Actually, IE4.5 (Mac version) allows cookies to be blocked by site. That would be my method if I didn't already have a firewall in place. And I've had very few rendering problems, BTW. --
Depending on your OS, you have a couple of options(listed in order from my most favorite to least favorite):
Use a program that replaces the contents of cookies to sites not specifically allowed with random data. This screws with their tracking and is fun, fun, fun! I am writing such a program for the Macintosh platform first, since that's what I primarily use; Linux support will follow RSN.
set up a firewall that drops all packets to and from *.doubleclick.net (firewalls are nice to have anyway, and there's firewall software for every OS on the market) This, BTW, is what I currently do.
Use Junkbusters or a similar proxy service. (Win, *nix only) There is also proxy software available for the Macintosh; basically, it sits between your Internet connection and your web browser and filters all the content you don't want (like ads). You can also use proxy software to block Javascript and anything else you don't want.
Get all the cookies from the sites you need cookies for (like your Slashdot login), then set the permissions on your cookies file to read-only.
Block all cookies. This will stop the tracking, but it will also break some sites.
Don't autoload images. Just load the images you want to see manually. Since the cookie is attached to the banner, you don't get the cookie unless you look at the banner.
It will place a cookie on your computer that'll let you opt out of doubleclick's tracking.
The thing is, do we want to trust Doubleclick not to track us personally, even after we opt out? I think it's less than prudent to put that kind of faith in a company that's been decieving us since last year.
A simpler (and more thorough) solution: block cookies from doubleclick.net. Hell, if you've got a firewall, block all packets to and from doubleclick.net. I, personally, can't see any reason to connect to a doubleclick server. Who wants the ads anyway? Same thing goes for preferences.com, flycast.com, and any other advertising company. I've been dropping all packets to and from the domains mentioned above, with no significant problems. Of course, I don't get to see those specially targeted banner ads, but I don't really think I'm missing out:) --
Apply it to the full University system, and off campus landlords will be rejoicing.
Not to mention the proprietors of local motels. My last two years in high school were at a boarding school with similarly draconian rules on opposite-sex visitation and Internet use. All the dorms had at least a few Ethernet jacks, but God forbid you should ever be caught hooking yourself up to the Net. All Internet use in the dorms was forbidden. Even small LANs used for gaming were strongly discouraged. You could literally be thrown out for having a member of the opposite sex in your room and getting caught more than once. Anyway, what happened was, everyone went either to the IM fields after dark or to the Econa-Tel right down the street. Nothing significant changed - we still got on the Internet late at night when nobody was around, and we were just out a few bucks for a motel room once in a while. --
I'm sure mp3.com owns all of the music in question.
That is not the issue - the issue is whether mp3.com is allowed to distribute its recorded mp3's under current copyright law. Yes, copyright law as it is currently written sucks. But it's the _law_. That means that it has to be followed unless and until it is changed, either through legislation or litigation. And what mp3.com is doing almost certainly violates copyright law. Furthermore, this is a horrible case on which to test copyright law, IMO - the RIAA will probably win because the legality of mp3.com's actions is questionable at best. Then they'll try to use this case as a precedent to subvert fair use in other applications (like ripping your own mp3's). I'll admit, it seems a little paranoid to be saying this, but I think paranoia is justified in dealing with RIAA and their ilk - they have demonstrated their ruthlessness and disregard for consumers' rights at every turn.
I guess me and my friends are either unknown, or we're the stuff of legend.
The only legends I ever heard about were Pat Gray and the rest of First Hill, back when they lived in 4th Bryan. Apparently they were quite the hellraisers. Of course, I also maybe didn't know the right people to hear about you...
I'm sure we vaguely know some people in common, at least.
That goes without saying. I'll name the first few people who come to mind and who are at State... Jon Stafford (my old roommate), Greg Barlow, Joshua Smith, Jeff Junker, a few others. Of course you knew the venerable Kolena and Chuck Britton - everyone knows them.
