I'm not an AOL user. I hate AOL the service. I'm an AIM user, primarily because of network effects. All my friends use AIM, and because the purpose of instant messaging is to talk to your friends, not open-source evangelism, I use AIM too.
I'd love to use an open-source IM client, because there are some extra features I'd want to implement. I've tried to mod AIM, but at best it's not easy -- you have to use obscure hacks -- and at worst it violates the ToS. I would use Gaim, but a) my friends aren't, so patches to Gaim are worthless and b) I clicked through the ToS without realizing they prevent me from using Gaim.
Oh, and as for your assertion that there aren't a bunch of AIM people who are also OSS people: Instant Messaging Wikipedians lists a bunch of AIMmers and (gasp!) MSNIMers, far more than the number of Jabberers.
Not necessarily. Suppose each password is on the order of !T%#GG$@42tyf2. The reason the passwords are the same is because the same person owns all those accounts.
Immediately, I know the password of everyone in my group.
Big deal. Everyone in each group is the same person. That was the point of the list...to find "sock-puppets," people who create multiple accounts for the purpose of harassing, getting around bans, etc.
you should have used a better password anyways, there's not even numbers in those...
Those aren't passwords. Wikipedia hashes the passwords. The titles are the name of one user in each group. The summary's assertion about strong passwords is irrelevant; the only thing they compared was the password hashes.
1) Those heading titles aren't the passwords themselves, just one member from the group. The original passwords are encrypted and unknown. These are users with the same hash. Nobody knows if they used a password like "my_pass_word" or like "ar49B!4Nc&&". Password strength is irrelevant. Besides, the developers of any site always have access to your password hashes, since someone needs full read access to the databases.
2) A quick glance at those lists shows that they're all duplicate ("sock-puppet") accounts, and they're mostly from trolls. If you haven't watched Wikipedia much, you may not know the illustrious story of the sock-puppets, but even seemingly unrelated names (e.g., Lir and Pizza Puzzle) are widely believed to be the same user.
3) This story is what they call "FUD". If someone finds a valid user's account among these, then tell the user, and say that you found one (you don't have to say who). Until then, since the page appears to be all sock puppets, don't assume that there are innocent civilians caught in the collateral damage. As the page says, "all the accounts listed on this page have been created solely for the purpose of trolling." Only when that claim is disproven does the page become a worry.
Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion. - Jed Babbin
Do you really think that when the US said it wanted France's support, it was for military support? They call it the "Coalition," but (unless you live in Britain or Australia) when was the last time you heard about a British or Australian unit doing much of anything?
The reason the US wanted any other country's support is simply to create the appearence that they're not doing this by themselves.
Signed, a US citizen who's proud of our troops but not our military.
Just because they were for hiding his crimes/pictures should NOT be a factor in his punishment.
Shouldn't it be a factor? This is an appeals court; he was already convicted. Once the lower court decided he was a child pornographer, it becomes far more relevant that he has encryption. It's kinda like owning a book on how to pick locks isn't a crime in and of itself, but it becomes important evidence once you're on trial for breaking and entering, and really relevant once a lower court has convicted you. You are already believed to have committed the crime; the job of the appeals court is to see if that conviction was false, not to redetermine the whole thing starting from tabula rasa.
Actually, since it's a graphing calculator, it's easier to type "BOOBIES" (or draw them, if you're so inclined.) The font makes 8008135 look like...5{l8008.
Take a regular TI graphing calculator (you might have one already from high school or college) and add the TI Keyboard. If you have a computer uplink of some sort for the calculator (either a GraphLink or on-board USB for the newer models), you can transfer your documents to MS Word.
(Vernier's not the only source; they're just one of the cheaper ones. TI doesn't sell the keyboard directly anymore.)
I would very much like to see Penguin's proof of copyright over the works of Chaucer, who died in 1400.
