You are wrong. Unless the company explicitly releases its copyright on the content and puts it in the public domain, the copyright stands even if the company doesn't (that's one of the big beefs with people that don't like current copyright laws - even after ridiculous amounts of time, liquidations, bankruptcy, death, etc. - it's STILL nigh impossible to have a copyright released). In Loki's case, I'm pretty sure they also transferred their copyrights back to the original game owners, but I could be wrong. At any rate, the mere fact that Loki is gone doesn't give you the right to download a copy of the title you didn't make yourself. That's the other catch: downloading a coyp from a pal is illegal - it has to be a copy YOU MADE from your OWN original.
And this is why I have exactly NO respect for most copyright laws and don't care one bit about the people "stealing" some music, movies, and software (but, hey - let's face it.. if someone's downloading a warez version of HL2 ten minutes after it hits store shelves... well, they're just a dirty theif).
The only reason the entertainment industry is having trouble right now is because their product is easy to steal! If it wasn't, they would be in the green right now.
Got facts? Because I have the perennial "music sales went up while Napster was around and dropped off when it died". "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc", but it's more "evidence" than you posted.
On top of that, wouldn't Occam's Razor suggest that the simplest explanation to this problem is that people don't want to buy the music? Why would the remedy to that automatically be assumed to be anything other than the product itself for this particular industry, when common sense and prior knowledge tells us that the most common reason for people not purchasing a product is an inability to percieve a value in that purchase? Or, to put it more bluntly: the most likely reason people aren't buying this or any other product is that they don't think it's worth it.
Now, if you have some evidence that suggests something other than the common wisdom, I'm all ears. I'm not too proud to learn something new.
So, wait - let me get this straight: you believe that O'Reilly's book, written by his own hand, vindicates his ignorant, self-centered, and undeniably skewed version of reality? Does Mein Kamp justify Hitler then, or am I missing something here?
No, wait, seriously..... you're an idiot. O'Reilly is a blubbering vagina, just like Maddox said (I've been subject to "second-hand MSNBC" enough to know this for myself, I certainly didn't need Maddox to point it out to me), and I think you need to lay off the paint chips.
As far as my rail against Saddam, I believe this is the closest you'll find. Enjoy the thread.
So - that sentence can end at the first comma, and be no less accurate in representing his opinion.
Except, he shows two opinions since it's a two part statement. Part 1 says "we must punish people who don't want to be identified online" - note that there's no mention of a crime being committed - and part 2 says "we must focus on the people committing crimes".
Maybe he didn't MEAN to say that we need to go after people who are trying to stay somewhat anonymous, but he DID say it. As a lawmaker, I think he needs to pick his words more carefully since this may suggest he either has two agendas here, or perhaps he doesn't clearly understand his own position.
Now if we could only keep that pesky concept of what constitutes a "crime" from continually expanding...
That is in direct contrast to what a government would want to happen. After all, if eveyone can be made to be a criminal part of the time, you can just lock anyone up anytime you feel like it. Of course, in America, the citizenry is supposed to be alert and prevent that sort of thing from happening... but I'm not holding my breath for the "osama bin laden hold on weapons of mass destruction no wait tax cuts for the rich no look improving but jobless economy hold on the queers are trying to get married" sheep people morons who get led around by the nose by dumbasses like Bill O'Reilly and his ilk.
You're not wrong and I'm not trying to say you are, but now you've stepped WAY out of the original point.
First of all, a true monopoly would not, in theory, have any need for investors. It could simply work sustain the perfect balance between price and sales so that the maximum number of people could afford the product at the maximum price without having to worry about an undercutting competitor.
But, I digress...
The point is (was?) that the Internet doesn't fit this mold. The guy highlighted in this article was NOT competing in a free market, he was just letting people look at his work and not asking for anything in return. In that situation, you can't just compare the rush of incoming traffic to his site to a business suddenly deluged with customers like a lot of people have. The business has a vested interest in attempting to handle those customers as best as possible. This guy is better off just dumping the connections. The difference is between someone who's just out to make money and someone who's just out to share some knowledge. HUGE difference at that. You cannot apply typical capitalist thought processes to the Internet as a whole because the Internet as a whole doesn't function as a capitalist system. PARTS of it do, PARTS of it don't. Apply capital-driven thinking to places like e-bay, Amazon, Microsoft, etc. DON'T try to apply it to things like this guy's research server or my personal website. There needs to be a more community-oriented line of thinking applied to these types of websites and places like Slashdot, Google, etc. that have a lot of weight to swing at them need to think things through before they wreck some poor fellow's personal server.
