Well the Sony has no internet connectivity at all, so unlike the Kindle, there is no way at all for Sony to send a remote "delete" command. The two are completely different devices, by different companies. It's like refusing to run Linux because Apple is restrictive in its iPhone app store.
Well yes, but isn't his age a big part of that? Don't forget this Kirk is nearly a decade younger then the "old" Kirk was at the start of TOS. That time could easily be what was needed for the shift.
As someone who owns a few relatively popular sites (+20k uniques daily) there have been times when people take a disliking to the sites and decide to harass me using my personal information, as I do not use whois protection (didn't use it in the beginning, and with whois history being easily accessible, it's rather pointless to start now), but a situation I am in right now is making me thing that the ownership information should be public. At least for.com,.net,.org and so on..name which I believe is 'meant' for individuals could permit whois masking.
What happened is this. A friend of mine who also ran some relatively popular sites suddenly passed away. As his mother wasn't very knowledgeable about the internet at large, a person who had access to his servers at the time of his death decided to 'rescue' his sites, copied the data to his own servers, and then impersonated my friend, to transfer ownership from his Dotster account, to an ENOM account in the thiefs' name. He tried to do this with another name that was registered via Network Solutions, but they were "less helpful" in that.
Since he has WHOIS protection on all of his domains, it has been an uphill battle, to try and reclaim the work that my friend put in, from the thief. We tried working with GoDaddy and ENOM, but they have no interest in helping, after giving us a run around and telling us to indemnify them from any fault they may have had in it, ENOM ruled that this was an ownership dispute and not a transfer dispute and as such not something they want to deal with. GoDaddy who has been taking his money for years now has not even locked his old account, despite our efforts, so the thief keeps looking through it to find names he likes and moving them out. Both ENOM and GoDaddy are supposed to have internal dispute resolution departments, but neither is willing to take even a cursory look at such a cut and dried case of theft. There is no way my friend could've authorized his domains be moved more then a month after his death. (Sadly, I found out about this late, and had no easy way of reaching his mother for a while, so this happened before I was able to get in contact with them).
My friend is dead, we have his death certificate, we have the legal documentation that his mother is the executor of his estate (a horrible position to be in already), and we've been working since April now to try and reclaim at least part of what my friend has been working on throughout his life. The people who've worked with him on his other sites have been sitting on the fence, working more with the thief then with us, as the thief lets them pretend that they own those sites, and while they know he is wrong, they don't really think we will win.
At this point we've filed a UDRP motion on the basis of a common law trademark, since the domain is the business name my friend ran for eight years, but we can't do anything about the other sites that haven't been up for long, or domains that he never got around to using. There is no court of law that has jurisdiction here, because we don't know where the thief is based, and there is no guarantee that UDRP will see things properly, since they mainly look at it in trademark terms. When he was served with UDRP papers, the thief mirrored the site to another one of my friends old domains, and has the mirror running now, increasing his traffic that way.
If public ownership information had been required, I would like to think that people like the thief that we are dealing with would be more reticent to commit such acts of fraud with impunity. And some sort of a dispute process where registrars have to actually check what happened, and be able to resolve it. This should've been solved by GoDaddy who would be able to see that given that the account owner passed away, and the changes were made afterwards, that this is a pure case of fraud and told ENOM that the transfer was fradulent.
As a curiosity, and something I don't get about the xxx TLD, how would you go about getting existing sites to migrate over to it? I can't imagine there being any benefit in it for an established site, and a startup would get wider, well er, exposure, by going for a.com anyway.
The whole.xxx TLD thing just sounds rather pointless to me honestly.
I almost agree with you, but I would replace "most people" with "its' target demographic." After all most people don't really know about wikipedia, although it is getting more exposure through all the articles The Register has been writing about it.
(what's that saying about all publicity being good publicity again?)
Nah, I actualy don't mind Kvas all that much at all, so long as its not overly heavy. But 'soft drink' makes sense as a description for a quick idea of what it is. I've seen it compared to root beer.
I was talking about allofmp3.com directly, where your problem was not that they used fradulent info (which they didn't) but that they weren't in a country on your 'approved' list.
I'd like to quote you Article 4 of the Geneva convention: Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.
Not sure how it applies in the case of armed fighters not fighting on behalf of a government or fighting on behalf of a government not signatory to the geneva convention.
I'd also disagree on the "terrorism against captives" bit, terrorism is against civilians. Pearl Harbor wasn't a terrorist attack for example. A captured enemy fighter is not a civilian by definition.
