Actually, you can do SSH through any port you want to. It works really well through IP tunneling and IP masquerading, and you can tunnel things through it, as well.
All you need is access to your SSH configuration information. Another interesting approach is to run VNC (Virtual Network Console) over SSH. On the VNC web page, there is information on how to run a VNC session over SSH on any port number.
Speaking of Corel Office 2000, there are two HUGE patches on the internet that make it run very well. One is about 50 meg, the other one I think is 62 meg. It has some major bugs that are fixed with these patches.
Actually, it's quite the opposite. I pick what processor I want, and what price I want to pay for it, and then I wait for it to hit that price.
I usually buy processors at around $150.00. It's a little high compared to the low end, but it's still high enough that I can feel close to the bleeding edge.
First, you're either putting words into my mouth or making unjustified assumtions about who you think I am.
I agree that everyone deserves the same rights. And I did say, nor do I think, that anyone is unjustly privileged. They have those privileges because people allowed them to, and because people believe they do. That is not unjust, it is nature.
My point with this was that freedom is more important than greed. For everyone, not just a certain subset. I believe that artists and people in corporations have the same rights I do. As a matter of fact, I both work for an entertainment corporation and own part of a recording studio, so I would be cutting my own throat not to think that.
My point with anonyimity is that people DO have the same rights. So who they are when applying those rights is irrelevant. Applying rights differently based on who someone is, or is not, is the problem with requiring lack of anonymity.
They are symbolic assets, yes. But there are ways to convert them to tangible property without going through another government. One of them is a debit card. Between the point of purchase, and the bank where the assets are stored, the money is nothing but electronic bits. As long as the store where you are getting the tangible goods accepts your particular currency, you are not taxed. The store may demand that you provide a portion of the taxes they are forced to pay, such as sales tax. But that still takes an entire hop, YOU, out of the tax system.
No, the cave man with the biggest club and the most lackeys existed before government. What he wanted he took. After government, we'll revert to that state.
That's what the government wants you to think. If you are convinced of it strongly enough, you will choose evil government over no government, and they can get away with whatever they want.
Control is not inherently good. Lack of control is not inherently bad. It all comes down to balance between good and evil. If the government becomes evil, you are actually better off without it.
The only way this would happen is if the governments of the world can convince people that it is happening. They can't actually control it, all they can do is get you, as a person, to submit to control.
There will be a few things that will be added to the equation that will make this impossible. One of them is wireless internet access. Not just sorta wireless, truly wireless, such as satellites. This will make it a lot harder to control a person's physical access to the internet. You just go up on your favorite rock in the mountains, take out your little dish, point it at the sky, and fire up your generator and your laptop. At that point, the government can't get to you, especially if you're 7000 feet on top of a white mountain in your Range Rover.
The other thing that will make this less possible are better encryption, compression, and cooperative caching algorithms. If encryption is so secure that the government can't read it, and compression, caching, and distributed serving make bandwidth somewhat irrelevant, the result is a complete lack of controllability.
The current governments of the world are governing the people through fear. Fear is an emotion. It is imaginary. The only way the geeks, privacy activists, rights groups, and people in general are going to be left out in the cold is if they are afraid to stand up and stop it.
Information anarchy is actually known as "free speech". Have you ever heard of it?
I do want anarchy. At least when it comes to information.
As far as crackers - security is simply an contest of intelligence between the cracker and the security agent. All attempts to regulate it otherwise have failed. The fact that it's illegal just keeps it in the underground, rather than the mainstream. That keeps it from becoming a fad with the sheep, which is really what the government (when it comes down to it, there's really only one) is interested in. Governing through fear, which is what traditional governments have evolved towards, is a dismal failure in the modern world. Carrying it into the world of information is not a very creative idea, and is not likely to be very successful.
As far as Napster, they can only use as much bandwidth as they have available. Bandwidth is a finite amount, that must be funded or provided by someone. Since it is a distributed network when it is actually used, this of course means that everyone using it is chipping in on that bandwidth. We payed for it (or traded it for technical knowledge), why not let us use it?
