But even though the original Gator software can be considered one of the original plague carriers of the spyware blight -- be careful about calling it that. The company has repeatedly threatened its critics with libel lawsuits for dubbing it "spyware."
Guess what? GATOR IS SPYWARE!!! Guess what else? I FEAR MY PRIVACY EVEN MORE!!!
How are they going to sneak into my house now? Mail? Phone? TV? Oh wait, they already have.
I'm baffled by such a stupid and clueless statement. You seem brainwashed by the marketing industry.
Quite the opposite, actually.
You claim stronger laws need put in place. Yes, in an ideal world this would be the answer. We don't live in an ideal world though. There's so much that can happen between "point A" and "point B".
Example: Like with ChoicePoint, a criminal accesses large amounts of private data. Between the time they generate, for the sake of the argument, an SQL dump of it, SCP it off to one of their private servers in FooLand (immune to U.S. law), and when ChoicePoint actually realizes what happens and acts on it, nearly 5 minutes can elapse.
Slapping the hand of the criminal that did this, even if they were in the U.S., will do absolutely no good because the data has been moved to another country that the U.S. has no jurisdiction over and Mr. "Hacker" now has his bail paid for, as well as a rather decent kickback from his Fooian partners in crime.
Simply having this kind of data accessable from the internet is a huge security risk. If you think privacy laws can solve it, fine, that's your opinion. I don't see such a "fairy tale" solution happening though.
Even though I wanted to see the NPO work with "sledgehammer" boxes, as the anonymous coward in the other reply put it, we would have needed donations, either cash or software.
Sure, in a perfect world it would make sense to give everyone Linux with their computer, but that wouldn't be practical. Linux on the desktop is another rant that I will not touch here.
Regardless of what OS would be used, it would take people to install and configure it; VOLUNTEERS. That's what people just don't get about Digivisions. They all think "Well if I am going to help out, it is going to have to be a full-time job and I will have to make $30k+ a year."
I mean, I can understand how they wouldn't want for the equipment to land in the hands of some high-school punk that would resell it, but that's not what I'm getting at.
There's people that can't afford gas to get to the library, so we come up with government subsidized transit. There's people that can't afford housing, so we come up with government subsidized housing. There's people that can't afford food, so we come up with food pantries. There's people that can't afford clothes, so we come up with The Salvation Army and Goodwill. There's people that can't afford computers, so we tell them "the road stops here"? Faulty logic if you ask me, ESPECIALLY with the world going the way of the computer.
A lot of times, places will just throw out very usable systems. I know the article said that reselling these systems has raised red flags (bullshit, IMHO), but what about the family that can't afford a computer to help their kid with research projects for school?
Hardware is just a small part of the problem causing the "digital divide", and nobody seems to really care. Having come from a low-income home, I DO care.
I tried a while back to get people together to start a non-profit organization to help out the underprivileged, but when it came down to the wire and the "how much will I get paid" questions, everyone seemed to be uninterested in it.
Just like these "tree-huggers" trying to avoid the resale of perfectly usable hardware, everyone is greedy and doesn't want to see the poverty-stricken children grow up with at least SOME exposure to computing unless it means something for them.
All I can say is that I hope the people that are pushing this bill with no elbow room on either side of it don't sleep tonight. I'm sick and tired of seeing this crap.
If you want to take my idea and run with it, have some background on it: http://digivisions.skudd.com/
One of the big issues behind this is public safety. If NOAA does close up the access to their data, many residential users will have to go with the generalized information they retrieve from the Weather Channel and similar sites.
As an amateur storm chaser, this is a huge deal to me. I don't want to have to go back to using Unisys' feeds, or Yahoo Weather feeds. I like the timeliness and accuracy of the NWS and SPC information. It allows for me to know when I should start watching the sky, when to start really worrying, and when to head out to report dangerous weather conditions so that the local residents don't get wiped out by the "finger of God", should it ever happen.
I know for one thing, I will be contacting the NOAA represenative that I dealt with prior on this issue, and voice my concerns, AGAIN. My tax money goes to fund their activities, so why should I have to pay again for something that should be freely available?
Last year I purchased a Fuji FinePix A205, and after I learned about the EXIF data it stored, I decided to do a bit of research.
My camera is not a top of the line camera by any means, but from what I gather, it could be with a small firmware hack.
Camera manufacturers are most likely "keeping the lid" on them, simply because they will use the same hardware for a fully automatic point-n-shoot that they will for a higher end, you-controll-it model. They will just use a different firmware to restrict certain portions, such as exposure length, focusing, etc.
I am an avid storm spotter, and I've spent many hours trying to photograph lightning. Even though it's a difficult task as it is, a camera that doesn't let you specify a 2 second exposure makes things even more difficult.
Both are capable of sharing files between 2 computers over the internet, thus, being labeled as peer-to-peer. Are the makers of these standards going to get this fine too?