As a young Dilbert once told his mother after she pestered him about skateboarding at a construction site:
Well, that depends on a lot of factors, including height,
training, and equipment. But if 100% of the participants said they enjoyed it
-- as in my skateboarding example -- then I would conclude that it was safe.
Everyone keeps acting as if the entire Internet is comprised of nothing but companies. The entire point of my two posts is that you can't treat the entire Internet that way like you can with a TV / Print / Radio medium. ANYONE can be heard on the Internet. Some people are just hanging out in their own little niche and they're NOT seeking heavy traffic like Amazon is. You want to direct huge amounts of unexpect traffic at Amazon? Fine (as long as it's not garbage traffic), I'm sure they'll be very grateful. However, some poor guy that has a little research server and just wants to share some information with passers by doesn't want that. He's not actively seeking a huge traffic glut and he's certainly NOT going to benefit from it.
The Internet doesn't function like the rest of the world has up until now. Trying to pound old, traditional ideas of a capitalist society into the Internet is like trying to pound square pegs into round holes. Typical capital-driven mediums are shallow and relatively one dimensional because they're all working toward a single goal and using the same general resources. The Internet is comprised of all sort of people with all sorts of different goals using all sorts of different means. You can't treat this poor guy's research server like it's Amazon.com . He doesn't have the same goals and he's not using the same resources to acheive his goals.
And, I hate to tell you, but from a company's perspective, monopoly is the ultimate goal in capitalist society. From a consumer's perspective, perfect oligarchy is the ultimate goal of a capitalist society. From an investor's perspective, perfect competition is the ultimate goal for a company. There's not one perfect situation for a company to be in from everybody's point of view within the framework of capitalism.
Yes, actually - the Internet doesn't fit into the typical capitalist mold. The web fits fairly well now that marketroids have utterly mangled it, but the Internet as a whole doesn't, and certainly nice resources that are offering free information don't.
It would be more analgous to someone pinning up a "free food" flyer all over town for a soup kitchen and all sorts of people flooding the place whether they need to or not. On top of that, there are a lot of Slashdot readers here, myself soon to be included, who could easily mirror content to help divert some of the load. It wouldn't take that much extra effort to have people sign up to post mirrors of sites or to post a Google cache, etc. instead of just crushing some poor guy's webserver who just wanted to share a spiffy project he did with the world. Slashdotting some poor guy who did something neat just because nobody could be bothered to ask someone to set up a mirror is just plain rotten - ESPECIALLY when THEY'RE footing the bill and getting no return.
I think not, as the Internet is open and free and who's going to stop us, but it's an interesting point they raise.
Technically speaking, there are a lot of immoral things that nobody is going to stop you from doing. If a kid hits their ball in your yard, you can just keep the gate locked and throw the ball in the trash. Doesn't mean it's right (unless they're doing it just to irritate you or something).
Some netizens don't like to admit the fact, but there is a certain level of responsibility that you need to have to partake in the Internet. Everyone is expected to do their fair share to keep things running, but a lot of people shirk that and just run rampant over everyone else. From networks bogged down by bandwidth hogs stealing movies and music to spammers to Slashdot, some people insist on just wantonly snatching everything they can grab and running for the hills.
Is anyone going to stop you? No, of course not. However, after awhile, you'll be left with nothing else to grab because nobody will see any value in providing anything for anyone else. Make it a hassle for people to give you stuff for free, and they just won't give it to you anymore.
I was recently looking into buying a house, but in this area anyway (Central PA), the market was strongly in favor of sellers. Even at the current interest rates (and fixing them for 15 to 30 years), the prices were so inflated from the market that buying wasn't really as good an option as it first seemed. With the slow appreciation of houses (2-3% tops) in this area, I determined that it may be smarter to play my odds on the market bottoming out and favoring buyers.
While I do agree that with $7k the smart thing to do would be to invest it into something long term, I just thought I'd relate that little tidbit. Buying in this current market - depending on area - could be a bad idea even thought it looks like a good one on the surface. I agree wholeheartedly, however, that s/he should invest in something that will show value down the road. I'm sure you COULD do wireless access for the whole building @ $7k or less, but it's just not a smart thing to do...
