The Court...allowed the RIAA to subpoena the identities of 'persons associated by dorm room occupancy or username with the 17 IP addresses listed' even though those people may be completely innocent.
Sounds like the defense will have it easy. IANAL, but I'd expect the moment of being served on this one is probably a good time to file the countersuit.
B.S. If my HP all-in-one runs fine with OS X and Ubuntu, and ran fine with XP but won't work in Vista, it is Microsoft's fault. You have to remember, one of the main reasons Vista even exists is to sell new hardware. It certainly wasn't necessary to replace XP for any other reason, lots of people like XP just fine and it still does pretty much everything consumers expect a modern OS to do. No, Vista was designed to literally require people to have to buy new stuff, as well as to make the **AA's job a bit easier. Either of which is more than ample reason to reject it.
Developing for the iPhone platform is exactly like slaves manufacturing shackles to be used on other slaves.
When shiny is more important than freedom, it says something about one's lack of intelligence/integrity.
IMHO. Heh, I laugh in the face of bad karma...
But judgements set precedents. So maybe this particular battle is just theatre, i.e. MPAA sets up Real to "oppose" them in a non-meaningful and indefensible manner, MPAA wins judgement which sets far-reaching precedent that takes away more consumer Fair Use rights. As evil as Real Networks has historically been, it certainly wouldn't be shocking.
To be completely accurate, the Clearwire service is not officially WiMax but OFDM, the underlying technology behind the WiMax standard. Clearwire deployed the Reno network before the WiMax standard was final, but it is practically the same technology.
"Practically the same technology"?! Let's call things what they are, please... This "review" is of a wimax-like network; the "test" may or may not be indicative of any future wimax implementation.
I would expect that those of us who like to use our computers for video would already have these capabilities without spending $200/yr on a subscription. I know I do.
It was indeed. After all the years I spent playing music I can testify that there are just two kinds of people in the music business: the creative musical talent, and those trying to get rich off the creative musical talent, usually "by whatever means necessary". People who've only ever had "real jobs" simply cannot fathom the level of sheer asshattery a musician trying to get paid to perform has to deal with.
That's why for years now, I've been releasing the music I do under CC while making my money in IT. Obviously I'm not willing to do 60-80 hour weeks, so I don't get the big bucks. But I get what I need to be secure and to keep making music without having to be on the same side as the RIAA. No-one tells me what the next album should sound like, or what the CD cover should look like. No-one tells me how to do what I am most passionate about. All I have to do is squeeze it into "off time" and I get full creative control.
The way I see it, I am compelled to do the music no matter what else is going on anyway. If I were alone, marooned on a desert island, I'd still do it after struggling to survive in nature, with no audience. So I could complain about how our society treats artists and musicians like crap, or recognize the fact that artistic ability isn't really a survival skill in nature either.:) That's just life...
there are other areas within the field of music besides musician
Sure there are. Why, you could be an exploiter, or a sycophant, or -- well, that's it, really.
Or just do what many musicians do, which is make your music on the side while doing other things for money/insurance/security/stability. Yes, it sucks to work twice as hard as nearly everyone else I've know for the last 38 years, but I got to do the music I wanted to do and still maintain a "normal" standard of living.
and you're attempting to elevate yourself above them.
No. You're missing the biggest part -- the part that said, "Of course, I am not immune to it myself at times, and one might argue that it's often done in a sort of "whistling past the graveyard" manner, in which we deny our own insanity by identifying and poking fun at the insanity of others. I guess I just feel sorry for people who end up being used as public examples of incompetence. Unless perhaps they are bankers or politicians or big corporate executives -- I'm just as sick and confused as anyone else I guess... But no, I don't feel particularly judgemental about it, just a bit sad."
Their behaviour is what's being put up as a public example. If appears as though you are using that to judge their character. Ponder the significance of that.
Sorry, but that is definitely you being defensive. Or perhaps you are just "misreading" me on purpose, hoping that I will sneer at you? Either way, I think your need to reply to what I said in the way you did is what you might want to look at.:)
"Harshly judgemental?" Maybe you're just being defensive? It would be harshly judgemental if I said "you people are going to hell for this", or something like that. I'm just saying it's sad so many people find it acceptable to laugh at those who apparently have trouble coping. Of course, I am not immune to it myself at times, and one might argue that it's often done in a sort of "whistling past the graveyard" manner, in which we deny our own insanity by identifying and poking fun at the insanity of others. I guess I just feel sorry for people who end up being used as public examples of incompetence. Unless perhaps they are bankers or politicians or big corporate executives -- I'm just as sick and confused as anyone else I guess... But no, I don't feel particularly judgemental about it, just a bit sad.
