You would think this would be enough to prosecute him under "hacking" laws rather than spamming laws. I mean really, committing fraud to phish users' passwords, and then using harvested passwords to access accounts that don't belong to you? Your or I would go to jail for that. Of course, he probably has some kids in Russia or China he pays that does all this for him, thus making it impossible to track it to him.
I just disable WU completely. I used to be religious about getting windows updates, but these days my systems run smoother without them. I just install SP2 and leave it. Firewall, AV software, & FF keep me pretty safe. Oh yeah, I'm living on the edge.
No, IE will not even pass the applet to the JVM if it does not pass the certification test. AND, the same JVM will run the applet just fine in Firefox. Nice try though.
Have you (everyone) seen pictures of people dressed up at halloween, where they used a doll or dummy to portray what looked to be a child attached to their groin? I've probably seen at least 3 this year, at least one of which was a guy dressed as a priest.
According to this law, it's considered child porn to take a picture of them, or to send a picture of them to someone. I wonder if they could stretch the law and attempt to apply it to the person who made the costume? Could you imagine being arrested for child porn just because you wore a stupid costume?
Hell, if I'm paying real-money tax when I sell virtual items at the auction house in WOW and making some gold, then it should be illegal for Blizzard to prevent us from turning that virtual gold into real money by selling it for cash. Since it's being taxed as a real asset, it must be available to convert into money like a real asset.
The fundamental reason to not keep passing more laws, is that existing law was good enough, and covered the topic sufficiently to protect content producers. It was always copyright infringement to distribute music or movies over the internet in P2P channels. The new laws do not do a thing to stop that. These additional laws give a distinct advantage to corporations, allowing them to circumvent "fair use" rights consumers have. The playing field is not even. For instance, it's technically legal for a consumer to backup or format shift a DVD you own. But after the DMCA it's illegal to unencrypt that DVD, effectively nullifying the fair use right. Any why? To stop pirates? As if pirates will say, "oh, it's illegal to rip this now! Darn, I guess I'll stop." No all it does is makes Pastor Joe a criminal when he makes a backup copy of the Lion King, so his kids won't destroy the original. (All of my kids' DVD's are copies, they don't touch originals. I am a big sleazy criminal, right?)
And the music industry? Fucking retards. Music is not like movies, people do not just want to listen to a song one time, if they like it. They want to buy a copy of that song, and then listen to it at home, in the car, at work, while jogging, etc. And although it is legal to do this, the industry is hard at work finding new ways to make this illegal. And nobody *I* know, will pay for a one-listen song. Sure, maybe there's a few, but that is not what most music listeners want, and they won't buy it. Just because you would love to force it down our throats doesn't mean we'll buy it, or have to accept it. The consumers will choose the format or model that will fulfull their needs.
Yep. And if I were to adopt this technology for my laptops, I'd probably scatter several of these things around the house for total coverage. Roaming wireless power.
You could make it even simpler. Actual theft is stealing atoms, copyright infringement isn't even on that scale. It's merely borrowing electrons.
I can never accept these stupid car theft analogies as being anywhere near relevant to this issue. Now, if you could duplicate your neighbor's Ford, while using all your own materials, that would be closer. You are not taking the car away. And that's not illegal. Unless you sell copies as Fords. It wouldn't even be illegal to make copies and give them away.
Alexa is flawed from the start. What impetus or benefit would a user have to install a toolbar that tracks them? Other than out of charity to help out this company? I don't get it. Nor do I particularly trust them. Just one more thing to help crash IE.
Screw that. I run a mailserver. I have all of Asia, and about half of Europe blocked now. We had a sudden surge in spam the last few months as every grandma's unsecured, zombie windows box is now sending spam from consumer dynamic IP's. Whether or not your broadband provider is giving you a static IP, it's still withing the dynamic range. And this is where most all of my spam comes from now. If I could block every consumer dynamic IP out there, I would in a heartbeat. I have no reason to be accepting mail from somebody's home server, running on his DSL modem.
Ah, I don't use that crack, I use the crack that stops XP from "activating" itself after I type in that number. I don't mind too much typing it in once. But forcing me to "reactivate" my OS just because I added a sound card, or changed my video card, or had to reinstall the OS yet one more time is pretty much bullshit. I have a legal key and I still have to crack my copy of XP, just for my own sanity.
The school I'm sure will make the ethical argument that if they are not cheating, they should have no reason to object to this service.
