It would probably help if they, I dunno, sued the right people in the first place...I mean, quick question here. I'm not entirely sure how this works, but what if people don't have static IPs? Someone using a non-static IP downloads files. They disconnect from their ISP, the IP gets reused somewhere else. The ISP says "Hey! Downloading traffic from 127.0.0.1 (or whatever), they're using Kazaa!" ISP gives IP to RIAA, RIAA bring a suit against whoever happens to be using 127.0.0.1.
Given that I don't know how exactly ISPs do that sort of thing, or if they really would be stupid enough to go about handing IPs out when the address isn't static (isn't that a sobering thought)...could that possibly be what's going on here?
Or, is Mrs. Anderson's 8 year old downloading gangster rap? You be the judge.
Actually, one could argue that it is what P2P people have been waiting for. All hashing around aside, you can't really argue that filesharing mp3s is illegal. However, if someone pulls something like this against the RIAA, based not on the fact that "It's not illegal to share mp3s" but "It's illegal to get information off my computer like that", it'll probably not only open the floodgates of other claims against them, but it might just stop them from bringing up these stupid suits in the first place.
Or, you could push the "Access IBM" button, click on "Manage Keyboard & Pointing devices", click on "Map Keys to Functions", and map something to act as the Window key.
And I like it. Laptop keyboards are small enough, without cramming on a Windows button in the bottom (there's already the extra Function key down there...), especially since NOT EVERYONE USES WINDOWS.
Well, Fuddruckers didn't get the chance to be pissed off about that, because they just got Slashdotted. Sucks to be them. I guess that's what you get when you bring down geek mob justice on yourself.
Only if you're using Windows. Which means that you're already using IE. Which means you're not "getting it for free", because you had to pay for it when you bought Windows in the first place.
I can smell it from here, and it smells like...fried chicken?
Seriously, though, it went down before mirrordot even got it. That's pretty bad. Usually sites stay up for what, at least two minutes?
Well, I managed to get the next three pages. And for the record, he seems to have NO problem running things on Linux, except for the fact that he couldn't get Battlefield 2 running with Cedega. So I'm mildly confused as to the article's title. As of yet, all he's done is prove how easy it is to use a Linux laptop--even with things like MythTV and wireless cards.
I didn't get past the first page yet (slashdotted), but it would appear that this is...stupid. One, from his references of going to school, this is still a student. Two, his mentions of "using windows whether we know it or not" basically come down to one, the ATM which may or may not have embedded Windows. All of his other examples aren't things that most normal people have, let alone people who chose linux over windows (a Windows CE palm? a Windows Media Center connected TV?). I call possible bull.
I'd also like to take the opportunity to point out that a lot of these studies are done on kids that are around 5 years old. Kids who are at an age level that is well known for pantomiming what they see.
Doing a study like that is like saying "I pantomimed shooting someone, and my reflection in the mirror did the same thing! Conclusive evidence!" I mean, come on.
Can you imagine how freaky this would be? Not only would you have a creepy graveyard in the middle of the night, but it would be glowing from the LCD screens.
And as for the Disney Comparison...
(cut to commercial)
(Little kid crying)
Kid: My mommy went to sleep and she won't wake up!
(Big stuffed cartoonish zombie comes onscreen)
Zombie: There there, little one. We can't bring your mommy back, but we can get the next best thing...
(Unveils a TV tombstone)
(Cut to kid, sitting in the middle of the graveyard, staring at the LCD screen, surrounded by zombies who are also sitting there staring at the screen)
Kid: Now I can sit and remember my mommy! Thanks, (insert name of company here)!...
We're posting unverified news now? I mean, it's not like this is anything new, but even the article says it's only "claimed" that they did this. What's the point? Hey, look at me! I beat their record be three billion kajiggabits! Proof? I don't need to show proof, I just claimed it!
Seriously, people. Next thing, we'll be getting posts about UFOs, crop circles, and intelligent decesion-making from Bush.