My condolences go out to the many teenagers who are stricken with depression and are now unable to tell the entire world about it.
Although, maybe now they'll learn how to untar a simple archive and use something like Movable Type, b2, or SkuddBlog.
Living in the heartland of America, the farming country, you hear about this kind of thing all the time.
I think this has been around much longer than the RIAA/MPAA lawsuits. I think people just need to familiarize themselves with the different cultures around the world, rather than treating this kind of thing as some big new deal.
Heck, I was just talking to a friend about this: (15:07:04) Tim: the ESA doesn't do like NASA does:( (15:07:19) Tim: NASA will put all their data up on the web
It's annoying, knowing that they have a lot of images/data/etc., and all that was shared with us is the one image. I was hoping to see more, like the view over the horizon.
Americans to spend more, and that means work more.
Apparently you don't understand the way cost of living works in small towns. It's bad enough having to pay $3.00/gal for gasoline, $2.50 for a gallon of milk, and $2.00 for a loaf of bread, let alone $40/mo for basic telephone service + $50/mo for 128k DSL + $70/mo for TV service.
I'm all for making a buck, but damn! You've got to adjust your prices according to the economy in which you intend to market your products/services.
BellSouth is a "Ma Bell", if I'm not mistaken. Does this not mean that they are a big-time telecommunications provider? Does it not also mean that they have gridlocked small communities, as have other major t-comm providers?
Why are they so worried about "unfair competition" when they have the rest of the US locked down, tighter than Fort Knox? If they're not going to provide their "rural" customers with broadband, priced at the level of the average local income, then they had best not be complaining about the cities doing something about it.
It seems kinda weird that an article about it got posted here.:P (Tin-foil hat time?)
As I told my friend, I'd be worried about heat issues, and ESPECIALLY static. I mean, think about it... When you were little, playing with those things, you'd often get shocked when you were reaching for another piece out of the bucket. Wouldn't that be kinda hard on your $150 video card?
In general though, it's kinda cool to see something like that actually done.
Even though the article focuses on fiber, I personally don't think that it stops there.
FTTN is actually here in my neighborhood, but it hasn't been implemented. I would be VERY GRATEFUL for any form of Internet access that goes beyond the "connected for 30 minutes but got booted and had to redial because someone picked up the telephone" issues.
Sprint has monopolized this area. I looked into SBC DSL not more than a couple months ago, and they said something about Sprint having a "lock" on the area, preventing them from coming here.
Not more than 3 miles east of my house is a major fiber connection that (supposedly) runs from Indy to Chicago. Why can't they branch off of that and provide something cheaper? Oh wait, it's still a Sprint-owned line. But what about this fiber optic pedestal in my front yard? Oh wait, still Sprint. But what about the DSL service in this town? *Cough*
I would be grateful if Verizon would bring their FTTP to this area. Sure, it's costing them, but if they can provide me with 256Kbps for less than $50 per month, I'd be willing to wager that they would be able to take back the competition and pay for their installation costs within a few years, at the most.
If you "big-city" residents think it's bad, try living in a rural farming community. Sprint DSL here, 256Kbps, is about $58 per month! I am paying $18 per month for somewhat unreliable 56k.
The only other option here is cable, but the cable TV service requires you to be a cable subscriber to get their broadband service for $30 per month. They don't tell you that the cable TV service is $70 per month.
I am seriously thinking about forming a "freenet" as someone called it. I need to do some research and whatnot, then I will move it to the local public. I seriously think that if every area were to do something like this, it would give Ma and Pa Bell a run for their money, and since it would be privately owned, funded, and operated, they wouldn't be able to do Jack Schitt about it.
As with most/. comment threads, I am dumbfounded by the number of replies to this.
My thought is this though: Sure, it seems as though they're going to help people be "more legal" with their copy of Windows, but what kind of list are they keeping of who has pirated and who hasn't? It just seems to me like they are keeping tally, and will hit those people with lawsuits later on.
It might just be my general paranoia of Microsoft, but I don't trust them, even on this.
How reliable is this? I've heard a lot about people upgrading the entire distro via apt and yum, but I have not heard any statistics on how it turned out.
Slashdot Mirror
Not only the story itself, but...
But even though the original Gator software can be considered one of the original plague carriers of the spyware blight -- be careful about calling it that. The company has repeatedly threatened its critics with libel lawsuits for dubbing it "spyware."
Guess what? GATOR IS SPYWARE!!!
Guess what else? I FEAR MY PRIVACY EVEN MORE!!!
How are they going to sneak into my house now? Mail? Phone? TV? Oh wait, they already have.
This falls into the same category as an advertisement I saw on TV the other day...
"Don't change your lifestyle. Eat what you normally eat. Just take our pill and watch the fat fall off!"