Well, preventing the school from sending in your papers to be added to the database would not prevent you from cheating. This is the argument they're using. Now, simply running the student's paper against the database to look for plagerism (but not submitting it to be added to the DB) would nullify their argument, and stop them from cheating. Now, if the papers are added automatically by this company, then their arguement still stands.
Personally, I never thought plagerism was such a widespread problem that it required this amount of time and effort spent on it. And I'd be worried about false positives. Just how similar does a paper need to be to get flagged? And if you get flagged, but are innocent, what kind of recourse would you have? Probably none. You just got fucked for having a similar writing style and chosen topic as some other kid who wrote a paper 5 years ago.
I'm one of those people. Last time I upgraded my motherboard/platform I installed from an OEM SP2 disk, and disabled windows update. I also disabled IE (by marking it as non-executable by anyone). Hardware firewall built into the router. No spyware or virus, even with the kids clicking around in Firefox (the adblock and no-script extensions probably save me there). So my Un-DRM tools still work fine too.:) Although, I'm still waiting for someone to crack the DRM format, as even with the current DRM removal tools you still have to have a valid license to play the content at least once.
Late response that anonymous will never read, but here it is anyway:
There is no fanboyism. I don't love google. I don't fucking care about google. I do not use Gmail, or anything else they offer besides the search engine. AOL did not release thier records on purpose. Why the hell do you think they removed them again so fast? I uphold that that ANY server on the planet can, and most likely does, store away anything you type into it. MSN, Altavista, jeeves, ebay, *. And you know what? It's their servers, their website, their prerogative. And I don't blame a fucking one of them. If you want to type something into it, you just gave it to them. What's retarded is people like you who think they have the right to use websites and expect the owners of said sites to not save any of what you just did, to use for their own purposes. Isn't that a bit naive, anonymous coward?
Troll? My ass. He's absolutely right. Do you honestly beleive that other search engines do not save the searches you type into THEIR server? What just happened with AOL? At least Google is honest about it and made it publicly known that everything is saved, thus giving you the option to not use them if you don't like that. They're providing a free servivce to you, if you don't want them to know what you're searching for, don't use the service. Or waste time setting up proxies and whatnot. But as has been mentioned, you better proxy everyone, because every web service you use probably saves some information about you. Personally, I have too many other important things in my life to worry about other than the fact that google saved that search for "hentai porn" last week.
That would have been funnier if/. didn't remove my <sarcasm>'s. Now it is just nonsensical. I'll just have to slink off and attempt humor some other day. :(
That's exactly what I've setup at my wife's salon, where she has an open wireless for her customers. The office computers have full internet access, any wireless guests have their ports limited to the basics. The cheapy D-link router had this capability built-in, making it a no brainer.
Yes, well the main difference here is that Google probably expects to be exonerated by this. They obviously think their fraud detection is going to be proven at least sufficient. Whereas MS (and all of us forced to use it's OS) knows that if any 3rd party expert devs looked at their code in any detail, they'd probably be horrified. I'm sure they already know that their code is spaghetti, why prove it to the world?
To buy stuff cheap. I hate bidding wars and do not participate. I either enter my max from the start and ignore it until it's over, or I snipe it at the end, all the while laughing at the people who were consistently outbidding each other for the last 3 hours in $1 increments. What a waste of time and effort.
I'd call it a win-win-lose. Seller makes more. Ebay makes more. Buyer pays more.
Re:And this is indeed a serious problem with EBay.
on
How to Win on Ebay: Snipe
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Yeah, the auto-bid can prevent it, but only if the sniper bids too low, and too close to the end of auction to up his bid again. Has happened to me. I admit I'm a sniper. I bid on ebay in either one of two ways. Either I set my auto-bid at the maximum amount I think that item is worth and let it go (and if I get sniped, oh well). Or, I set the auction on watch and then bid the max I want to pay for it within the last 20 seconds or so. This way I never pay more than what I want, and sometimes get a pretty good deal. I see nothing wrong with it at all. I don't need any special software or tools to win, I just stay attentive and watch my items. Anyone else can outsnipe me at the same time. It's happened several times. I don't get bent out of shape over it. I just look for another one.
Slashdot Mirror
You would think this would be enough to prosecute him under "hacking" laws rather than spamming laws.
I mean really, committing fraud to phish users' passwords, and then using harvested passwords to access accounts that don't belong to you? Your or I would go to jail for that.