I wouldn't consider Jack Thompson or Maddox to be of encyclopedic importance. But it's not an encyclopedia, so it's all good. Information, if you didn't notice, is what you get when you open a wiki for anyone to submit any kind of information to. Heck, sometimes Wikipedia contains information that's only minutes old. It's not your dad's encyclopedia.
Honestly, I think that their DRM consists of putting that FBI warning on the case--and that hardly stops people from copying movies. Seriously, how would they do it? To prevent people from ripping a CD in Winamp or Grip would be to prevent them from playing it in the first place. The only thing you can't do is drag and drop music from a CD, if you consider that "DRM".
Really? I could have sworn that I read somewhere that people were warned (not asked, mind you, just sent an email saying "Hey, guess what?"). Especially since it seems a lot of sites, when Slashdot links to them, already have a thing along the lines of "Hello Slashdot" or "I had to warn my server about the jump in traffic, and now I have to pay them another hundred bucks a month- thanks for nothing, you bums!"
In any case, saying something early would be the polite thing to do- not everyone can handle the server load...
Interesting. I guess the editors are getting more incompetent-- not only are they posting dupes, but they're not even bothering to give a heads-up to the owner of the site before an article is posted, which is what they say they do. You wrote a complaint email, I hope.
Actually, that would be wrong. It's retroactive. To be proactive, they would have had to reset it before they were hacked. Unless, of course, they mean proactive as in before they get hacked again. But retroactive seems to fit better here.
Here's the minor point that some people are missing: People who were recieving the emails were complaining. Therefore, UT blocked the source. Now, if someone complained because they wanted to recieve the emails after the blockage, this would become an issue. Right now, it's not the college, but the students who are exercising their right to not listen. This was hardly a unilateral admin decision.
Slashdot Mirror
It would probably help if they, I dunno, sued the right people in the first place...I mean, quick question here. I'm not entirely sure how this works, but what if people don't have static IPs? Someone using a non-static IP downloads files. They disconnect from their ISP, the IP gets reused somewhere else. The ISP says "Hey! Downloading traffic from 127.0.0.1 (or whatever), they're using Kazaa!" ISP gives IP to RIAA, RIAA bring a suit against whoever happens to be using 127.0.0.1.
Given that I don't know how exactly ISPs do that sort of thing, or if they really would be stupid enough to go about handing IPs out when the address isn't static (isn't that a sobering thought)...could that possibly be what's going on here?
Or, is Mrs. Anderson's 8 year old downloading gangster rap? You be the judge.
Actually, one could argue that it is what P2P people have been waiting for. All hashing around aside, you can't really argue that filesharing mp3s is illegal. However, if someone pulls something like this against the RIAA, based not on the fact that "It's not illegal to share mp3s" but "It's illegal to get information off my computer like that", it'll probably not only open the floodgates of other claims against them, but it might just stop them from bringing up these stupid suits in the first place.
Maybe.
Or, you could push the "Access IBM" button, click on "Manage Keyboard & Pointing devices", click on "Map Keys to Functions", and map something to act as the Window key. And I like it. Laptop keyboards are small enough, without cramming on a Windows button in the bottom (there's already the extra Function key down there...), especially since NOT EVERYONE USES WINDOWS.
Or maybe furlongs per fortnight.
Flees would be, I assume, some kind of bug which causes your customers to run away.
What happens when someone hacks past the remote-disable stuff?
Dupe'd/10. Way to go, editors.
Well, Fuddruckers didn't get the chance to be pissed off about that, because they just got Slashdotted. Sucks to be them. I guess that's what you get when you bring down geek mob justice on yourself.
Only if you're using Windows. Which means that you're already using IE. Which means you're not "getting it for free", because you had to pay for it when you bought Windows in the first place.
8acb583ce572bbdd4d8cd3375fba65f9
--
This post may be the personal opinion of me and noone else, but it's more likely to be random characters.
Someone mod his sig +5 Insightful.
I can smell it from here, and it smells like...fried chicken? Seriously, though, it went down before mirrordot even got it. That's pretty bad. Usually sites stay up for what, at least two minutes?
