Burner, media, or maybe the autoclave he's storing them in.
That's some awful reliablity, though. I have CDs run on a low-speed burner with generic cheapo media, and even my "backup" copy of Win95 still works just fine.
Physical CDs (and probably DVDs, too lazy to look it up) are fundmentally different from CD-R media. A store-bought CD with permanent data is an aluminum foil that's had its tracks stamped in at the factory. A CD-R is a layer of phase-change material that will alter its transparency when hit by a write-mode laser to simulate the properties of the 'pits' of a pressed CD. If degradation causes the reflective properties to change, or if the phase-change material decays and loses its recorded state, you have errors.
Supposedly, CD-RWs are worse still due to the material they use. If data can be changed back and forth inside a drive, there's a potential for outside influences to corrupt both the opaque and reflective bits.
Still, I thought that barring scratches, a CD-R could be expected to last 5-8 years and a CDRW for 2 years or about 50 rewrites. I think the major lesson isn't they're necessarily unreliable, they just do better in stable environmental conditions
I don't understand how this ruling jives with current domain law though. U-Haul just got denied because adware was popping up links to direct competitors. The ruling? You can't complain about someone else's ads, no matter how they bother you. Unless someone goes so far as to break into your webserver and make alterations, it's fair competition.
The idea of 'owning' a domain name is highly contested anyway, everyone on the registrar side figures you're paying for their directory service, and you don't really own the name itself.
My shoe's untied. I'm gonna trip, break an arm and sue Nike. Doesn't matter that they didn't make the shoelaces themselves, or the fact that I did nothing to fix the problem even though I knew about it. I'm gonna be rich!
Yeah, but you run that risk with any registrar. I mean, they have to do work just so they can lose your business? Where's the incentive to play nice?
ICANN is too busy admiring itself to do anything useful, like whip the registrars in line and make them abide rules. Or even create rules in the first place. Heck, they can't even be bothered to write rules for themselves. They'll worry about that once they come to consensus on how many raises per year they should give themselves.
I regged my first domain with them, when I didn't know any better, and quickly moved it to addresscreation when I saw the alternatives. Are there any advantages to paying the premium registration charge for rdc?
Yes, there is an advantage. RDC gives you full DNS access. Addresscreation only lets you set up pointers. If you want to define hostnames for multiple IPs, tough luck. It's minor, yeah. Also, it may have been a temporary problem, but whois lookups were slow to the point of timing out.
For the most part, it seems like you get what you pay for, unless you use NetSol/Verisign. Even GoDaddy looks nice, but there seems to be some fine print that DNS is only for webhosting combos.
That's the problem. To hurt the RIAA, you'd have to boycott them for a LONG time. If a real organized effort was made through December, it might give them some nervous thoughts, but no real damage. Retailers could be seriously crippled by such actions, ruining their one big sales period. Maybe that's an acceptable casualty for some, but don't act like you can ever hit the RIAA directly, they're too well-insulated.
What a delightfully ass-backwards idea! If you're poor, you can't be held liable for your actions! And all this time we thought it was the rich who could avoid real punishment.
The brat got caught fair and square, just like 260 others. Who cares if she's 12? It's not like the RIAA is going to shake her down for milk money, her mother is the one assuming responsibility. Regardless of how you feel about the DMCA, it is THE LAW.
The "Think of the children!" sobbing gets zero sympathy from me.
I don't think this is such a horrible situation for the RIAA at all. I think this would be very easy for them to back-spin if they can ever get Fox to STFU. And stop crying about the poor children, it's more a case of parents being bitten in the ass for not paying attention to what their kids are doing.
This proves their user-lawsuit strategy perfectly! They'll let the family off the hook for PR's sake, but end up making a HUGE example of the case. Remember, they aren't busting someone who downloads a lot, they go after the ones contributing files. If even a little girl is capable of sharing so many files that they identify her as a 'substantial violator', then theft is obviously out of control.
