"This puts a completely different spin on the song," said Kathryn Ostien, director of copyright licensing for the publisher. "The damage to the song is huge."
"The damage to the song is huge"? I'll never understand these idiots. It's as if they assume that because somebody heard a menial representation of a very well known song in a little cartoon being distributed via the Internet that they're immediately going to think that the original work is bad/political/evil/whatever.
That JibJab parody was hilarious. If anybody should be getting pissed, it should be the Native Americans because of that bit at the end of the song (go ahead and hold your breath, I'm sure it won't be long before they jump on).
I run an Exchange mailserver for a very old domain, and have been debating the best way to handle the junk mail we get for several days.
A catch-all is out of the question due to the insane number of messages sent to random recipients @mydomain.com. I've also turned off delivery reports for incoming mail, as well as disabled receiving mail for anybody who's not in Active Directory. This, in conjunction with our spam filter seems to work fairly well, but we still get hit by a ton of spam each day.
What are some good practices for a domain like this? Any other Exchange admins have ideas about how to handle this? I'm trying to walk the fine line between being user-friendly so idiots can still send us mail, but also keep my users from receiving over 1000 spam messages each day. I'm also trying to avoid violating RFC, but it almost seems that things have changed enough since it was written that either it or the email standard itself needs to be modified as has been suggested by a number of big players in the field.
Uhhh, perhaps I missed something, but last time I checked, the UK has Winter, Fall, and Spring seasons amazingly similar to North American ones where believe it or not many people don't mow their lawns!
Oh, that's right. Forgot building robots is a Summer activity only. Oh well.
I personally agree and would like to avoid ever seeing such a government form, however as we get to the point where the decisions that local governments make can seriously influence the entire world it seems inevitable that at some point a world government is formed to make sure that the future of everybody isn't created by some little government in the corner of the globe.
You can already see the beginnings of it today. The UN tries as hard as it can to be important and have an influence on the world. The USA tells other countries what they can do with the amazing power of nuclear physics and wonderous capabilities of genetic engineering. Is this bad? Of course not, but it seems that in some respects the only thing we're missing to have such a global government is the title itself.
Should a global government tell me what to eat for lunch (mmmm... toasty!)? No, but it would be nice if someone kept North Korea from blowing the world to Hell.
My comment about a hillbilly was in reply to your comments against the Federal government and the implied thought that the US would be better off if we removed the word "United" from the country's name (though "The States" doesn't have that ring to it...). There's no way a single massive government can support or stay in control of a relatively large geographical area inhabited with a populous group of people. This has been demonstrated over and over, ie: the USSR, and the failing of pretty much all the total monarchy's in the world.
What are you? Some sort of redneck hillbilly that still thinks that the evil North has it in for the poor independent states?
What you're saying is just foolish. The sovereignty DOES lie with the people of the United States, however the only way to channel that power into a contructive form is to have an elected few speak for the majority. If everybody who wanted to just went to DC and shouted their wants and opinions, I'm sure a whole lot would get done (*sarcasm!!*).
It would seem you aren't familiar with history, so I'd suggest reading up on the early US, most specifically the Articles of Confederation and the time that they were in effect (or tried to be). They were an attempt to allow the states to be very individual and have complete control of what took place within their borders. The end result was a worthless piece of paper and a bunch of states that acted like little kids on a playground. Bullies, babies, and retards were just wandering around doing whatever the hell they wanted. If this was still in effect today, not only would we be a joke in the long history of government, most likely the British, French, or Spaniards would have moved in and simply taken over.
Personally I DO agree with you about the UN, but because it is ineffectual and has no real power. If the US were to simply pull out of it today it would fall apart for lack of an enforcement and financial arm. The UN telling somebody what to do is still simply a weak suggestion, not even close to an actual command.
However, it seems rather small-minded to think that we'll never see a world government at some point that is strong and capapble of providing for the needs of everyone on the planet. Even if this does come to pass, there will still need to be local governments similar to the current state/federal relationship currently in effect in the United States.
In response to a recent article on Slashdot, both the RIAA and the MPAA have announced a partnership with Seagate, Inc.
The details of this new partnership are sketchy, but it seems that it will entail the automated delivery of detailed information on everyone that purchases the new Seagate 400GB SATA hard drive.
This comes from the assumption that the only reason anyone would really need that amound of drivespace is to store their growing collection of music and movies. Understandably, downloaders and rippers are tired or poor quality movies and audio, and as such this new drive will allow them to contain all their new high-bitrate media in one central location.
In a related story, the RIAA has officially sued Seagate because this new hard drive gives people the capability to store pirated music on their computers. Said an RIAA spokesman, "We feel this is a gross violation of artist's rights, and that it's our responsibility to protect them."
I hate to say it but this lawsuit pisses me off. Of course I don't have any real love for Microsoft, but I'd like to think that if everyone looked at this objectively, we'd all look at the EU as being a bunch of beggars looking for a quick buck (and a big one at that).
If this lawsuit holds, and I'm afraid that it might, it will be completely unfounded. Here's
why:
Yes, Microsoft has a extremely large share in the OS market. This is because over the years Windows has become the most used OS and therefor continues to thrive. There is nothing forcing users from switching to something else like Linux when they buy a system from an OEM.
