With a caymen Islands server and bank account as a front, and secure connections going both ways (ie no way to tie the account to the person), its impossible to prove WHO is running it.
That is, indeed, the whole point. The money is there, it can be accessed in some ways. Only when it comes into the persons hands in a traceable manner does it need to be reported as income.
The only real danger is in being turned in by people who find out.
All your really doing is cheating the government out of money that they arn't entitled to in the first place.
Thats a good point. However, it is the old "Common Carrier" argument. Phone companies can't be held responsible if the phone system is used to plan or commit a crime. They carry all traffic equally and can't possibly monitor all calls.
The same could be said of ISPs and usenet. Mp3.com however is NOT the same at all. They were distributing content on purpose. The question is whether what they did was a violation of copyright.
This argument would be more applicable to napster.
Well lets be honest now... Earthlink had the permission of the copyright holders to do that. They were acting as a publisher. Or maybe more as a distributor? The Internet blurrs the line between them.
However, I agree that this is silly. This is yet another example of copyright being perverted from its original intent, into a weapon that large corperations can use to beat people about the head.
This service was, very simply, a way for a person to "store" their CD collection in a cental location, so they could listen to it from anywehre. The fact that it was done by making copies of CDs centrally and having people "prove" that they have an exact copy to facillitate this, is a mere technical detail of the system.
At no point did anyone have access to anything that they normally would not have had access too. They were not giving people copies of anything that they didn't already have copies of.
The fact that they were accessing a copy made by MP3.com on an mp3.com server instead of their own copy, should be irrelevant. Its, truely, a minor technical detail. It is, in effect, no different from a person burning CD copies of their collection to listen to at work (or ripping MP3s for work).
While very true....the whole forms a hardware device. It really becomes somewhat silly at this level.
Actually software is specifically loaded from a device, can be copied etc. This is firmware. For all intents and purposes (unless your a PIC programmer), it is part of the hardware.
Is that enough to make an EULA apply? Is outlawing reverse engineering from an EULA even legal? It certainly hasn't been tested in court yet.
Personally I think this is silly. No matter what any EULA or Law says...it is my RIGHT as a consumer to take things apart and use them in whatever manner that I see fit.
Besides, unless they want to claim ownership of the physical hardware, then they have no right to tell a person what they can do with it
I think its time to change the law to say that ALL contracts of ALL types are required to be signed contracts....get rid of this shrink-wrap bull shit.
I hereby state that anyone who reads this post is bound to give me 1 million dollars, or kill themselves.
Do you think that you are bound by this now?
Shrink-wrap licences may have some legal force for software. However, that is because copyright law was specifically added to recently to give them more force.
This hardware itself is NOT a peice of software. It is not covered by the same law. The shrink-wrap licence of this type has no force. It can ONLY apply to the software.
Yes I am getting the clue that you are trying to draw an unwarrented parallel.
Yes, DVDs can be looked at as a peice of hardware. However thats besides the point. It has nothing to do with the barcode readers whatsoever.
In this case, the barcode reader is akin to the DVD Drive, not the disk (as it is not obtained for the information that it contains, it is a reader of information).
Reverse engineering hardware is, in most places, perfectly legal. Publishing how it works, or releaseing software on how it works is also perfectly legal. At BEST what they have is a "Trade Secret". If a person discoveres their "Trade Secret" without going through improper channels (like a leak within their organization), then they have NO legal resource for protecting it.
There is NO copyright, trademark, or Patent issue here. It is simply an issue of a company that is either A) Clueless about what they really can legally protect. or B) A malicous company that is lieing to people and bluffing legally in an attempt to threaten away developers.
Your attempt to compare it to DVDs is completely foundationless.
hmmmm ok I can see EULAs for software, its a standard insudtry practice, and there is even law now that makes shrink wrap licences semi-legitimate for scopyrighted works.
However...this is hardware. A Physical device. It is not a copyrighted work. So wouldn't any such type of licence legally require them to go through some measure of proper contract procedure?
Do you have to sign anything to get one of these readers? If they don't make it CLEAR ahead of time, then its their own fault for being stupid.
Personally though, I have to agree, this idea of moving on to a future where corperations own everything and we just licence it, gives me extreme nausea.