That's the theory, but it's all a numbers game. A would-be cracker doesn't know that your password has changed, so it doesn't alter his method at all. Maybe you changed it to something they've already tried, maybe it's something they'll hit in the next 10 attempts, you can't know.
If a system that isn't smart enough to lock down after failed logins, cycling passwords won't help. If it's sophisticated enough to block brute-force attacks, then you'd be better off keeping it secret instead of changing and forgetting it often.
I guard my passwords more carefully than I do naked pictures of myself. Passwords that are secure, easy to remember, and easy to type quickly are so precious I won't even tell them to someone who's providing sex on a nightly basis.
Not balls, that's some smart criminality. Wheel out everything that isn't bolted down while everyone's busy crowding around the cameras and the talking 6' jerky stick. If you wanted to be *really* ballsy, you'd imitate the TV crew's outfits, and act like you're moving the arcade games out of the way so you can bring in more broadcasting equipment.
Ok, you're correct, I didn't see the note 'nearly flawless'.
So if the synthetic manufacturers are smart, they'll do everything they can to covertly market nondescript white diamonds as long as they can get away with it. They shouldn't have to reveal the origins of their gems, and if they're indistinguishable, buyers shouldn't particularly care.
Consumer, report yourself to mental reprogramming IMMEDIATELY.
Next thing we know, you'll be basing your ring-buying habits on something outrageous like appearance. Who wants a tasteful, personalized piece when you could spend an equal fortune on an enourmous 4-carat that looks like a big shiny fishing lure?
A true professional certainly can tell the difference, because the absolutely perfect ones created in a lab are different. No natural diamonds are so flawless.
We need more parents who are willing to let their kids grow up and experience things first hand. I'm not saying that it's a good idea to give a kid a box of matches, a gallon of gas and tell them to have a good time in their bedroom. That sort of thing should done outside after all.
This is exactly the kind of toys my parents, and many others I know played with. Boring day? Grab the gunpowder! Want to test a friend's gullibility? Don't send him to the dictionary, go to the nearest electric fence!
Just because something is potentially dangerous doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed in sight of your kids. I was shooting guns when I was 10. Does that mean I went out and shot everything I wanted? No, I knew damn well that guns were too dangerous to fool around with.
Kids should be protected from things that will KILL them. Anything that's merely harmful, just give them a warning and let them get burned so they learn. That teaches them a good lesson in safety, and reminds them to pay attention to your warnings next time.
I don't trust those slideshows at all. I seriously doubt the SCO legal team would let P.R. squirrels run around leaking real examples of their secret evidence. Regardless of whether the presenters knew what they were showing, there MUST be more hard proof still hidden away. If a couple armchair-IANALs can rip up the main case exhibits, imagine how long it would last in front of professional bloodsuckers.
The IBM countersuit has really upped the stakes here, it's too late for the cop-out of "Oops, guess we don't have any grounds after all". Maybe that was the original intention if any serious legal opposition came up. Now they HAVE to act like they felt there was a valid case all along.
But this boo-hoo article about how IBM is picking on SCO and making them look bad really makes me wonder. I particularly enjoyed McBride's twisted logic that because SCO was in the news, they were "more relevant in the high technology industry". If they can't present a reasonable defense in the media, do they stand a chance in court?
How many/. readers, even as kids, couldn't tell the difference in quality between Super Mario Brothers game and movie?
How many even bothered to see the movie at all, knowing from previous experience that crossover-media was usually worthless?
Kids are not media whores, only their parents are. Kids know better, and by the time they start choosing their own games, they've already learned from the media-blitz titles parents unwittingly bought.
Today the adage "Can't judge a book by its cover" is confusing for kids who barely touch a real book, but even casual gamers know "Can't judge an entertainment title by its parent corporate licenser"
Slashdot Mirror
Burner, media, or maybe the autoclave he's storing them in.
