IIRC (I have a whole box full of this stuff as I'm sure a lot of folks here do), it is on two floppies. Features include a spiffied version of dosshell, and a two-color drwing program. Me and My roomate threw it on a 486/66 for fun and it screamed. I'm thinking of trying it under Wine or giving it it's own 12 meg partition on my HD or something...
I have a few copies of Windows 2 (2.1 I think to be exact, have to dig out the floppies). If you like I could cut you a deal before I put them on Ebay;-)
So you're saying that you could get on napster, I do a search for "unsigned" and I'll find your music?
Wow, I guess that answers the questions above about how to find unsigned music. Just search for unsigned. That's almost too easy. Now if my Uni hadn't banned napster and weren't sniffing my machine (I work here, Hello upstairs!) I might be able to try this out...
And of course Deja specifically refuses to carry the binaries unless you pay them extra, which most people do. Hell I couldn't even put a screenshot into alt.binaries.games.quake because they said it was a "Spam Zone", yet alt.troll is alive and kicking:(
Also, PH would have to receive a post before they would have its message id to cancel it. If there's time for PH to receive the post, there's time for others to receive it too.
I was always under the assumption that if a cancel request arrived later then the header would remain, yet trying to retrieve the article would result in a error stating that it had expired. Or am I talking about something different?
I agree with your disgust, however it makes much more sense to completely ignore them. If you copy their songs and then make them available, you could be contributing to future concert revenue or CD-sales to someone who doesn't yet know they're a Metallica fan, but gets your mp3. IMO if they don't want to be in on the way music is distributed in the future, then that's fine. Rust in peace (oops, wrong band).
It's the same argument I heard against pira^h^h^h^hcopying windows when I first started reading/. The fact that your freind now has Windows on his system means they'll probably buy Windows software in the future, contributing to MS's marketshare.
Thanks for the answer on that:-) I'd still like to see (as I'm sure a lot of other folks would) the questions that skeered them so bad. Maybe if they don't come through next week like Timothy says a new editorial would be in order?
don't forget to write a polite email to all the local radio stations you listen to, as well as VH1 and MTV that you are doing this. They might want to know that all their ads in that time frame are falling on deaf ears as well.
That is, why Metallica hasn't answered yet. Did they *promise* us an interview, is it something that their publicists had said previously might happen or what. If this is something they agreed to, hell even if it isn't, it really paints them in a bad light. Also would it be possible to update with exactly which questions got sent along? It may provide some insight into their reticence.
Heh,/. should start a daily "/. digest" mailing list, that we could all get our hotmail(read:spamtrap) addresses on. If hotmail really does this I would of course email/. and complain, cc'd to hotmail. And if Microsoft continues it's attack on copyright violations/. could start sending C&D letters of their own. Just a thought.
So is there a copy out there of the scripts? I'd happily set up a page with them on it, as should everyone else who thinks this is ridiculous. And do the same thing that the original dialectizer guy was doing, allow sites who complain to opt out. Then print their names on the front page as companies who have no tolerance for our brand of humor. As there would be hundreds of them out there I'm sure that legal departments would quickly find some other pastime.
#3 is a very good point. If I come in as AC and post crap, if it gets moderated down there really isn't any incentive not to keep posting crap unless my karma also goes down. Do it enough and I post at -1 anyway...You listening Taco?
Perhaps the moderators are on crack as of late, or maybe somewhere in the moderation guidelines there has to be in big letters DEFAULT THRESHOLD IS AT 1. Unless it's something that *really* is offensive, moderating it to -1 won't do much good. Especially if it's anonymous (After all, with the present scheme who gets hurt? NOONE!) Maybe the answer is to Metamoderate those people as unfair, as they unfairly squandered their points in a futile manner trying to sink something that's already well below most's radar.
A lot of times I've engaged people as AC simply because it's something that I feel doesn't need to be seen by incoming media-types or regular posters who have their thresholds set so as to avoid offtopic discussion. For the same reason, I almost always forego the +1 bonus I seem to have acquired, unless I feel it's something truly informative(which doesn't happen that often).
As far as you being a troll, it really isn't fair to say that on/. with the type of posting you do. I would refer more to the alt.syntax.tactical description of "usenet (or in this case/.) performance art." Most of the good ones I would classify this way.
Ontopic to the discussion, I'm glad to see the guys here finally put up an article about the DDoS and all. Thanks. Not only is my curiosity almost sated, but I feel like I've learned some stuff about networking as well (especially from the reader's links above).