We're entering a society of "Don't worry about anything: Automate it!", and it's getting quite disturbing.
I'm baffled by such a stupid and clueless statement. You seem brainwashed by the marketing industry.
Quite the opposite, actually.
You claim stronger laws need put in place. Yes, in an ideal world this would be the answer. We don't live in an ideal world though. There's so much that can happen between "point A" and "point B".
Example:
Like with ChoicePoint, a criminal accesses large amounts of private data. Between the time they generate, for the sake of the argument, an SQL dump of it, SCP it off to one of their private servers in FooLand (immune to U.S. law), and when ChoicePoint actually realizes what happens and acts on it, nearly 5 minutes can elapse.
Slapping the hand of the criminal that did this, even if they were in the U.S., will do absolutely no good because the data has been moved to another country that the U.S. has no jurisdiction over and Mr. "Hacker" now has his bail paid for, as well as a rather decent kickback from his Fooian partners in crime.
Simply having this kind of data accessable from the internet is a huge security risk. If you think privacy laws can solve it, fine, that's your opinion. I don't see such a "fairy tale" solution happening though.
...I am quite unsettled now from this.
There's no simple solution to it, other than abolish technology.
That's part of what Digivisions was going to do.
Even though I wanted to see the NPO work with "sledgehammer" boxes, as the anonymous coward in the other reply put it, we would have needed donations, either cash or software.
Sure, in a perfect world it would make sense to give everyone Linux with their computer, but that wouldn't be practical. Linux on the desktop is another rant that I will not touch here.
Regardless of what OS would be used, it would take people to install and configure it; VOLUNTEERS. That's what people just don't get about Digivisions. They all think "Well if I am going to help out, it is going to have to be a full-time job and I will have to make $30k+ a year."
Yet another case of the greedy vendors, really.
I mean, I can understand how they wouldn't want for the equipment to land in the hands of some high-school punk that would resell it, but that's not what I'm getting at.
There's people that can't afford gas to get to the library, so we come up with government subsidized transit. There's people that can't afford housing, so we come up with government subsidized housing. There's people that can't afford food, so we come up with food pantries. There's people that can't afford clothes, so we come up with The Salvation Army and Goodwill. There's people that can't afford computers, so we tell them "the road stops here"? Faulty logic if you ask me, ESPECIALLY with the world going the way of the computer.
A lot of times, places will just throw out very usable systems. I know the article said that reselling these systems has raised red flags (bullshit, IMHO), but what about the family that can't afford a computer to help their kid with research projects for school?
Hardware is just a small part of the problem causing the "digital divide", and nobody seems to really care. Having come from a low-income home, I DO care.
I tried a while back to get people together to start a non-profit organization to help out the underprivileged, but when it came down to the wire and the "how much will I get paid" questions, everyone seemed to be uninterested in it.
Just like these "tree-huggers" trying to avoid the resale of perfectly usable hardware, everyone is greedy and doesn't want to see the poverty-stricken children grow up with at least SOME exposure to computing unless it means something for them.
All I can say is that I hope the people that are pushing this bill with no elbow room on either side of it don't sleep tonight. I'm sick and tired of seeing this crap.
If you want to take my idea and run with it, have some background on it: http://digivisions.skudd.com/
It won't happen for the same reasons the DirecTV/Dish Network merger didn't. The FTC just won't allow it.
One of the big issues behind this is public safety. If NOAA does close up the access to their data, many residential users will have to go with the generalized information they retrieve from the Weather Channel and similar sites.
As an amateur storm chaser, this is a huge deal to me. I don't want to have to go back to using Unisys' feeds, or Yahoo Weather feeds. I like the timeliness and accuracy of the NWS and SPC information. It allows for me to know when I should start watching the sky, when to start really worrying, and when to head out to report dangerous weather conditions so that the local residents don't get wiped out by the "finger of God", should it ever happen.
I know for one thing, I will be contacting the NOAA represenative that I dealt with prior on this issue, and voice my concerns, AGAIN. My tax money goes to fund their activities, so why should I have to pay again for something that should be freely available?
Last year I purchased a Fuji FinePix A205, and after I learned about the EXIF data it stored, I decided to do a bit of research.
My camera is not a top of the line camera by any means, but from what I gather, it could be with a small firmware hack.
Camera manufacturers are most likely "keeping the lid" on them, simply because they will use the same hardware for a fully automatic point-n-shoot that they will for a higher end, you-controll-it model. They will just use a different firmware to restrict certain portions, such as exposure length, focusing, etc.
I am an avid storm spotter, and I've spent many hours trying to photograph lightning. Even though it's a difficult task as it is, a camera that doesn't let you specify a 2 second exposure makes things even more difficult.
And for the mindless eye-candy spamming, here's my lightning pictures. All of the images on that URL are Copyright © 2004 by their respective owner(s).
