These words didn't change because of natural mutation, but because the media don't know what they're talking about. I expected more from/., that's all.
It is encouraging to finally hear that last night, the RIAA and the member companies that were involved in the case finally paid the fees (they refused first), putting an end to this protracted legal wrangling. The amount paid was not, however, $107,834 but a figure of $107,951 â" a figure which takes into account interest accrued due to delay.
[snip]
So, with Thomas looking to head to a mistrial, making the $222,000 judgment null and void, the two largest decisions in the RIAA's 'war on downloading' have been against them. In both cases the RIAA admitted it was wrong, and ordered to pay the fees.
I was just trying to highlight the hypocrisy in their logic and to confirm my beliefs that this isn't about piracy, but about setting up laws & policies so they can keep their pockets lined until The Next Big Thing (TM); instead of adapting and embracing.
If this was truly about piracy and stopping people from infringing copyright, these fascist bastards would stop you from sharing CDs, Vinyl and tapes. Hell they'd bring down radio just to stop you sharing.
Why the hell are they so bent on MP3s? Why don't they get the fact that they stand to make a LOT more money if they embrace the technology and accept that their business environment has changed for the good? I am so sick of reading this, and seeing the everyday person either going buy without knowledge of what the BPI et al are doing, or not realising that it's breaching their civil liberties (and not even caring!).
Keep downloading. Bleed 'em dry - that's what I say.
I think you have an interesting point, but it's too far fetched.
They stand to gain just as much support and momentum as you're suggesting by trickling fixes and code like they have just done, than to open source their entire product line. By your logic, they're joining the competition by contributing and being 'open'. People won't need to move off of their most precious product - Windows - because it'll all work and they'll have millions of people scouring their code.
I think their current strategy is to dangle enough food over the FOSS croud to keep them on their platform. That'll do enough to keep the shareholders happy.
Using Sid is fine... as long as it is *your* concious decision. But, please, don't advise others to use a distribution that it's considered a development tool, not a product for third party consumption, by its own creators.
Absolutely. It's about the user here - as long as they accept that Sid is unstable, then that's OK. The risk is theirs. I wasn't advocating its use for all purposes. I just didn't agree with the statement that it was "only for Debian developers". Some people don't need it, but they want to use the latest software.
So you are one of those that give a f* about stability and unconciously force non-needed dependencies just because you find cool to stay "in the edge", don't you? For a developer, staying on "Stable" should be a must, except when overwhelming needs explicitly force the use of newer underlying libs/tools.
Your reading more than what was written. Don't put words in my mouth.
I want to stay 'on the edge' because I like using the latest development tools. I use testing on my production server because its stable and reliable. It all depends on what you're using it for of course.
What the hell are you talking about? Using Sid is fine whether you're a Debian developer or not. I've used it for years on various machines and it's never bitten me. I do development in various languages and platforms, as well as need to compile C, C++ applications.
Your comment is typically elitest, and damnright wrong.
Just because you believe someone should tell you something privately, doesn't mean they will. People were sending each other pictures of their newborns - in the belief, I'm sure, that it was private - and they were openly exposed by Google's cache because of the stupidity of the O2 developers.
I agree, I'd very much like the applications I use to be effective and simple in use, but not at the cost of privacy or security. I'm willing to bet I'm not alone in this view.
Anyhow, we digress. The fact is: robots.txt is a directive to specific clients - namely thsoe that are automated, a.k.a search engines or bots -- to not index the page. They are NOT a security measure. Far too many automated services ignore robots.txt and index anyway; hence the reason it shouldn't be used to protect personal information like you're suggesting. Furthermore, randomising URIs using GUIDs defeats your whole usability/ease-of-use argument.
I used to have URLs sent to me when I couldn't send/receive MMS. It's purely for viewing them, not to share - they'd rather you forwarded the MMS and spent money.
My comment regarding the controversies is that Google's cache still had the info, even after O2 had moved the URIs. Furthermore, it was a grave oversight to allow them to be indexed in the first place.
Personally I'd rather them use a robots.txt appropriately and keep the URLs randomized with an appropriate GUID but stop doing any authentication. The iPhone's lack of MMS, for example, would be dramatically less of a big deal if they would text me a damn URL to go straight to it rather than texting me a login page with a "username" and "password" to login with that I can't cut and paste.
That's because you value your laziness more than your privacy.
In fact, operators like Sprint and Boost Mobile will even let you see the phone number from which the picture or video was sent
This was the same with the O2 MMS leak over the weekend. Google's cache was showing the mobile number from which the MMS originated - highly controversial IMO.
For all my *NIX & FOSS zealotry, I can't help but respect what he's brought to the world. His & MS's achievements have been broad and they've paved the way for multiple industries. Maybe I wouldn't be writing this on a Linux box if it wasn't for Windows:)
Slashdot Mirror
Finally loaded and I take what I said back. Great video.