What was your take on the "FETC"?
hmm, let me think...
(Frederick was a real jerk, it's great that he's finally gone)
Couldn't have said it better myself. Much more dangerous to the school, though, are people like McSherry, who tend to stifle creativity among the computer literate at S+M. And McSherry's still standing.
Seriously, though, I think the ETC could be an immensely valuable resource - if they'd let the students use it. Granted, I haven't been there in a while, but when I was there, basically no students were allowed into the building, except occasionally for classes and assemblies. Scratch that - for one assembly. The one we had after Columbine. That was fun. Friedrick at his hypocritical worst. Ok, now that we're significantly offtopic, and no one else is reading this thread, I think it's best to continue via e-mail. Use the address in my user info, or attack@cs.dartmouth.edu works as well. --
Re:Yes, it is. Learn about shit before you post.
on
RIAA Sues MP3.com
·
· Score: 1
What makes this any different?
It's _not_ any different - that's the point! In both cases, there's a copyright violation going on. If you rip a friend's CD collection to MP3, you are violating copyright law by copying materials for which you are not licensed. If you borrow a friend's CD collection and get MP3.com to send you the corresponding MP3's, MP3.com is committing a copyright violation by distributing copyrighted material. In both cases, someone's breaking the law... --
Re:Before y'all get your panties in a twist...
on
RIAA Sues MP3.com
·
· Score: 2
Isn't the first issue you mention kind of like saying a bank is liable if you borrow a CD, burn a copy, and then put the CD is a safe-deposit box?
I don't see how. Borrowing a CD and burning a copy for yourself is the only copyright violation in that case. Therefore, you would be liable for burning the CD, if RIAA decided to go after you. And anyway, I said that the first issue was relatively weak. The second issue - verification of ownership - is significantly more damning, IMO. MP3.com simply does now require users to demonstrate ownership in any meaningful way. Therefore, MP3.com may be distributing copyrighted material to people who aren't licensed to use it. --
Re:Before y'all get your panties in a twist...
on
RIAA Sues MP3.com
·
· Score: 1
as long as the user demonstrates that they have it also by inserting it in the drive
That's precisely my point - simply inserting a CD in the drive once is not sufficient evidence of ownership. --
On the contrary! Because I own an album, I have every right to re-record the music in any format I choose.
Nobody disputes that. The problem is that MP3.com does not have a right to send you that data. Yes, you can rip a CD to MP3 and carry it with you; no, MP3.com cannot send you the MP3's just because you claim to own the disc.
More to the point--regardless of what they say is legal or illegal, the information contained on a CD once distributed can be considered in the public domain. It's data--once it's out there, it's out there, and there's no way to recover it.
Unfortunately, we need to regard what they say is legal or illegal; that's how the system works. Yeah, the system sucks sometimes, but it's what we're stuck with. And I think there does need to be at least some legal protection for creative work. Of course, that's just my opinion. --
Before y'all get your panties in a twist...
on
RIAA Sues MP3.com
·
· Score: 5
You should probably know what this lawsuit is about before automatically denouncing it. The RIAA may actually be on solid legal grounds here. The gist of the lawsuit is that MP3.com is now streaming MP3 files to anyone who has ever put the corresponding CD in their computer and registered it with MP3.com. Now, IANAL, but it seems to me that the RIAA might be justified in this lawsuit. Even the broadest interpretation of the "fair use" doctrine does not allow you to distribute copyrighted material to another party, even if it can be verified that the other party has a license to use that material. The RIAA will probably attack MP3.com on two grounds: first, that their verification system is weak; I can borrow a CD, pop it in my computer, give it back, and still be able to download the streaming MP3's. Second, even if it can be unambiguously determined that everyone who downloads a copyrighted MP3 from MP3.com does, in fact, have a license for that material, MP3.com is still on shaky legal grounds in that they are distributing copyrighted material without a license.
