I was going to laugh because this is probably true for most people in the US... then I realized that this wasnt funny because this is probably true for most people in the US. I think we need a "Sadly, humorously, funny" Mod...
You can run your own DNS servers... (this opens a lot of other possibilities for it's use as well - such as blocking certain sites at the DNS level, or setting up local domain entries for your internal network (without the expense of registering a domain name or three): just make sure you dont set such up using a real, existing domain name that you may at some time want to visit.
A Linux box with BIND or similar can be a cheap, old box and perform fantastically in this respect. An OS/2 box (if you've got some OS/2 disks or buy a copy of Warp 4 from eBay) can also be a cheap, and ancient box and perform amazingly (you dont need more than a P90 with 64MB RAM - I know... I did this for years for some decently high traffic domains (30,000 unique visits a day)). BIND is available for both OS/2 and Linux, as well as a number of other options for both.
.
You can use OpenDNS or a similar service...
(The formerly run by) UUNet name servers still work and accept connections from anywhere.
On this note, btw, it's not just small ISPs who are doing this... OptOnline is doing this in my area, and we are a business customer with a business connection.
Add to that equation that the serial number and other identifying marks are missing on the machine and I think you've hit the head right on the nail.
I have a feeling that the conversation really went "OK, can you provide me with the serial number of the machine so we can look it up to figure out what goes into it" "Umm, there is none... I bought it on eBay" "From our store? If not, we cant help you"
Of every time I call any of these companies for support, I'd say that 95% of the time, I am asked for a serial number (usually unless the request is horrendously mundane, or I am calling their parts ordering department directly, and knowing exactly what I need).
I kinda feel that "Chris" is distorting a lot of this story.
Why is that? They didnt specify the type or quality of the camcorder that should be used - nor how the video should be recorded using that camcorder, did they?
Hmmm... I think maybe getting a really nice camcorder with a high res or digital input to hook directly off the DVD player's output might just work - and get a decent quality too. And still fit in their guidelines.
Some Sony (pretty sure it was a Sony) I was looking at for a customer has such a setup (so you can merge other clips with what's on the camera to then "edit" into one thing and export to it's drive, memory or external DVD burner...)
With the shoddy "evidence" being allowed in most of these cases, how in the world are we to ever determine whether these lawsuits are legitimate?
Thus, I have a problem with it. I could care less if they started a new lawsuit every 10 seconds; as long as they had real evidence, legally obtained, followed proper legal methods for filing and continuing suit, and (the evidence was) legally used to fight their cases.
Interestingly, there are some out there who think that banning things like this (paintball, violent games, etc) makes the situation worse. Some seem to claim that such methods of "unwinding" help give people an outlet for aggression in a manner not harmful to others - thus reducing the potential for actual violent acts against others or themselves.
Now... what do I think? I have no idea... I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist - and in my opinion, even those can only make general blanket statements that refer to certain groups (ie: depressed, always happy, or whatever) which still do not apply to everyone since the human creature, from person to person, is such a dynamic and different thing.
Inotherwords... aint gotta clue... just bringing it up. Though from my experience interacting with other human beings and even slashdotters, it does seem sensible that it would apply to a decent number of people. Seems everyone has some method they use to deal with anger... and a non-harmful outlet is better than bottling it up till it explodes.
People who pirate software make the world a less secure place nonsense.
You can say that what they do is illegal, immoral, not nice and that they should be shunned by polite society.
But they do not make the world "less safe".
Well, the truth is, I guess I should never post before I drink my morning cup of coffee... because I DID see that this morning, and I read it twice...
And STILL misread it. Now, with some coffee in my system... well, I seem to have read all the words this time.
Do you know those car interlock breathalyzer things (the ones that wont let a car start if someone's BAC is too high when they blow into it)? I think I need to find one for a computer that will only allow the keyboard to work if I have a certain caffeine level or higher in my bloodstream.:-)
So... my apologies... and you have a great weekend too...
C'mon... I thought that was quite funny... seems whoever moderated the above as "Troll" has no sense of humor. Didnt realize there were Vulcans with accounts on/.
I think he has to work for Microsoft... I seem to remember some statement that indicated such was the case (making the world less safe) - or maybe it was for some bill they were lobbying for to protect us... errrr... I mean their interests?
Not sure which, but I know I have seen that statement someplace attributed to them directly (a claim on how piracy hurts) or indirectly (lobbying).