Plus, this round, Sony and Nintendo might not even let Microsoft have the technical advantage, either.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but - while each system utilizes different resources to acheive their respective ends - aren't the GameCube and the XBOX usually in a neck and neck shootout when it comes to speed and visuals? Obviously each system has it's own specs on paper that can be touted or reviled, but when it really comes down to it, it seems like equally competent developers on each system can match one another pretty evenly.
The first thing I thought of when I saw this is "wow - the Bad Guys could have a field day with this". Imagine - you find yourself on the wrong end of a PI or something, you have skills, you turn the tables and hunt this guy instead. Somebody gaining a level of control with this type of system would pose an unprecendted threat (on the offchance the stupid thing acutally worked).
Better yet, Kevin Mitnick's "two computer" scheme came to mind where he was intentionally leading his pursuers at the FBI around by the nose so they THOUGHT they were chasing him, but really, he was just sending them on snipe hunts all over the country. After all, if you KNOW they're tracking you, disinformation becomes the ultimate weapon.
Says asshat: What people don't understand is that the Internet isn't free.
GOD I FUCKING HATE THESE PEOPLE!
Since when does this dickhead own the Internet? Since when is it "not free" as in "you owe me money"?
ARGH! I not only support the death penalty for these asshats, I think they need to deport this guy's goddamn family to central Cambodia.
The absolute contempt that these people have for all other living beings outside their small inner circles is so mind-numbingly infuriating that I can't even come up with a suitable rant against this guy. The absolute level of FURY that these moronic losers can invoke through their childish, imbecilic, self-centered "give it all to me" outlooks on life could never BEGIN to compare to the narcissism displayed by everyone in Hollywood COMBINED. NEVER HAVE I SO DESIRED TO POP SOMEONE'S HEAD LIKE AN OVERINFLATED BALLOON!
Sure kid. I'll be sure listen to some yappy punk who thinks "standard" means "the way Microsoft does it".
Do us all a favor and don't comment on technical matters again until you understand the difference between customizing your site to broken standards so it only works in one browser and customizing your site to the real standards so it only works in non-broken browsers. While you're at it, why not go grab a copy of Firebird and find out that the only sites that DON'T work are the ones that are so terribly designed that the odds are they're not even compatible between recent versions of IE? Congratulations, your grasp of technical matters makes you a poster child for outsourcing. Of course, maybe I should bow to you, right? I mean, my experience with web design and programming goes back a measly 8 years and I suppose that being the lead developer (client and server side) and only admin of this 2200 page Intranet thingy here in front of me plus the sites I've helped test and develop freelance doesn't qualify me to talk on the subject? I suppose the fact that I've built site parsers capable of parsing everything from the strictest DTD HTML to the most broken garbage FrontPage can spit out means I know nothing about designing sites properly?
Of course, not to sound snide, but if you had a real job, you'd know all this.
But hey, I've got to hand it to you, it's THEIR site all right. Of course, if they intentionally break it and that makes me question where else they might be incapable of doing things right, it's MY money, so I can pull it away from them.
Yea, because as we all know there are no colors but black and white.
That said, you're obviously not very intelligent, so you must be a total idiot.
Oh, what's that? I don't know anything about you other than that post? It doesn't matter, that post was stupid, and therefore you deserve to be classified as stupid, right? There's only black or white, so you must either be smart or stupid, and I think the post was pretty dumb, so you must be pretty dumb, correct?
Or, to put a more "on topic" spin on it, obviously, if you swerve to avoid a chipmunk and run over a child on a tricycle coming out of a blind driveway, it's clear that you are a horrendous murderer and therefore must be given the death penalty immediately. After all, there is no excuse for swerving onto the sidewalk whether you meant to or not, so you must be punished appropriately. You should be held just as responsible for your heinous crime as Ted Bundy was for his, becase you are obviously a "proper criminal" just like him.
The idea that you should be sentenced based on some rigid defintion of a crime rather than on your actual impact and your intended impact is so abysmally stupid that I have to call into question the intelligence of anyone who would try to support such a ridiculous idea. If he didn't do any damage and nobody can prove he intended to, he should be sentenced as a minor vandal and a moron. He should in no way, shape, or form be sentenced as if he had stolen sensitive information, damaged any of the equipment, etc. The idea of turning people into "examples" like that serves no purpose other than to deteriorate respect in the legal system. People need to be sentenced accordingly. He was an idiot, and he needs to be sentenced as one. He was not some undercover spy stealing sensitive information, so he shouldn't be sentenced as one. He wasn't even a hacker of any note and it doesn't appear that he was trying to be one, so, again, he shouldn't be sentenced as one.