There are technological solutions to most of the problems of the internet. If there is a choice between a technological solution, and a solution which involves governing the people of the world through fear, the technological solution is preferable. You will always have those people who have the knowledge and intelligence to get around these barriers, even if it involves their own encrypted satellite network. It is information. It is speech. And when it boils right down to it, it's nothing but thought. You can't control thought. But that's what the government(s) of the world are most interested in controlling.
And find their assets are worth less than half of what they used to be, while still having to pay off the army of whatever third-world dictatorship they move to, lest they just steal everything.
Actually, there's specific locations in the world that have well regulated exchange rates, mainly for this purpose. (Nephi and Saint Kits are two of them.) Also, there are also locations where it is illegal for a foreign government to ask about a person's accounts. If an IRS agent goes into a bank in one of these countries and starts nosing around, he will be arrested and put in jail. And they are not third world dictatorships, they were set up by former citizens of "civilized" countries.
Property doesn't exist without a government to protect it, especially information property.
Property existed long before government, and will continue to exist long after it. You don't really trust the government to protect you, do you?
service providers whose services mean serious risk of copyright infringement (i.e. Napster) should be required to get solid identifying information for users
The problem with this is, that not allowing anonymity is a blatant violation of the First Amendment. You are supposed to have the same rights and priveleges as a nobody as you are a somebody. That way, you can use anonymity to avoid persecution.
If you take this idea away, the effects on freedom would be immense. What we are looking at here is sacrificing the freedom of many for the greed of a few.
A note: If you don't want to give your e-mail address to Napster, it automatically accepts "anon@napster.com" as a valid entry. Neat feature.
One might argue that not upgrading the board is healthy cost savings, but if you're upgrading a processor within a sufficiently short timespan as to not necessitate a new board technology, then money obviously isn't an issue.
When you are upgrading often, money is MORE of an issue, because your annual cost can go way up by having to buy more parts. I actually have a socket 7 motherboard that is on its third processor. It's a FIC PA-2007, that I've had since 1997. They have bios patches to run anything up to a K6-III on it, as well as large hard drives.
I have respect for a company when they still provide updates and support for legacy products, and allow upgrades for a long period of time. I'm hoping Socket A will stick around for a while, because I hate buying motherboards unnecessarily.
Dell's PCs are so goddamned expensive I don't see how their "special relationship" benefits anyone.
Dell has a huge advertising co-op with Intel, so the special relationship mostly benefits Dell, by getting them millions of dollars of free advertising. Also, they got price protection on RDRAM, which allows them to peddle some of Intel's otherwise worthless 820 motherboards. Also, many of Dell's computers are Intel barebones systems.
I'm sure if anyone implied that their special relationship benefits the customer. It definitely benefits Dell, though, which is why they will have a strong resistance to upsetting Intel, even if it hurts their profits.
If Dell goes AMD, that will be a warning sign to Intel that they no longer dominate the market.
Um.....in 1989 Intel had already released the 80386 and the 80486 and they were just about to release the Pentium. If a 286 was expensive for you then, you got ripped off.
That's not true. The 486 didn't even exist yet. I worked at a computer store then, and the vast majority of the machines we sold in 1989, and into the early part of 1990, were 286's. In late 1990, the 386/25, 4 megs of ram, a 90 Meg hard drive, and a color VGA monitor was going for about 2500 dollars. About that same time, the 486 came out, but the only one that was affordable was the 486SX/20 Mhz, which was a piece of crap. The 486/DX chips were still around 1200-1500 dollars (for just the chip), and the motherboards for them were still really flaky.
The Pentium wasn't released until 1994 - the marketing and posters for it hit in the late part of 1993. The bug fix to do math on it was the later part of 1994.
Copyright is a restriction on speech that we tolerate because we (or congress) believe that the limited monopoly to authors is a necessary incentive for creative work. When copyright no longer appears to be serving that function, because it's no longer limited in laws like the DMCA (or the Sonny Bono term extension), then we should be challenging it on First Amendment grounds.
A little point on this - though congresses copyright authority is in the constitution - when it was put there, the bill of rights wasn't there yet. So if they conflict, the bill of rights should take precedence.
You'd have a hell of a time getting a judge to agree with you on this, because it's been ingrained into our society for the last 200 years. Judges generally aren't the type of people who will disagree with two hundred years of status quo.