I guess its their world, we are just living in it.
Doesn't it really depend on what judge you get, how good your lawyers are, how good their lawyers are...the phase of the moon, and what judge you get on the apeals...yadda yadda...who currently makes up the supreme court etc...
Nothing is totally for sure when it comes to law.
Well nothing except the fact that your tax dollars are paying for it to happen
-Steve
Which as I remember is because OpenBSD comes with everything turned off. Meaning that you install it...now you have to go through and enable shit and turn things on.
From the installing admin POV, there is little difference between installing a system and locking it down...and installing a completely locked system and opening it up. Its going to be the same amount of work either way, and either way its something that you have to do. (or at least you better believe that you have to do)
I dunno...im all for letting people be lazy and shoot themselves in the foot...afterall if thats what you want to do, thats fine.
Again, you need password hashes to crack before you can begin cracking them. Getting them is usually harder than cracking the box in other ways.
Users still wont use secure passwords. You try to force them to, and they will just write their password down under their keyboard.
Yea MD5 passwords are MUCh better. However they are NOT a huge deal. The majority of attacks do not come from someone getting a copy of the shadow file.
Besides...it was just a defult anytway...changing th esystem to use the MD5s is trivial. I did it, my systems use them.
Bottom line: If you don't want to use crypt, don't. It is silly to criticize debian for giving you a choice! It is, afterall, a choice.
Ok...the umask is permissive and user home dirs have read and execute bits by default. All this means is that users need to be carful. I have no problem with that....thats not a real security flaw. Its just something that the author doesn't like.
MD5/crypt passwords. Yup ok thats kind of a silly default these days. Of course IMHO crypt is good enough. An attacker practically needs to compromise root just to get the shadow file anyway!
Lilo is setup to allow command line options. Yea so? Doesn't that make sense after a first instal? Exploiting it requires physical box access, at that point 99.9% of machines can be compromised by throwing a root disk in the floppy drive and hitting cntl-alt-del anyway. Besides....after a fresh install you may want that, lock it down after its working right!
Face it....ANY system, out of the box, needs to be secured.
As for Apache....he complains that it being 1.3.9 rather than 1.3.12. Well Debian has been in freeze for a while. That means "NO NEW CODE", unless there is a security fix. Is that apache upgrade a security fix? If not, then its right to not ship it.
PROFTPd, no clue, would have to ask the maintainer as to why it wasn't done. A look at the Debian BTS shows a root compromise bug fixed...perhaps they just patched the problem in the old version. That way fixing the security issue without introducing any more NEW CODE than is absolutly needed (it was during a freeze).
This is probably the case for several other deamons. He should check and make sure that the system is actually vulnerable before he goes around reporting that it is. Of course without a complete list of which "insecure deamons" he found, its hard to refute is claim that there are "lots".
As for xchat...no clue. I don't use it. Looking through the bug report logs now, I don't see any bugs mentioning this, perhaps noone reported this bug that he is complaining about. He could I dunno, report the bug! What a concept.
> Debian has also ignored a lot of work other
> vendors have put into making their distributions
> more secure.
Eiither that or some author has completely ignored changlog files and bugreports...and feels the need to fault the system for not having the defaults that HE likes. Not like they arn't changeable.
> Nope, my copy of the OED traces the use of the
> word piracy in relation to the unauthorized
> taking of someone else's written work to the
> 15th century.
Really quite interesting. I still think its an improper word. The idea of associating unauthorized copying with armed robbery and murder is really very silly. There is quite a difference between copying a written work and slaughtering the hands on a ship and taking its cargo.
> Sorry, you pro-theft (oh, I mean't um, sharing)
> people need to come up with a new argument...
Pro-theft...nice. I have never advocated theft.
All I said was that what he was talking about would probably actually fall under fair use.
So fair use is theft now? You don't happen to work for the RIAA do you?
> The SECOND you put that textbook in machine
> readable format... I'm making FREE copies
> for everyone. And since it's, by definition,
> "FOR NON-PROFIT EDUCATIONAL USE", you can't
> even sue me. So ha! It's not even piracy.
Well of course not. Afterall isn't piracy theft and murder on the high seas?