On the PS2, this game is:
- Fun
- Addictive
- Not really realistic, but still very cool
- Addictive
- Addictive
- Addictive
- Addictive
Both are capable of sharing files between 2 computers over the internet, thus, being labeled as peer-to-peer. Are the makers of these standards going to get this fine too?
My condolences go out to the many teenagers who are stricken with depression and are now unable to tell the entire world about it. Although, maybe now they'll learn how to untar a simple archive and use something like Movable Type, b2, or SkuddBlog.
"like, how m i suppozd 2 tell meh bf bout dat par-t?"
Living in the heartland of America, the farming country, you hear about this kind of thing all the time.
I think this has been around much longer than the RIAA/MPAA lawsuits. I think people just need to familiarize themselves with the different cultures around the world, rather than treating this kind of thing as some big new deal.
I agree. I remember when the rovers landed...
:(
Heck, I was just talking to a friend about this:
(15:07:04) Tim: the ESA doesn't do like NASA does
(15:07:19) Tim: NASA will put all their data up on the web
It's annoying, knowing that they have a lot of images/data/etc., and all that was shared with us is the one image. I was hoping to see more, like the view over the horizon.
Americans to spend more, and that means work more.
Apparently you don't understand the way cost of living works in small towns. It's bad enough having to pay $3.00/gal for gasoline, $2.50 for a gallon of milk, and $2.00 for a loaf of bread, let alone $40/mo for basic telephone service + $50/mo for 128k DSL + $70/mo for TV service.
I'm all for making a buck, but damn! You've got to adjust your prices according to the economy in which you intend to market your products/services.
BellSouth is a "Ma Bell", if I'm not mistaken. Does this not mean that they are a big-time telecommunications provider? Does it not also mean that they have gridlocked small communities, as have other major t-comm providers?
Why are they so worried about "unfair competition" when they have the rest of the US locked down, tighter than Fort Knox? If they're not going to provide their "rural" customers with broadband, priced at the level of the average local income, then they had best not be complaining about the cities doing something about it.
It seems kinda weird that an article about it got posted here. :P (Tin-foil hat time?)
As I told my friend, I'd be worried about heat issues, and ESPECIALLY static. I mean, think about it... When you were little, playing with those things, you'd often get shocked when you were reaching for another piece out of the bucket. Wouldn't that be kinda hard on your $150 video card?
In general though, it's kinda cool to see something like that actually done.
Cable modem?
Terrestrial wireless?
Satellite?
If the local economy was stable enough for anyone to be able to afford it, then yes, those would be great ideas.
Even though the article focuses on fiber, I personally don't think that it stops there.
FTTN is actually here in my neighborhood, but it hasn't been implemented. I would be VERY GRATEFUL for any form of Internet access that goes beyond the "connected for 30 minutes but got booted and had to redial because someone picked up the telephone" issues.
Sprint has monopolized this area. I looked into SBC DSL not more than a couple months ago, and they said something about Sprint having a "lock" on the area, preventing them from coming here.
Not more than 3 miles east of my house is a major fiber connection that (supposedly) runs from Indy to Chicago. Why can't they branch off of that and provide something cheaper? Oh wait, it's still a Sprint-owned line. But what about this fiber optic pedestal in my front yard? Oh wait, still Sprint. But what about the DSL service in this town? *Cough*
I would be grateful if Verizon would bring their FTTP to this area. Sure, it's costing them, but if they can provide me with 256Kbps for less than $50 per month, I'd be willing to wager that they would be able to take back the competition and pay for their installation costs within a few years, at the most.
People need to fucking take a stand!
If you "big-city" residents think it's bad, try living in a rural farming community. Sprint DSL here, 256Kbps, is about $58 per month! I am paying $18 per month for somewhat unreliable 56k.
The only other option here is cable, but the cable TV service requires you to be a cable subscriber to get their broadband service for $30 per month. They don't tell you that the cable TV service is $70 per month.
I am seriously thinking about forming a "freenet" as someone called it. I need to do some research and whatnot, then I will move it to the local public. I seriously think that if every area were to do something like this, it would give Ma and Pa Bell a run for their money, and since it would be privately owned, funded, and operated, they wouldn't be able to do Jack Schitt about it.
As with most /. comment threads, I am dumbfounded by the number of replies to this.
My thought is this though:
Sure, it seems as though they're going to help people be "more legal" with their copy of Windows, but what kind of list are they keeping of who has pirated and who hasn't? It just seems to me like they are keeping tally, and will hit those people with lawsuits later on.
It might just be my general paranoia of Microsoft, but I don't trust them, even on this.
So does this mean that Microsoft is going to be more lenient with warez'ed copies of their software?
Personally, I'd say no, but what do you think?
How reliable is this? I've heard a lot about people upgrading the entire distro via apt and yum, but I have not heard any statistics on how it turned out.