Two other people have told me that Fb 0.7 on Windows throws no errors. I think they've hardwired a regex with "Windows" somewhere. I'm going to test that theory with a Perl/LWP script later today.
You're the second person who said it works in Windows, but if I switch my UA back to "Default" from "IE 6.0 Windows XP" it still drops me. Are you accessing it from mbnanetaccess.com ? Also, note that it's that new 3rd party payment center they use that's causing problems. I can still do everything I always could with the actual mbna site until I get into handling payments, then it flops.
If we're both looking at the same thing, my bet is it's some sort of regex that's crapping out when it sees that Linux is being used (maybe has 'Windows' literal hardwired into it somewhere). Equally annoying. I will test that theory later.
Slashdot is the best use of tabs I've found to date. I LOVE being able to open a new tab with the "Reply to This" links. Another awesome use is when spillover occurs and I can't see all the comments I want to. I can just hit the "x comments below..." links to open them in new tabs, then close the tabs down as I read up through the "hidden" posts in a long thread. Since the tabs open chronologically (unlike windows which just sort of scatter), this works REALLY well.
I just canceled a credit card with MBNA because they added a browser sniffer that kept telling me I had "an older version of Netscape" and I needed to upgrade. Wouldn't let me into the site on FB 0.7 on Linux, so I sent them a nice little "fuck you too" cancel request explaining that their site is broken and that's why I'm canceling.
And yes, the site worked just fine in FB 0.7 once I sent an IE 6.0 UA.
I make it a point to relentlessly hound businesses that pull that little stunt. I also post their links on Open Source boards so everyone can get a shot at them. And don't tell me it's childish or rude or anything else - if they hadn't intentionally broken the site in the first place I wouldn't be obligated to tell everyone that the site is crippled. If they can't even hire half-competent web designers (or, more likely, if their management weren't typically incompetent and it actually listened to the web designers) why should I assume that they're capable of handling something as complex as my banking? They're cutting corners there, where else might they be?
I suppose so, but it's still not a matter of GPL being inherently restrictive, but rather, being an inappropriate tool for the job when you know you want to control the distribution of your end product. After all, you create a lot of proprietary software (from what I gather), but I create a lot of open source software. I create things specifically for my company, yes, and those I don't use an GPL code in (mainly because I think the Legal group is comprised of evil trolls from the 10th ring of Hell and I don't want to get in a fight with them).
When I write the open source stuff, however, I intentionally choose GPL because I don't want to make it easier for somebody to create closed products using my hard work. Part of it's natural, built-in human assiness, yeah, but most of it is that I hate big corporations and I don't want them to migrate toward monopolization - especially not on my shoulders for free.
Each license intentionally performs a different task. When I'm in different roles as a developer, I choose the appropriate license and that's it. It's not that the GPL is restrictive, it's that the developers who choose to use it are.
You never did. That's part of being PUBLIC. It's a PUBLIC place whereas your house is a PRIVATE place.
I have no qualms with private corps aiming cameras at their own properties and a reasonable, limited area around them. I have a problem with the government plunking cameras down all willy nilly. It's on taxpayer time, money, and land, and they almost NEVER have an arguable reason for doing so. They always seem to have some lame, unsupportable "it's for your safety" argument, but that's all it is - lame and unsupportable. Let the people vote on it, don't just do it.
However, a private company has an interest in preventing theft, vandalism, etc. on its own property. It's no different than a private individual doing it and you choosing to go into their house. If you don't like it, stay out. Same goes for this. Stay out of the cafe and let the owners know why you're not going if it bothers you that much.
Slashdot Mirror
Yea, I know. But I mean: 1) They're not doing input checking and 2) They're showing what appears to be the full SQL statement.
Double dumb.
From the second link:
DEBUG MODE
SQL Error : 1064 You have an error in your SQL syntax near 'AND f.forum_id = t.forum_id ' at line 4
SELECT t.topic_id, t.topic_title, t.topic_status, t.topic_replies, t.topic_time, t.topic_type, t.topic_vote, t.topic_last_post_id, f.forum_name, f.forum_status, f.forum_id, f.auth_view, f.auth_read, f.auth_post, f.auth_reply, f.auth_edit, f.auth_delete, f.auth_sticky, f.auth_announce, f.auth_pollcreate, f.auth_vote, f.auth_attachments FROM phpbb_topics t, phpbb_forums f WHERE t.topic_id = AND f.forum_id = t.forum_id
Real smart.