Wrong - they are supporting users who ARE their customers (as well). That has nothing to do with who's fault it is that certain people run pirated software. By patching as many machines as possible (genuine or not) it means less machines are attacking or compromising others out there (genuine or not). That means less genuine machines are being attacked, and less genuine users (or other OS users) are watching bandwidth being eaten on their network segment (such as in the case of many cable users) because of unpatched zombie machines attacking anything and everything.
Gotta remember, Microsoft's failings in their OS is what caused this issue (unpatched machines being exploited). That has nothing to do with how many are pirated.
If such exploited machines (exploited due to Microsoft's programming defects) could not affect other (genuine) users, then I'd say you're somewhat closer to being right...
Better question is, in a month, where did he put the 20 bikes he rode home 5 days a week? Much less the over 200 bikes he must have collected in 10 months...
I'm guessing he works at a bike shop, and one day soon someone there will realize that their entire inventory has been mysteriously depleted...
Here's the funny thing - Dell was right by luck alone - or they had the customer pull the side panel to verify the drive was there/missing.
That error can also happen when (yes, they are rarer cases - but they do happen):
- A cable comes loose on a drive (seen it happen)
- A disk controller dies
- A BIOS setting gets "horrendously" screwed up (ie: IDE/SATA port shut off - I've bought older boards where that's the default - and I've had BIOS's that have reset themselves).
- A SATA/IDE cable goes (severely) bad.
- A channel on a "multi-channel" power supply dies (the one that the drive is on)
Of course, as I noted, those are a more rare cause of that message... or are they? Perhaps the number of drives that fail in one of those ways is actually greater than the number of drives stolen?
Wouldnt it (not) be funny if the controller on the drive died, and this guy simply replaced the drive and restored a backup he made when he was last there (and charged a fortune)? Or the controller died and he pulled a working one from the same model drive and replaced the dead one?
OK, maybe it's not likely... but then again, they dont seem sure they can even prove he stole the drive to begin with...
I wonder what the rest of the details in this are. Yeah, he's probably guilty... but there are other possibilities to this. I'd say they may end up needing a bit more proof than that his car was in the parking lot.
Very very true... and you'll get high praise, recommendations to others, and repeat business. Many people would be surprised at how taking the time to explain how to prevent a problem, or how something happened (in terms a customer can understand) goes a long way when combined with honest, good service.
Ya in general use, you find no problems. I'd place Vista 64-bit as having a compatibility between 99%-99.9% I've used all kinds of apps including engineering software, video editors, DAWs, game, compilers, and so on and nearly everything works without flaw....
Wow! That's impressive! So... Vista 32bit doesnt come close to achieving that level of backwards compatibility - yet Vista 64bit, which has the added problem of not dealing with most 16bit code in any software (just about anything except certain install code that it recognizes and can replace "on the fly"), is more compatible than the 32bit version?
That's amazing! Or, maybe the word I am looking for is impossible.
While such may be your experience, that does not mean that it is applicable to all. Because 99.9% of the time in February here, it's cold and dreary does not mean such is the case for those who live in Hawaii.
Now, replace the "you" above with "I" (in your post's first line) - and reword the rest accordingly to indicate you are talking about solely your experiences, and it makes a little more sense, but is still not indicative of the situation as a whole.
True, though OS/2 went a few steps further - including allowing multiple VMs running simultaneously, and each could be running different versions of DOS - all without them having to use virtual disks for storage or other functions.
And if VirtualBox continues in the direction it is going, then by the time this feature for Win7 gets out of beta, it will be running right into nice cross platform competition. Since I run various operating systems, I'd rather standardize on a VM technology that can run on all of them (*nix, OS/2, eComStation, and Windows).
Nah, doesnt really work that way. With tens of thousands (or is it hundreds of thousands as I read someplace else?) of these exploits out there for Windows XP, being secure against 85% isn't saying much. Compare that to the number of exploits out there for OpenBSD (times).01% (times) the number of possible attackers (which will give you a fraction of an exploit).
Yes, nothing is secure, but 85%/15% is not a good ratio when compared with the number of exploits times the number of already exploited machines out there that may be attacking said 85/15 machine.
I'd love to see that wired shot as video instead of a pic... get to see BallmerRun (to the chair the USAF was smart enough to keep as far away from him as possible).
I've actually been waiting for this to come out for quite some time - one of my friends did a bunch of the promotional stuff for them - the amazingly talented Jeff Hayes (check his "One Sheet Design" pages), whom I work with on Star Trek New Voyages. Hope this episode is as well done as his promotional graphics for it.
