No, because you're paying for a faster pipe in general. This bill aims to stop a provider from changing the access speeds for specific sites. Your faster pipe should provide faster access to all sites which shouldn't be in violation of the proposed bill.
Why would the manufacturers want to do that (the hard reset button)? It adds cost to the machine, and they're more than happy to sell you a new machine if you want to throw yours out when it has spyware.
Not saying that it's not a bad idea to have such a reset feature, though.
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses (*) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks ( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it (*) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers (*) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once (*) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it ( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses ( ) Asshats (*) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email ( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches (*) Extreme profitability of spam (*) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(*) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually (*) Sending email should be free ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I don't want the government reading my email ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(*) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
Queue fifty pages of "Yes, I could kill my own grandfather." "No, you couldn't!" "In Soviet Russia, time travels you." "First Post!" "No, this is the first post, I traveled back before you posted yours", and so on...
Try sending an IM to $im_on, that may re-enable them (and doing the opposite, $im_off will diable instant messaging). This only works in the actual AOL client, which I haven't used for years, so I don't know if it still works.
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses (*) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks ( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it (*) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it ( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses ( ) Asshats ( ) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email ( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches (*) Extreme profitability of spam (*) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually (*) Sending email should be free ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I don't want the government reading my email ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(*) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
I'm (at work) in Newark, New Jersey. Getting the -27 on everything, including all searches and Google News. Same result if I use one of the international Google mirrors.
It would require a little more checking than just the sender's domain.
Obviously, it couldn't be a universal part of the protocol (example: hotmail.com or yahoo.com), but it could be something enabled on individual domains. It should also check the source IP of the message. For within a corporation, (hopefully) everyone should be using a corporate mail server with a known address, those addresses could be set to be exempt.
If the check only used the sender's domain, that is easily spoofed and would undermine the entire system.
Yeah...While it may not have been malicious on their part (since could be considered bulk mail since so many of them are coming into their system), after the first hundred people or so clicked on the 'This is not Spam' button, it should have stopped filtering them. But I guess they certainly don't want the new competition, since it beats their service hands-down.
The spyware situation on the Internet is really starting to get out of hand. Every time someone asks me to fix their computer, it's loaded down with spyware. I remove it, and then a week later it's full of it again.
The problem lies in several places:
1) Users running insecure operating systems and browsers. This isn't going to change, your average user is going to continue to use Windows and IE.
2) User stupidity. "Hey, that message says there's a problem with my computer, I'd better click 'Yes' to fix it." or "It said I had to click 'Yes' to enter that web site." User stupidity is also not going to change any time soon.
3) The creators of the spyware viruses. I would call many of these programs viruses, because in my opinion, any software unintentionally installed that resists removal attempts is a virus. Even with anti-spyware software, some of these things are a real pain to remove from a machine.
Legislation is a step in the right direction, however it's not going to solve the problem, since the Internet is global. The spyware companies will also find loophooles/small print and other ways to keep doing what they're doing anyway. Writing viruses is illegal, and people still do that on a consistent basis.
The only solution to the spyware program is a targeted campaign to teach users how to recognize spyware and not get it installed in the first place. Combine that with a list of common software that installs scumware (such as RealOne Player) and educational materials on how to install real anti-spyware software (not just more spyware that claims to be), and then we can slowly start to move towards lowering the number of infected machines.
Cowboyneal is just the Slashdot staff member who posted the story. The person referring to themself attending Purdue is 'newdamage', the person who submitted the story to Slashdot.
Well, they HAVE bought some access points (libraries, E. Moore Hall, a few at Engineering), the problem is they are resistant to give students access to them if they want to use their own computers and not just temporarily sign-out a University computer.
Well, the good thing about the Internet is that while Apple may shut down the Playfair site, the source code is already distributed and is all over the Internet, they won't be able to purge all of the copies.
Putting it up on a University server under your own name is not a very bright idea, though. Hope you don't get in trouble with them.
Slashdot Mirror
No, because you're paying for a faster pipe in general. This bill aims to stop a provider from changing the access speeds for specific sites. Your faster pipe should provide faster access to all sites which shouldn't be in violation of the proposed bill.
