First let me preface that I havn't had any association/communication with Paul in years, but back in the mid-90's I Knew Paul, the owner of FooNet (Now CIT) in relation to a Small ISP I used to be a corporate officer of/part own/work for (we were the coloc host of the fledgling FooNet.net's first server 'foonix' if I recall correctly). Things could have changed since then but I very much doubt so.
Back in the day, Paul was very much into the warez/irc scene and seeing the UseNet Articles that are around about FooNet, it seems to be pretty much the same as it used to be, only quite a bit larger. I don't know that I'd actually place CIT in the 'innocent' category, as even back then he knowingly hosted practically anything and anyone that would pay him.
Evidence seems point to quite similar behavior of FooNet/CIT as I had experienced in the 90's, so, I'd say good riddence to one more large spam/DDoS host.
NASA briefing on Columbia accident just reported the following:
7:57 CST Temperature sensors in the wing area went offscale low, indicating sensor failure
7:58 CST Temp sensors in structure/body of vehicle on left side/wing area went offscale low, indicating sensor failure
7:59 CST left inboard & outboard temp and pressure sensor changes, alert on tire sensor pressure shows on crew displays, last transmission from crew trying to respond to the alert
Approx 8:00 CST all vehicle communications and data links lost, speed mac 18.3 altitude a little over 217000
As I posted here a short time after your post, that would make sense from preliminary info that is coming out. A wing failure would certainly cause the vehicle to push out of alignment/go into a spin/break up.
CBS is reporting multiple sources in NASA are looking at a possible left wing failure. This is the same wing which was possibly damaged by the foam falling off the fuel tank on launch. CBS was earlier reporting that last communication from the shuttle was relating to a inordinate tire pressure change also (not specific on which wing), could explain heating up of the left wing because of a heat shield failure, leading to heating up of the tire, increase tire pressure, catastrophic wing failure, shuttle gets out of alignment on re-entry, and it tears apart.
Again, this is only prelim reporting but would make sense in relation to visual reports of spiraling etc. Wing failure, goes into a spin, breaks up.
CBS is reporting on TV that one of the last bits of telemetry to come in was a change in tire pressure. Anyone care to speculate what could have changed that? Interesting fact anyway, I thought.
Those of you that are SCO customers should demand they stop this nonsense or you will cancel your contracts and all other purchases with them. I know I am.
What im saying is the program accepts the contract presented it, then is it not in effect 'signing the contract'? If it accepts the modified contract, could this not be construed as such? By allowing the contract to be modified and accepting that contract, even if it is error on their part, not checking the modifications and just continuing forward without making sure the contract is the same one presented in the first place, and making sure that contract is acceptable if it is not, is the contract any less binding?
If they aren't checking the contract to make sure it is acceptable to them, who am I to be held responsible for their irresponsibility?
Is this really circumventing? Or maybe replacing the DEFAULT EULA with something you find more acceptable, much like crossing out a line on a contract and writing in your own terms and signing it. By accepting your new modified EULA they have arguably 'signed' the contract and agreed to YOUR terms. IANAL but I bet you could get a good distance arguing that anyway. I do this all the time with contracts, if I see a line I dont like I change it, sign it and present it to the other party to agree to my changes. Is this any different? If click through EULA are binding on the consumer, should not the ability to modify that contract for presentation to the License owner be avaliable? Are then not in effect agreeing to your new terms when the accept button accepts your new contract?
>The key to this technology catching on is:
>How many normal cd players fail to play the CD?
>If this number is sufficiently high enough, they >will have to recall the CD.
>So buy the CD, then return it as unplayable
Hey you might have given me a reason to actually buy a CD. Hmm......
>I mean I would think there's a way to force it >to just read it, let software do its thing & >move on... in which case, I'm sure algorithms >could be written to error correct it...