You are wrong. Unless the company explicitly releases its copyright on the content and puts it in the public domain, the copyright stands even if the company doesn't (that's one of the big beefs with people that don't like current copyright laws - even after ridiculous amounts of time, liquidations, bankruptcy, death, etc. - it's STILL nigh impossible to have a copyright released). In Loki's case, I'm pretty sure they also transferred their copyrights back to the original game owners, but I could be wrong. At any rate, the mere fact that Loki is gone doesn't give you the right to download a copy of the title you didn't make yourself. That's the other catch: downloading a coyp from a pal is illegal - it has to be a copy YOU MADE from your OWN original.
And this is why I have exactly NO respect for most copyright laws and don't care one bit about the people "stealing" some music, movies, and software (but, hey - let's face it.. if someone's downloading a warez version of HL2 ten minutes after it hits store shelves... well, they're just a dirty theif).
The only reason the entertainment industry is having trouble right now is because their product is easy to steal! If it wasn't, they would be in the green right now.
Got facts? Because I have the perennial "music sales went up while Napster was around and dropped off when it died". "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc", but it's more "evidence" than you posted.
On top of that, wouldn't Occam's Razor suggest that the simplest explanation to this problem is that people don't want to buy the music? Why would the remedy to that automatically be assumed to be anything other than the product itself for this particular industry, when common sense and prior knowledge tells us that the most common reason for people not purchasing a product is an inability to percieve a value in that purchase? Or, to put it more bluntly: the most likely reason people aren't buying this or any other product is that they don't think it's worth it.
Now, if you have some evidence that suggests something other than the common wisdom, I'm all ears. I'm not too proud to learn something new.
Uh.... yea....
So, wait - let me get this straight: you believe that O'Reilly's book, written by his own hand, vindicates his ignorant, self-centered, and undeniably skewed version of reality? Does Mein Kamp justify Hitler then, or am I missing something here?
No, wait, seriously..... you're an idiot. O'Reilly is a blubbering vagina, just like Maddox said (I've been subject to "second-hand MSNBC" enough to know this for myself, I certainly didn't need Maddox to point it out to me), and I think you need to lay off the paint chips.
As far as my rail against Saddam, I believe this is the closest you'll find. Enjoy the thread.
So - that sentence can end at the first comma, and be no less accurate in representing his opinion.
Except, he shows two opinions since it's a two part statement. Part 1 says "we must punish people who don't want to be identified online" - note that there's no mention of a crime being committed - and part 2 says "we must focus on the people committing crimes".
Maybe he didn't MEAN to say that we need to go after people who are trying to stay somewhat anonymous, but he DID say it. As a lawmaker, I think he needs to pick his words more carefully since this may suggest he either has two agendas here, or perhaps he doesn't clearly understand his own position.
Now if we could only keep that pesky concept of what constitutes a "crime" from continually expanding...
That is in direct contrast to what a government would want to happen. After all, if eveyone can be made to be a criminal part of the time, you can just lock anyone up anytime you feel like it. Of course, in America, the citizenry is supposed to be alert and prevent that sort of thing from happening... but I'm not holding my breath for the "osama bin laden hold on weapons of mass destruction no wait tax cuts for the rich no look improving but jobless economy hold on the queers are trying to get married" sheep people morons who get led around by the nose by dumbasses like Bill O'Reilly and his ilk.
You're not wrong and I'm not trying to say you are, but now you've stepped WAY out of the original point.
First of all, a true monopoly would not, in theory, have any need for investors. It could simply work sustain the perfect balance between price and sales so that the maximum number of people could afford the product at the maximum price without having to worry about an undercutting competitor.
But, I digress...
The point is (was?) that the Internet doesn't fit this mold. The guy highlighted in this article was NOT competing in a free market, he was just letting people look at his work and not asking for anything in return. In that situation, you can't just compare the rush of incoming traffic to his site to a business suddenly deluged with customers like a lot of people have. The business has a vested interest in attempting to handle those customers as best as possible. This guy is better off just dumping the connections. The difference is between someone who's just out to make money and someone who's just out to share some knowledge. HUGE difference at that. You cannot apply typical capitalist thought processes to the Internet as a whole because the Internet as a whole doesn't function as a capitalist system. PARTS of it do, PARTS of it don't. Apply capital-driven thinking to places like e-bay, Amazon, Microsoft, etc. DON'T try to apply it to things like this guy's research server or my personal website. There needs to be a more community-oriented line of thinking applied to these types of websites and places like Slashdot, Google, etc. that have a lot of weight to swing at them need to think things through before they wreck some poor fellow's personal server.