Frankly, I find it a bit discouraging that making light of maladjusted individuals seems to rank fairly high on so many people's list of acceptable pastimes. It's quite cruel.
Of course, the irony is that those who laugh loudest are themselves quite maladjusted, otherwise they'd know better. It's a fact that we live in overwhelming times, so there are many overwhelmed people. This is more sad than entertaining.
scary new browser exploit/threat affecting all the major desktop platforms
I didn't find that information in TFA or in any of the TFAs linked in TFA (herehereherehere). Though it may be so; it sounds like this exploit makes use of the browser's access to the clipboard. Elinks FTW!
I find it a bit weird that so many people bitch a blue streak all day long about how much "Apple sucks"until they have a chance to run OS X on a PC. Then it's like "kewl dewd, I can't wait to do that!". What's up with that?
District spokeswoman Ebony Pugh said, the 50 percent minimum gives children a chance to catch up and a reason to keep trying.
Yes of course, and while we're at it, let's make it the law that everyone gets at least $50k/year, whether they actually work or not.
That way we all get a "chance to catch up" and a "reason to keep trying".
Thank you, that's a reasonable explanation and you have set my conscience at ease -- I'll sleep a bit better tonight.
I thought it was *probably* OK, because it does appear I'm contributing more than I'm using, but I just wasn't 100% sure if maybe there was some obscure reason why that would still be wrong. I do run a node 24/7 unlimited for the duration of my torrent sessions, and my router always shows that the node comes out ahead. I'm still well within the 250GB cap doing that.
BTW, my torrents are not slow at all this way, in fact I manually throttle them at 220 up/110 down so they don't take all my bandwidth.
I don't do a lot of torrenting -- only when I really want something I can't find for sale, or to download "legit" stuff -- but I've found that TOR works really well against comcast's nonsense. It isn't like I'm downloading much, maybe ten to fifteen GB on a busy month (and zero most months). Before I found TOR, I'd start a torrent and my connection would be cut off within an hour or two. I could reestablish it by powercycling the cable router, but then would have it happen again in a few minutes. Then, I started spoofing my MAC address, which seemed to buy a few hours each time before the same thing would happen. Finally, I installed TOR and now it just works, at least with rtorrent.
I have read that some people believe that using torrent over TOR is abusive, but I never saw an explanation of why that would be so. If I operate a node (give back) it's fair, isn't it? And if not, why not?
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like the defense will have it easy. IANAL, but I'd expect the moment of being served on this one is probably a good time to file the countersuit.
B.S. If my HP all-in-one runs fine with OS X and Ubuntu, and ran fine with XP but won't work in Vista, it is Microsoft's fault. You have to remember, one of the main reasons Vista even exists is to sell new hardware . It certainly wasn't necessary to replace XP for any other reason, lots of people like XP just fine and it still does pretty much everything consumers expect a modern OS to do. No, Vista was designed to literally require people to have to buy new stuff, as well as to make the **AA's job a bit easier. Either of which is more than ample reason to reject it.
Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop snorting coke!
Developing for the iPhone platform is exactly like slaves manufacturing shackles to be used on other slaves. When shiny is more important than freedom, it says something about one's lack of intelligence/integrity. IMHO. Heh, I laugh in the face of bad karma...
But judgements set precedents. So maybe this particular battle is just theatre, i.e. MPAA sets up Real to "oppose" them in a non-meaningful and indefensible manner, MPAA wins judgement which sets far-reaching precedent that takes away more consumer Fair Use rights. As evil as Real Networks has historically been, it certainly wouldn't be shocking.
And how much revenue will you produce without your network, smartass?
"Practically the same technology"?! Let's call things what they are, please... This "review" is of a wimax-like network; the "test" may or may not be indicative of any future wimax implementation.
I would expect that those of us who like to use our computers for video would already have these capabilities without spending $200/yr on a subscription. I know I do.
It was indeed. After all the years I spent playing music I can testify that there are just two kinds of people in the music business: the creative musical talent, and those trying to get rich off the creative musical talent, usually "by whatever means necessary". People who've only ever had "real jobs" simply cannot fathom the level of sheer asshattery a musician trying to get paid to perform has to deal with. That's why for years now, I've been releasing the music I do under CC while making my money in IT. Obviously I'm not willing to do 60-80 hour weeks, so I don't get the big bucks. But I get what I need to be secure and to keep making music without having to be on the same side as the RIAA. No-one tells me what the next album should sound like, or what the CD cover should look like. No-one tells me how to do what I am most passionate about. All I have to do is squeeze it into "off time" and I get full creative control. :) That's just life...
