Re: building a web site

Discussion in 'MCSE' started by Jtyc, Jan 27, 2006.

  1. Jtyc

    Jtyc Guest

    Tima. Timmaa tima timmaaa.


    Timmmaaa!
     
    Jtyc, Jan 27, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. If they can get 'file-sharers' so easy, why don't they target Spammers??


    On the BBC today;

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4663388.stm

    Ten internet service providers have been ordered to hand over the details of
    150 UK customers accused of illegally sharing software.
    The High Court order follows a 12-month covert investigation by the
    Federation Against Software Theft (Fast).

    Among the internet providers are BT, NTL, Telewest and Tiscali.

    Over the next two weeks, they are expected to provide the names, addresses
    and other personal details of the alleged file-sharers.


    --

    Regards,
    Slarty Bartfast


    - This space for rent.
     
    Slarty Bartfast, Jan 31, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Slarty Bartfast" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > If they can get 'file-sharers' so easy, why don't they target Spammers??
    >
    >

    Simple...spammers aren't (directly) taking money away from large corporations.
     
    Robert Williams, Jan 31, 2006
    #3
  4. Jtyc

    kpg Guest

    Robert Williams <>
    said something like

    > Simple...spammers aren't (directly) taking money away from large
    > corporations.


    Well, technically neither are file sharers. It's not like they
    would actually 'buy' that stuff. Most of the file-sharer group
    has no money. This is a losing battle for corporations. The
    answer is ever more agressive copy protection schemes - at the
    hardware level.

    or electric shock.

    --
    kpg
    WwW.mCnGp.CoM 0x22
     
    kpg, Jan 31, 2006
    #4
  5. "kpg" <kenatweekendcomputerdotcom> wrote in message
    news:Xns975C7C0678D91ipostthereforeiam@127.0.0.1...
    > Robert Williams <>
    > said something like
    >
    > > Simple...spammers aren't (directly) taking money away from large
    > > corporations.

    >
    > Well, technically neither are file sharers. It's not like they
    > would actually 'buy' that stuff. Most of the file-sharer group
    > has no money. This is a losing battle for corporations. The
    > answer is ever more agressive copy protection schemes - at the
    > hardware level.
    >
    > or electric shock.
    >

    That is not entirely true...I know many file sharers that have plenty of money
    to buy any CD or DVD they want. They just happen to be too damn cheap to spend
    the $15-$20 for a legit copy. But yes, I agree that it is a losing battle for
    corporations. They're spending more money trying to fight it than they are
    losing by just letting it happen.

    Ha, hardware copy protection. I believe it was Sony that spent Millions on
    developing a hardware copy protection for their CDs and DVDs.... all it took was
    one brilliant hacker with a sharpie to screw that up.

    Hmmm...electric shock....yesssssssssss.....that may just work
     
    Robert Williams, Jan 31, 2006
    #5
  6. Jtyc

    JaR Guest

    Echoed forth from the dank caverns of microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcse, the
    plaintive wail of kpg:

    > This is a losing battle for corporations. The
    > answer is ever more agressive copy protection schemes - at the
    > hardware level.
    >


    The answer is to evolve the business model. When recordings required
    expensive equipment and distribution systems, the model worked. It doesn't
    anymore. It's rather like having the only ferry on the river. Great money
    maker until they built that bridge. It would be like the legal system
    forcing people to use the ferry anyway when there's that great new bridge
    they could use for free.

    > or electric shock.


    Or that, yes.

    --
    JaR
    MCNGP 10110
    Remove hat to reply
    Consciousness: that annoying time between naps.
     
    JaR, Jan 31, 2006
    #6
  7. Jtyc

    kpg Guest

    Robert Williams <>
    said something like

    > .... all it took was one brilliant hacker with a sharpie to screw
    > that up.