CDRWIN can do this, just tell it to ignore errors in raw mode. Easy as pie, protection cracked:-)
I'm sitting here, slightly bemused, wondering if the idiots who think up all the ways to attempt to copy protect things will ever get the clue that the whole idea of copy protection is useless. If there is a way to protect something, there is a way to break it, it is simple as that. Why the heck don't these companies quit wasting so much time and resources on such a futile operation? Do they not know that most CDROM drives have spdif outputs? And that I can get a moderately decent sound card and record that data? Or If I were really attempting to rip the music industry off I would purchase slightly higher end equipment and record digitally the output? Or that, either way, 2 days after they release this 'marvel of copy protection' someone will have a copy of a direct ripped CD in the mail on the way to the RIAA folx? The pure idiocy of these people really is a shock to my system, one wonders how they even tie their own shoes or pee in the toilet without making a mess on the floor.
I aquired 5 of these things in a garage sale or somewhere, I don't remember, but I will never use another keyboard. Nothing else even touches them. Heavy as hell, noisy too, but they type like a dream, and I do believe you could run over them in a car and theyd keep working:P
Ponder what could happen if instead of worrying about all this censorware, parents would just spend time with their kids and pay attention to what they are doing. Think of the possibilities -- but alas, this is just to easy a solution, or to hard for parents to swallow that THEY might actually be responsible for what their children access. Fear not having anyone to blame when they find little Tommy has been looking at boobs. "The darn program that is supposed to be guarding my kid from pr0n didnt work, IM GONNA SUE." We'll have another Tobacco-type classaction lawsuit on our hands before too long:P Instead of wasting all this time and money on something obviously so futile, why not spend time with your kids once in a while.
I kind of agree. Id rather see the programs fixed myself than not. However not all software is open source. And not all software will ever be open source. This provides a manner in which to protect against stack smash, and any concievable manner in which to plug a security problem is cool beans in my court. I would hope that this would not delegate to lower, less Quality Controlled software though. Thats something that tools like this can lead to. "oh I've got protection against that so I don't have to be so worried about auditing my code." Using this as additional protection is one thing. Using it as a substitute for stringent code auditing is another all together. Lets hope that won't happen.
According to the MPAA's own site the loss to the whole video industry was $2.5B US so I have no clue why and how they are attributing it all to DVD. Im quite sure that VHS copying is MUCH MUCH more prevalent. To quote their site: "The most prevalent form of piracy in the U.S. is the 'back-to-back' copying of videos. In some cases, video retailers purchase one or two genuine cassettes from an authorized distributor and then duplicate copies.... Worldwide, video piracy costs the American motion picture companies $2.5 billion a year in lost revenues." They seem to miss the point that at the moment, making copies of DVD's costs more than purchasing the original copy, so who in their right mind would do it anyway. You should check out their FAQ for more amusing, disjointed reasoning on the issue. It really is a trip.
I can't stand lines of reasoning like yours, since it's the same sort of reasoning that encourages some people to keep things like sodomy laws on the books: "Sodomy laws aren't ever enforced against people who merely commit sodomy. They're only used as an additional charge to bring against violent rapists."
Yep, but don't you understand that at the end of the day, bringing:
1 Count Sexual Assault 1 Count Sodomy 1 Count Kidnapping 1 Count Restraining a person against their will 1 Count public nudity 1 Count cruelty to animals (killing her dog) 1 Count whatever else they can come up with
JUST LOOKS COOLER! Its all about shock value, a bust looks way more impressive if there are 14 charges verses just 1 charge. Newspapers eat it up, the public eats it up, and therefore the lawmakers eat up and continue making these dumb laws that are just overkill anyway.
Somehow I think the people that make and enforce these laws never made it much past the age of 14 mentally, and are still stuck in a testosterone induced haze. They should be playing Quake or something.
Well, thats BS, cuz just last year here in our county elections (yea its just a county election, but it still matters) we had a tie. The office was won on a a game of chance (coin toss) as per Florida law:) Don't ever think your vote doesn't matter.
Slashdot Mirror
First let me preface that I havn't had any association/communication with Paul in years, but back in the mid-90's I Knew Paul, the owner of FooNet (Now CIT) in relation to a Small ISP I used to be a corporate officer of/part own/work for (we were the coloc host of the fledgling FooNet.net's first server 'foonix' if I recall correctly). Things could have changed since then but I very much doubt so.