Maybe he'll also get bitten bad enough by his new-found freinds at the record company that you'll see him back at mp3.com in a few years; Trying to pay back that fat advance on his contract.
"The 23-year-old is chief technology officer of NetPD, a ten-person consulting firm in Cambridge, England."
Of course if when they put up their web page, and it's hosted one might merely accuse them of libel in a nicely worded letter to theie ISP. Nothing like returning a below the belt punch in kind.
Actually, black for heat dissapation is not a new idea, when rebuilding my VW bus engine, the rebuild manual said I should leave the black paint on for that reason (They're air cooled and need all the help they can get staying cool.)
Supposedly they make special coatings for this purpose, not your average Kryon-bomb can of black. If the chip manufacturers are using some kind of thermal dissapation material for their casings, it would probably make the chips less reliable than before to simply slap a cheap plastic jobber on there.
(Of course the previous owner had already removed it, so I buffed it out real nice with a buffing tool. I also felt pretty stupid a few months later when it dropped a valve seat. Sigh. )
Here's a thought; wasn't his warrantee for a 700 Mhz processor? Meaning that since he doesn't have a 700 he would have some sort of a right to a refund anyway, since that was what he was led to believe he was purchasing? Who exactly would be responsible for this? I would imagine someone with some egg on their face PR-wise for not verifying that the chips were the real(700) thing before selling them, and then refusing a refund. Or would there be a tremendous buck passing going on?
Any lawyers, or anyone with knowledge of how this sort of thing is handled want to hazard a guess? Just curious.
From what the article says, and some of the other links in the threads support this, it appears that these may have even been sold as 500 mhz chips originally, as AMD was having a hard time keeping up with production or something. They removed/bridged some resistors in the process also. Although I don't know in what way that might affect detection.
The other issue was that on the linked page inthe article it states that the chips said 18 microns on the outside (better for overclocking) and the cores on the inside said 25 micron (will blow sooner). Who knows.
I'm guessing that AMD would keep *some* records of who they sell to, and since the counterfeiters didn't bother to remove the original serial#, but merely place a new one on the new case... Of course one of the links in the above comments leads to a supplier who says they purchase from "grey market" suppliers- What exactly is a grey market supplier, anyone?
Anyway, I would think AMD would be able to tell where the CPU's *first* went, and narrow it down somewhat, right?(after all this seems to be a pretty large scale thing)
"Well, for one, I am not interested in paying more for my hard drive so you can store music you didn't create yourself on yours thankyouverymuch."
I'm not exactly thrilled at the prospect either, mind you. I'm just throwing out some ideas here. As a musician myself, should I be thrilled that the RIAA wants to attack computer users who want to make backups of music that they purchased (note, I'm assuming your not talking about privacy here, because I'm not). The fact that they don't want us storing music on our PC's means that noone will win if they have their way. I beleive they would as soon illigitimize the mp3 format itself, which would cut out an effective way you have to share music that you've created.
Perhaps the idea isn't that great, however if I understand things correctly you're already paying this royalty if you use analog tapes, dats, or audio CD's to store your music on. And I have a feeling that they won't leave computer users alone until something like what I said above happens anyway:(
Let's face it, noone wants to pay more for what they feel is theirs, however the music and movie cartel want us to keep paying over and over again. I wish there were some happy medium.
You would be surprised at the straight face the recording industry keeps when they tell you that you . From their page on the Audio home recording act...
The law also provides for the payment of modest royalties to music creators and copyright owners, and mandates the inclusion of the Serial Copying Management Systems in all consumer digital audio recorders to limit multi-generational audio copying.
Since the Computer Hard drives are not considered digital audio recorders, and so the RIAA will try to tell you that you may not use them to make copies of music, fair use or otherwise. (I searched pretty much their entire site for the paragraph where they actually stated this outright, but it seems they may have removed the link or page. Anyone have a link handy?)
I think there could be an easy solution to this. The RIAA would simply need to convince hard drive manufacturers to tack a reasonable fee, based on what audio tapes and blank audio CD's are subject to on all *consumer* hard drives (some differentiation should be made for servers, work machines without audio hardware, etc to be fair). They should do this, hen STFU and go away. Problem solved. Of course this is perhaps too simplistic. Thoughts?
Slashdot Mirror
IIRC (I have a whole box full of this stuff as I'm sure a lot of folks here do), it is on two floppies. Features include a spiffied version of dosshell, and a two-color drwing program. Me and My roomate threw it on a 486/66 for fun and it screamed. I'm thinking of trying it under Wine or giving it it's own 12 meg partition on my HD or something...