As a young Dilbert once told his mother after she pestered him about skateboarding at a construction site:
Well, that depends on a lot of factors, including height, training, and equipment. But if 100% of the participants said they enjoyed it -- as in my skateboarding example -- then I would conclude that it was safe.
Why muck around with a modem and hacking, when you could install VxWorks on a PC and worry about learning the system, not hacking the hardware.
I'm sorry, sir. You seem a little lost here. Are you aware that this is Slashdot? :-)
We must have a lot of business managers here...
Everyone keeps acting as if the entire Internet is comprised of nothing but companies. The entire point of my two posts is that you can't treat the entire Internet that way like you can with a TV / Print / Radio medium. ANYONE can be heard on the Internet. Some people are just hanging out in their own little niche and they're NOT seeking heavy traffic like Amazon is. You want to direct huge amounts of unexpect traffic at Amazon? Fine (as long as it's not garbage traffic), I'm sure they'll be very grateful. However, some poor guy that has a little research server and just wants to share some information with passers by doesn't want that. He's not actively seeking a huge traffic glut and he's certainly NOT going to benefit from it.
The Internet doesn't function like the rest of the world has up until now. Trying to pound old, traditional ideas of a capitalist society into the Internet is like trying to pound square pegs into round holes. Typical capital-driven mediums are shallow and relatively one dimensional because they're all working toward a single goal and using the same general resources. The Internet is comprised of all sort of people with all sorts of different goals using all sorts of different means. You can't treat this poor guy's research server like it's Amazon.com . He doesn't have the same goals and he's not using the same resources to acheive his goals.
And, I hate to tell you, but from a company's perspective, monopoly is the ultimate goal in capitalist society. From a consumer's perspective, perfect oligarchy is the ultimate goal of a capitalist society. From an investor's perspective, perfect competition is the ultimate goal for a company. There's not one perfect situation for a company to be in from everybody's point of view within the framework of capitalism.
Yes, actually - the Internet doesn't fit into the typical capitalist mold. The web fits fairly well now that marketroids have utterly mangled it, but the Internet as a whole doesn't, and certainly nice resources that are offering free information don't.
It would be more analgous to someone pinning up a "free food" flyer all over town for a soup kitchen and all sorts of people flooding the place whether they need to or not. On top of that, there are a lot of Slashdot readers here, myself soon to be included, who could easily mirror content to help divert some of the load. It wouldn't take that much extra effort to have people sign up to post mirrors of sites or to post a Google cache, etc. instead of just crushing some poor guy's webserver who just wanted to share a spiffy project he did with the world. Slashdotting some poor guy who did something neat just because nobody could be bothered to ask someone to set up a mirror is just plain rotten - ESPECIALLY when THEY'RE footing the bill and getting no return.
I think not, as the Internet is open and free and who's going to stop us, but it's an interesting point they raise.
Technically speaking, there are a lot of immoral things that nobody is going to stop you from doing. If a kid hits their ball in your yard, you can just keep the gate locked and throw the ball in the trash. Doesn't mean it's right (unless they're doing it just to irritate you or something).
Some netizens don't like to admit the fact, but there is a certain level of responsibility that you need to have to partake in the Internet. Everyone is expected to do their fair share to keep things running, but a lot of people shirk that and just run rampant over everyone else. From networks bogged down by bandwidth hogs stealing movies and music to spammers to Slashdot, some people insist on just wantonly snatching everything they can grab and running for the hills.
Is anyone going to stop you? No, of course not. However, after awhile, you'll be left with nothing else to grab because nobody will see any value in providing anything for anyone else. Make it a hassle for people to give you stuff for free, and they just won't give it to you anymore.
I was recently looking into buying a house, but in this area anyway (Central PA), the market was strongly in favor of sellers. Even at the current interest rates (and fixing them for 15 to 30 years), the prices were so inflated from the market that buying wasn't really as good an option as it first seemed. With the slow appreciation of houses (2-3% tops) in this area, I determined that it may be smarter to play my odds on the market bottoming out and favoring buyers.