They do have copyright over the translation. Here's Chaucer's original, from here:
Whan that Aprill, with his shoures soote The droghte of March hath perced to the roote And bathed every veyne in swich licour, Of which vertu engendred is the flour; Whan Zephirus eek with his sweete breeth Inspired hath in every holt and heeth The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne Hath in the Ram his halfe cours yronne....
That version's in public domain. But here's Penguin's version:
When in April the sweet showers fall And pierce the drought of March to the root, and all The veins are bathed in liquor of such power As brings about the engendering of the flower When also Zephyrus with his sweet breath Exhales an air in every grove and heath Upon the tender shoots, and the young sun His half-course in the sign of the Ram has run....
No wonder you're having problems with Single Sign-On. Just use the same BLEEPing account for everything!
If you're giving too much credentials to the wrong sites, that's an implementation problem with Passport. Ideally, you should give your key to a single master site, which logs you in to different, separate accounts for each other site you visit. MSN Messenger, etc., are pushing the concept a little by making your MSN account the Passport account itself.
Had I not posted in this discussion already, I would've modded you up.
From any web browser (or even telnet) connected to the Internet, I should be able to reach some live dispatcher that can figure out (by talking to me) where I am and connect me to the local 911 dispatcher (or 112, or 999, or wherever I am in the world). And I should be connected within 10 seconds, not counting network latency. I agree: with the unversality of the Internet, this should be a priority.
I thought the libertarian(ish) point of view would want this.
Competition is good. Anything that breaks the cartel of landline providers is a good thing. VoIP is much more reasonably priced than landline service in some areas. And I shouldn't have to keep paying for a landline just to make sure that 911 will work.
But I need 911 service. I doubt libertarianism extends to "I don't want the government to interfere when someone's dying." 911 service is also a Good Thing, and that needs to be maintained somehow. This generation of Americans has been indoctrinated with "dial 911" since childhood.
So, VoIP needs to provide 911 somehow, and it needs to be as reliable as possible. This woman with the dead baby tried to call 911, after appropriately registering her home address. She was greeted with a recorded message. Of course it won't work when your Internet connection isn't working; that's beyond the control of the VoIPers. But when you can connect to the Internet, you must be able to reach 911.
And what's wrong with dead babies? As I mentioned, the woman did everything right and was still unable to reach an emergency dispatcher.
BTW, doesn't 911 work even without landline service? So for physical VoIP phones, also plug them into the landline; for software phones, suggest a voice modem for calling 911 via the software. And warn "You must keep a landline phone plugged in for emergencies."
You cannot be guaranteed the same level of reliability with VoIP. Public telephone service operators are held to strict regulations regarding PSTN service, ISPs are not.
Then one of two things must happen:
1) The ISPs must be held to the same standards as the telcos. Copper wire can break as easily as cable or fiber.
2) VoIP must cease interfacing with the telephone network. Require the callee to be on the Internet, too. Or allow incoming calls but not outgoing calls.
The reason is that people have an expectation that when you can call any other number from VoIP, you can call 911. This works on cell phones as well as land lines.
It's ludicrous to say "if you want something for emergencies". The reason it's an emergency is that you don't expect it. On the assumptions that competition is good (I should be able to cancel my Bell service) and that I need emergency service, VoIP must be able to support 911 at least as reliably as cell phones.
If the Internet is too unreliable to support emergency calls, then VoIP, advertised as a replacement for your land line, cannot continue.
(Apologies if you meant this as a joke and the mods were the ones who were dumb.)
I intend to live as a generally moral and law-abiding citizen. If I get in prison unjustly, then the problem is the unjust punishment, not the RFID tags once I happily walk in the prison.
Prisoners neither have nor deserve all the rights of citizens. That's like saying that prisoner's free speech rights are being violated.
And it's interesting that you consider black rights to be on par with prisoner rights.
/I can't stand all those AOL links and junk that get installed, which is why I don't use AIM.
I installed Jabber once. Nobody else did. That's why I'm still on AIM.
