings. Check out YouTube.
No, but I might say that I have two balls. I would not say that I have a couple of balls.
I'd also say that I have three books on my shelf. I would not say I have a few of books on my shelf.
Um, ok. Instead of "4th amendment violations are not the appropriate response," how 'bout we take a different approach:
"No touch my balls." (Unless you're a hot babe in a bikini with a written permission slip from my wife.)
"No radar to see my balls." (Hot babe with a bikini is *NOT* excepted here. All she's gotta do is ask politely and provide the aforementioned paperwork from my wife, and I'll be happy to show her without any possibly cancer inducing radiation).
That ought to get the message across pretty well. Furthermore, the likelihood of my wife providing permission is just as likely as a terrorist taking the plane down, so...
Not necessarily. I've heard of transplanting some Subaru EJ22's in classic Bugs. I wouldn't be surprised to hear they top out around 90 mph.