Sure, Microsoft bundles Windows with Media Player and Internet Explorer. What's wrong with this? I actually would be irritated if they didn't. Think about it. How many users out there even have the ability to go out and find replacements for WMP and IE? Not a majority, I'd suggest. Why should my grandparents not be able to just "plug and play" as it were, having easy access to a media player, one they've already paid for? Also, why should I pay $200 for an OS and then have to go pay even more money to get the software periphials that should come packaged with it anyway?
Along these same lines, how many people should have to pay for a media player? Real Player sucks freaking rocks. My opinion of Quicktime on Windows is about the same, except when it comes to Quicktime movies. I use Winamp 2.91 (because I'm scared of change;) ) for my audio needs and it works amazingly (and free, ooh!). For video I typically use WMP 6.4.
Oooh, Internet browsers. Now I know I'm taking a risk here, but guess what I use on my XP Pro box? Internet Explorer. Why? Because I think it's faster and supports more websites as they were meant to be seen. I say this from a developer's point of view. Writing sites with a Mozilla browser in mind is not something I enjoy. The way it renders certain things is simply a pain in the ass (DIV and TABLE padding, for example). As far as bundling it with Windows, here's another place where you have people who don't have a clue arguing about it. IE is so engrained into Windows (good thing, btw) that why try and get rid of it? It's an integral part of the system.
I can even understand reasons why MS wouldn't want OEMs using some third-party software. Operating systems are the most stable software on the planet, until you start installing other software. That said, keep in mind that what others have said is also true. Many OEM PCs come out with Real, Quicktime, WordPerfect, and other third-party products.
Finally, as to the specifics of the lawsuit. This is where I just say we should take an overall look at the validity of the EU as a whole. Tell me they aren't looking for a quick buck like a bunch of sick beggars heckling a wealthy businessman (like the US, as an innocent example). They charge a record amount fine against Microsoft until it removes WMP and gives source code to rivals on the server market?!?!? Well good golly, why doesn't Intel just give all it's chip research to AMD? Why doesn't Boeing give it's wing design to Airbus (oops, hope no beggars see this, you'll see a new lawsuit in a week: "EU Sues Boeing, Wing Design Creates Unfair Market Share").
For crying out loud, why should MS need to share it's source? If the "rivals" can't keep up, maybe they should try something they're good at.
So the EU doesn't like Windows Media Player. Cry me a river, then go out and get a free copy of Winamp, Real Player (yuck), Quicktime, or whatever their little European hearts desire. They want MS to hand over source code to "rivals". Those wouldn't be European rivals would they? Huh, makes you think.
In the end of this rant, the EU just needs to stop living off the US and start taking care of itself. If not, maybe the US will need to act likewise and sue some big, rich, envied company based in the EU... oh, never mind.
Slashdot Mirror
http://files.chevrofreak.com/this_land.swf
"The damage to the song is huge"? I'll never understand these idiots. It's as if they assume that because somebody heard a menial representation of a very well known song in a little cartoon being distributed via the Internet that they're immediately going to think that the original work is bad/political/evil/whatever.
That JibJab parody was hilarious. If anybody should be getting pissed, it should be the Native Americans because of that bit at the end of the song (go ahead and hold your breath, I'm sure it won't be long before they jump on).
I run an Exchange mailserver for a very old domain, and have been debating the best way to handle the junk mail we get for several days.
A catch-all is out of the question due to the insane number of messages sent to random recipients @mydomain.com. I've also turned off delivery reports for incoming mail, as well as disabled receiving mail for anybody who's not in Active Directory. This, in conjunction with our spam filter seems to work fairly well, but we still get hit by a ton of spam each day.
What are some good practices for a domain like this? Any other Exchange admins have ideas about how to handle this? I'm trying to walk the fine line between being user-friendly so idiots can still send us mail, but also keep my users from receiving over 1000 spam messages each day. I'm also trying to avoid violating RFC, but it almost seems that things have changed enough since it was written that either it or the email standard itself needs to be modified as has been suggested by a number of big players in the field.
Ideas?
Oh, that's right. Forgot building robots is a Summer activity only. Oh well.
You can already see the beginnings of it today. The UN tries as hard as it can to be important and have an influence on the world. The USA tells other countries what they can do with the amazing power of nuclear physics and wonderous capabilities of genetic engineering. Is this bad? Of course not, but it seems that in some respects the only thing we're missing to have such a global government is the title itself.
Should a global government tell me what to eat for lunch (mmmm... toasty!)? No, but it would be nice if someone kept North Korea from blowing the world to Hell.
I say, I can agree with that.
My comment about a hillbilly was in reply to your comments against the Federal government and the implied thought that the US would be better off if we removed the word "United" from the country's name (though "The States" doesn't have that ring to it...). There's no way a single massive government can support or stay in control of a relatively large geographical area inhabited with a populous group of people. This has been demonstrated over and over, ie: the USSR, and the failing of pretty much all the total monarchy's in the world.
What are you? Some sort of redneck hillbilly that still thinks that the evil North has it in for the poor independent states?