While I do agree that with $7k the smart thing to do would be to invest it into something long term, I just thought I'd relate that little tidbit. Buying in this current market - depending on area - could be a bad idea even thought it looks like a good one on the surface. I agree wholeheartedly, however, that s/he should invest in something that will show value down the road. I'm sure you COULD do wireless access for the whole building @ $7k or less, but it's just not a smart thing to do...
Plus, this round, Sony and Nintendo might not even let Microsoft have the technical advantage, either.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but - while each system utilizes different resources to acheive their respective ends - aren't the GameCube and the XBOX usually in a neck and neck shootout when it comes to speed and visuals? Obviously each system has it's own specs on paper that can be touted or reviled, but when it really comes down to it, it seems like equally competent developers on each system can match one another pretty evenly.
The first thing I thought of when I saw this is "wow - the Bad Guys could have a field day with this". Imagine - you find yourself on the wrong end of a PI or something, you have skills, you turn the tables and hunt this guy instead. Somebody gaining a level of control with this type of system would pose an unprecendted threat (on the offchance the stupid thing acutally worked).
Better yet, Kevin Mitnick's "two computer" scheme came to mind where he was intentionally leading his pursuers at the FBI around by the nose so they THOUGHT they were chasing him, but really, he was just sending them on snipe hunts all over the country. After all, if you KNOW they're tracking you, disinformation becomes the ultimate weapon.
Says asshat: What people don't understand is that the Internet isn't free.
GOD I FUCKING HATE THESE PEOPLE!
Since when does this dickhead own the Internet? Since when is it "not free" as in "you owe me money"?
ARGH! I not only support the death penalty for these asshats, I think they need to deport this guy's goddamn family to central Cambodia.
The absolute contempt that these people have for all other living beings outside their small inner circles is so mind-numbingly infuriating that I can't even come up with a suitable rant against this guy. The absolute level of FURY that these moronic losers can invoke through their childish, imbecilic, self-centered "give it all to me" outlooks on life could never BEGIN to compare to the narcissism displayed by everyone in Hollywood COMBINED. NEVER HAVE I SO DESIRED TO POP SOMEONE'S HEAD LIKE AN OVERINFLATED BALLOON!
Sure kid. I'll be sure listen to some yappy punk who thinks "standard" means "the way Microsoft does it".
Do us all a favor and don't comment on technical matters again until you understand the difference between customizing your site to broken standards so it only works in one browser and customizing your site to the real standards so it only works in non-broken browsers. While you're at it, why not go grab a copy of Firebird and find out that the only sites that DON'T work are the ones that are so terribly designed that the odds are they're not even compatible between recent versions of IE? Congratulations, your grasp of technical matters makes you a poster child for outsourcing. Of course, maybe I should bow to you, right? I mean, my experience with web design and programming goes back a measly 8 years and I suppose that being the lead developer (client and server side) and only admin of this 2200 page Intranet thingy here in front of me plus the sites I've helped test and develop freelance doesn't qualify me to talk on the subject? I suppose the fact that I've built site parsers capable of parsing everything from the strictest DTD HTML to the most broken garbage FrontPage can spit out means I know nothing about designing sites properly?
Of course, not to sound snide, but if you had a real job, you'd know all this.
But hey, I've got to hand it to you, it's THEIR site all right. Of course, if they intentionally break it and that makes me question where else they might be incapable of doing things right, it's MY money, so I can pull it away from them.
Yea, because as we all know there are no colors but black and white.
That said, you're obviously not very intelligent, so you must be a total idiot.
Oh, what's that? I don't know anything about you other than that post? It doesn't matter, that post was stupid, and therefore you deserve to be classified as stupid, right? There's only black or white, so you must either be smart or stupid, and I think the post was pretty dumb, so you must be pretty dumb, correct?
Or, to put a more "on topic" spin on it, obviously, if you swerve to avoid a chipmunk and run over a child on a tricycle coming out of a blind driveway, it's clear that you are a horrendous murderer and therefore must be given the death penalty immediately. After all, there is no excuse for swerving onto the sidewalk whether you meant to or not, so you must be punished appropriately. You should be held just as responsible for your heinous crime as Ted Bundy was for his, becase you are obviously a "proper criminal" just like him.