But there is a good point here. "Fair Use" clearly says that making copies for non-profit educational use is explicitly allowed.
Of course then again...they CAN always sue you, hell you don't even have to do anything to be sued. The question is whether they could win a suit against you for it.
> But don't you think one of the biggest reasons
> for their success was their affirmation of "no
> advertisements, ever"
No. I, for one, never knew about that.
> and simply but effectively designed UI (=fast).
> At least I started using Google because of those
> reasons.
Yes, Google is great because they have the best search engine. Personally, I don't mind ads (for banner ads I use junkbuster anyway). As long as they are fast and work, I am happy.
That main reason I stopped using altavista was well 2 reasons. i
1) They announced that they would start allowing companies to "Buy position" ie pay for keywords so that they could get ranked higher (thus allow companies to pay money to make my search results less relavent...nice) - whether they did this or not...well their search results are bad enough now that it seems they may have
2) Google was better, ffaster, and more likely to come up with relavent hits. Thats gone slightly downhill. Maybe because I search for different things than I used to, but I no longer "Feel lucky" these days. On the whole...usually google has good results.
Ads I don't mind. Allowing companies to buy keywords such that they are at the top is fine...if they put them in a box that shows clearly "these arn't really search results" (I believe they do that or did that for a while? was that someone else).
Your making the assumption that the "Evolutionary Process" is a process that is heading towards a specific goal. As if the process has some sort of will, some plan.
Natural selection is truely a simple concept, and can be summed up in 2 statments:
1) Change happens
2) Organisms that can survive and multiply better than others, will do so.
The ice age comes, any animals that can survive in extreme cold will survive. They will adapt to it. Animals with genes for thicker fur and better metabolism will survive and pass on those genes more readily than those that don't have them.
Its simply a model for application to situations. You could say that the environment became unfavorable to these tigers, as they had more predators. They were unable to adapt in time to survive these predators.
Thats no moral judgement. That doesn't mean the tigers shouldn't exist because they were unable to survive hunting. It just means that they didn't.
Nature isn't moral. It just is.
Re:Didn't answer my question...
on
Men of Zeal
·
· Score: 2
An RMS is Root Mean Squared. When someone says the voltage is "110 volts" they really mean the RMS is 110. See alternating current is a constantly changing voltage, up and down. Its not a constant current. The RMS is the effective voltage of the current, which is somewhat less than the peak.
Oh yea...and RMS is a weird guy who used to sleep under his desk. Sometimes credited incorrectly with inventing free software in the same way that MArx is often credited with starting communism.... just because they both wrote some manifesto:)
Course RMS also was the original author of EMACS and other things. hmmm wait... so thats RMS. I would guess "a rms" would be an instantiation of RMS. I never knew that he was into cloning.....
Oh yea and as an aside...I was just doing some sniffing of web transactions so that I can automate a certain annoying web form that I have to use on a regular basis...
I like junkbuster...until mozilla lets me tell it to do this:
> after repeated warnings and the fear that the
> web is quite possibly the best tool child
> molestors have
Actually, the best tool they have is still their car (or their collar). Really, the major problem is in real life flesh meetings, not web chat.
I would prefer to see kids being taught practical personal safety. Stuff like, if your going to meet someone in the flesh who you met online, bring a freind (preferably older and male) or a parent. Meet in a public place during the day. Real stuff that can be used.
This is exactly what works too. A few years ago I was in a job that onvolved travel for a few months. I realized that I would be doing some wokr one night a few miles from an online friend. She was 16 at the time and we decided to meet in the store that I was going to be upgrading a little while before I was going to be getting started.
She showed up with an older friend. We talked and had fun for a bit. Worked out fine. Nice public place, lots of people (and security cameras) around. Even if I wanted to, I couldn't have done anything to her and made it out of the area without being caught.
Of course that doesn't take on the real concern. Sex is an "Adult thing" and parents fear their children growing up. Thats another problem entirely and is not solved by dodging the problem of teaching people to be concerned and aware of their own safety.
Course...its not solved by preaching to the choir either. Oh well.
ANY site that you put there will work. I know, I just tested it with a site of mine....one sitting on the other end of my DSL link, the one I edited yesterday.