Let's say the Server Room and incoming connection are in "Room A" and the Office(s) in question are in "Room B-F" and between the two are a fireproof or structural wall with a hole for cables. Let's assume that this wall is 50'-100' from "Room A" and 50'-100' from "Rooms B-F"
Or let's assume it's a one off run with similar circumstances.
Nor do the clients want a switch on the "Room B-F" side of the structural wall with the switch located in the ceiling (where it cannot be gotten to without issue and will also require electrical run into the ceiling) or in a hallway or other room where such things should not be visible or accessible.
Or let's assume (like at a certain ambulance company that I do all the networking for) that their secondary building has a few inch diameter pipe running through the ground between buildings - even though a switch in the 2nd building would be fine, an RJ45 end on that cable between buildings will not fit through the pipe and make the bends in the pipe (down, 90 degrees, straight, 90 degrees, up). Nor will they go through the expense of digging up the concrete above the pipe simply so I can buy a pre-made cable and install it the "easy way"
In any of those scenarios (which are ones I run into quite often here where one "building" is actually 2-4 buildings cobbled together with doorways cut through cinderblock) - or it is two separate buildings with a limited size feed-through pipe; a patch panel and 10' cables are irrelevant.
While your post is true - and a method I am sure any legitimate company would want to go, the big difference is IBM can afford to spend millions on a lawsuit (and not bat an eye).
There lies a problem in our legal system. Often in cases like these, the company (or individual) with the least money (to spend on represenation) loses or gets forced to settle under unfavorable terms.
Microsoft has sued (in combination with other related activities) other companies out of existence in the past (Stac Electronics for one) - even when they were clearly in the wrong... maybe TomTom's route (no pun intended) was the best way for them.
Especially considering this is a market that Microsoft is showing interest in.
Very good point... though I guess that would depend on what concessions they had to make in the settlement. Wonder if we will ever know. And of course, there is the possibility that they are fighting the patent separately in the hopes of invalidating any concessions they were forced to make.
Slashdot Mirror
As a Web Developer, I'd have to say "me" :-)
I was going to laugh because this is probably true for most people in the US... then I realized that this wasnt funny because this is probably true for most people in the US. I think we need a "Sadly, humorously, funny" Mod...
You can run your own DNS servers... (this opens a lot of other possibilities for it's use as well - such as blocking certain sites at the DNS level, or setting up local domain entries for your internal network (without the expense of registering a domain name or three): just make sure you dont set such up using a real, existing domain name that you may at some time want to visit.
A Linux box with BIND or similar can be a cheap, old box and perform fantastically in this respect. An OS/2 box (if you've got some OS/2 disks or buy a copy of Warp 4 from eBay) can also be a cheap, and ancient box and perform amazingly (you dont need more than a P90 with 64MB RAM - I know... I did this for years for some decently high traffic domains (30,000 unique visits a day)). BIND is available for both OS/2 and Linux, as well as a number of other options for both.
.
You can use OpenDNS or a similar service...
(The formerly run by) UUNet name servers still work and accept connections from anywhere.
On this note, btw, it's not just small ISPs who are doing this... OptOnline is doing this in my area, and we are a business customer with a business connection.
Add to that equation that the serial number and other identifying marks are missing on the machine and I think you've hit the head right on the nail.
I have a feeling that the conversation really went "OK, can you provide me with the serial number of the machine so we can look it up to figure out what goes into it" "Umm, there is none... I bought it on eBay" "From our store? If not, we cant help you"
Of every time I call any of these companies for support, I'd say that 95% of the time, I am asked for a serial number (usually unless the request is horrendously mundane, or I am calling their parts ordering department directly, and knowing exactly what I need).
I kinda feel that "Chris" is distorting a lot of this story.
Why is that? They didnt specify the type or quality of the camcorder that should be used - nor how the video should be recorded using that camcorder, did they?
Hmmm... I think maybe getting a really nice camcorder with a high res or digital input to hook directly off the DVD player's output might just work - and get a decent quality too. And still fit in their guidelines.
Some Sony (pretty sure it was a Sony) I was looking at for a customer has such a setup (so you can merge other clips with what's on the camera to then "edit" into one thing and export to it's drive, memory or external DVD burner...)
With the shoddy "evidence" being allowed in most of these cases, how in the world are we to ever determine whether these lawsuits are legitimate?