What you're saying is just foolish. The sovereignty DOES lie with the people of the United States, however the only way to channel that power into a contructive form is to have an elected few speak for the majority. If everybody who wanted to just went to DC and shouted their wants and opinions, I'm sure a whole lot would get done (*sarcasm!!*).
It would seem you aren't familiar with history, so I'd suggest reading up on the early US, most specifically the Articles of Confederation and the time that they were in effect (or tried to be). They were an attempt to allow the states to be very individual and have complete control of what took place within their borders. The end result was a worthless piece of paper and a bunch of states that acted like little kids on a playground. Bullies, babies, and retards were just wandering around doing whatever the hell they wanted. If this was still in effect today, not only would we be a joke in the long history of government, most likely the British, French, or Spaniards would have moved in and simply taken over.
Personally I DO agree with you about the UN, but because it is ineffectual and has no real power. If the US were to simply pull out of it today it would fall apart for lack of an enforcement and financial arm. The UN telling somebody what to do is still simply a weak suggestion, not even close to an actual command.
However, it seems rather small-minded to think that we'll never see a world government at some point that is strong and capapble of providing for the needs of everyone on the planet. Even if this does come to pass, there will still need to be local governments similar to the current state/federal relationship currently in effect in the United States.
In response to a recent article on Slashdot, both the RIAA and the MPAA have announced a partnership with Seagate, Inc.
The details of this new partnership are sketchy, but it seems that it will entail the automated delivery of detailed information on everyone that purchases the new Seagate 400GB SATA hard drive. This comes from the assumption that the only reason anyone would really need that amound of drivespace is to store their growing collection of music and movies. Understandably, downloaders and rippers are tired or poor quality movies and audio, and as such this new drive will allow them to contain all their new high-bitrate media in one central location.
In a related story, the RIAA has officially sued Seagate because this new hard drive gives people the capability to store pirated music on their computers. Said an RIAA spokesman, "We feel this is a gross violation of artist's rights, and that it's our responsibility to protect them."
Got curious and browsed that images (images directory. Some odd stuff, but there's also a small map showing (at least vaguely) the intended journey.
If this lawsuit holds, and I'm afraid that it might, it will be completely unfounded. Here's why:
Yes, Microsoft has a extremely large share in the OS market. This is because over the years Windows has become the most used OS and therefor continues to thrive. There is nothing forcing users from switching to something else like Linux when they buy a system from an OEM.
Sure, Microsoft bundles Windows with Media Player and Internet Explorer. What's wrong with this? I actually would be irritated if they didn't. Think about it. How many users out there even have the ability to go out and find replacements for WMP and IE? Not a majority, I'd suggest. Why should my grandparents not be able to just "plug and play" as it were, having easy access to a media player, one they've already paid for? Also, why should I pay $200 for an OS and then have to go pay even more money to get the software periphials that should come packaged with it anyway?
Along these same lines, how many people should have to pay for a media player? Real Player sucks freaking rocks. My opinion of Quicktime on Windows is about the same, except when it comes to Quicktime movies. I use Winamp 2.91 (because I'm scared of change ;) ) for my audio needs and it works amazingly (and free, ooh!). For video I typically use WMP 6.4.
Oooh, Internet browsers. Now I know I'm taking a risk here, but guess what I use on my XP Pro box? Internet Explorer. Why? Because I think it's faster and supports more websites as they were meant to be seen. I say this from a developer's point of view. Writing sites with a Mozilla browser in mind is not something I enjoy. The way it renders certain things is simply a pain in the ass (DIV and TABLE padding, for example). As far as bundling it with Windows, here's another place where you have people who don't have a clue arguing about it. IE is so engrained into Windows (good thing, btw) that why try and get rid of it? It's an integral part of the system.
I can even understand reasons why MS wouldn't want OEMs using some third-party software. Operating systems are the most stable software on the planet, until you start installing other software. That said, keep in mind that what others have said is also true. Many OEM PCs come out with Real, Quicktime, WordPerfect, and other third-party products.
Finally, as to the specifics of the lawsuit. This is where I just say we should take an overall look at the validity of the EU as a whole. Tell me they aren't looking for a quick buck like a bunch of sick beggars heckling a wealthy businessman (like the US, as an innocent example). They charge a record amount fine against Microsoft until it removes WMP and gives source code to rivals on the server market?!?!? Well good golly, why doesn't Intel just give all it's chip research to AMD? Why doesn't Boeing give it's wing design to Airbus (oops, hope no beggars see this, you'll see a new lawsuit in a week: "EU Sues Boeing, Wing Design Creates Unfair Market Share").
For crying out loud, why should MS need to share it's source? If the "rivals" can't keep up, maybe they should try something they're good at.
So the EU doesn't like Windows Media Player. Cry me a river, then go out and get a free copy of Winamp, Real Player (yuck), Quicktime, or whatever their little European hearts desire. They want MS to hand over source code to "rivals". Those wouldn't be European rivals would they? Huh, makes you think.
In the end of this rant, the EU just needs to stop living off the US and start taking care of itself. If not, maybe the US will need to act likewise and sue some big, rich, envied company based in the EU... oh, never mind.