This article should be marked troll. Door locks are there to protect you against thieves by offering a pretty good level of protection against the scum of society. Just because a small percentage of people have figured out how to pick locks, should we do as the poster suggests and simply not lock our doors because it's clearly futile? Obviously not. Things like Zend exist to offer a pretty good level of protection against those who would use the results a person or company's hard work without paying for it. Just because some people are dishonest enough to break that protection doesn't mean that the protection doesn't serve a purpose in the first place.
Well over time knives get dull from use. unless I'm mistaken, this one atom could easily break off, right? Wouldn't it be instantly dull?
"Such a pointy pyramid of metal atoms would normally just smudge away spontaneously..." I'll let you actually RTFA for the hilarious, biting conclusion.
Those who work hard at a company (whether it has cubicles or not) making intelligent buying decisions for commodity products from established vendors rather than wasting their time reinventing the wheel, so that they can focus their time on the challenging work which will set their company apart, making tons of money for their company, accomplishing projects everyone else thought were impossible before, etc. etc..
Anyways, I'm glad to hear that you've done well with your life. Kudos... I'd like to hear more about it sometime.
That is the most geeky post I have seen on this site for a while, you should be proud.
Of course, the geekiest post would be a reply to this one containing a link to the torrent. Who is brave enough to claim the title of King of the Geeks?
Thus, if they sell 1984 copies of Gladiator with the naughty bits omitted, then they buy 1984 copies from the movie production company first. Thus, it can be said they are only reselling the copy of the book that they themselves purchased and from which they ripped out naughty pages.
It could also be said that they bought 1984 copies, destroyed them, and in their place sold altered copies. Remember, they're not buying the copies of Gladiator, they are buying a license to Gladiator, which doesn't include the right to make derivative works.
At any rate, the way to go about this would be to design a special DVD player which wouldn't play normal movies unless they also had some kind of storage media inserted into them containing cryptographically signed data on which parts to skip over. That way, you could sell the original movie filled with nudity and kids wouldn't be able to play it unless they also inserted the media that instructed the player how to skip over that nudity.
My thoughts. If somebody wants to censor for them, why let them? As long as there is "lost sale" going on (e.g. these places buy the movie and splice tape, or every edited copy they sell along with the original edited copy well) I see what beef the copyright holders have with this.
[The above post edited by CleanPosts, a Utah corporation.]
I'm going to start a company which sells DVDs containing *only* the naughty bits from movies... it'll be called Holy Donut Entertainment. I mean, sometimes you just don't have the time to fast forward through the boring bits, right?
From what I understand from this ruling, it would be illegal for me to buy a book, tear out every other page, and sell it to someone else. That's a pretty close analogy, seeing as both my actions and Cleanflicks' third-party video cutting are not authorized by the copyright holder.
Not quite. You own the physical book. You can do what you want with it... including tearing out pages, burning it, or blacking out all instances of the word "the" if you choose. What you can't do is type the contents of the book into a word processor, remove certain sections of it, reprint the modified book, and then sell that bound inside the original cover. That's the difference.
There are very nice blocklists for adblock and ways to automatically import them, which means you won't get to see the ads without having to block them yourself.
I suppose that's good if you like others controlling what content you see. I still add things to Adblock manually so that I have control. Is a site's banner showing a link to The Hunger Site an ad for you? Maybe it is, maybe it's not... but then again you might never see things that are to your interest if you've empowered someone else to make your choices for you.
You might not have noticed this, but the SMTP protocol has several places where the server is allowed to refuse a message based on things like the client's IP address, the destination email address, or even the content of the message body. So no, just speaking SMTP does not mean you've "already given your permission" to anything.
Well of course the server can refuse it at any point... in fact you can implement something like spamd and refuse everything if you so choose. I'm talking about when you get to the end of the SMTP exchange and the server response with "250 message accepted for delivery" or whatever. If the server accepts it all the way through, how can you later say you didn't want the sender to have permission to deliver that message? If you didn't want the sender to deliver it, you would have had the message rejected before it got that far, right?