That video sucks. It doesn't buffer so you have to wait for it to fully load otherwise it jolts. Noobs ja!
These words didn't change because of natural mutation, but because the media don't know what they're talking about. I expected more from /., that's all.
Lame link to a video :|
Indeed, changing the masses and attempting to prevent ignorance is futile.
I don't expect to have to do that where 'experts' are supposed to be 'editors'.
Shouldn't this be 'phreaker'? The article even states the break-in was over their PBX (i.e. a convential phone system, not VoIP).
Who said it was a he?
Interesting bits to note:
I was just trying to highlight the hypocrisy in their logic and to confirm my beliefs that this isn't about piracy, but about setting up laws & policies so they can keep their pockets lined until The Next Big Thing (TM); instead of adapting and embracing.
If this was truly about piracy and stopping people from infringing copyright, these fascist bastards would stop you from sharing CDs, Vinyl and tapes. Hell they'd bring down radio just to stop you sharing.
Why the hell are they so bent on MP3s? Why don't they get the fact that they stand to make a LOT more money if they embrace the technology and accept that their business environment has changed for the good? I am so sick of reading this, and seeing the everyday person either going buy without knowledge of what the BPI et al are doing, or not realising that it's breaching their civil liberties (and not even caring!).
Keep downloading. Bleed 'em dry - that's what I say.
UK citizens are safe in the knowledge that they're being watched. That's it citizen, keep moving. Nothing to see here.
Ignoring the Orwellian references, could this be used for some good?
Useful for preserving your iPhone for the full length of the 268 million months you're tired to your contract here in the UK.
Inversion Of Control? Huh? What's that got to do with it?
Oh wait, I need to get out more.
I think you have an interesting point, but it's too far fetched.
They stand to gain just as much support and momentum as you're suggesting by trickling fixes and code like they have just done, than to open source their entire product line. By your logic, they're joining the competition by contributing and being 'open'. People won't need to move off of their most precious product - Windows - because it'll all work and they'll have millions of people scouring their code.
I think their current strategy is to dangle enough food over the FOSS croud to keep them on their platform. That'll do enough to keep the shareholders happy.
Absolutely. It's about the user here - as long as they accept that Sid is unstable, then that's OK. The risk is theirs. I wasn't advocating its use for all purposes. I just didn't agree with the statement that it was "only for Debian developers". Some people don't need it, but they want to use the latest software.
Your reading more than what was written. Don't put words in my mouth.
I want to stay 'on the edge' because I like using the latest development tools. I use testing on my production server because its stable and reliable. It all depends on what you're using it for of course.
What the hell are you talking about? Using Sid is fine whether you're a Debian developer or not. I've used it for years on various machines and it's never bitten me. I do development in various languages and platforms, as well as need to compile C, C++ applications.
Your comment is typically elitest, and damnright wrong.
It's not electrical storms, it's dust! Don't let the Magisterium tell you otherwise!
The example you use is when the parents are aware of the sharing and give their consent. This is not the case with the issue at hand.
Just because you believe someone should tell you something privately, doesn't mean they will. People were sending each other pictures of their newborns - in the belief, I'm sure, that it was private - and they were openly exposed by Google's cache because of the stupidity of the O2 developers.
I agree, I'd very much like the applications I use to be effective and simple in use, but not at the cost of privacy or security. I'm willing to bet I'm not alone in this view.
Anyhow, we digress. The fact is: robots.txt is a directive to specific clients - namely thsoe that are automated, a.k.a search engines or bots -- to not index the page. They are NOT a security measure. Far too many automated services ignore robots.txt and index anyway; hence the reason it shouldn't be used to protect personal information like you're suggesting. Furthermore, randomising URIs using GUIDs defeats your whole usability/ease-of-use argument.
Sorry, but you're just plane wrong.
I used to have URLs sent to me when I couldn't send/receive MMS. It's purely for viewing them, not to share - they'd rather you forwarded the MMS and spent money.
That's because you value your laziness more than your privacy.
This was the same with the O2 MMS leak over the weekend. Google's cache was showing the mobile number from which the MMS originated - highly controversial IMO.
Each to their own. It gets lost by people who scan read too much.
Swings 'n' roundabouts.
Looks great to me: dark, stylish and remnants of Frank Miller (thinking Sin City). Can't see Mark Wahlberg as Max Payne though.
Blatantly a tux toy.
:)
For all my *NIX & FOSS zealotry, I can't help but respect what he's brought to the world. His & MS's achievements have been broad and they've paved the way for multiple industries. Maybe I wouldn't be writing this on a Linux box if it wasn't for Windows