In short, I think the RIAA might actually have a case. If only they'd stick to pursuing those lawsuits in which they do have a case, rather than attacking CSS-auth and LiViD, we'd all be a lot happier. --
is not legal to compile a vast database of our member's sound recordings with no permission and no license.
In this case, "our members'" means "RIAA members," a.k.a. performers. It's not about making a list of what CDs people have, it's about compiling a library of MP3's and streaming them over the Internet to anyone who says they have the CD. I hate to say it, but RIAA may actually have the law on their side here. IANAL, but even the broadest definition of "fair use" would not cover distribution of MP3 files, IMO. It's a good bet that MP3.com will lose this one.
(offtopic) what year are you at State? A lot of my friends from high school went there... --
"Now really, Ms. Gross, I think it's a mistake for you to assume you're talking to a moron," said the judge, who pronounced Linux with a hard "i" and required a short briefing on the concept of linking.
The judge obviously has no understanding of the technical issues involved. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the RIAA had hand-picked this guy. He seems overly sympathetic to their rhetoric. Fortunately, the case will still have to be tried, giving EFF lawyers time to prepare a defense. Lawyers out there: Is there any way to request that a judge take himself off a case? This guy seems somewhat partial, if you ask me... --
P.S. Is it me or is Porn better looking than Eroitica? i.e., Penthouse Pet better looking than Playboy Bunny. (and it goes on from there)
I think it's just you. Maybe it's just that I find "porn" distasteful (I don't really need to see cumshots, etc.), but I seem to see, on average, much more beautiful people doing erotica than doing porn. To me, erotica == beautiful women (or men) showing off what they have, while porn == whatever decent-looking woman they can get to suck guys off and get reamed all day paired with whatever man is good at getting wood and producing "money shots" (I've been reading this book called Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man which has articles about men in the porn industry. Quite an interesting read, IMO). As always, though, it's a matter of personal preferance. I suggest moving this thread off/., as it is most definitely OT. E-mail me if you want to (my address is listed in my user prefs). --
if...we were all smart enough to do a little arithmetic
Therein lies the problem. Do you really think most people even _know_ the power rating of their microwaves? And even if they did, do you think the average consumer could be trusted not to screw it up? If companies started putting "hard" instructions like that on their boxes, people would complain all the time. Trust me, it's better this way. --
It is like we get to suspend the light speed limit for a few time factors of 10 just to make observations fit better.
not really. Objects are still moving away from each other at sublight speeds. It's just that the space _between_ them is expanding really, really fast during the inflation period, so the net result is that they get too far apart to be causally connected. Yes, it makes observations fit better, but we stay within the rules at all times.
I would encourage you to e-mail me if you want more information.
That's only true using the most simple transmission methods.
yes, and we would expect another civ. trying to communicate to use exactly those methods. If they're trying to communicate, they won't be making themselves difficult to detect... --
Oh, come on. Do you really think they care about the consumer? They were covering their own tails. They, not the consumer, have to pay for fraudulent use of credit cards. Visa was doing, plain and simple, exactly what was in their best interest. As for the abstraction problem, I'd be willing to bet that the merchant agreements specifically prohibit reselling the transaction services. Of course, I could be wrong...
bottom line: Visa cares about Visa. --
Re:Here's one - if anyone's interested
on
The GCHQ Challenge
·
· Score: 1
ok, I feel stupid. Disregard my previous post.
Re:Here's one - if anyone's interested
on
The GCHQ Challenge
·
· Score: 1
If you make a copy, that is theft - pure and simple - you have taken something which is not yours. You can try and hide your actions by cloaking it in phrases like 'making a backup', or it 'they won't notice' or whatever, but there can be no argument that it is theft.
um, last I checked, I can copy anything I please. In fact, I do make backups of every CD I buy, since CD-R's can be had for 50 cents apiece. It's only if I distribute something I copied that I break the law. That's what RIAA doesn't want you to know - they want you to believe that any form of copying is piracy, so you'll swallow their copy protection measures. I'm sorry if it sounds like nitpicking, but I felt compelled to clear that up...