Thus, I have a problem with it. I could care less if they started a new lawsuit every 10 seconds; as long as they had real evidence, legally obtained, followed proper legal methods for filing and continuing suit, and (the evidence was) legally used to fight their cases.
But of course, none of that is true.
we discontinued initiating new lawsuits in August.
And it is not August. :-)
Interestingly, there are some out there who think that banning things like this (paintball, violent games, etc) makes the situation worse. Some seem to claim that such methods of "unwinding" help give people an outlet for aggression in a manner not harmful to others - thus reducing the potential for actual violent acts against others or themselves.
Now... what do I think? I have no idea... I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist - and in my opinion, even those can only make general blanket statements that refer to certain groups (ie: depressed, always happy, or whatever) which still do not apply to everyone since the human creature, from person to person, is such a dynamic and different thing.
Inotherwords... aint gotta clue... just bringing it up. Though from my experience interacting with other human beings and even slashdotters, it does seem sensible that it would apply to a decent number of people. Seems everyone has some method they use to deal with anger... and a non-harmful outlet is better than bottling it up till it explodes.
What you mean is that I wont see this?!?!?!
People who pirate software make the world a less secure place nonsense.
You can say that what they do is illegal, immoral, not nice and that they should be shunned by polite society.
But they do not make the world "less safe".
Well, the truth is, I guess I should never post before I drink my morning cup of coffee... because I DID see that this morning, and I read it twice...
And STILL misread it. Now, with some coffee in my system... well, I seem to have read all the words this time.
Do you know those car interlock breathalyzer things (the ones that wont let a car start if someone's BAC is too high when they blow into it)? I think I need to find one for a computer that will only allow the keyboard to work if I have a certain caffeine level or higher in my bloodstream. :-)
So... my apologies... and you have a great weekend too...
C'mon... I thought that was quite funny... seems whoever moderated the above as "Troll" has no sense of humor. Didnt realize there were Vulcans with accounts on /.
I think he has to work for Microsoft... I seem to remember some statement that indicated such was the case (making the world less safe) - or maybe it was for some bill they were lobbying for to protect us... errrr... I mean their interests?
Not sure which, but I know I have seen that statement someplace attributed to them directly (a claim on how piracy hurts) or indirectly (lobbying).
Wrong - they are supporting users who ARE their customers (as well). That has nothing to do with who's fault it is that certain people run pirated software. By patching as many machines as possible (genuine or not) it means less machines are attacking or compromising others out there (genuine or not). That means less genuine machines are being attacked, and less genuine users (or other OS users) are watching bandwidth being eaten on their network segment (such as in the case of many cable users) because of unpatched zombie machines attacking anything and everything.
Gotta remember, Microsoft's failings in their OS is what caused this issue (unpatched machines being exploited). That has nothing to do with how many are pirated.
If such exploited machines (exploited due to Microsoft's programming defects) could not affect other (genuine) users, then I'd say you're somewhat closer to being right...
Better question is, in a month, where did he put the 20 bikes he rode home 5 days a week? Much less the over 200 bikes he must have collected in 10 months...
I'm guessing he works at a bike shop, and one day soon someone there will realize that their entire inventory has been mysteriously depleted...
:-)
Here's the funny thing - Dell was right by luck alone - or they had the customer pull the side panel to verify the drive was there/missing.
That error can also happen when (yes, they are rarer cases - but they do happen):
- A cable comes loose on a drive (seen it happen)
- A disk controller dies
- A BIOS setting gets "horrendously" screwed up (ie: IDE/SATA port shut off - I've bought older boards where that's the default - and I've had BIOS's that have reset themselves).
- A SATA/IDE cable goes (severely) bad.
- A channel on a "multi-channel" power supply dies (the one that the drive is on)
Of course, as I noted, those are a more rare cause of that message... or are they? Perhaps the number of drives that fail in one of those ways is actually greater than the number of drives stolen?
Wouldnt it (not) be funny if the controller on the drive died, and this guy simply replaced the drive and restored a backup he made when he was last there (and charged a fortune)? Or the controller died and he pulled a working one from the same model drive and replaced the dead one?
OK, maybe it's not likely... but then again, they dont seem sure they can even prove he stole the drive to begin with...
I wonder what the rest of the details in this are. Yeah, he's probably guilty... but there are other possibilities to this. I'd say they may end up needing a bit more proof than that his car was in the parking lot.
Very very true... and you'll get high praise, recommendations to others, and repeat business. Many people would be surprised at how taking the time to explain how to prevent a problem, or how something happened (in terms a customer can understand) goes a long way when combined with honest, good service.