The way I see it, I am compelled to do the music no matter what else is going on anyway. If I were alone, marooned on a desert island, I'd still do it after struggling to survive in nature, with no audience. So I could complain about how our society treats artists and musicians like crap, or recognize the fact that artistic ability isn't really a survival skill in nature either.
Sure there are. Why, you could be an exploiter, or a sycophant, or -- well, that's it, really. Or just do what many musicians do, which is make your music on the side while doing other things for money/insurance/security/stability. Yes, it sucks to work twice as hard as nearly everyone else I've know for the last 38 years, but I got to do the music I wanted to do and still maintain a "normal" standard of living.
Yes...
No. You're missing the biggest part -- the part that said, "Of course, I am not immune to it myself at times, and one might argue that it's often done in a sort of "whistling past the graveyard" manner, in which we deny our own insanity by identifying and poking fun at the insanity of others. I guess I just feel sorry for people who end up being used as public examples of incompetence. Unless perhaps they are bankers or politicians or big corporate executives -- I'm just as sick and confused as anyone else I guess... But no, I don't feel particularly judgemental about it, just a bit sad."
Sorry, but that is definitely you being defensive. Or perhaps you are just "misreading" me on purpose, hoping that I will sneer at you? Either way, I think your need to reply to what I said in the way you did is what you might want to look at. :)
"Harshly judgemental?" Maybe you're just being defensive? It would be harshly judgemental if I said "you people are going to hell for this", or something like that. I'm just saying it's sad so many people find it acceptable to laugh at those who apparently have trouble coping. Of course, I am not immune to it myself at times, and one might argue that it's often done in a sort of "whistling past the graveyard" manner, in which we deny our own insanity by identifying and poking fun at the insanity of others. I guess I just feel sorry for people who end up being used as public examples of incompetence. Unless perhaps they are bankers or politicians or big corporate executives -- I'm just as sick and confused as anyone else I guess... But no, I don't feel particularly judgemental about it, just a bit sad.
Frankly, I find it a bit discouraging that making light of maladjusted individuals seems to rank fairly high on so many people's list of acceptable pastimes. It's quite cruel. Of course, the irony is that those who laugh loudest are themselves quite maladjusted, otherwise they'd know better. It's a fact that we live in overwhelming times, so there are many overwhelmed people. This is more sad than entertaining.
I didn't find that information in TFA or in any of the TFAs linked in TFA (here here here here). Though it may be so; it sounds like this exploit makes use of the browser's access to the clipboard.
Elinks FTW!
No way it's anything else. MS couldn't code anything substantial that fast. Then again, I suppose they could have outsourced the whole thing...
I find it a bit weird that so many people bitch a blue streak all day long about how much "Apple sucks"until they have a chance to run OS X on a PC. Then it's like "kewl dewd, I can't wait to do that!". What's up with that?
Yes of course, and while we're at it, let's make it the law that everyone gets at least $50k/year, whether they actually work or not. That way we all get a "chance to catch up" and a "reason to keep trying".
Frivolous new overpriced tech does poorly in tough times. Who'da thunk it?
I am a superstitious old lady, you insensitive clod!
Ooops, I meant 220 down/110 up.
Thank you, that's a reasonable explanation and you have set my conscience at ease -- I'll sleep a bit better tonight. I thought it was *probably* OK, because it does appear I'm contributing more than I'm using, but I just wasn't 100% sure if maybe there was some obscure reason why that would still be wrong. I do run a node 24/7 unlimited for the duration of my torrent sessions, and my router always shows that the node comes out ahead. I'm still well within the 250GB cap doing that.
BTW, my torrents are not slow at all this way, in fact I manually throttle them at 220 up/110 down so they don't take all my bandwidth.
I don't get anywhere near the 250GB cap anyway, but I was kind of hoping someone could explain why using TOR for torrents might be considered "evil".
I don't do a lot of torrenting -- only when I really want something I can't find for sale, or to download "legit" stuff -- but I've found that TOR works really well against comcast's nonsense. It isn't like I'm downloading much, maybe ten to fifteen GB on a busy month (and zero most months). Before I found TOR, I'd start a torrent and my connection would be cut off within an hour or two. I could reestablish it by powercycling the cable router, but then would have it happen again in a few minutes. Then, I started spoofing my MAC address, which seemed to buy a few hours each time before the same thing would happen. Finally, I installed TOR and now it just works, at least with rtorrent.
I have read that some people believe that using torrent over TOR is abusive, but I never saw an explanation of why that would be so. If I operate a node (give back) it's fair, isn't it? And if not, why not?
Depends what part -- where I live it's all moonshine and lilacs.
I meant the monthly rate, of course. Much better deal.