Back in the day, Paul was very much into the warez/irc scene and seeing the UseNet Articles that are around about FooNet, it seems to be pretty much the same as it used to be, only quite a bit larger. I don't know that I'd actually place CIT in the 'innocent' category, as even back then he knowingly hosted practically anything and anyone that would pay him.
Evidence seems point to quite similar behavior of FooNet/CIT as I had experienced in the 90's, so, I'd say good riddence to one more large spam/DDoS host.
One might begin to wonder if that is not the 'censored story' we should be talking about.
Yea, but check out that mullet. One of the Other major qualifiers!
>l chest
It appears to be a very large, gem encrusted chest.
>open chest
It appears to be locked.
>pick chest
You skillfully pick the lock of a gem encrusted chest!
>open chest
You open the chest.
>l in chest
You look in the chest and discover the Ultimate Shield of Protection made from discarded scales of AOLCD's!
>cast id shield
The Ultimate shield of Protection is a magical item.
It weighs almost nothing! (1 Stone)
It is -10 to your armour class.
It adds one point to your attack damage from its blinding glare.
NASA briefing on Columbia accident just reported the following:
7:57 CST Temperature sensors in the wing area went offscale low, indicating sensor failure
7:58 CST Temp sensors in structure/body of vehicle on left side/wing area went offscale low, indicating sensor failure
7:59 CST left inboard & outboard temp and pressure sensor changes, alert on tire sensor pressure shows on crew displays, last transmission from crew trying to respond to the alert
Approx 8:00 CST all vehicle communications and data links lost, speed mac 18.3 altitude a little over 217000
As I posted here a short time after your post, that would make sense from preliminary info that is coming out. A wing failure would certainly cause the vehicle to push out of alignment/go into a spin/break up.
CBS is reporting multiple sources in NASA are looking at a possible left wing failure. This is the same wing which was possibly damaged by the foam falling off the fuel tank on launch. CBS was earlier reporting that last communication from the shuttle was relating to a inordinate tire pressure change also (not specific on which wing), could explain heating up of the left wing because of a heat shield failure, leading to heating up of the tire, increase tire pressure, catastrophic wing failure, shuttle gets out of alignment on re-entry, and it tears apart.
Again, this is only prelim reporting but would make sense in relation to visual reports of spiraling etc. Wing failure, goes into a spin, breaks up.
CBS is reporting on TV that one of the last bits of telemetry to come in was a change in tire pressure. Anyone care to speculate what could have changed that? Interesting fact anyway, I thought.
What flipping moron modded this redundant? Idiot.
This guy was WATCHING FOR THE SHUTTLE AS IT CAME IN AND SAW THE THING EXPLODE.
How bout you read the post before you moderate it?
Those of you that are SCO customers should demand they stop this nonsense or you will cancel your contracts and all other purchases with them. I know I am.
What im saying is the program accepts the contract presented it, then is it not in effect 'signing the contract'? If it accepts the modified contract, could this not be construed as such? By allowing the contract to be modified and accepting that contract, even if it is error on their part, not checking the modifications and just continuing forward without making sure the contract is the same one presented in the first place, and making sure that contract is acceptable if it is not, is the contract any less binding?
If they aren't checking the contract to make sure it is acceptable to them, who am I to be held responsible for their irresponsibility?
Is this really circumventing? Or maybe replacing the DEFAULT EULA with something you find more acceptable, much like crossing out a line on a contract and writing in your own terms and signing it. By accepting your new modified EULA they have arguably 'signed' the contract and agreed to YOUR terms. IANAL but I bet you could get a good distance arguing that anyway. I do this all the time with contracts, if I see a line I dont like I change it, sign it and present it to the other party to agree to my changes. Is this any different? If click through EULA are binding on the consumer, should not the ability to modify that contract for presentation to the License owner be avaliable? Are then not in effect agreeing to your new terms when the accept button accepts your new contract?
>The key to this technology catching on is:
>How many normal cd players fail to play the CD?
>If this number is sufficiently high enough, they >will have to recall the CD.
>So buy the CD, then return it as unplayable
Hey you might have given me a reason to actually buy a CD. Hmm......
>I mean I would think there's a way to force it >to just read it, let software do its thing & >move on... in which case, I'm sure algorithms >could be written to error correct it...