Well, I managed to get the next three pages. And for the record, he seems to have NO problem running things on Linux, except for the fact that he couldn't get Battlefield 2 running with Cedega. So I'm mildly confused as to the article's title. As of yet, all he's done is prove how easy it is to use a Linux laptop--even with things like MythTV and wireless cards.
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Unfortunately, that's all google cached, but it's better than nothing.
I didn't get past the first page yet (slashdotted), but it would appear that this is...stupid. One, from his references of going to school, this is still a student. Two, his mentions of "using windows whether we know it or not" basically come down to one, the ATM which may or may not have embedded Windows. All of his other examples aren't things that most normal people have, let alone people who chose linux over windows (a Windows CE palm? a Windows Media Center connected TV?). I call possible bull.
I'd also like to take the opportunity to point out that a lot of these studies are done on kids that are around 5 years old. Kids who are at an age level that is well known for pantomiming what they see. Doing a study like that is like saying "I pantomimed shooting someone, and my reflection in the mirror did the same thing! Conclusive evidence!" I mean, come on.
Can you imagine how freaky this would be? Not only would you have a creepy graveyard in the middle of the night, but it would be glowing from the LCD screens. ...
And as for the Disney Comparison... (cut to commercial) (Little kid crying) Kid: My mommy went to sleep and she won't wake up! (Big stuffed cartoonish zombie comes onscreen) Zombie: There there, little one. We can't bring your mommy back, but we can get the next best thing... (Unveils a TV tombstone) (Cut to kid, sitting in the middle of the graveyard, staring at the LCD screen, surrounded by zombies who are also sitting there staring at the screen) Kid: Now I can sit and remember my mommy! Thanks, (insert name of company here)!
We're posting unverified news now? I mean, it's not like this is anything new, but even the article says it's only "claimed" that they did this. What's the point? Hey, look at me! I beat their record be three billion kajiggabits! Proof? I don't need to show proof, I just claimed it! Seriously, people. Next thing, we'll be getting posts about UFOs, crop circles, and intelligent decesion-making from Bush.
I wouldn't consider Jack Thompson or Maddox to be of encyclopedic importance. But it's not an encyclopedia, so it's all good. Information, if you didn't notice, is what you get when you open a wiki for anyone to submit any kind of information to. Heck, sometimes Wikipedia contains information that's only minutes old. It's not your dad's encyclopedia.
Could they make any more bad iJokes in there?
Honestly, I think that their DRM consists of putting that FBI warning on the case--and that hardly stops people from copying movies. Seriously, how would they do it? To prevent people from ripping a CD in Winamp or Grip would be to prevent them from playing it in the first place. The only thing you can't do is drag and drop music from a CD, if you consider that "DRM".
Really? I could have sworn that I read somewhere that people were warned (not asked, mind you, just sent an email saying "Hey, guess what?"). Especially since it seems a lot of sites, when Slashdot links to them, already have a thing along the lines of "Hello Slashdot" or "I had to warn my server about the jump in traffic, and now I have to pay them another hundred bucks a month- thanks for nothing, you bums!" In any case, saying something early would be the polite thing to do- not everyone can handle the server load...
Interesting. I guess the editors are getting more incompetent-- not only are they posting dupes, but they're not even bothering to give a heads-up to the owner of the site before an article is posted, which is what they say they do. You wrote a complaint email, I hope.
I love how you probably meant that to be +5 Funny, but it ended up being Insightful, since it's probably true. What a sad world we live in.
Actually, that would be wrong. It's retroactive. To be proactive, they would have had to reset it before they were hacked. Unless, of course, they mean proactive as in before they get hacked again. But retroactive seems to fit better here.
Here's the minor point that some people are missing: People who were recieving the emails were complaining. Therefore, UT blocked the source. Now, if someone complained because they wanted to recieve the emails after the blockage, this would become an issue. Right now, it's not the college, but the students who are exercising their right to not listen. This was hardly a unilateral admin decision.