Actualy you need to turn over your geek card =p
Chekov wasn't part of the cast on the Enterprise during the Botay Bay episode where they stranded Khan on Ceti Alpha IV. Which is a bit of a continuity issue as Khan recognizes him, but maybe ensign chekov was in some other part of the ship, support personel or something. So he could've seen Khan, but not paid much attention to the planetary system.
What I never got is why they thought they were on IV and not V. I mean finding planets should be done by their orbits not just counting them from the star, and the starfleet computers should have had the oribits for all the planets in the Ceti Alpha system.
Heh well first, I actualy like the start.com page, but not as much as google. To me it doesn't matter much who comes out with it first, as it is who makes it better. The entire industry is about copying and improving on things, and I fault neither google nor microsoft for that.
As for the Wiki stuff, it reminds me of playing games with the babelfish Where you pick a phrase (any common saying works nicely) and start translating to see how many steps you need to make it illegible. Bonus points for getting a translation that means the opposite of the original. I used to waste a ton of time on that.
I run some sites, so I am well aware that my personal info is out there in the whois records for all to see. However I would take objection to someone posting it as an example of a way of how easy it is to find information on someone who owns a domain name, so I can understand why Google would do what they did.
It's not so much a matter of the information having been private, but it is the difference between someone going out and searching for it directly, and having it pushed out to people en masse.
Google's responce was fairly just IMHO, so I am not sure I can sympathise with CNet / ZDNet on this one.
Ah, hey aaron, I've seen you around a lot. I usualy tend to lurk more, but your posts are always informative and insightful. I kinda figured you'd be posting here.
Well maybe not the DRM, but what was done with it. In my experience, most developers will always choose the most restrictive option possible. If your DRM had an option for an iris scan using the infared port on application startup, 3/4th of the programs would have required it.
The main difference between the zodiac and the PSP is that the PSP is a closed architecture from the get-go, while the zodiac was a PalmOS device. I was fully expecting to be able to use localization on it, and read documents in both russian and japanese, in addition to english. But the zodiac had special protections to keep that from happening (in the 1.1 patch I think) so it wasn't just the things that need the zodiac specific hardware that wouldn't work on it. The fact that they crash the device instead of dying with an error message always drove me nuts.
Had there been some semi-automatic way to get software licensed, I am sure the platform would have lived a lot longer then the tapwave "every version, by us, personaly. If we don't like it, it doesn't get passed" It was a hassle. Yoyo's emulator (SNES, NES, Genesis, GameGear, TurboGrafix, GameBoy, etc) took ages to get cleared by Tawpave, most of which I think was licensing issues, since being signed meant they had to approve your license for their "Not Evil" component. Lack of marketing had a big hand in it, but the use of the DRM helped.
I had(have) one. Wonderful little device in almost every way. Solid design, good screen (a bit washed out colors, but still), plenty speed for a PalmOS. The only problem was the DRM.
See, software that took advantage of the special hardware accelerator/screen API/system functions in the Zodiac had to have been cleared and approved by Tapwave, they'd turn on the "Not Evil" bit and you could run it. Otherwise, it'd reset your device. They blocked access to parts of the OS, so no third party language addons would work (no russian, no japanese in my case). Since all programs had to pass by them, they got to pick what they would allow people to run. I remember a big stink when they wouldn't authorize a GBA emulator, because Nintendo had threatened the company that wrote it (not Tapwave) originaly. That certanly hurt them, and I have seen developers stay away from the Zodiac for worry about whether their program would be allowed to run on it. (This is once again, only for programs that changed the OS, or used the zodiac special features, hardware accelerated graphics, and so on)
Furthermore all software that was authorized to run, could only run on your one zodiac. It'd reset otherwise. I had a hell of a time with that when having to replace my Zodiac for another one.
In the end it had great hardware, so-so software, and a draconian enough DRM to annoy most users, and a fair amount of developers. Really sad to see it go, but I have been expecting this.
I am not sure how neccesary that is though. Look at the slavic people of eastern europe. They havent changed how they are called despite the fact that the word "slave" originated from their cultural group, because they were captured and sold into slavery in such large numbers during the wars led by Otto the Great and his successors against them. It may even dilute the cultural identity if you keep changing your label.
Slashdot Mirror
Well the Sony has no internet connectivity at all, so unlike the Kindle, there is no way at all for Sony to send a remote "delete" command. The two are completely different devices, by different companies. It's like refusing to run Linux because Apple is restrictive in its iPhone app store.
Well yes, but isn't his age a big part of that? Don't forget this Kirk is nearly a decade younger then the "old" Kirk was at the start of TOS. That time could easily be what was needed for the shift.