Having an MX record published in the DNS and having a machine listening on port 25 for SMTP does not mean that the owner of that system doesn't have the right to control the usage of that machine.
And just as a further point, sure you can control whatever you want on your machine. However, if you install software that accepts incoming messages, then here's effectively what happens:
250 whatever HELO me 250 hi me MAIL FROM: 250 so far so good RCPT TO: 250 sure, I'll take that DATA 354 Yep... go ahead and write whatever you want. End it with a single period. Blah blah blah blah my message here. You've accepted everything so far, will you accept this? . 250 Thanks for the message! QUIT
If you really want to restrict what you get and be able to enforce it, you'll need to implement a protocol that has a means of challenging the other server to confirm that its message conforms to certain criteria. Such as:
Without this, any server only supporting RFC 821 can send you whatever and claim that you went above and beyond what their mail server is able to understand and you didn't reject connections from servers which had no capability of understanding that the SMTP banner had anything more than just random text.
Slashdot Mirror
This article should be marked troll. Door locks are there to protect you against thieves by offering a pretty good level of protection against the scum of society. Just because a small percentage of people have figured out how to pick locks, should we do as the poster suggests and simply not lock our doors because it's clearly futile? Obviously not. Things like Zend exist to offer a pretty good level of protection against those who would use the results a person or company's hard work without paying for it. Just because some people are dishonest enough to break that protection doesn't mean that the protection doesn't serve a purpose in the first place.
What will it be as sharp as when they make a super hard iridium tip?
Well over time knives get dull from use. unless I'm mistaken, this one atom could easily break off, right? Wouldn't it be instantly dull?
"Such a pointy pyramid of metal atoms would normally just smudge away spontaneously..." I'll let you actually RTFA for the hilarious, biting conclusion.
And what relationship to the public internet does a desire to decrease paperwork have?
When they came for people with sexual orientation,
I did not speak out;
Because I have no idea what that means.
I guess you weren't invited to the debriefing.
I always wondered how one would onomatopoeiaicize the sounds they make, and now I know!
24TB in only 4U... And how can this be? Because it is the Kwisatz Serverrack.
- Those who work hard at a company (whether it has cubicles or not) making intelligent buying decisions for commodity products from established vendors rather than wasting their time reinventing the wheel, so that they can focus their time on the challenging work which will set their company apart, making tons of money for their company, accomplishing projects everyone else thought were impossible before, etc. etc..
Anyways, I'm glad to hear that you've done well with your life. Kudos... I'd like to hear more about it sometime.That is the most geeky post I have seen on this site for a while, you should be proud.
Of course, the geekiest post would be a reply to this one containing a link to the torrent. Who is brave enough to claim the title of King of the Geeks?
There are limits to how much noise you can send into how many ears. Try playing music loudly all nigth for a week...
You should probably read the other replies in the thread as I've already addressed this.
Damn, that brings back memories typing in stuff on the Apple //c!
I mean, common, evil... everybody's doing it!
Here we can see a fine example of the tragedy of the commons.
... inform the board and sight specific examples...
That would, of course, be "cite specific examples", as in citation, not sightation.
Thus, if they sell 1984 copies of Gladiator with the naughty bits omitted, then they buy 1984 copies from the movie production company first. Thus, it can be said they are only reselling the copy of the book that they themselves purchased and from which they ripped out naughty pages.
It could also be said that they bought 1984 copies, destroyed them, and in their place sold altered copies. Remember, they're not buying the copies of Gladiator, they are buying a license to Gladiator, which doesn't include the right to make derivative works.
At any rate, the way to go about this would be to design a special DVD player which wouldn't play normal movies unless they also had some kind of storage media inserted into them containing cryptographically signed data on which parts to skip over. That way, you could sell the original movie filled with nudity and kids wouldn't be able to play it unless they also inserted the media that instructed the player how to skip over that nudity.