I assure you, if Akamai is caching my site, they are doing it without my knowledge...I never contacted them and asked them to.
Interestingly...my junkbuster proxy doesn't block this...I thought I added akamai a few days ago.... (I certainly added adfu.blockstackers.com and slashdots/banner;) )
> my 13 year old sis recently got into some adult
> level chats with some questionable
> people. the result? no unsupervised PC usage
> (yeah, my mom actually sits there as she does
> homework research) and some stearn talk about
> the world, people, and growing up.
I never did understand that attitude. It seems to me that the entire issue of "Protecting children" stems more from the irrational fears of parents than anything else.
I had playboy mags under my bed and was jerking off daily by the time I was 12. Most people that I know were pretty much the same story. A little pornography fueled sexual fantasy never hurt anyone.
Guess I just never understood the mentality of wanting to stop another person from doing something because I dislike what they are doing. Course I have also been a believer in the old "Let the kid grab the hot dish, he wont do it twice, its how ya learn".
IMHO, Politicians talk about issues just to play
the role of Presidential Canidate. People rarely
vote for people based on the issues that they bring up. For example, the tallest Presidential canidate has won every election since the advent of TV
This partially sums up why I refuse to vote (that and moral objections to putting individuals into positions of power).
Its all a game of "who can come off sounding the smartest". Just smile, look pretty, and don't say anything that pisses too many people off. My favorite Gore quote was when he was asked by a little kid "Whats your favorite car?"
His response?
"OH I don't know, something made by the United Union of Auto Workers". Yea. and American car of course...any one really yea. If he said the Buick LeSaber, that would offend everyone working at Ford. Lets just go with the safe answer.
They never say anything of substance. Just lots of catchy phrases and sweeping proclaimations about getting tough on crime and protecting the children.
Democrat, republican. They are the only real choices, noone else stands a chance (they grow larger, they stand more of a chance every year, but still...no real chance...and will they be any different when they come to power?...its easy to talk of ideals when your the little guy). Gore or Bush? Are they different enough that you can even call that a choice?
All I am left with is hoping that, for my own entertainment, Bush will win and will have the decency to do what Reagan was too inconsiderate not to do - die in office like Lincoln FDR and all the others in the "Zero Year Club".
I figure that entertainment value is the only value left in Government at all.
--Steve
Slashdot Mirror
What taxes?
With a caymen Islands server and bank account as a front, and secure connections going both ways (ie no way to tie the account to the person), its impossible to prove WHO is running it.
That is, indeed, the whole point. The money is there, it can be accessed in some ways. Only when it comes into the persons hands in a traceable manner does it need to be reported as income.
The only real danger is in being turned in by people who find out.
All your really doing is cheating the government out of money that they arn't entitled to in the first place.
Thats a good point. However, it is the old "Common Carrier" argument. Phone companies can't be held responsible if the phone system is used to plan or commit a crime. They carry all traffic equally and can't possibly monitor all calls.
The same could be said of ISPs and usenet. Mp3.com however is NOT the same at all. They were distributing content on purpose. The question is whether what they did was a violation of copyright.
This argument would be more applicable to napster.
-Steve
Well lets be honest now... Earthlink had the permission of the copyright holders to do that. They were acting as a publisher. Or maybe more as a distributor? The Internet blurrs the line between them.
However, I agree that this is silly. This is yet another example of copyright being perverted from its original intent, into a weapon that large corperations can use to beat people about the head.
This service was, very simply, a way for a person to "store" their CD collection in a cental location, so they could listen to it from anywehre. The fact that it was done by making copies of CDs centrally and having people "prove" that they have an exact copy to facillitate this, is a mere technical detail of the system.
At no point did anyone have access to anything that they normally would not have had access too. They were not giving people copies of anything that they didn't already have copies of.
The fact that they were accessing a copy made by MP3.com on an mp3.com server instead of their own copy, should be irrelevant. Its, truely, a minor technical detail. It is, in effect, no different from a person burning CD copies of their collection to listen to at work (or ripping MP3s for work).
--Steve
While very true....the whole forms a hardware device. It really becomes somewhat silly at this level.