No, but if you combine the images into a PDF and run it through PDFRasterfarian, you get a very readable comic out of it
er
$post =~ s/thing/think/;
Sorry missed that even on a preview.
As someone who owns a few relatively popular sites (+20k uniques daily) there have been times when people take a disliking to the sites and decide to harass me using my personal information, as I do not use whois protection (didn't use it in the beginning, and with whois history being easily accessible, it's rather pointless to start now), but a situation I am in right now is making me thing that the ownership information should be public. At least for .com, .net, .org and so on. .name which I believe is 'meant' for individuals could permit whois masking.
What happened is this. A friend of mine who also ran some relatively popular sites suddenly passed away. As his mother wasn't very knowledgeable about the internet at large, a person who had access to his servers at the time of his death decided to 'rescue' his sites, copied the data to his own servers, and then impersonated my friend, to transfer ownership from his Dotster account, to an ENOM account in the thiefs' name. He tried to do this with another name that was registered via Network Solutions, but they were "less helpful" in that.
Since he has WHOIS protection on all of his domains, it has been an uphill battle, to try and reclaim the work that my friend put in, from the thief. We tried working with GoDaddy and ENOM, but they have no interest in helping, after giving us a run around and telling us to indemnify them from any fault they may have had in it, ENOM ruled that this was an ownership dispute and not a transfer dispute and as such not something they want to deal with. GoDaddy who has been taking his money for years now has not even locked his old account, despite our efforts, so the thief keeps looking through it to find names he likes and moving them out. Both ENOM and GoDaddy are supposed to have internal dispute resolution departments, but neither is willing to take even a cursory look at such a cut and dried case of theft. There is no way my friend could've authorized his domains be moved more then a month after his death. (Sadly, I found out about this late, and had no easy way of reaching his mother for a while, so this happened before I was able to get in contact with them).
My friend is dead, we have his death certificate, we have the legal documentation that his mother is the executor of his estate (a horrible position to be in already), and we've been working since April now to try and reclaim at least part of what my friend has been working on throughout his life. The people who've worked with him on his other sites have been sitting on the fence, working more with the thief then with us, as the thief lets them pretend that they own those sites, and while they know he is wrong, they don't really think we will win.
At this point we've filed a UDRP motion on the basis of a common law trademark, since the domain is the business name my friend ran for eight years, but we can't do anything about the other sites that haven't been up for long, or domains that he never got around to using. There is no court of law that has jurisdiction here, because we don't know where the thief is based, and there is no guarantee that UDRP will see things properly, since they mainly look at it in trademark terms. When he was served with UDRP papers, the thief mirrored the site to another one of my friends old domains, and has the mirror running now, increasing his traffic that way.
If public ownership information had been required, I would like to think that people like the thief that we are dealing with would be more reticent to commit such acts of fraud with impunity. And some sort of a dispute process where registrars have to actually check what happened, and be able to resolve it. This should've been solved by GoDaddy who would be able to see that given that the account owner passed away, and the changes were made afterwards, that this is a pure case of fraud and told ENOM that the transfer was fradulent.
Well thats what unlimited metrocards are for
As a curiosity, and something I don't get about the xxx TLD, how would you go about getting existing sites to migrate over to it? .com anyway.
.xxx TLD thing just sounds rather pointless to me honestly.
I can't imagine there being any benefit in it for an established site, and a startup would get wider, well er, exposure, by going for a
The whole
How about keeping the RAW file? Thats pretty much your digital negative.
A little from column "A", a little from column "B"...
bitter much?
I almost agree with you, but I would replace "most people" with "its' target demographic." After all most people don't really know about wikipedia, although it is getting more exposure through all the articles The Register has been writing about it.
(what's that saying about all publicity being good publicity again?)
Nah, I actualy don't mind Kvas all that much at all, so long as its not overly heavy. But 'soft drink' makes sense as a description for a quick idea of what it is. I've seen it compared to root beer.
I was talking about allofmp3.com directly, where your problem was not that they used fradulent info (which they didn't) but that they weren't in a country on your 'approved' list.
Check with your credit card company. Most banks offer throw-away card numbers that expire at the end of the month and are only good for a set amount.
I'd like to quote you Article 4 of the Geneva convention:
Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.
Not sure how it applies in the case of armed fighters not fighting on behalf of a government or fighting on behalf of a government not signatory to the geneva convention.
I'd also disagree on the "terrorism against captives" bit, terrorism is against civilians. Pearl Harbor wasn't a terrorist attack for example. A captured enemy fighter is not a civilian by definition.