Oh yeah, I forgot to include my experience that convinced me Ultimate was working. Please don't moderate this down as troll, 'cuz it's the truth. I was visiting a friend at Harvard one weekend, whose roommate happens to be dating Natalie Portman. I got up late on Saturday, stumbled off to the showers. I come walking in, wearing nothing but a towel. Natalie Portman looked at me, and I was actually proud that I had some muscles to show her. I'm not big, but I am cut. She's not quite as cute in real life, though. So anyway, I said "hi" and she said hello, and then I went to put some pants on, and then the three of us made small talk for a little while.
Simply cutting calories is not the best way to lose weight. If you eat less, your metabolism slows down, leaving you with less energy. If, however, you eat _more_ than you used to, or at least the same amount, and you make smart decisions like eliminating mayo, butter, Coke, etc. and you offset those extra calories you're eating with a nice aerobic sport (I highly recommend Ultimate Frisbee - there are club teams everywhere, it's non-contact, and it's a lot easier to do a good workout when you've got a team behind you), then your metabolism will increase, you'll have more energy, you'll lose weight, and you'll get some sunshine and fresh air - great for the soul.
wow, that was quite a run-on sentence. But you get my point. I would even, in fact, recommend Ultimate, along with a suitable weight training program, for the folks out there (like me) who are 6'1", 115 lbs. I'm steadily improving speed, strength, and muscle mass, and I feel great too.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, IE4.5 (Mac version) allows cookies to be blocked by site. That would be my method if I didn't already have a firewall in place. And I've had very few rendering problems, BTW.
--
Well, yes, on some extremely ad-heavy and poorly-designed sites that assumed the ads were there. Small price to pay...
--
- Use a program that replaces the contents of cookies to sites not specifically allowed with random data. This screws with their tracking and is fun, fun, fun! I am writing such a program for the Macintosh platform first, since that's what I primarily use; Linux support will follow RSN.
- set up a firewall that drops all packets to and from *.doubleclick.net (firewalls are nice to have anyway, and there's firewall software for every OS on the market) This, BTW, is what I currently do.
- Use Junkbusters or a similar proxy service. (Win, *nix only) There is also proxy software available for the Macintosh; basically, it sits between your Internet connection and your web browser and filters all the content you don't want (like ads). You can also use proxy software to block Javascript and anything else you don't want.
- Get all the cookies from the sites you need cookies for (like your Slashdot login), then set the permissions on your cookies file to read-only.
- Block all cookies. This will stop the tracking, but it will also break some sites.
- Don't autoload images. Just load the images you want to see manually. Since the cookie is attached to the banner, you don't get the cookie unless you look at the banner.
I hope that gave you some nice ideas...--
The thing is, do we want to trust Doubleclick not to track us personally, even after we opt out? I think it's less than prudent to put that kind of faith in a company that's been decieving us since last year.
A simpler (and more thorough) solution: block cookies from doubleclick.net. Hell, if you've got a firewall, block all packets to and from doubleclick.net. I, personally, can't see any reason to connect to a doubleclick server. Who wants the ads anyway? Same thing goes for preferences.com, flycast.com, and any other advertising company. I've been dropping all packets to and from the domains mentioned above, with no significant problems. Of course, I don't get to see those specially targeted banner ads, but I don't really think I'm missing out :)
--
Not to mention the proprietors of local motels. My last two years in high school were at a boarding school with similarly draconian rules on opposite-sex visitation and Internet use. All the dorms had at least a few Ethernet jacks, but God forbid you should ever be caught hooking yourself up to the Net. All Internet use in the dorms was forbidden. Even small LANs used for gaming were strongly discouraged. You could literally be thrown out for having a member of the opposite sex in your room and getting caught more than once. Anyway, what happened was, everyone went either to the IM fields after dark or to the Econa-Tel right down the street. Nothing significant changed - we still got on the Internet late at night when nobody was around, and we were just out a few bucks for a motel room once in a while.