That's some awful reliablity, though. I have CDs run on a low-speed burner with generic cheapo media, and even my "backup" copy of Win95 still works just fine.
Physical CDs (and probably DVDs, too lazy to look it up) are fundmentally different from CD-R media. A store-bought CD with permanent data is an aluminum foil that's had its tracks stamped in at the factory. A CD-R is a layer of phase-change material that will alter its transparency when hit by a write-mode laser to simulate the properties of the 'pits' of a pressed CD. If degradation causes the reflective properties to change, or if the phase-change material decays and loses its recorded state, you have errors.
Supposedly, CD-RWs are worse still due to the material they use. If data can be changed back and forth inside a drive, there's a potential for outside influences to corrupt both the opaque and reflective bits.
Still, I thought that barring scratches, a CD-R could be expected to last 5-8 years and a CDRW for 2 years or about 50 rewrites. I think the major lesson isn't they're necessarily unreliable, they just do better in stable environmental conditions
I don't understand how this ruling jives with current domain law though. U-Haul just got denied because adware was popping up links to direct competitors. The ruling? You can't complain about someone else's ads, no matter how they bother you. Unless someone goes so far as to break into your webserver and make alterations, it's fair competition.
The idea of 'owning' a domain name is highly contested anyway, everyone on the registrar side figures you're paying for their directory service, and you don't really own the name itself.
My shoe's untied. I'm gonna trip, break an arm and sue Nike. Doesn't matter that they didn't make the shoelaces themselves, or the fact that I did nothing to fix the problem even though I knew about it. I'm gonna be rich!
Yeah, but you run that risk with any registrar. I mean, they have to do work just so they can lose your business? Where's the incentive to play nice?
ICANN is too busy admiring itself to do anything useful, like whip the registrars in line and make them abide rules. Or even create rules in the first place. Heck, they can't even be bothered to write rules for themselves. They'll worry about that once they come to consensus on how many raises per year they should give themselves.
I regged my first domain with them, when I didn't know any better, and quickly moved it to addresscreation when I saw the alternatives. Are there any advantages to paying the premium registration charge for rdc?
Yes, there is an advantage. RDC gives you full DNS access. Addresscreation only lets you set up pointers. If you want to define hostnames for multiple IPs, tough luck. It's minor, yeah. Also, it may have been a temporary problem, but whois lookups were slow to the point of timing out.
For the most part, it seems like you get what you pay for, unless you use NetSol/Verisign. Even GoDaddy looks nice, but there seems to be some fine print that DNS is only for webhosting combos.
just as for many other businesses
That's the problem. To hurt the RIAA, you'd have to boycott them for a LONG time. If a real organized effort was made through December, it might give them some nervous thoughts, but no real damage. Retailers could be seriously crippled by such actions, ruining their one big sales period. Maybe that's an acceptable casualty for some, but don't act like you can ever hit the RIAA directly, they're too well-insulated.
What a delightfully ass-backwards idea! If you're poor, you can't be held liable for your actions! And all this time we thought it was the rich who could avoid real punishment.
The brat got caught fair and square, just like 260 others. Who cares if she's 12? It's not like the RIAA is going to shake her down for milk money, her mother is the one assuming responsibility. Regardless of how you feel about the DMCA, it is THE LAW.
The "Think of the children!" sobbing gets zero sympathy from me.
Not if you merely cut off your other foot to become compliant.
I don't think this is such a horrible situation for the RIAA at all. I think this would be very easy for them to back-spin if they can ever get Fox to STFU. And stop crying about the poor children, it's more a case of parents being bitten in the ass for not paying attention to what their kids are doing.
This proves their user-lawsuit strategy perfectly! They'll let the family off the hook for PR's sake, but end up making a HUGE example of the case. Remember, they aren't busting someone who downloads a lot, they go after the ones contributing files. If even a little girl is capable of sharing so many files that they identify her as a 'substantial violator', then theft is obviously out of control.