What have you ever said that is original? Our whole method of communication is built upon the words and ideas of others. Even the words themselves evolve upon themselves.
You cannot limit free speech to a certain level of originality, because when it comes right down to it, there's no such thing.
The concept of "property" will never be obsolete until we live in a Communist society where your thoughts and your work are owned by the State.
Or until we live in a society with freewill, where nothing is owned by the state. I agree that if you claim something is yours, people should respect your desires enough to let you have it. But I also think the state should keep their dirty grubby nose out of it.
With intellectual property, the only thing you are claiming is yours is the ability to make money off something. Greed law, pure and simple. I understand the fact that people want to make money off of their creations. But the issue here is respect and personal responsibility. If people respect you and your work enough, you will make a living from it regardless of whether the state has laws protecting you or goes somewhere and picks their butts.
So maybe the concept of intellectual property is not obsolete. But the concept of intellectual property beyond the respect of the people is not only obsolete, it's history. Either because it should be that way, or because there's nobody that can stop it.
First, let me just say I disagree. I could stop there, but in the interest of helping you understand why I disagree, I'll elaborate a little bit.
It seems that the majority of what Microsoft complained about was the unauthorized reproduction of their materials. Quite frankly, this is illegal. It might not make much sense, since the materials are readily available to the public, but Microsoft does have the right to restrict access to them.
Two points - maybe they're illegal, maybe they're not. Even if a law states that they are illegal, if that law doesn't follow the letter or spirit of the constitution, then that law is illegal. The constitution is the supreme law of the land. I'm getting damn tired of people using a narrow, brainwashed view of free speech. If you believe a law violates the constitution, don't follow it. I know - you say "Well, you should follow it, until it is proven that it is unconstitutional." Bullshit. The constitution is the supreme law of the land. Everything else is just details.
This probably isn't a particularly popular view. However, I think the best way to avoid this type of thing is for Slashdot to set up their own limits on their own terms before someone else forces them to. Perhaps if Slashdot allows moderators to report comments containing illegal material and appoints someone to remove such material, we could avoid future conflicts.
Are you saying we avoid standing up for our rights, because it might cause conflicts?
Freedom on the internet is dying quickly
Does that mean we are just supposed to let it die? I think exactly the opposite - fight hard until the trend moves the other way. Extend freewill to a point it's never been pushed. Make the planet a better place. And if you go down, go down screaming and spitting in their faces. Don't just say "Freedom is dying, so we better get out of the way."
If Slashdot doesn't regulate its users more, someone else will, and it won't be pretty.
Sometimes doing what you believe in isn't pretty. That's no reason not to do it. Nuf said.
I've personally used Blade Encoder, as well as older version of the Franhofer encoder. Blade had significantly lower quality at the same bit rate, though going to a higher bit rate can even things out.
I'd be willing to bet that if you ripped the same song at a low bit rate (64-128 or so), and compared the quality between Blade Encoder and LAME, LAME would have noticably better quality. At 256 and higher, any properly working encoder should give you CD quality.
Step 4) More and more consumers scoff at anything that doesn't use RDRAM ("Sheesh, your RAM runs at a puny little 133Mhz! Mine runs at 800!")
Step 5) AMD is hurt by the fact that none of their CPUs run on a chipset that uses RDRAM.
Actually, AMD has a RAMBUS license agreement, and the technology to implement it. However, they aren't planning to. They believe DDR is the way to go, regardless of which direction Intel is headed. I think AMD is getting into the habit of following their own tracks.
The original article was intended as flamebait, simply for site traffic. This is simply an official response to that flamebait. I'm not sure it even justified a response. However, I guess if it didn't get one, the clueless masses would think that the article had some validity.
Speaking of handheld devices, there is a Palm Pilot parser for all the old Infocom games, so you can play both Hitchhiker's Guide and Bureaucracy on your palm pilot. They have to be two of the coolest games available for the palm.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, you can do SSH through any port you want to. It works really well through IP tunneling and IP masquerading, and you can tunnel things through it, as well.
All you need is access to your SSH configuration information. Another interesting approach is to run VNC (Virtual Network Console) over SSH. On the VNC web page, there is information on how to run a VNC session over SSH on any port number.