--
That is not the issue - the issue is whether mp3.com is allowed to distribute its recorded mp3's under current copyright law. Yes, copyright law as it is currently written sucks. But it's the _law_. That means that it has to be followed unless and until it is changed, either through legislation or litigation. And what mp3.com is doing almost certainly violates copyright law. Furthermore, this is a horrible case on which to test copyright law, IMO - the RIAA will probably win because the legality of mp3.com's actions is questionable at best. Then they'll try to use this case as a precedent to subvert fair use in other applications (like ripping your own mp3's). I'll admit, it seems a little paranoid to be saying this, but I think paranoia is justified in dealing with RIAA and their ilk - they have demonstrated their ruthlessness and disregard for consumers' rights at every turn.
I guess me and my friends are either unknown, or we're the stuff of legend.
The only legends I ever heard about were Pat Gray and the rest of First Hill, back when they lived in 4th Bryan. Apparently they were quite the hellraisers. Of course, I also maybe didn't know the right people to hear about you...
I'm sure we vaguely know some people in common, at least.
That goes without saying. I'll name the first few people who come to mind and who are at State... Jon Stafford (my old roommate), Greg Barlow, Joshua Smith, Jeff Junker, a few others. Of course you knew the venerable Kolena and Chuck Britton - everyone knows them.
What was your take on the "FETC"?
hmm, let me think...
(Frederick was a real jerk, it's great that he's finally gone)
Couldn't have said it better myself. Much more dangerous to the school, though, are people like McSherry, who tend to stifle creativity among the computer literate at S+M. And McSherry's still standing.
Seriously, though, I think the ETC could be an immensely valuable resource - if they'd let the students use it. Granted, I haven't been there in a while, but when I was there, basically no students were allowed into the building, except occasionally for classes and assemblies. Scratch that - for one assembly. The one we had after Columbine. That was fun. Friedrick at his hypocritical worst. Ok, now that we're significantly offtopic, and no one else is reading this thread, I think it's best to continue via e-mail. Use the address in my user info, or attack@cs.dartmouth.edu works as well.
--
It's _not_ any different - that's the point! In both cases, there's a copyright violation going on. If you rip a friend's CD collection to MP3, you are violating copyright law by copying materials for which you are not licensed. If you borrow a friend's CD collection and get MP3.com to send you the corresponding MP3's, MP3.com is committing a copyright violation by distributing copyrighted material. In both cases, someone's breaking the law...
--
I don't see how. Borrowing a CD and burning a copy for yourself is the only copyright violation in that case. Therefore, you would be liable for burning the CD, if RIAA decided to go after you. And anyway, I said that the first issue was relatively weak. The second issue - verification of ownership - is significantly more damning, IMO. MP3.com simply does now require users to demonstrate ownership in any meaningful way. Therefore, MP3.com may be distributing copyrighted material to people who aren't licensed to use it.
--
That's precisely my point - simply inserting a CD in the drive once is not sufficient evidence of ownership.
--
Nobody disputes that. The problem is that MP3.com does not have a right to send you that data. Yes, you can rip a CD to MP3 and carry it with you; no, MP3.com cannot send you the MP3's just because you claim to own the disc.
More to the point--regardless of what they say is legal or illegal, the information contained on a CD once distributed can be considered in the public domain. It's data--once it's out there, it's out there, and there's no way to recover it.
Unfortunately, we need to regard what they say is legal or illegal; that's how the system works. Yeah, the system sucks sometimes, but it's what we're stuck with. And I think there does need to be at least some legal protection for creative work. Of course, that's just my opinion.
--
In short, I think the RIAA might actually have a case. If only they'd stick to pursuing those lawsuits in which they do have a case, rather than attacking CSS-auth and LiViD, we'd all be a lot happier.