The idea that you should be sentenced based on some rigid defintion of a crime rather than on your actual impact and your intended impact is so abysmally stupid that I have to call into question the intelligence of anyone who would try to support such a ridiculous idea. If he didn't do any damage and nobody can prove he intended to, he should be sentenced as a minor vandal and a moron. He should in no way, shape, or form be sentenced as if he had stolen sensitive information, damaged any of the equipment, etc. The idea of turning people into "examples" like that serves no purpose other than to deteriorate respect in the legal system. People need to be sentenced accordingly. He was an idiot, and he needs to be sentenced as one. He was not some undercover spy stealing sensitive information, so he shouldn't be sentenced as one. He wasn't even a hacker of any note and it doesn't appear that he was trying to be one, so, again, he shouldn't be sentenced as one.
Two other people have told me that Fb 0.7 on Windows throws no errors. I think they've hardwired a regex with "Windows" somewhere. I'm going to test that theory with a Perl/LWP script later today.
You're the second person who said it works in Windows, but if I switch my UA back to "Default" from "IE 6.0 Windows XP" it still drops me. Are you accessing it from mbnanetaccess.com ? Also, note that it's that new 3rd party payment center they use that's causing problems. I can still do everything I always could with the actual mbna site until I get into handling payments, then it flops.
If we're both looking at the same thing, my bet is it's some sort of regex that's crapping out when it sees that Linux is being used (maybe has 'Windows' literal hardwired into it somewhere). Equally annoying. I will test that theory later.
Slashdot is the best use of tabs I've found to date. I LOVE being able to open a new tab with the "Reply to This" links. Another awesome use is when spillover occurs and I can't see all the comments I want to. I can just hit the "x comments below..." links to open them in new tabs, then close the tabs down as I read up through the "hidden" posts in a long thread. Since the tabs open chronologically (unlike windows which just sort of scatter), this works REALLY well.
I just canceled a credit card with MBNA because they added a browser sniffer that kept telling me I had "an older version of Netscape" and I needed to upgrade. Wouldn't let me into the site on FB 0.7 on Linux, so I sent them a nice little "fuck you too" cancel request explaining that their site is broken and that's why I'm canceling.
And yes, the site worked just fine in FB 0.7 once I sent an IE 6.0 UA.
I make it a point to relentlessly hound businesses that pull that little stunt. I also post their links on Open Source boards so everyone can get a shot at them. And don't tell me it's childish or rude or anything else - if they hadn't intentionally broken the site in the first place I wouldn't be obligated to tell everyone that the site is crippled. If they can't even hire half-competent web designers (or, more likely, if their management weren't typically incompetent and it actually listened to the web designers) why should I assume that they're capable of handling something as complex as my banking? They're cutting corners there, where else might they be?
I suppose so, but it's still not a matter of GPL being inherently restrictive, but rather, being an inappropriate tool for the job when you know you want to control the distribution of your end product. After all, you create a lot of proprietary software (from what I gather), but I create a lot of open source software. I create things specifically for my company, yes, and those I don't use an GPL code in (mainly because I think the Legal group is comprised of evil trolls from the 10th ring of Hell and I don't want to get in a fight with them).
When I write the open source stuff, however, I intentionally choose GPL because I don't want to make it easier for somebody to create closed products using my hard work. Part of it's natural, built-in human assiness, yeah, but most of it is that I hate big corporations and I don't want them to migrate toward monopolization - especially not on my shoulders for free.
Each license intentionally performs a different task. When I'm in different roles as a developer, I choose the appropriate license and that's it. It's not that the GPL is restrictive, it's that the developers who choose to use it are.
Not sure what you were looking for specifically, but the user:pass@host scheme is defined in RFC 1738.
And, no, they're not breaking the spec. It's optional:
Some or all of the parts ":@", ":", ":", and "/" may be excluded.
They're just being dumb. As usual.
You never did. That's part of being PUBLIC. It's a PUBLIC place whereas your house is a PRIVATE place.
I have no qualms with private corps aiming cameras at their own properties and a reasonable, limited area around them. I have a problem with the government plunking cameras down all willy nilly. It's on taxpayer time, money, and land, and they almost NEVER have an arguable reason for doing so. They always seem to have some lame, unsupportable "it's for your safety" argument, but that's all it is - lame and unsupportable. Let the people vote on it, don't just do it.
However, a private company has an interest in preventing theft, vandalism, etc. on its own property. It's no different than a private individual doing it and you choosing to go into their house. If you don't like it, stay out. Same goes for this. Stay out of the cafe and let the owners know why you're not going if it bothers you that much.