Actually software is specifically loaded from a device, can be copied etc. This is firmware. For all intents and purposes (unless your a PIC programmer), it is part of the hardware.
Is that enough to make an EULA apply? Is outlawing reverse engineering from an EULA even legal? It certainly hasn't been tested in court yet.
Personally I think this is silly. No matter what any EULA or Law says...it is my RIGHT as a consumer to take things apart and use them in whatever manner that I see fit.
Besides, unless they want to claim ownership of the physical hardware, then they have no right to tell a person what they can do with it
I think its time to change the law to say that ALL contracts of ALL types are required to be signed contracts....get rid of this shrink-wrap bull shit.
--Steve
So what?
I hereby state that anyone who reads this post is bound to give me 1 million dollars, or kill themselves.
Do you think that you are bound by this now?
Shrink-wrap licences may have some legal force for software. However, that is because copyright law was specifically added to recently to give them more force.
This hardware itself is NOT a peice of software. It is not covered by the same law. The shrink-wrap licence of this type has no force. It can ONLY apply to the software.
--Steve
> Getting a clue?
Yes I am getting the clue that you are trying to draw an unwarrented parallel.
Yes, DVDs can be looked at as a peice of hardware. However thats besides the point. It has nothing to do with the barcode readers whatsoever.
In this case, the barcode reader is akin to the DVD Drive, not the disk (as it is not obtained for the information that it contains, it is a reader of information).
Reverse engineering hardware is, in most places, perfectly legal. Publishing how it works, or releaseing software on how it works is also perfectly legal. At BEST what they have is a "Trade Secret". If a person discoveres their "Trade Secret" without going through improper channels (like a leak within their organization), then they have NO legal resource for protecting it.
There is NO copyright, trademark, or Patent issue here. It is simply an issue of a company that is either A) Clueless about what they really can legally protect. or B) A malicous company that is lieing to people and bluffing legally in an attempt to threaten away developers.
Your attempt to compare it to DVDs is completely foundationless.
Ok...your talking about Audio CDs obviously.
Whats your point? Did you even have one?
-Steve
hmmmm ok I can see EULAs for software, its a standard insudtry practice, and there is even law now that makes shrink wrap licences semi-legitimate for scopyrighted works.
However...this is hardware. A Physical device. It is not a copyrighted work. So wouldn't any such type of licence legally require them to go through some measure of proper contract procedure?
Do you have to sign anything to get one of these readers? If they don't make it CLEAR ahead of time, then its their own fault for being stupid.
Personally though, I have to agree, this idea of moving on to a future where corperations own everything and we just licence it, gives me extreme nausea.
I guess its their world, we are just living in it.
-Steve
Could setup a second domain just for personal email and give all employees the option of setting up an adress there.
Then stipulate that the real company name adress is ONLY for offical things, like answering support questions, contacting vendors etc.
Will anything EVER cover you "Legally for sure"?
Doesn't it really depend on what judge you get, how good your lawyers are, how good their lawyers are...the phase of the moon, and what judge you get on the apeals...yadda yadda...who currently makes up the supreme court etc...
Nothing is totally for sure when it comes to law.
Well nothing except the fact that your tax dollars are paying for it to happen
-Steve
Which as I remember is because OpenBSD comes with everything turned off. Meaning that you install it...now you have to go through and enable shit and turn things on.
From the installing admin POV, there is little difference between installing a system and locking it down...and installing a completely locked system and opening it up. Its going to be the same amount of work either way, and either way its something that you have to do. (or at least you better believe that you have to do)
I dunno...im all for letting people be lazy and shoot themselves in the foot...afterall if thats what you want to do, thats fine.
-Steve
While true....its not all that big of an issue.
Again, you need password hashes to crack before you can begin cracking them. Getting them is usually harder than cracking the box in other ways.
Users still wont use secure passwords. You try to force them to, and they will just write their password down under their keyboard.
Yea MD5 passwords are MUCh better. However they are NOT a huge deal. The majority of attacks do not come from someone getting a copy of the shadow file.
Besides...it was just a defult anytway...changing th esystem to use the MD5s is trivial. I did it, my systems use them.
Bottom line: If you don't want to use crypt, don't. It is silly to criticize debian for giving you a choice! It is, afterall, a choice.