--
In this case, "our members'" means "RIAA members," a.k.a. performers. It's not about making a list of what CDs people have, it's about compiling a library of MP3's and streaming them over the Internet to anyone who says they have the CD. I hate to say it, but RIAA may actually have the law on their side here. IANAL, but even the broadest definition of "fair use" would not cover distribution of MP3 files, IMO. It's a good bet that MP3.com will lose this one.
(offtopic) what year are you at State? A lot of my friends from high school went there...
--
The judge obviously has no understanding of the technical issues involved. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the RIAA had hand-picked this guy. He seems overly sympathetic to their rhetoric. Fortunately, the case will still have to be tried, giving EFF lawyers time to prepare a defense. Lawyers out there: Is there any way to request that a judge take himself off a case? This guy seems somewhat partial, if you ask me...
--
I think it's just you. Maybe it's just that I find "porn" distasteful (I don't really need to see cumshots, etc.), but I seem to see, on average, much more beautiful people doing erotica than doing porn. To me, erotica == beautiful women (or men) showing off what they have, while porn == whatever decent-looking woman they can get to suck guys off and get reamed all day paired with whatever man is good at getting wood and producing "money shots" (I've been reading this book called Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man which has articles about men in the porn industry. Quite an interesting read, IMO). As always, though, it's a matter of personal preferance. I suggest moving this thread off /., as it is most definitely OT. E-mail me if you want to (my address is listed in my user prefs).
--
methinks you're looking at the static page, which has not yet been updated...
--
I hope it's some museum doing the bidding...
--
Therein lies the problem. Do you really think most people even _know_ the power rating of their microwaves? And even if they did, do you think the average consumer could be trusted not to screw it up? If companies started putting "hard" instructions like that on their boxes, people would complain all the time. Trust me, it's better this way.
--
not really. Objects are still moving away from each other at sublight speeds. It's just that the space _between_ them is expanding really, really fast during the inflation period, so the net result is that they get too far apart to be causally connected. Yes, it makes observations fit better, but we stay within the rules at all times.
I would encourage you to e-mail me if you want more information.
yes, and we would expect another civ. trying to communicate to use exactly those methods. If they're trying to communicate, they won't be making themselves difficult to detect...
--
Oh, come on. Do you really think they care about the consumer? They were covering their own tails. They, not the consumer, have to pay for fraudulent use of credit cards. Visa was doing, plain and simple, exactly what was in their best interest. As for the abstraction problem, I'd be willing to bet that the merchant agreements specifically prohibit reselling the transaction services. Of course, I could be wrong...
bottom line: Visa cares about Visa.
--
ok, I feel stupid. Disregard my previous post.
YOUFO
NDITN
OWAPP
LYFOR
AJOB!
25 characters.
um, last I checked, I can copy anything I please. In fact, I do make backups of every CD I buy, since CD-R's can be had for 50 cents apiece. It's only if I distribute something I copied that I break the law. That's what RIAA doesn't want you to know - they want you to believe that any form of copying is piracy, so you'll swallow their copy protection measures. I'm sorry if it sounds like nitpicking, but I felt compelled to clear that up...
Oh yeah, I forgot to include my experience that convinced me Ultimate was working. Please don't moderate this down as troll, 'cuz it's the truth. I was visiting a friend at Harvard one weekend, whose roommate happens to be dating Natalie Portman. I got up late on Saturday, stumbled off to the showers. I come walking in, wearing nothing but a towel. Natalie Portman looked at me, and I was actually proud that I had some muscles to show her. I'm not big, but I am cut. She's not quite as cute in real life, though. So anyway, I said "hi" and she said hello, and then I went to put some pants on, and then the three of us made small talk for a little while.
wow, that was quite a run-on sentence. But you get my point. I would even, in fact, recommend Ultimate, along with a suitable weight training program, for the folks out there (like me) who are 6'1", 115 lbs. I'm steadily improving speed, strength, and muscle mass, and I feel great too.