Of course, he probably has some kids in Russia or China he pays that does all this for him, thus making it impossible to track it to him.
I just disable WU completely. I used to be religious about getting windows updates, but these days my systems run smoother without them. I just install SP2 and leave it. Firewall, AV software, & FF keep me pretty safe.
Oh yeah, I'm living on the edge.
No, IE will not even pass the applet to the JVM if it does not pass the certification test. AND, the same JVM will run the applet just fine in Firefox.
Nice try though.
Have you (everyone) seen pictures of people dressed up at halloween, where they used a doll or dummy to portray what looked to be a child attached to their groin? I've probably seen at least 3 this year, at least one of which was a guy dressed as a priest.
According to this law, it's considered child porn to take a picture of them, or to send a picture of them to someone.
I wonder if they could stretch the law and attempt to apply it to the person who made the costume?
Could you imagine being arrested for child porn just because you wore a stupid costume?
Anyone with half a brain and a cracked Windows install disables WGA first thing anyway. Thus rendering your "mandatory" update, not so mandatory.
Hell, if I'm paying real-money tax when I sell virtual items at the auction house in WOW and making some gold, then it should be illegal for Blizzard to prevent us from turning that virtual gold into real money by selling it for cash. Since it's being taxed as a real asset, it must be available to convert into money like a real asset.
The fundamental reason to not keep passing more laws, is that existing law was good enough, and covered the topic sufficiently to protect content producers.
It was always copyright infringement to distribute music or movies over the internet in P2P channels. The new laws do not do a thing to stop that.
These additional laws give a distinct advantage to corporations, allowing them to circumvent "fair use" rights consumers have. The playing field is not even.
For instance, it's technically legal for a consumer to backup or format shift a DVD you own. But after the DMCA it's illegal to unencrypt that DVD, effectively nullifying the fair use right. Any why? To stop pirates? As if pirates will say, "oh, it's illegal to rip this now! Darn, I guess I'll stop." No all it does is makes Pastor Joe a criminal when he makes a backup copy of the Lion King, so his kids won't destroy the original. (All of my kids' DVD's are copies, they don't touch originals. I am a big sleazy criminal, right?)
And the music industry? Fucking retards. Music is not like movies, people do not just want to listen to a song one time, if they like it. They want to buy a copy of that song, and then listen to it at home, in the car, at work, while jogging, etc. And although it is legal to do this, the industry is hard at work finding new ways to make this illegal.
And nobody *I* know, will pay for a one-listen song. Sure, maybe there's a few, but that is not what most music listeners want, and they won't buy it. Just because you would love to force it down our throats doesn't mean we'll buy it, or have to accept it. The consumers will choose the format or model that will fulfull their needs.
Yep. And if I were to adopt this technology for my laptops, I'd probably scatter several of these things around the house for total coverage.
Roaming wireless power.
You could make it even simpler.
Actual theft is stealing atoms, copyright infringement isn't even on that scale. It's merely borrowing electrons.
I can never accept these stupid car theft analogies as being anywhere near relevant to this issue.
Now, if you could duplicate your neighbor's Ford, while using all your own materials, that would be closer. You are not taking the car away. And that's not illegal. Unless you sell copies as Fords. It wouldn't even be illegal to make copies and give them away.
Alexa is flawed from the start.
What impetus or benefit would a user have to install a toolbar that tracks them? Other than out of charity to help out this company? I don't get it. Nor do I particularly trust them. Just one more thing to help crash IE.
Screw that. I run a mailserver.
I have all of Asia, and about half of Europe blocked now.
We had a sudden surge in spam the last few months as every grandma's unsecured, zombie windows box is now sending spam from consumer dynamic IP's. Whether or not your broadband provider is giving you a static IP, it's still withing the dynamic range. And this is where most all of my spam comes from now.
If I could block every consumer dynamic IP out there, I would in a heartbeat.
I have no reason to be accepting mail from somebody's home server, running on his DSL modem.
Ah, I don't use that crack, I use the crack that stops XP from "activating" itself after I type in that number.
I don't mind too much typing it in once. But forcing me to "reactivate" my OS just because I added a sound card, or changed my video card, or had to reinstall the OS yet one more time is pretty much bullshit.
I have a legal key and I still have to crack my copy of XP, just for my own sanity.
The school I'm sure will make the ethical argument that if they are not cheating, they should have no reason to object to this service.