:-)
CDRWIN can do this, just tell it to ignore errors in raw mode. Easy as pie, protection cracked
I'm sitting here, slightly bemused, wondering if the idiots who think up all the ways to attempt to copy protect things will ever get the clue that the whole idea of copy protection is useless. If there is a way to protect something, there is a way to break it, it is simple as that. Why the heck don't these companies quit wasting so much time and resources on such a futile operation? Do they not know that most CDROM drives have spdif outputs? And that I can get a moderately decent sound card and record that data? Or If I were really attempting to rip the music industry off I would purchase slightly higher end equipment and record digitally the output? Or that, either way, 2 days after they release this 'marvel of copy protection' someone will have a copy of a direct ripped CD in the mail on the way to the RIAA folx? The pure idiocy of these people really is a shock to my system, one wonders how they even tie their own shoes or pee in the toilet without making a mess on the floor.
I aquired 5 of these things in a garage sale or somewhere, I don't remember, but I will never use another keyboard. Nothing else even touches them. Heavy as hell, noisy too, but they type like a dream, and I do believe you could run over them in a car and theyd keep working :P
:P
This one I'm using now was born 27AUG87
And no, you cant have one
Ponder what could happen if instead of worrying about all this censorware, parents would just spend time with their kids and pay attention to what they are doing. Think of the possibilities -- but alas, this is just to easy a solution, or to hard for parents to swallow that THEY might actually be responsible for what their children access. Fear not having anyone to blame when they find little Tommy has been looking at boobs. "The darn program that is supposed to be guarding my kid from pr0n didnt work, IM GONNA SUE." We'll have another Tobacco-type classaction lawsuit on our hands before too long :P Instead of wasting all this time and money on something obviously so futile, why not spend time with your kids once in a while.
I kind of agree. Id rather see the programs fixed myself than not. However not all software is open source. And not all software will ever be open source. This provides a manner in which to protect against stack smash, and any concievable manner in which to plug a security problem is cool beans in my court. I would hope that this would not delegate to lower, less Quality Controlled software though. Thats something that tools like this can lead to. "oh I've got protection against that so I don't have to be so worried about auditing my code." Using this as additional protection is one thing. Using it as a substitute for stringent code auditing is another all together. Lets hope that won't happen.
According to the MPAA's own site the loss to the whole video industry was $2.5B US so I have no clue why and how they are attributing it all to DVD. Im quite sure that VHS copying is MUCH MUCH more prevalent. To quote their site: "The most prevalent form of piracy in the U.S. is the 'back-to-back' copying of videos. In some cases, video retailers purchase one or two genuine cassettes from an authorized distributor and then duplicate copies .... Worldwide, video piracy costs the American motion picture companies $2.5 billion a year in lost revenues." They seem to miss the point that at the moment, making copies of DVD's costs more than purchasing the original copy, so who in their right mind would do it anyway. You should check out their FAQ for more amusing, disjointed reasoning on the issue. It really is a trip.
I can't stand lines of reasoning like yours, since it's the same sort of reasoning that encourages some people to keep things like sodomy laws on the books: "Sodomy laws aren't ever enforced against people who merely commit sodomy. They're only used as an additional charge to bring against violent rapists."
Yep, but don't you understand that at the end of the day, bringing:
1 Count Sexual Assault
1 Count Sodomy
1 Count Kidnapping
1 Count Restraining a person against their will
1 Count public nudity
1 Count cruelty to animals (killing her dog)
1 Count whatever else they can come up with
JUST LOOKS COOLER!
Its all about shock value, a bust looks way more impressive if there are 14 charges verses just 1 charge. Newspapers eat it up, the public eats it up, and therefore the lawmakers eat up and continue making these dumb laws that are just overkill anyway.
Somehow I think the people that make and enforce these laws never made it much past the age of 14 mentally, and are still stuck in a testosterone induced haze. They should be playing Quake or something.
:P
Well, thats BS, cuz just last year here in our county elections (yea its just a county election, but it still matters) we had a tie. The office was won on a a game of chance (coin toss) as per Florida law :) Don't ever think your vote doesn't matter.