    If I were that brilliant hacker, instead of tunning that loose on the
    world I would go to SONY and say, Hey!, how about giving me a highly
    paid job as a copy protection consultant? Why you ask? Well...
     
    kpg, Jan 31, 2006
    #7
  8. "kpg" <kenatweekendcomputerdotcom> wrote in message
    news:Xns975C7F29C8345ipostthereforeiam@127.0.0.1...
    > Robert Williams <>
    > said something like
    >
    > > .... all it took was one brilliant hacker with a sharpie to screw
    > > that up.

    >
    > If I were that brilliant hacker, instead of tunning that loose on the
    > world I would go to SONY and say, Hey!, how about giving me a highly
    > paid job as a copy protection consultant? Why you ask? Well...
    >


    Ok, so he wasn't *that* brilliant....but hey....
     
    Robert Williams, Jan 31, 2006
    #8
  9. Jtyc

    kpg Guest

    JaR <> said something like

    > The answer is to evolve the business model. When recordings required
    > expensive equipment and distribution systems, the model worked. It
    > doesn't anymore. It's rather like having the only ferry on the river.
    > Great money maker until they built that bridge. It would be like the
    > legal system forcing people to use the ferry anyway when there's that
    > great new bridge they could use for free.


    Sure. I agree, but...

    As a software developer I am interested in intellectual property rights.
    Just because the Interneil has made it easy to transport information I
    don't want my stuff copied. I see the recording industry as allies in
    this fight, not because I like them or think they are right, but because
    I think the same logic applies to music and software. If I say it's OK
    to steal music but not software, I feel I'm being hypocritical.

    For hard goods theft is against the law. Why not for soft goods? At the
    same time to bust someone for copying it is stupid. The only answer I see
    that protects everyone is to make it where it can't be copied, of course,
    songs could be played and recorded to defeat any copy scheme, at the loss
    of some quality. Software has other ways to protect itself (and the lines
    between "music" and software a blurring), For example, because of the
    Interneil I can have my software check in with the server to see if you
    should be running a copy of it. I expect music will do the same one day.

    Big Brother is alive and well, and getting stronger.

    kpg
     
    kpg, Jan 31, 2006
    #9
  10. "kpg" <kenatweekendcomputerdotcom> wrote in message
    news:Xns975C7F29C8345ipostthereforeiam@127.0.0.1...
    > Robert Williams <>
    > said something like
    >
    >> .... all it took was one brilliant hacker with a sharpie to screw
    >> that up.

    >
    > If I were that brilliant hacker, instead of tunning that loose on the
    > world I would go to SONY and say, Hey!, how about giving me a highly
    > paid job as a copy protection consultant? Why you ask? Well...


    Well, they'd never hire you. You'd be too brilliant, and a threat to
    management. Management needs cretins to abuse and enslave.

    They'd probably find a way to throw you in jail for it. Best case, they'd
    pay you for silence, or pay someone to silence you.
     
    PC LOAD LETTER, Jan 31, 2006
    #10
  11. Jtyc

    kpg Guest

    PC LOAD LETTER <http://www.planetoftheheads.com/> said something like

    > They'd probably find a way to throw you in jail for it. Best case,
    > they'd pay you for silence, or pay someone to silence you.


    But of cousre. That's why I go into the interview wearing dynamite.
     
    kpg, Jan 31, 2006
    #11
  12. Jtyc

    JaR Guest

    Echoed forth from the dank caverns of microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcse,
    the plaintive wail of kpg:

    > JaR <> said something like
    >
    >> The answer is to evolve the business model. When recordings required
    >> expensive equipment and distribution systems, the model worked. It
    >> doesn't anymore. It's rather like having the only ferry on the river.
    >> Great money maker until they built that bridge. It would be like the
    >> legal system forcing people to use the ferry anyway when there's that
    >> great new bridge they could use for free.