My thoughts. If somebody wants to censor for them, why let them? As long as there is "lost sale" going on (e.g. these places buy the movie and splice tape, or every edited copy they sell along with the original edited copy well) I see what beef the copyright holders have with this.
[The above post edited by CleanPosts, a Utah corporation.]
I'm going to start a company which sells DVDs containing *only* the naughty bits from movies... it'll be called Holy Donut Entertainment. I mean, sometimes you just don't have the time to fast forward through the boring bits, right?
From what I understand from this ruling, it would be illegal for me to buy a book, tear out every other page, and sell it to someone else. That's a pretty close analogy, seeing as both my actions and Cleanflicks' third-party video cutting are not authorized by the copyright holder.
Not quite. You own the physical book. You can do what you want with it... including tearing out pages, burning it, or blacking out all instances of the word "the" if you choose. What you can't do is type the contents of the book into a word processor, remove certain sections of it, reprint the modified book, and then sell that bound inside the original cover. That's the difference.
There are very nice blocklists for adblock and ways to automatically import them, which means you won't get to see the ads without having to block them yourself.
I suppose that's good if you like others controlling what content you see. I still add things to Adblock manually so that I have control. Is a site's banner showing a link to The Hunger Site an ad for you? Maybe it is, maybe it's not... but then again you might never see things that are to your interest if you've empowered someone else to make your choices for you.
... or even shoving that PSP up one's ass and mailing it back to Sony for service -- all that should be perfectly legal.
Actually, it's illegal to send humans through the mail.
Not to be an English nazi, but since when has there been a discrepancy between quitting and fleeing from a job?
Like you, the Nazis probably weren't very good at English either.
Show me a home... where the buffalo roam,
and I'll show you a home full of shit...
You might not have noticed this, but the SMTP protocol has several places where the server is allowed to refuse a message based on things like the client's IP address, the destination email address, or even the content of the message body. So no, just speaking SMTP does not mean you've "already given your permission" to anything.
Well of course the server can refuse it at any point... in fact you can implement something like spamd and refuse everything if you so choose. I'm talking about when you get to the end of the SMTP exchange and the server response with "250 message accepted for delivery" or whatever. If the server accepts it all the way through, how can you later say you didn't want the sender to have permission to deliver that message? If you didn't want the sender to deliver it, you would have had the message rejected before it got that far, right?
Dude, grits are corn, not potatoes.
:)
Well I'll be damned. I didn't even know it was an actual food item... I think I've only heard the term here on Slashdot.
With a side of potatoes of some sort.
I believe the technical term around here is "hot grits".
Having an MX record published in the DNS and having a machine listening on port 25 for SMTP does not mean that the owner of that system doesn't have the right to control the usage of that machine.
And just as a further point, sure you can control whatever you want on your machine. However, if you install software that accepts incoming messages, then here's effectively what happens:
250 whatever
HELO me
250 hi me
MAIL FROM:
250 so far so good
RCPT TO:
250 sure, I'll take that
DATA
354 Yep... go ahead and write whatever you want. End it with a single period.
Blah blah blah blah my message here.
You've accepted everything so far, will you accept this?
.
250 Thanks for the message!
QUIT
If you really want to restrict what you get and be able to enforce it, you'll need to implement a protocol that has a means of challenging the other server to confirm that its message conforms to certain criteria. Such as:
[whatever...]
399 Confirm NO-UCE,ONLY-UTF-8,NO-JOKES
STARTCONF
CONF NO-UCE
CONF ONLY-UTF-8
CONF NO-JOKES
ENDCONF
250 Message content specifications confirmed and agreed upon.
[rest of protocol...]
Without this, any server only supporting RFC 821 can send you whatever and claim that you went above and beyond what their mail server is able to understand and you didn't reject connections from servers which had no capability of understanding that the SMTP banner had anything more than just random text.