Well, preventing the school from sending in your papers to be added to the database would not prevent you from cheating. This is the argument they're using.
Now, simply running the student's paper against the database to look for plagerism (but not submitting it to be added to the DB) would nullify their argument, and stop them from cheating.
Now, if the papers are added automatically by this company, then their arguement still stands.
Personally, I never thought plagerism was such a widespread problem that it required this amount of time and effort spent on it. And I'd be worried about false positives. Just how similar does a paper need to be to get flagged? And if you get flagged, but are innocent, what kind of recourse would you have? Probably none. You just got fucked for having a similar writing style and chosen topic as some other kid who wrote a paper 5 years ago.
I'm one of those people. Last time I upgraded my motherboard/platform I installed from an OEM SP2 disk, and disabled windows update. I also disabled IE (by marking it as non-executable by anyone). Hardware firewall built into the router. No spyware or virus, even with the kids clicking around in Firefox (the adblock and no-script extensions probably save me there). :)
So my Un-DRM tools still work fine too.
Although, I'm still waiting for someone to crack the DRM format, as even with the current DRM removal tools you still have to have a valid license to play the content at least once.
Compensation of legal fees is allowed in America as well, it's just not as common.
Late response that anonymous will never read, but here it is anyway:
There is no fanboyism. I don't love google. I don't fucking care about google. I do not use Gmail, or anything else they offer besides the search engine.
AOL did not release thier records on purpose. Why the hell do you think they removed them again so fast?
I uphold that that ANY server on the planet can, and most likely does, store away anything you type into it.
MSN, Altavista, jeeves, ebay, *. And you know what? It's their servers, their website, their prerogative. And I don't blame a fucking one of them. If you want to type something into it, you just gave it to them.
What's retarded is people like you who think they have the right to use websites and expect the owners of said sites to not save any of what you just did, to use for their own purposes.
Isn't that a bit naive, anonymous coward?
Troll? My ass.
He's absolutely right. Do you honestly beleive that other search engines do not save the searches you type into THEIR server? What just happened with AOL? At least Google is honest about it and made it publicly known that everything is saved, thus giving you the option to not use them if you don't like that.
They're providing a free servivce to you, if you don't want them to know what you're searching for, don't use the service. Or waste time setting up proxies and whatnot. But as has been mentioned, you better proxy everyone, because every web service you use probably saves some information about you.
Personally, I have too many other important things in my life to worry about other than the fact that google saved that search for "hentai porn" last week.
What, no telco lawsuits yet?
I'm dissappointed, the pigs are slacking off.
That would have been funnier if /. didn't remove my <sarcasm>'s.
Now it is just nonsensical.
I'll just have to slink off and attempt humor some other day.
:(
someone missed the tag.
I think in the next revision of the http doc standard, the tag should also make the text blink in bright pink just so everyone knows when it was used.
That's exactly what I've setup at my wife's salon, where she has an open wireless for her customers. The office computers have full internet access, any wireless guests have their ports limited to the basics. The cheapy D-link router had this capability built-in, making it a no brainer.
Yes, well the main difference here is that Google probably expects to be exonerated by this. They obviously think their fraud detection is going to be proven at least sufficient.
Whereas MS (and all of us forced to use it's OS) knows that if any 3rd party expert devs looked at their code in any detail, they'd probably be horrified. I'm sure they already know that their code is spaghetti, why prove it to the world?
To buy stuff cheap.
I hate bidding wars and do not participate. I either enter my max from the start and ignore it until it's over, or I snipe it at the end, all the while laughing at the people who were consistently outbidding each other for the last 3 hours in $1 increments. What a waste of time and effort.
I'd call it a win-win-lose.
Seller makes more. Ebay makes more. Buyer pays more.
Yeah, the auto-bid can prevent it, but only if the sniper bids too low, and too close to the end of auction to up his bid again. Has happened to me.
I admit I'm a sniper. I bid on ebay in either one of two ways.
Either I set my auto-bid at the maximum amount I think that item is worth and let it go (and if I get sniped, oh well).
Or, I set the auction on watch and then bid the max I want to pay for it within the last 20 seconds or so.
This way I never pay more than what I want, and sometimes get a pretty good deal. I see nothing wrong with it at all. I don't need any special software or tools to win, I just stay attentive and watch my items. Anyone else can outsnipe me at the same time. It's happened several times. I don't get bent out of shape over it. I just look for another one.