That's the theory, but it's all a numbers game. A would-be cracker doesn't know that your password has changed, so it doesn't alter his method at all. Maybe you changed it to something they've already tried, maybe it's something they'll hit in the next 10 attempts, you can't know.
If a system that isn't smart enough to lock down after failed logins, cycling passwords won't help. If it's sophisticated enough to block brute-force attacks, then you'd be better off keeping it secret instead of changing and forgetting it often.
I guard my passwords more carefully than I do naked pictures of myself. Passwords that are secure, easy to remember, and easy to type quickly are so precious I won't even tell them to someone who's providing sex on a nightly basis.
Not balls, that's some smart criminality. Wheel out everything that isn't bolted down while everyone's busy crowding around the cameras and the talking 6' jerky stick. If you wanted to be *really* ballsy, you'd imitate the TV crew's outfits, and act like you're moving the arcade games out of the way so you can bring in more broadcasting equipment.
Addresses are hard to find, but I've seen many band websites listing a contact e-mail either for individual members or the whole band.
Save your $.37 and just wire them a bit through PayPal.
Ok, you're correct, I didn't see the note 'nearly flawless'.
So if the synthetic manufacturers are smart, they'll do everything they can to covertly market nondescript white diamonds as long as they can get away with it. They shouldn't have to reveal the origins of their gems, and if they're indistinguishable, buyers shouldn't particularly care.
Consumer, report yourself to mental reprogramming IMMEDIATELY.
Next thing we know, you'll be basing your ring-buying habits on something outrageous like appearance. Who wants a tasteful, personalized piece when you could spend an equal fortune on an enourmous 4-carat that looks like a big shiny fishing lure?
A true professional certainly can tell the difference, because the absolutely perfect ones created in a lab are different. No natural diamonds are so flawless.
We need more parents who are willing to let their kids grow up and experience things first hand. I'm not saying that it's a good idea to give a kid a box of matches, a gallon of gas and tell them to have a good time in their bedroom. That sort of thing should done outside after all.
This is exactly the kind of toys my parents, and many others I know played with. Boring day? Grab the gunpowder! Want to test a friend's gullibility? Don't send him to the dictionary, go to the nearest electric fence!
Just because something is potentially dangerous doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed in sight of your kids. I was shooting guns when I was 10. Does that mean I went out and shot everything I wanted? No, I knew damn well that guns were too dangerous to fool around with.
Kids should be protected from things that will KILL them. Anything that's merely harmful, just give them a warning and let them get burned so they learn. That teaches them a good lesson in safety, and reminds them to pay attention to your warnings next time.
I don't trust those slideshows at all. I seriously doubt the SCO legal team would let P.R. squirrels run around leaking real examples of their secret evidence. Regardless of whether the presenters knew what they were showing, there MUST be more hard proof still hidden away. If a couple armchair-IANALs can rip up the main case exhibits, imagine how long it would last in front of professional bloodsuckers.
The IBM countersuit has really upped the stakes here, it's too late for the cop-out of "Oops, guess we don't have any grounds after all". Maybe that was the original intention if any serious legal opposition came up. Now they HAVE to act like they felt there was a valid case all along.
But this boo-hoo article about how IBM is picking on SCO and making them look bad really makes me wonder. I particularly enjoyed McBride's twisted logic that because SCO was in the news, they were "more relevant in the high technology industry". If they can't present a reasonable defense in the media, do they stand a chance in court?
How many /. readers, even as kids, couldn't tell the difference in quality between Super Mario Brothers game and movie?
How many even bothered to see the movie at all, knowing from previous experience that crossover-media was usually worthless?
Kids are not media whores, only their parents are. Kids know better, and by the time they start choosing their own games, they've already learned from the media-blitz titles parents unwittingly bought.
Today the adage "Can't judge a book by its cover" is confusing for kids who barely touch a real book, but even casual gamers know "Can't judge an entertainment title by its parent corporate licenser"