    >
    > Sure. I agree, but...
    >
    > As a software developer I am interested in intellectual property
    > rights. Just because the Interneil has made it easy to transport
    > information I don't want my stuff copied. I see the recording
    > industry as allies in this fight, not because I like them or think
    > they are right, but because I think the same logic applies to music
    > and software. If I say it's OK to steal music but not software, I
    > feel I'm being hypocritical.
    >
    > For hard goods theft is against the law. Why not for soft goods? At
    > the same time to bust someone for copying it is stupid. The only
    > answer I see that protects everyone is to make it where it can't be
    > copied, of course, songs could be played and recorded to defeat any
    > copy scheme, at the loss of some quality. Software has other ways to
    > protect itself (and the lines between "music" and software a
    > blurring), For example, because of the Interneil I can have my
    > software check in with the server to see if you should be running a
    > copy of it. I expect music will do the same one day.
    >
    > Big Brother is alive and well, and getting stronger.
    >


    We could argue the morality of the issue 'till the cows come home, but it
    doesn't change the fact that some will choose to use that shiny new
    bridge rather than pay to use the legal ferry. If you, or the RIAA want
    to truly safeguard your property, you must be responsible for securing it
    against theft. If I leave a ten dollar bill out on the sidewalk, the
    probabilities that it will be stolen approach certainty. Although the
    chances are good that the person that picks it up would never consider
    himself a thief.

    The resourses that the recording industry are expending to bust users for
    picking up those $10 bills it leaves lying around could be better spent
    re-defining their business model to reflect the fact that it is simple
    for anyone to make, and distribute, endless copies of their product.
    Whatever profits they are protecting by this can never reverse the
    illwill that is being created. You are correct. If the recording and
    software industry want to truly protect their property, then they must
    take action to secure it. Otherwise, just ganging up on hapless
    individuals with gangs of lawyers is not going to put the genie back into
    the bottle.

    --
    JaR
    MCNGP 10110
    Remove hat to reply
    If McDonalds were run like a software company, one out of every hundred
    Big Macs would give you food poisoning -- and the response would be,
    "We're sorry, here's a coupon for two more". ~Mark Minasi
     
    JaR, Jan 31, 2006
    #12
  13. "kpg" <kenatweekendcomputerdotcom> wrote in message
    news:Xns975C88526196Fipostthereforeiam@127.0.0.1...
    > As a software developer I am interested in intellectual property rights.


    Intellectual Property Rights do not exist. Nobody has 'rights', period, but
    that's another topic. I'll elaborate:

    In the digital realm, everything is a sequence of numbers, and if it's
    something quasi-useful, there is always a playback mechanism for translating
    that sequence of numbers into a 'product', which, in and of itself, is a
    sequence of numbers.

    There will never be a sequence of numbers that cannot be transcribed from
    one encoding mechanism into another.

    You can try to scramble the sequence of numbers, but it's still a sequence
    of numbers. You can try to make a custom playback mechanism, but the
    playback mechanism is still just a sequence of numbers.

    Hence, ergo, lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, there will never be exclusivity or
    protection for intellectual property.

    > Just because the Interneil has made it easy to transport information I
    > don't want my stuff copied.


    That's a losing battle. Your stuff is just a sequence of numbers.

    If your stuff is any "good", people will copy your stuff. And why wouldn't
    you want to share "good" stuff, because of your selfishness and cruelty? Who
    are you to deny the masses your "good" product, to make them need you and
    then to tell you they can't have it, for your own personal edification?

    If you make an effort to prevent your stuff from being copied, and your
    stuff is any "good", people will make an effort to figure out how to copy
    your stuff, because who wouldn't want to thwart someone so selfish and cruel
    that they have a commodity that can be shared universally, yet they attempt
    to prevent it's distribution and use.

    The question comes down to economics. If you are making stuff that's good,
    how can you profit from people copying your stuff, without being selfish and
    cruel and denying starving kids in azkhabanistarimakhipaki the opportunity
    to bask in your glory and oneness?

    > I see the recording industry as allies in
    > this fight, not because I like them or think they are right, but because
    > I think the same logic applies to music and software.


    I think that the recording industry is my ally in the fight to ensure that
    there are only a limited number of combinations of dryer lint. Pink, gray,
    purple, and combinations thereof. Pinkish gray, pinkish purple, pinkish
    grayish purple, and goldenrodish cornflower blue.