Network effects and proprietary protocols - it's why AIM and MSN and the like are still popular, and still semi-popular among people who should know better.
I'm going to start by conceding a whole bunch of points:
A) Yes, I'm a Christian, and that's part of the reason I'm sticking up for Christianity.
B) Yes, I realize that religious wars were very deadly, very wrong, very immoral, very distaseful, and unfortunately true. However, please remember that the zealots weren't all religious zealots, and many of the religous weren't even zealots. Martin Luther, for example, only wanted peaceable reform, not violent schism.
C) Of course the Crusaders would've nuked the Muslim world if they could. They were blinded by religion. They were wrong. There is only one thing I hate more than a deadly devotion to God (and that is a deadly devotion against God).
It is never defensible to kill others in the name of religion. That means only that you find neither your god strong enough to win the battle without fighting, nor your religion strong enough to convert the enemies instead of killing them.
I am not attempting to defend the worldly misdeeds of various religions throughout history (even those whose religious viewpoints I agree with). The only point is that religion is only one of many causes of war. Politics is far more common. Science is pretty much the only means by which war is fought. So what if the debates in science cause no deaths? The number of deaths would've been impossible without those debates being answered.
No field is completely immune, and I think religion in general is getting a bit of a bad rap. Not many modern movements in religion (other than "Islam's bloody borders" and all that) are deadly, ofr example.
Nobody "deserves" a democracy. A democracy is the will of the people.
That sort of thinking starts you forcing people into having democracies. You will never have a self-sustaining democracy until the people want one and know the dangers of not having one.
Right now there are no perceivable dangers to the majority of the American populace for not having a full democracy. That's why very few people are complaining about American government: not many are suffering, and most are as well off as they would be with a full democracy, or as they think they would be, or as they want to be.
Slashdot Mirror
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." -Winston Churchill
It's possible to avoid having enemies. But I don't think we want the world's superpowers being pushovers.
I'm not an AOL user. I hate AOL the service. I'm an AIM user, primarily because of network effects. All my friends use AIM, and because the purpose of instant messaging is to talk to your friends, not open-source evangelism, I use AIM too.
I'd love to use an open-source IM client, because there are some extra features I'd want to implement. I've tried to mod AIM, but at best it's not easy -- you have to use obscure hacks -- and at worst it violates the ToS. I would use Gaim, but a) my friends aren't, so patches to Gaim are worthless and b) I clicked through the ToS without realizing they prevent me from using Gaim.
Oh, and as for your assertion that there aren't a bunch of AIM people who are also OSS people: Instant Messaging Wikipedians lists a bunch of AIMmers and (gasp!) MSNIMers, far more than the number of Jabberers.
Not necessarily. Suppose each password is on the order of !T%#GG$@42tyf2. The reason the passwords are the same is because the same person owns all those accounts.
Immediately, I know the password of everyone in my group.
Big deal. Everyone in each group is the same person. That was the point of the list...to find "sock-puppets," people who create multiple accounts for the purpose of harassing, getting around bans, etc.
You already presumably know your own password.
you should have used a better password anyways, there's not even numbers in those...
Those aren't passwords. Wikipedia hashes the passwords. The titles are the name of one user in each group. The summary's assertion about strong passwords is irrelevant; the only thing they compared was the password hashes.
1) Those heading titles aren't the passwords themselves, just one member from the group. The original passwords are encrypted and unknown. These are users with the same hash. Nobody knows if they used a password like "my_pass_word" or like "ar49B!4Nc&&". Password strength is irrelevant. Besides, the developers of any site always have access to your password hashes, since someone needs full read access to the databases.
2) A quick glance at those lists shows that they're all duplicate ("sock-puppet") accounts, and they're mostly from trolls. If you haven't watched Wikipedia much, you may not know the illustrious story of the sock-puppets, but even seemingly unrelated names (e.g., Lir and Pizza Puzzle) are widely believed to be the same user.