--Steve
Ok...the umask is permissive and user home dirs have read and execute bits by default. All this means is that users need to be carful. I have no problem with that....thats not a real security flaw. Its just something that the author doesn't like.
MD5/crypt passwords. Yup ok thats kind of a silly default these days. Of course IMHO crypt is good enough. An attacker practically needs to compromise root just to get the shadow file anyway!
Lilo is setup to allow command line options. Yea so? Doesn't that make sense after a first instal? Exploiting it requires physical box access, at that point 99.9% of machines can be compromised by throwing a root disk in the floppy drive and hitting cntl-alt-del anyway. Besides....after a fresh install you may want that, lock it down after its working right!
Face it....ANY system, out of the box, needs to be secured.
As for Apache....he complains that it being 1.3.9 rather than 1.3.12. Well Debian has been in freeze for a while. That means "NO NEW CODE", unless there is a security fix. Is that apache upgrade a security fix? If not, then its right to not ship it.
PROFTPd, no clue, would have to ask the maintainer as to why it wasn't done. A look at the Debian BTS shows a root compromise bug fixed...perhaps they just patched the problem in the old version. That way fixing the security issue without introducing any more NEW CODE than is absolutly needed (it was during a freeze).
This is probably the case for several other deamons. He should check and make sure that the system is actually vulnerable before he goes around reporting that it is. Of course without a complete list of which "insecure deamons" he found, its hard to refute is claim that there are "lots".
As for xchat...no clue. I don't use it. Looking through the bug report logs now, I don't see any bugs mentioning this, perhaps noone reported this bug that he is complaining about. He could I dunno, report the bug! What a concept.
> Debian has also ignored a lot of work other
> vendors have put into making their distributions
> more secure.
Eiither that or some author has completely ignored changlog files and bugreports...and feels the need to fault the system for not having the defaults that HE likes. Not like they arn't changeable.
> Nope, my copy of the OED traces the use of the
> word piracy in relation to the unauthorized
> taking of someone else's written work to the
> 15th century.
Really quite interesting. I still think its an improper word. The idea of associating unauthorized copying with armed robbery and murder is really very silly. There is quite a difference between copying a written work and slaughtering the hands on a ship and taking its cargo.
> Sorry, you pro-theft (oh, I mean't um, sharing)
> people need to come up with a new argument...
Pro-theft...nice. I have never advocated theft.
All I said was that what he was talking about would probably actually fall under fair use.
So fair use is theft now? You don't happen to work for the RIAA do you?
-Steve
> The SECOND you put that textbook in machine
> readable format... I'm making FREE copies
> for everyone. And since it's, by definition,
> "FOR NON-PROFIT EDUCATIONAL USE", you can't
> even sue me. So ha! It's not even piracy.
Well of course not. Afterall isn't piracy theft and murder on the high seas?
But there is a good point here. "Fair Use" clearly says that making copies for non-profit educational use is explicitly allowed.
Of course then again...they CAN always sue you, hell you don't even have to do anything to be sued. The question is whether they could win a suit against you for it.
> But don't you think one of the biggest reasons
> for their success was their affirmation of "no
> advertisements, ever"
No. I, for one, never knew about that.
> and simply but effectively designed UI (=fast).
> At least I started using Google because of those
> reasons.
Yes, Google is great because they have the best search engine. Personally, I don't mind ads (for banner ads I use junkbuster anyway). As long as they are fast and work, I am happy.
That main reason I stopped using altavista was well 2 reasons. i
1) They announced that they would start allowing companies to "Buy position" ie pay for keywords so that they could get ranked higher (thus allow companies to pay money to make my search results less relavent...nice) - whether they did this or not...well their search results are bad enough now that it seems they may have
2) Google was better, ffaster, and more likely to come up with relavent hits. Thats gone slightly downhill. Maybe because I search for different things than I used to, but I no longer "Feel lucky" these days. On the whole...usually google has good results.
Ads I don't mind. Allowing companies to buy keywords such that they are at the top is fine...if they put them in a box that shows clearly "these arn't really search results" (I believe they do that or did that for a while? was that someone else).