I have a few copies of Windows 2 (2.1 I think to be exact, have to dig out the floppies). If you like I could cut you a deal before I put them on Ebay ;-)
So you're saying that you could get on napster, I do a search for "unsigned" and I'll find your music?
Wow, I guess that answers the questions above about how to find unsigned music. Just search for unsigned. That's almost too easy. Now if my Uni hadn't banned napster and weren't sniffing my machine (I work here, Hello upstairs!) I might be able to try this out...
Just replace "www." with "partners." and I think it should work (someone elses cookie is on my computer right now so it works either way).
:-)
And moderators, no, that's not informative
And of course Deja specifically refuses to carry the binaries unless you pay them extra, which most people do. Hell I couldn't even put a screenshot into alt.binaries.games.quake because they said it was a "Spam Zone", yet alt.troll is alive and kicking :(
Also, PH would have to receive a post before they would have its message id to cancel it. If there's time for PH to receive the post, there's time for others to receive it too.
I was always under the assumption that if a cancel request arrived later then the header would remain, yet trying to retrieve the article would result in a error stating that it had expired. Or am I talking about something different?
I agree with your disgust, however it makes much more sense to completely ignore them. If you copy their songs and then make them available, you could be contributing to future concert revenue or CD-sales to someone who doesn't yet know they're a Metallica fan, but gets your mp3. IMO if they don't want to be in on the way music is distributed in the future, then that's fine. Rust in peace (oops, wrong band).
/. The fact that your freind now has Windows on his system means they'll probably buy Windows software in the future, contributing to MS's marketshare.
It's the same argument I heard against pira^h^h^h^hcopying windows when I first started reading
Thanks for the answer on that :-) I'd still like to see (as I'm sure a lot of other folks would) the questions that skeered them so bad. Maybe if they don't come through next week like Timothy says a new editorial would be in order?
don't forget to write a polite email to all the local radio stations you listen to, as well as VH1 and MTV that you are doing this. They might want to know that all their ads in that time frame are falling on deaf ears as well.
Delete them? Could he be serious? This only shows how ignorant the artists are to the technology they are up against.
Not at all. All he has to do is have them implement Zapster on their asses.
:-)
That is, why Metallica hasn't answered yet. Did they *promise* us an interview, is it something that their publicists had said previously might happen or what. If this is something they agreed to, hell even if it isn't, it really paints them in a bad light. Also would it be possible to update with exactly which questions got sent along? It may provide some insight into their reticence.
Have a contest! throw some equipment out to the masses. If you like the idea I'll happily accept the quad as an honerarium or something ;-)
BTW if someone could please explain in what way the parent's parent is flaimbait, I'm listening...
Heh, /. should start a daily "/. digest" mailing list, that we could all get our hotmail(read:spamtrap) addresses on. If hotmail really does this I would of course email /. and complain, cc'd to hotmail. And if Microsoft continues it's attack on copyright violations /. could start sending C&D letters of their own. Just a thought.
So is there a copy out there of the scripts? I'd happily set up a page with them on it, as should everyone else who thinks this is ridiculous. And do the same thing that the original dialectizer guy was doing, allow sites who complain to opt out. Then print their names on the front page as companies who have no tolerance for our brand of humor. As there would be hundreds of them out there I'm sure that legal departments would quickly find some other pastime.
BTW another nice one, like totally.
#3 is a very good point. If I come in as AC and post crap, if it gets moderated down there really isn't any incentive not to keep posting crap unless my karma also goes down. Do it enough and I post at -1 anyway...You listening Taco?
/. with the type of posting you do. I would refer more to the alt.syntax.tactical description of "usenet (or in this case /.) performance art." Most of the good ones I would classify this way.
Perhaps the moderators are on crack as of late, or maybe somewhere in the moderation guidelines there has to be in big letters DEFAULT THRESHOLD IS AT 1. Unless it's something that *really* is offensive, moderating it to -1 won't do much good. Especially if it's anonymous (After all, with the present scheme who gets hurt? NOONE!) Maybe the answer is to Metamoderate those people as unfair, as they unfairly squandered their points in a futile manner trying to sink something that's already well below most's radar.
A lot of times I've engaged people as AC simply because it's something that I feel doesn't need to be seen by incoming media-types or regular posters who have their thresholds set so as to avoid offtopic discussion. For the same reason, I almost always forego the +1 bonus I seem to have acquired, unless I feel it's something truly informative(which doesn't happen that often).
As far as you being a troll, it really isn't fair to say that on
Ontopic to the discussion, I'm glad to see the guys here finally put up an article about the DDoS and all. Thanks. Not only is my curiosity almost sated, but I feel like I've learned some stuff about networking as well (especially from the reader's links above).