    > If I say it's OK to steal music but not software, I feel I'm being
    > hypocritical.


    Who decides what's OK and what's not? I say, it's OK to be a hypocrite. But,
    it's not ok for you to say it's OK to steal music and not software. You
    shouldn't be allowed to express things like that. That's just wrong.

    > For hard goods theft is against the law. Why not for soft goods?


    Everything is against the law, because someone out there figures there ought
    to be a law, and someone else agrees with them, and makes a law. People just
    like to waste time making rules for other people, but of course, would never
    themselves obey those rules. There ought to be a law against making rules.

    > At the
    > same time to bust someone for copying it is stupid. The only answer I see
    > that protects everyone is to make it where it can't be copied,


    It's just a sequence of numbers, it can always be copied. Even if it takes
    special hardware, it can be emulated. Sure, if it's really fast hardware
    there will be a performance hit, but if all you need to do is emulate the
    playback mechanism to decode the sequence of numbers into something that can
    be played back natively on another device, then you again arrive at a
    copyright free society where picnics are fun and everyone has to where
    pants.

    > of course,
    > songs could be played and recorded to defeat any copy scheme, at the loss
    > of some quality.


    The recording industry is a self-eating snake. They want higher fidelity
    recordings and more mechanisms to store their number sequences, and so they
    push the electronics industry to make better equipment, which makes it
    easier to record at higher fidelity, which renders it impossible for them to
    prevent people from copying their number sequences. And people want to play
    that sequence back on their computer, so the software industry creates tools
    which allow the more rapid creation of software, with builtin algorithms for
    improving the fidelity of recordings. Really, it's the recording industry
    versus the consumer electronics industry versus the software industry. They
    just don't know it, and it's already too late for anyone to win or stop the
    chain of events that follows, which is, everyone in the recording industry,
    consumer electronics industry, and software industry, will need to move to
    azbakiparmenokistoki, the source of all fudge, and get jobs in the packing
    department.

    > Software has other ways to protect itself (and the lines
    > between "music" and software a blurring), For example, because of the
    > Interneil I can have my software check in with the server to see if you
    > should be running a copy of it.


    If I were interested in copying your stuff, I'd just set up a fake server
    and a hosts file or I'd byte edit your software, because all it does is look
    over tcpip for a sequence of numbers. And why would I feel guilty about
    "stealing" from the selfish totalitarian heimlich that uses my economic
    position as an excuse to deny me access to sequences of numbers?

    > I expect music will do the same one day.


    You can expect a ton of people to waste their time making copyproof music
    and a ton of people finding ways to uncopyproof music.

    Why is this?

    Because people are people. Like dogs chasing their own tail, trying to outdo
    one another, when it's a moot point, there's nothing to outdo.


    Microcephalic S. Bob
     
    PC LOAD LETTER, Jan 31, 2006
    #13
  14. Jtyc

    kpg Guest

    PC LOAD LETTER <http://www.planetoftheheads.com/> said something like

    > "kpg" <kenatweekendcomputerdotcom> wrote in message
    > news:Xns975C88526196Fipostthereforeiam@127.0.0.1...
    >> As a software developer I am interested in intellectual property
    >> rights.

    >
    > Intellectual Property Rights do not exist. Nobody has 'rights',
    > period, but that's another topic. I'll elaborate:
    >
    > In the digital realm, everything is a sequence of numbers, and if it's
    > something quasi-useful, there is always a playback mechanism for
    > translating that sequence of numbers into a 'product', which, in and
    > of itself, is a sequence of numbers.
    >
    > There will never be a sequence of numbers that cannot be transcribed
    > from one encoding mechanism into another.
    >
    > You can try to scramble the sequence of numbers, but it's still a
    > sequence of numbers. You can try to make a custom playback mechanism,
    > but the playback mechanism is still just a sequence of numbers.
    >
    > Hence, ergo, lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, there will never be
    > exclusivity or protection for intellectual property.
    >
    >> Just because the Interneil has made it easy to transport information
    >> I don't want my stuff copied.