Speaking of Corel Office 2000, there are two HUGE patches on the internet that make it run very well. One is about 50 meg, the other one I think is 62 meg. It has some major bugs that are fixed with these patches.
Didn't you notice the part of his post where he said that YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO BE PROVEN GUILTY.
So whether you were actually doing it is irrelevant. The "I don't need any rights, because I don't have anything to hide" argument has a lot of holes.
Actually, it's quite the opposite. I pick what processor I want, and what price I want to pay for it, and then I wait for it to hit that price.
I usually buy processors at around $150.00. It's a little high compared to the low end, but it's still high enough that I can feel close to the bleeding edge.
First, you're either putting words into my mouth or making unjustified assumtions about who you think I am.
I agree that everyone deserves the same rights. And I did say, nor do I think, that anyone is unjustly privileged. They have those privileges because people allowed them to, and because people believe they do. That is not unjust, it is nature.
My point with this was that freedom is more important than greed. For everyone, not just a certain subset. I believe that artists and people in corporations have the same rights I do. As a matter of fact, I both work for an entertainment corporation and own part of a recording studio, so I would be cutting my own throat not to think that.
My point with anonyimity is that people DO have the same rights. So who they are when applying those rights is irrelevant. Applying rights differently based on who someone is, or is not, is the problem with requiring lack of anonymity.
They are symbolic assets, yes. But there are ways to convert them to tangible property without going through another government. One of them is a debit card. Between the point of purchase, and the bank where the assets are stored, the money is nothing but electronic bits. As long as the store where you are getting the tangible goods accepts your particular currency, you are not taxed. The store may demand that you provide a portion of the taxes they are forced to pay, such as sales tax. But that still takes an entire hop, YOU, out of the tax system.
No, the cave man with the biggest club and the most lackeys existed before government. What he wanted he took. After government, we'll revert to that state.
That's what the government wants you to think. If you are convinced of it strongly enough, you will choose evil government over no government, and they can get away with whatever they want.
Control is not inherently good. Lack of control is not inherently bad. It all comes down to balance between good and evil. If the government becomes evil, you are actually better off without it.
The only way this would happen is if the governments of the world can convince people that it is happening. They can't actually control it, all they can do is get you, as a person, to submit to control.
There will be a few things that will be added to the equation that will make this impossible. One of them is wireless internet access. Not just sorta wireless, truly wireless, such as satellites. This will make it a lot harder to control a person's physical access to the internet. You just go up on your favorite rock in the mountains, take out your little dish, point it at the sky, and fire up your generator and your laptop. At that point, the government can't get to you, especially if you're 7000 feet on top of a white mountain in your Range Rover.
The other thing that will make this less possible are better encryption, compression, and cooperative caching algorithms. If encryption is so secure that the government can't read it, and compression, caching, and distributed serving make bandwidth somewhat irrelevant, the result is a complete lack of controllability.
The current governments of the world are governing the people through fear. Fear is an emotion. It is imaginary. The only way the geeks, privacy activists, rights groups, and people in general are going to be left out in the cold is if they are afraid to stand up and stop it.
I don't want anarchy.
Information anarchy is actually known as "free speech". Have you ever heard of it?
I do want anarchy. At least when it comes to information.
As far as crackers - security is simply an contest of intelligence between the cracker and the security agent. All attempts to regulate it otherwise have failed. The fact that it's illegal just keeps it in the underground, rather than the mainstream. That keeps it from becoming a fad with the sheep, which is really what the government (when it comes down to it, there's really only one) is interested in. Governing through fear, which is what traditional governments have evolved towards, is a dismal failure in the modern world. Carrying it into the world of information is not a very creative idea, and is not likely to be very successful.
As far as Napster, they can only use as much bandwidth as they have available. Bandwidth is a finite amount, that must be funded or provided by someone. Since it is a distributed network when it is actually used, this of course means that everyone using it is chipping in on that bandwidth. We payed for it (or traded it for technical knowledge), why not let us use it?
There are technological solutions to most of the problems of the internet. If there is a choice between a technological solution, and a solution which involves governing the people of the world through fear, the technological solution is preferable. You will always have those people who have the knowledge and intelligence to get around these barriers, even if it involves their own encrypted satellite network. It is information. It is speech. And when it boils right down to it, it's nothing but thought. You can't control thought. But that's what the government(s) of the world are most interested in controlling.