So how does one sue AC?
:-)
The same way one sues Major Domo
"When will they learn that Freedom and Truth are to be embraced?"
They've already embraced them. This is the "extend"ing part.
Maybe he'll also get bitten bad enough by his new-found freinds at the record company that you'll see him back at mp3.com in a few years; Trying to pay back that fat advance on his contract.
Get one who's familiar with English law;
"The 23-year-old is chief technology officer of NetPD, a ten-person consulting firm in Cambridge, England."
Of course if when they put up their web page, and it's hosted one might merely accuse them of libel in a nicely worded letter to theie ISP. Nothing like returning a below the belt punch in kind.
Actually, black for heat dissapation is not a new idea, when rebuilding my VW bus engine, the rebuild manual said I should leave the black paint on for that reason (They're air cooled and need all the help they can get staying cool.)
Supposedly they make special coatings for this purpose, not your average Kryon-bomb can of black. If the chip manufacturers are using some kind of thermal dissapation material for their casings, it would probably make the chips less reliable than before to simply slap a cheap plastic jobber on there.
(Of course the previous owner had already removed it, so I buffed it out real nice with a buffing tool. I also felt pretty stupid a few months later when it dropped a valve seat. Sigh. )
Here's a thought; wasn't his warrantee for a 700 Mhz processor? Meaning that since he doesn't have a 700 he would have some sort of a right to a refund anyway, since that was what he was led to believe he was purchasing? Who exactly would be responsible for this? I would imagine someone with some egg on their face PR-wise for not verifying that the chips were the real(700) thing before selling them, and then refusing a refund. Or would there be a tremendous buck passing going on?
Any lawyers, or anyone with knowledge of how this sort of thing is handled want to hazard a guess? Just curious.
From what the article says, and some of the other links in the threads support this, it appears that these may have even been sold as 500 mhz chips originally, as AMD was having a hard time keeping up with production or something. They removed/bridged some resistors in the process also. Although I don't know in what way that might affect detection.
The other issue was that on the linked page inthe article it states that the chips said 18 microns on the outside (better for overclocking) and the cores on the inside said 25 micron (will blow sooner). Who knows.
I'm guessing that AMD would keep *some* records of who they sell to, and since the counterfeiters didn't bother to remove the original serial#, but merely place a new one on the new case... Of course one of the links in the above comments leads to a supplier who says they purchase from "grey market" suppliers- What exactly is a grey market supplier, anyone?
Anyway, I would think AMD would be able to tell where the CPU's *first* went, and narrow it down somewhat, right?(after all this seems to be a pretty large scale thing)
"Well, for one, I am not interested in paying more for my hard drive so you can store music you didn't create yourself on yours thankyouverymuch."
:(
I'm not exactly thrilled at the prospect either, mind you. I'm just throwing out some ideas here. As a musician myself, should I be thrilled that the RIAA wants to attack computer users who want to make backups of music that they purchased (note, I'm assuming your not talking about privacy here, because I'm not). The fact that they don't want us storing music on our PC's means that noone will win if they have their way. I beleive they would as soon illigitimize the mp3 format itself, which would cut out an effective way you have to share music that you've created.
Perhaps the idea isn't that great, however if I understand things correctly you're already paying this royalty if you use analog tapes, dats, or audio CD's to store your music on. And I have a feeling that they won't leave computer users alone until something like what I said above happens anyway
Let's face it, noone wants to pay more for what they feel is theirs, however the music and movie cartel want us to keep paying over and over again. I wish there were some happy medium.
You would be surprised at the straight face the recording industry keeps when they tell you that you . From their page on the Audio home recording act...
The law also provides for the payment of modest royalties to music creators and copyright owners, and mandates the inclusion of the Serial Copying Management Systems in all consumer digital audio recorders to limit multi-generational audio copying.
Since the Computer Hard drives are not considered digital audio recorders, and so the RIAA will try to tell you that you may not use them to make copies of music, fair use or otherwise. (I searched pretty much their entire site for the paragraph where they actually stated this outright, but it seems they may have removed the link or page. Anyone have a link handy?)
I think there could be an easy solution to this. The RIAA would simply need to convince hard drive manufacturers to tack a reasonable fee, based on what audio tapes and blank audio CD's are subject to on all *consumer* hard drives (some differentiation should be made for servers, work machines without audio hardware, etc to be fair). They should do this, hen STFU and go away. Problem solved. Of course this is perhaps too simplistic. Thoughts?