    >
    > That's a losing battle. Your stuff is just a sequence of numbers.
    >
    > If your stuff is any "good", people will copy your stuff. And why
    > wouldn't you want to share "good" stuff, because of your selfishness
    > and cruelty? Who are you to deny the masses your "good" product, to
    > make them need you and then to tell you they can't have it, for your
    > own personal edification?
    >
    > If you make an effort to prevent your stuff from being copied, and
    > your stuff is any "good", people will make an effort to figure out how
    > to copy your stuff, because who wouldn't want to thwart someone so
    > selfish and cruel that they have a commodity that can be shared
    > universally, yet they attempt to prevent it's distribution and use.
    >
    > The question comes down to economics. If you are making stuff that's
    > good, how can you profit from people copying your stuff, without being
    > selfish and cruel and denying starving kids in azkhabanistarimakhipaki
    > the opportunity to bask in your glory and oneness?
    >
    >> I see the recording industry as allies in
    >> this fight, not because I like them or think they are right, but
    >> because I think the same logic applies to music and software.

    >
    > I think that the recording industry is my ally in the fight to ensure
    > that there are only a limited number of combinations of dryer lint.
    > Pink, gray, purple, and combinations thereof. Pinkish gray, pinkish
    > purple, pinkish grayish purple, and goldenrodish cornflower blue.
    >
    >> If I say it's OK to steal music but not software, I feel I'm being
    >> hypocritical.

    >
    > Who decides what's OK and what's not? I say, it's OK to be a
    > hypocrite. But, it's not ok for you to say it's OK to steal music and
    > not software. You shouldn't be allowed to express things like that.
    > That's just wrong.
    >
    >> For hard goods theft is against the law. Why not for soft goods?

    >
    > Everything is against the law, because someone out there figures there
    > ought to be a law, and someone else agrees with them, and makes a law.
    > People just like to waste time making rules for other people, but of
    > course, would never themselves obey those rules. There ought to be a
    > law against making rules.
    >
    >> At the
    >> same time to bust someone for copying it is stupid. The only answer
    >> I see that protects everyone is to make it where it can't be copied,

    >
    > It's just a sequence of numbers, it can always be copied. Even if it
    > takes special hardware, it can be emulated. Sure, if it's really fast
    > hardware there will be a performance hit, but if all you need to do is
    > emulate the playback mechanism to decode the sequence of numbers into
    > something that can be played back natively on another device, then you
    > again arrive at a copyright free society where picnics are fun and
    > everyone has to where pants.
    >
    >> of course,
    >> songs could be played and recorded to defeat any copy scheme, at the
    >> loss of some quality.

    >
    > The recording industry is a self-eating snake. They want higher
    > fidelity recordings and more mechanisms to store their number
    > sequences, and so they push the electronics industry to make better
    > equipment, which makes it easier to record at higher fidelity, which
    > renders it impossible for them to prevent people from copying their
    > number sequences. And people want to play that sequence back on their
    > computer, so the software industry creates tools which allow the more
    > rapid creation of software, with builtin algorithms for improving the
    > fidelity of recordings. Really, it's the recording industry versus the
    > consumer electronics industry versus the software industry. They just
    > don't know it, and it's already too late for anyone to win or stop the
    > chain of events that follows, which is, everyone in the recording
    > industry, consumer electronics industry, and software industry, will
    > need to move to azbakiparmenokistoki, the source of all fudge, and get
    > jobs in the packing department.
    >
    >> Software has other ways to protect itself (and the lines
    >> between "music" and software a blurring), For example, because of
    >> the Interneil I can have my software check in with the server to see
    >> if you should be running a copy of it.

    >
    > If I were interested in copying your stuff, I'd just set up a fake
    > server and a hosts file or I'd byte edit your software, because all it
    > does is look over tcpip for a sequence of numbers. And why would I
    > feel guilty about "stealing" from the selfish totalitarian heimlich
    > that uses my economic position as an excuse to deny me access to
    > sequences of numbers?
    >
    >> I expect music will do the same one day.