And find their assets are worth less than half of what they used to be, while still having to pay off the army of whatever third-world dictatorship they move to, lest they just steal everything.
Actually, there's specific locations in the world that have well regulated exchange rates, mainly for this purpose. (Nephi and Saint Kits are two of them.) Also, there are also locations where it is illegal for a foreign government to ask about a person's accounts. If an IRS agent goes into a bank in one of these countries and starts nosing around, he will be arrested and put in jail. And they are not third world dictatorships, they were set up by former citizens of "civilized" countries.
Property doesn't exist without a government to protect it, especially information property.
Property existed long before government, and will continue to exist long after it. You don't really trust the government to protect you, do you?
service providers whose services mean serious risk of copyright infringement (i.e. Napster) should be required to get solid identifying information for users
The problem with this is, that not allowing anonymity is a blatant violation of the First Amendment. You are supposed to have the same rights and priveleges as a nobody as you are a somebody. That way, you can use anonymity to avoid persecution.
If you take this idea away, the effects on freedom would be immense. What we are looking at here is sacrificing the freedom of many for the greed of a few.
A note: If you don't want to give your e-mail address to Napster, it automatically accepts "anon@napster.com" as a valid entry. Neat feature.
One might argue that not upgrading the board is healthy cost savings, but if you're upgrading a processor within a sufficiently short timespan as to not necessitate a new board technology, then money obviously isn't an issue.
When you are upgrading often, money is MORE of an issue, because your annual cost can go way up by having to buy more parts. I actually have a socket 7 motherboard that is on its third processor. It's a FIC PA-2007, that I've had since 1997. They have bios patches to run anything up to a K6-III on it, as well as large hard drives.
I have respect for a company when they still provide updates and support for legacy products, and allow upgrades for a long period of time. I'm hoping Socket A will stick around for a while, because I hate buying motherboards unnecessarily.
Dell's PCs are so goddamned expensive I don't see how their "special relationship" benefits anyone.
Dell has a huge advertising co-op with Intel, so the special relationship mostly benefits Dell, by getting them millions of dollars of free advertising. Also, they got price protection on RDRAM, which allows them to peddle some of Intel's otherwise worthless 820 motherboards. Also, many of Dell's computers are Intel barebones systems.
I'm sure if anyone implied that their special relationship benefits the customer. It definitely benefits Dell, though, which is why they will have a strong resistance to upsetting Intel, even if it hurts their profits.
If Dell goes AMD, that will be a warning sign to Intel that they no longer dominate the market.
Nope. That's correct. However, the Athlons do have 512K of external cache, which they don't bother to mention.
Um.....in 1989 Intel had already released the 80386 and the 80486 and they were just about to release the Pentium. If a 286 was expensive for you then, you got ripped off.
That's not true. The 486 didn't even exist yet. I worked at a computer store then, and the vast majority of the machines we sold in 1989, and into the early part of 1990, were 286's. In late 1990, the 386/25, 4 megs of ram, a 90 Meg hard drive, and a color VGA monitor was going for about 2500 dollars. About that same time, the 486 came out, but the only one that was affordable was the 486SX/20 Mhz, which was a piece of crap. The 486/DX chips were still around 1200-1500 dollars (for just the chip), and the motherboards for them were still really flaky.
The Pentium wasn't released until 1994 - the marketing and posters for it hit in the late part of 1993. The bug fix to do math on it was the later part of 1994.
'It', being the damage, not the products.
He is not incorrect, and grammar flames suck.
Copyright is a restriction on speech that we tolerate because we (or congress) believe that the limited monopoly to authors is a necessary incentive for creative work. When copyright no longer appears to be serving that function, because it's no longer limited in laws like the DMCA (or the Sonny Bono term extension), then we should be challenging it on First Amendment grounds.
A little point on this - though congresses copyright authority is in the constitution - when it was put there, the bill of rights wasn't there yet. So if they conflict, the bill of rights should take precedence.
You'd have a hell of a time getting a judge to agree with you on this, because it's been ingrained into our society for the last 200 years. Judges generally aren't the type of people who will disagree with two hundred years of status quo.
But it is an interesting thing to think about....