3) This story is what they call "FUD". If someone finds a valid user's account among these, then tell the user, and say that you found one (you don't have to say who). Until then, since the page appears to be all sock puppets, don't assume that there are innocent civilians caught in the collateral damage. As the page says, "all the accounts listed on this page have been created solely for the purpose of trolling." Only when that claim is disproven does the page become a worry.
-- User:Geoffrey on Wikipedia
Odd. I've heard "confuzzled" a lot, but I've never heard of "ginormous" before this article.
Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion. - Jed Babbin
Do you really think that when the US said it wanted France's support, it was for military support? They call it the "Coalition," but (unless you live in Britain or Australia) when was the last time you heard about a British or Australian unit doing much of anything?
The reason the US wanted any other country's support is simply to create the appearence that they're not doing this by themselves.
Signed, a US citizen who's proud of our troops but not our military.
Just because they were for hiding his crimes/pictures should NOT be a factor in his punishment.
Shouldn't it be a factor? This is an appeals court; he was already convicted. Once the lower court decided he was a child pornographer, it becomes far more relevant that he has encryption. It's kinda like owning a book on how to pick locks isn't a crime in and of itself, but it becomes important evidence once you're on trial for breaking and entering, and really relevant once a lower court has convicted you. You are already believed to have committed the crime; the job of the appeals court is to see if that conviction was false, not to redetermine the whole thing starting from tabula rasa.
Actually, since it's a graphing calculator, it's easier to type "BOOBIES" (or draw them, if you're so inclined.) The font makes 8008135 look like...5{l8008.
Oh, and it's 5318008, not 8008135.
Take a regular TI graphing calculator (you might have one already from high school or college) and add the TI Keyboard. If you have a computer uplink of some sort for the calculator (either a GraphLink or on-board USB for the newer models), you can transfer your documents to MS Word.
(Vernier's not the only source; they're just one of the cheaper ones. TI doesn't sell the keyboard directly anymore.)
They do have copyright over the translation. Here's Chaucer's original, from here:
That version's in public domain. But here's Penguin's version:
That's not the same, and nether in public domain.
BitTorrent doesn't commit "IP" theft.
You must be kidding. You won't believe how much of my upload bandwidth that things was stealing!
"I hear that all the time, here is an in-depth article on my website" that points to
www.primidi.com.
4. Profit!!!
The one word that's on everyone's mind...
Pictures? If this is for real, I really want to see this.
If you're worried about fingerprints, wear gloves all the time. Can't evil government agents always fingerprint the books that were returned?
I need to log in with a different account
No wonder you're having problems with Single Sign-On. Just use the same BLEEPing account for everything!
If you're giving too much credentials to the wrong sites, that's an implementation problem with Passport. Ideally, you should give your key to a single master site, which logs you in to different, separate accounts for each other site you visit. MSN Messenger, etc., are pushing the concept a little by making your MSN account the Passport account itself.
Had I not posted in this discussion already, I would've modded you up.
From any web browser (or even telnet) connected to the Internet, I should be able to reach some live dispatcher that can figure out (by talking to me) where I am and connect me to the local 911 dispatcher (or 112, or 999, or wherever I am in the world). And I should be connected within 10 seconds, not counting network latency. I agree: with the unversality of the Internet, this should be a priority.
I thought the libertarian(ish) point of view would want this.
Competition is good. Anything that breaks the cartel of landline providers is a good thing. VoIP is much more reasonably priced than landline service in some areas. And I shouldn't have to keep paying for a landline just to make sure that 911 will work.
But I need 911 service. I doubt libertarianism extends to "I don't want the government to interfere when someone's dying." 911 service is also a Good Thing, and that needs to be maintained somehow. This generation of Americans has been indoctrinated with "dial 911" since childhood.