Indeed I shall - and thank you.
Ya in general use, you find no problems. I'd place Vista 64-bit as having a compatibility between 99%-99.9% I've used all kinds of apps including engineering software, video editors, DAWs, game, compilers, and so on and nearly everything works without flaw....
Wow! That's impressive! So... Vista 32bit doesnt come close to achieving that level of backwards compatibility - yet Vista 64bit, which has the added problem of not dealing with most 16bit code in any software (just about anything except certain install code that it recognizes and can replace "on the fly"), is more compatible than the 32bit version?
That's amazing! Or, maybe the word I am looking for is impossible.
While such may be your experience, that does not mean that it is applicable to all. Because 99.9% of the time in February here, it's cold and dreary does not mean such is the case for those who live in Hawaii.
Now, replace the "you" above with "I" (in your post's first line) - and reword the rest accordingly to indicate you are talking about solely your experiences, and it makes a little more sense, but is still not indicative of the situation as a whole.
True, though OS/2 went a few steps further - including allowing multiple VMs running simultaneously, and each could be running different versions of DOS - all without them having to use virtual disks for storage or other functions.
And if VirtualBox continues in the direction it is going, then by the time this feature for Win7 gets out of beta, it will be running right into nice cross platform competition. Since I run various operating systems, I'd rather standardize on a VM technology that can run on all of them (*nix, OS/2, eComStation, and Windows).
Nah, doesnt really work that way. With tens of thousands (or is it hundreds of thousands as I read someplace else?) of these exploits out there for Windows XP, being secure against 85% isn't saying much. Compare that to the number of exploits out there for OpenBSD (times) .01% (times) the number of possible attackers (which will give you a fraction of an exploit).
Yes, nothing is secure, but 85%/15% is not a good ratio when compared with the number of exploits times the number of already exploited machines out there that may be attacking said 85/15 machine.
LoL!
I'd love to see that wired shot as video instead of a pic... get to see BallmerRun (to the chair the USAF was smart enough to keep as far away from him as possible).
Very true...
I've actually been waiting for this to come out for quite some time - one of my friends did a bunch of the promotional stuff for them - the amazingly talented Jeff Hayes (check his "One Sheet Design" pages), whom I work with on Star Trek New Voyages. Hope this episode is as well done as his promotional graphics for it.
Wrong... you simply misread my post.
Let's say the Server Room and incoming connection are in "Room A" and the Office(s) in question are in "Room B-F" and between the two are a fireproof or structural wall with a hole for cables. Let's assume that this wall is 50'-100' from "Room A" and 50'-100' from "Rooms B-F"
Or let's assume it's a one off run with similar circumstances.
Nor do the clients want a switch on the "Room B-F" side of the structural wall with the switch located in the ceiling (where it cannot be gotten to without issue and will also require electrical run into the ceiling) or in a hallway or other room where such things should not be visible or accessible.
Or let's assume (like at a certain ambulance company that I do all the networking for) that their secondary building has a few inch diameter pipe running through the ground between buildings - even though a switch in the 2nd building would be fine, an RJ45 end on that cable between buildings will not fit through the pipe and make the bends in the pipe (down, 90 degrees, straight, 90 degrees, up). Nor will they go through the expense of digging up the concrete above the pipe simply so I can buy a pre-made cable and install it the "easy way"
In any of those scenarios (which are ones I run into quite often here where one "building" is actually 2-4 buildings cobbled together with doorways cut through cinderblock) - or it is two separate buildings with a limited size feed-through pipe; a patch panel and 10' cables are irrelevant.
While your post is true - and a method I am sure any legitimate company would want to go, the big difference is IBM can afford to spend millions on a lawsuit (and not bat an eye).
There lies a problem in our legal system. Often in cases like these, the company (or individual) with the least money (to spend on represenation) loses or gets forced to settle under unfavorable terms.
Microsoft has sued (in combination with other related activities) other companies out of existence in the past (Stac Electronics for one) - even when they were clearly in the wrong... maybe TomTom's route (no pun intended) was the best way for them.
Especially considering this is a market that Microsoft is showing interest in.
My 2 year old niece is already gaining an appreciation for Iron Maiden and Star Trek... and soon most other forms of music.
Very good point... though I guess that would depend on what concessions they had to make in the settlement. Wonder if we will ever know. And of course, there is the possibility that they are fighting the patent separately in the hopes of invalidating any concessions they were forced to make.