What have you ever said that is original? Our whole method of communication is built upon the words and ideas of others. Even the words themselves evolve upon themselves.
You cannot limit free speech to a certain level of originality, because when it comes right down to it, there's no such thing.
I couldn't have said it better - though I often try. Kick ass. Thanx.
The concept of "property" will never be obsolete until we live in a Communist society where your thoughts and your work are owned by the State.
Or until we live in a society with freewill, where nothing is owned by the state. I agree that if you claim something is yours, people should respect your desires enough to let you have it. But I also think the state should keep their dirty grubby nose out of it.
With intellectual property, the only thing you are claiming is yours is the ability to make money off something. Greed law, pure and simple. I understand the fact that people want to make money off of their creations. But the issue here is respect and personal responsibility. If people respect you and your work enough, you will make a living from it regardless of whether the state has laws protecting you or goes somewhere and picks their butts.
So maybe the concept of intellectual property is not obsolete. But the concept of intellectual property beyond the respect of the people is not only obsolete, it's history. Either because it should be that way, or because there's nobody that can stop it.
First, let me just say I disagree. I could stop there, but in the interest of helping you understand why I disagree, I'll elaborate a little bit.
It seems that the majority of what Microsoft complained about was the unauthorized reproduction of their materials. Quite frankly, this is illegal. It might not make much sense, since the materials are readily available to the public, but Microsoft does have the right to restrict access to them.
Two points - maybe they're illegal, maybe they're not. Even if a law states that they are illegal, if that law doesn't follow the letter or spirit of the constitution, then that law is illegal. The constitution is the supreme law of the land. I'm getting damn tired of people using a narrow, brainwashed view of free speech. If you believe a law violates the constitution, don't follow it. I know - you say "Well, you should follow it, until it is proven that it is unconstitutional." Bullshit. The constitution is the supreme law of the land. Everything else is just details.
This probably isn't a particularly popular view. However, I think the best way to avoid this type of thing is for Slashdot to set up their own limits on their own terms before someone else forces them to. Perhaps if Slashdot allows moderators to report comments containing illegal material and appoints someone to remove such material, we could avoid future conflicts.
Are you saying we avoid standing up for our rights, because it might cause conflicts?
Freedom on the internet is dying quickly
Does that mean we are just supposed to let it die? I think exactly the opposite - fight hard until the trend moves the other way. Extend freewill to a point it's never been pushed. Make the planet a better place. And if you go down, go down screaming and spitting in their faces. Don't just say "Freedom is dying, so we better get out of the way."
If Slashdot doesn't regulate its users more, someone else will, and it won't be pretty.
Sometimes doing what you believe in isn't pretty. That's no reason not to do it. Nuf said.
I've personally used Blade Encoder, as well as older version of the Franhofer encoder. Blade had significantly lower quality at the same bit rate, though going to a higher bit rate can even things out.
I'd be willing to bet that if you ripped the same song at a low bit rate (64-128 or so), and compared the quality between Blade Encoder and LAME, LAME would have noticably better quality. At 256 and higher, any properly working encoder should give you CD quality.
Step 4) More and more consumers scoff at anything that doesn't use RDRAM ("Sheesh, your RAM runs at a puny little 133Mhz! Mine runs at 800!")
Step 5) AMD is hurt by the fact that none of their CPUs run on a chipset that uses RDRAM.
Actually, AMD has a RAMBUS license agreement, and the technology to implement it. However, they aren't planning to. They believe DDR is the way to go, regardless of which direction Intel is headed. I think AMD is getting into the habit of following their own tracks.
You know, you're right in this case. Just by linking to ZDNet's article, both ZDNet and Slashdot are getting "artificial" hits.
The difference, though, is that many of us would read Slashdot every day anyway, so Slashdot's artificial hit ratio is probably lower.
The original article was intended as flamebait, simply for site traffic. This is simply an official response to that flamebait. I'm not sure it even justified a response. However, I guess if it didn't get one, the clueless masses would think that the article had some validity.
Anyhow....
Speaking of handheld devices, there is a Palm Pilot parser for all the old Infocom games, so you can play both Hitchhiker's Guide and Bureaucracy on your palm pilot. They have to be two of the coolest games available for the palm.
Anyhow....