    >
    > You can expect a ton of people to waste their time making copyproof
    > music and a ton of people finding ways to uncopyproof music.
    >
    > Why is this?
    >
    > Because people are people. Like dogs chasing their own tail, trying to
    > outdo one another, when it's a moot point, there's nothing to outdo.
    >
    >
    > Microcephalic S. Bob



    I see your point. In 5 billion years when the sun explodes the only
    trace of man's existence will be the Voyager spacecraft with that
    picture of naked Caucasians on it and ET will never know there were
    midgets here too. I feel so ashamed to part of the human race.
     
    kpg, Jan 31, 2006
    #14
  15. Jtyc

    Lasher Guest

    kpg <kenatweekendcomputerdotcom> wrote in
    news:Xns975C95ABBFF11ipostthereforeiam@127.0.0.1:

    > ET will never know there were
    > midgets here too.


    Are you a midget? Nothing against midgets, just curiosity sake.

    --
    Lasher
    MCNGP 110010
    MCP/MCDST/MVMCHA
    (Most Valuable Microsoft Certified Head Asploder)
     
    Lasher, Jan 31, 2006
    #15
  16. Jtyc

    Consultant Guest

    he prefers the term dwarf or little person

    "Lasher" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns975C973C6988Clashertokenid@207.46.248.16...
    > kpg <kenatweekendcomputerdotcom> wrote in
    > news:Xns975C95ABBFF11ipostthereforeiam@127.0.0.1:
    >
    >> ET will never know there were
    >> midgets here too.

    >
    > Are you a midget? Nothing against midgets, just curiosity sake.
    >
    > --
    > Lasher
    > MCNGP 110010
    > MCP/MCDST/MVMCHA
    > (Most Valuable Microsoft Certified Head Asploder)
     
    Consultant, Jan 31, 2006
    #16
  17. "kpg" <kenatweekendcomputerdotcom> wrote in message
    news:Xns975C95ABBFF11ipostthereforeiam@127.0.0.1...
    > I see your point. In 5 billion years when the sun explodes the only
    > trace of man's existence will be the Voyager spacecraft with that
    > picture of naked Caucasians on it and ET will never know there were
    > midgets here too. I feel so ashamed to part of the human race.


    Run away from the truth of the statements and hide in the part that's easy
    to dismiss.
     
    PC LOAD LETTER, Jan 31, 2006
    #17
  18. Jtyc

    Jtyc Guest

    > the $15-$20 for a legit copy.

    Is a rip off. They've been overpricing for decades.


    Its called karma baby!

    /Earl
     
    Jtyc, Jan 31, 2006
    #18
  19. "Jtyc" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > > the $15-$20 for a legit copy.

    >
    > Is a rip off. They've been overpricing for decades.
    >

    Oh yeah....you know it only costs like $0.50 per disk.
     
    Robert Williams, Jan 31, 2006
    #19
  20. Jtyc

    Neil Guest

    did you hear "PC LOAD LETTER" <http://www.planetoftheheads.com/> say in
    news::

    > Run away from the truth of the statements and hide in the part that's
    > easy to dismiss.


    have you read "God's debris"?

    --
    The InterNeil MCNGP#30

    - Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
     
    Neil, Feb 1, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Patriot

    Building to Building wireless

    Patriot, Nov 4, 2003, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    565
    Walter Roberson
    Nov 4, 2003
  2. Kline Sphere

    Re: building a web site

    Kline Sphere, Jan 27, 2006, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    442
    TechGeekPro
    Jan 27, 2006
  3. Malke

    Re: building a web site

    Malke, Jan 27, 2006, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    381
    Malke
    Jan 27, 2006
  4. Tim Jacob

    Wireless building-to-building 101

    Tim Jacob, Feb 15, 2006, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    616
    =?Utf-8?B?dGFpcGFuNTQx?=
    Feb 17, 2006
  5. Jim
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    941
    Barb Bowman
    Oct 5, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page