So, VoIP needs to provide 911 somehow, and it needs to be as reliable as possible. This woman with the dead baby tried to call 911, after appropriately registering her home address. She was greeted with a recorded message. Of course it won't work when your Internet connection isn't working; that's beyond the control of the VoIPers. But when you can connect to the Internet, you must be able to reach 911.
And what's wrong with dead babies? As I mentioned, the woman did everything right and was still unable to reach an emergency dispatcher.
BTW, doesn't 911 work even without landline service? So for physical VoIP phones, also plug them into the landline; for software phones, suggest a voice modem for calling 911 via the software. And warn "You must keep a landline phone plugged in for emergencies."
You cannot be guaranteed the same level of reliability with VoIP. Public telephone service operators are held to strict regulations regarding PSTN service, ISPs are not.
Then one of two things must happen:
1) The ISPs must be held to the same standards as the telcos. Copper wire can break as easily as cable or fiber.
2) VoIP must cease interfacing with the telephone network. Require the callee to be on the Internet, too. Or allow incoming calls but not outgoing calls.
The reason is that people have an expectation that when you can call any other number from VoIP, you can call 911. This works on cell phones as well as land lines.
It's ludicrous to say "if you want something for emergencies". The reason it's an emergency is that you don't expect it. On the assumptions that competition is good (I should be able to cancel my Bell service) and that I need emergency service, VoIP must be able to support 911 at least as reliably as cell phones.
If the Internet is too unreliable to support emergency calls, then VoIP, advertised as a replacement for your land line, cannot continue.
(Apologies if you meant this as a joke and the mods were the ones who were dumb.)
I intend to live as a generally moral and law-abiding citizen. If I get in prison unjustly, then the problem is the unjust punishment, not the RFID tags once I happily walk in the prison.
Prisoners neither have nor deserve all the rights of citizens. That's like saying that prisoner's free speech rights are being violated.
And it's interesting that you consider black rights to be on par with prisoner rights.
/I can't stand all those AOL links and junk that get installed, which is why I don't use AIM.
I installed Jabber once. Nobody else did. That's why I'm still on AIM.
Network effects and proprietary protocols - it's why AIM and MSN and the like are still popular, and still semi-popular among people who should know better.
Isn't lack of "informed consent" the rule that makes statutory rape a crime?
So will we now ban under-18s from installing any software under a "statutory spyware" law?
I'm going to start by conceding a whole bunch of points:
A) Yes, I'm a Christian, and that's part of the reason I'm sticking up for Christianity.
B) Yes, I realize that religious wars were very deadly, very wrong, very immoral, very distaseful, and unfortunately true. However, please remember that the zealots weren't all religious zealots, and many of the religous weren't even zealots. Martin Luther, for example, only wanted peaceable reform, not violent schism.
C) Of course the Crusaders would've nuked the Muslim world if they could. They were blinded by religion. They were wrong. There is only one thing I hate more than a deadly devotion to God (and that is a deadly devotion against God).
It is never defensible to kill others in the name of religion. That means only that you find neither your god strong enough to win the battle without fighting, nor your religion strong enough to convert the enemies instead of killing them.
I am not attempting to defend the worldly misdeeds of various religions throughout history (even those whose religious viewpoints I agree with). The only point is that religion is only one of many causes of war. Politics is far more common. Science is pretty much the only means by which war is fought. So what if the debates in science cause no deaths? The number of deaths would've been impossible without those debates being answered.
No field is completely immune, and I think religion in general is getting a bit of a bad rap. Not many modern movements in religion (other than "Islam's bloody borders" and all that) are deadly, ofr example.
Nobody "deserves" a democracy. A democracy is the will of the people.
That sort of thinking starts you forcing people into having democracies. You will never have a self-sustaining democracy until the people want one and know the dangers of not having one.
Right now there are no perceivable dangers to the majority of the American populace for not having a full democracy. That's why very few people are complaining about American government: not many are suffering, and most are as well off as they would be with a full democracy, or as they think they would be, or as they want to be.