Your making the assumption that the "Evolutionary Process" is a process that is heading towards a specific goal. As if the process has some sort of will, some plan.
Natural selection is truely a simple concept, and can be summed up in 2 statments:
1) Change happens
2) Organisms that can survive and multiply better than others, will do so.
The ice age comes, any animals that can survive in extreme cold will survive. They will adapt to it. Animals with genes for thicker fur and better metabolism will survive and pass on those genes more readily than those that don't have them.
Its simply a model for application to situations. You could say that the environment became unfavorable to these tigers, as they had more predators. They were unable to adapt in time to survive these predators.
Thats no moral judgement. That doesn't mean the tigers shouldn't exist because they were unable to survive hunting. It just means that they didn't.
Nature isn't moral. It just is.
An RMS is Root Mean Squared. When someone says the voltage is "110 volts" they really mean the RMS is 110. See alternating current is a constantly changing voltage, up and down. Its not a constant current. The RMS is the effective voltage of the current, which is somewhat less than the peak.
:)
;)
Oh yea...and RMS is a weird guy who used to sleep under his desk. Sometimes credited incorrectly with inventing free software in the same way that MArx is often credited with starting communism.... just because they both wrote some manifesto
Course RMS also was the original author of EMACS and other things. hmmm wait... so thats RMS. I would guess "a rms" would be an instantiation of RMS. I never knew that he was into cloning.....
Somehow though, I think you knew that
Oh yea and as an aside...I was just doing some sniffing of web transactions so that I can automate a certain annoying web form that I have to use on a regular basis...
:)
I like junkbuster...until mozilla lets me tell it to do this:
User-Agent: WebBrowser/1.0 (CP/M; 7 bit)
I will continue to use junkbuster
> after repeated warnings and the fear that the
> web is quite possibly the best tool child
> molestors have
Actually, the best tool they have is still their car (or their collar). Really, the major problem is in real life flesh meetings, not web chat.
I would prefer to see kids being taught practical personal safety. Stuff like, if your going to meet someone in the flesh who you met online, bring a freind (preferably older and male) or a parent. Meet in a public place during the day. Real stuff that can be used.
This is exactly what works too. A few years ago I was in a job that onvolved travel for a few months. I realized that I would be doing some wokr one night a few miles from an online friend. She was 16 at the time and we decided to meet in the store that I was going to be upgrading a little while before I was going to be getting started.
She showed up with an older friend. We talked and had fun for a bit. Worked out fine. Nice public place, lots of people (and security cameras) around. Even if I wanted to, I couldn't have done anything to her and made it out of the area without being caught.
Of course that doesn't take on the real concern. Sex is an "Adult thing" and parents fear their children growing up. Thats another problem entirely and is not solved by dodging the problem of teaching people to be concerned and aware of their own safety.
Course...its not solved by preaching to the choir either. Oh well.
I know this....however I kinda like the proxy
Also I like being able to get images from a different server as the page is loading (in fact, I can think of several situations where it is useful)
Anyway...I have Mozilla m17 its nice but I still use netscape for most things. Am planning to start switching. - havn't yet though.
Incorrect.
/banner ;) )
ANY site that you put there will work. I know, I just tested it with a site of mine....one sitting on the other end of my DSL link, the one I edited yesterday.
I assure you, if Akamai is caching my site, they are doing it without my knowledge...I never contacted them and asked them to.
Interestingly...my junkbuster proxy doesn't block this...I thought I added akamai a few days ago.... (I certainly added adfu.blockstackers.com and slashdots
> my 13 year old sis recently got into some adult
> level chats with some questionable
> people. the result? no unsupervised PC usage
> (yeah, my mom actually sits there as she does
> homework research) and some stearn talk about
> the world, people, and growing up.
I never did understand that attitude. It seems to me that the entire issue of "Protecting children" stems more from the irrational fears of parents than anything else.
I had playboy mags under my bed and was jerking off daily by the time I was 12. Most people that I know were pretty much the same story. A little pornography fueled sexual fantasy never hurt anyone.
Guess I just never understood the mentality of wanting to stop another person from doing something because I dislike what they are doing. Course I have also been a believer in the old "Let the kid grab the hot dish, he wont do it twice, its how ya learn".
-Steve
tags