Yeah, you sure done showed us good!
Seems he has if you can't even log in to post.
If they are so minor, why do they cost ~$130?
Actualy you need to turn over your geek card =p Chekov wasn't part of the cast on the Enterprise during the Botay Bay episode where they stranded Khan on Ceti Alpha IV. Which is a bit of a continuity issue as Khan recognizes him, but maybe ensign chekov was in some other part of the ship, support personel or something. So he could've seen Khan, but not paid much attention to the planetary system. What I never got is why they thought they were on IV and not V. I mean finding planets should be done by their orbits not just counting them from the star, and the starfleet computers should have had the oribits for all the planets in the Ceti Alpha system.
Lol The asian languages do help it to become gibberish faster. I am going to experiment on your theory of equilibrium translation.
Heh well first, I actualy like the start.com page, but not as much as google. To me it doesn't matter much who comes out with it first, as it is who makes it better. The entire industry is about copying and improving on things, and I fault neither google nor microsoft for that.
As for the Wiki stuff, it reminds me of playing games with the babelfish Where you pick a phrase (any common saying works nicely) and start translating to see how many steps you need to make it illegible. Bonus points for getting a translation that means the opposite of the original. I used to waste a ton of time on that.I run some sites, so I am well aware that my personal info is out there in the whois records for all to see. However I would take objection to someone posting it as an example of a way of how easy it is to find information on someone who owns a domain name, so I can understand why Google would do what they did. It's not so much a matter of the information having been private, but it is the difference between someone going out and searching for it directly, and having it pushed out to people en masse. Google's responce was fairly just IMHO, so I am not sure I can sympathise with CNet / ZDNet on this one.
Ah, hey aaron, I've seen you around a lot. I usualy tend to lurk more, but your posts are always informative and insightful. I kinda figured you'd be posting here.
Well maybe not the DRM, but what was done with it. In my experience, most developers will always choose the most restrictive option possible. If your DRM had an option for an iris scan using the infared port on application startup, 3/4th of the programs would have required it.
The main difference between the zodiac and the PSP is that the PSP is a closed architecture from the get-go, while the zodiac was a PalmOS device. I was fully expecting to be able to use localization on it, and read documents in both russian and japanese, in addition to english. But the zodiac had special protections to keep that from happening (in the 1.1 patch I think) so it wasn't just the things that need the zodiac specific hardware that wouldn't work on it. The fact that they crash the device instead of dying with an error message always drove me nuts.
Had there been some semi-automatic way to get software licensed, I am sure the platform would have lived a lot longer then the tapwave "every version, by us, personaly. If we don't like it, it doesn't get passed" It was a hassle. Yoyo's emulator (SNES, NES, Genesis, GameGear, TurboGrafix, GameBoy, etc) took ages to get cleared by Tawpave, most of which I think was licensing issues, since being signed meant they had to approve your license for their "Not Evil" component.
Lack of marketing had a big hand in it, but the use of the DRM helped.
I had(have) one. Wonderful little device in almost every way. Solid design, good screen (a bit washed out colors, but still), plenty speed for a PalmOS.
The only problem was the DRM.
See, software that took advantage of the special hardware accelerator/screen API/system functions in the Zodiac had to have been cleared and approved by Tapwave, they'd turn on the "Not Evil" bit and you could run it. Otherwise, it'd reset your device.
They blocked access to parts of the OS, so no third party language addons would work (no russian, no japanese in my case).
Since all programs had to pass by them, they got to pick what they would allow people to run. I remember a big stink when they wouldn't authorize a GBA emulator, because Nintendo had threatened the company that wrote it (not Tapwave) originaly. That certanly hurt them, and I have seen developers stay away from the Zodiac for worry about whether their program would be allowed to run on it. (This is once again, only for programs that changed the OS, or used the zodiac special features, hardware accelerated graphics, and so on)
Furthermore all software that was authorized to run, could only run on your one zodiac. It'd reset otherwise. I had a hell of a time with that when having to replace my Zodiac for another one.
In the end it had great hardware, so-so software, and a draconian enough DRM to annoy most users, and a fair amount of developers. Really sad to see it go, but I have been expecting this.
Well if he is the one you authorized to control access to your car, then yes.
Thats just the Board of Education facility.
I am not sure how neccesary that is though. Look at the slavic people of eastern europe. They havent changed how they are called despite the fact that the word "slave" originated from their cultural group, because they were captured and sold into slavery in such large numbers during the wars led by Otto the Great and his successors against them.
It may even dilute the cultural identity if you keep changing your label.