That had to be done to stop the Chinese farmers from using the free accounts to get gold to sell.
:-)
At least this way Blizzard makes money off of the farmers.
Why would the manufacturers want to do that (the hard reset button)? It adds cost to the machine, and they're more than happy to sell you a new machine if you want to throw yours out when it has spyware.
Not saying that it's not a bad idea to have such a reset feature, though.
You could save $30 off this item when you get a new Amazon Visa® Card.
That's the key. Now I can afford it!
No, wait, still can't...
It is a pretty neat collection of books, though. Not neat enough that I'd finance a book purchase, however.
Ugh, time travel discussion.
:-)
Queue fifty pages of "Yes, I could kill my own grandfather." "No, you couldn't!" "In Soviet Russia, time travels you." "First Post!" "No, this is the first post, I traveled back before you posted yours", and so on...
Convention's a neat idea, though
The DesKEY supports storing multiple private keys on a single USB keychain.
It doesn't look like their software is set up to deal with using it for web servers, but it works for file encryption and some other things.
Try sending an IM to $im_on, that may re-enable them (and doing the opposite, $im_off will diable instant messaging). This only works in the actual AOL client, which I haven't used for years, so I don't know if it still works.
Or perhaps this whole thing is just Sega's way of getting free publicity for their otherwise little-known game. :-)
Your post advocates a
(*) technical ( ) legislative (*) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
(*) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(*) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( ) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
(*) Extreme profitability of spam
(*) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
(*) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(*) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!
You forgot to check:
(*) Whitelists suck
I'm (at work) in Newark, New Jersey. Getting the -27 on everything, including all searches and Google News. Same result if I use one of the international Google mirrors.
Mirrors aren't working for me, getting the same:
Server Error
The service you requested is not available at this time.
Service error -27.
that I get on the regular Google servers.
It would require a little more checking than just the sender's domain.
Obviously, it couldn't be a universal part of the protocol (example: hotmail.com or yahoo.com), but it could be something enabled on individual domains. It should also check the source IP of the message. For within a corporation, (hopefully) everyone should be using a corporate mail server with a known address, those addresses could be set to be exempt.
If the check only used the sender's domain, that is easily spoofed and would undermine the entire system.
Easy, and fun:
"Sure, I'd love to buy an _______. Could you hold on for a minute while I go get my credit card?" "Sure!"
*put down phone, hit mute, and go back to what I was doing before being interrupted by the phone*
Yeah...While it may not have been malicious on their part (since could be considered bulk mail since so many of them are coming into their system), after the first hundred people or so clicked on the 'This is not Spam' button, it should have stopped filtering them. But I guess they certainly don't want the new competition, since it beats their service hands-down.
:-)
My friend thanks you for the invite
Thanks, got the invite (found it buried in my Yahoo mail spam folder this morning).
I had already received another invite by the time I got yours, though, so I passed it on to a friend.
The spyware situation on the Internet is really starting to get out of hand. Every time someone asks me to fix their computer, it's loaded down with spyware. I remove it, and then a week later it's full of it again.
The problem lies in several places:
1) Users running insecure operating systems and browsers. This isn't going to change, your average user is going to continue to use Windows and IE.
2) User stupidity. "Hey, that message says there's a problem with my computer, I'd better click 'Yes' to fix it." or "It said I had to click 'Yes' to enter that web site." User stupidity is also not going to change any time soon.
3) The creators of the spyware viruses. I would call many of these programs viruses, because in my opinion, any software unintentionally installed that resists removal attempts is a virus. Even with anti-spyware software, some of these things are a real pain to remove from a machine.
Legislation is a step in the right direction, however it's not going to solve the problem, since the Internet is global. The spyware companies will also find loophooles/small print and other ways to keep doing what they're doing anyway. Writing viruses is illegal, and people still do that on a consistent basis.
The only solution to the spyware program is a targeted campaign to teach users how to recognize spyware and not get it installed in the first place. Combine that with a list of common software that installs scumware (such as RealOne Player) and educational materials on how to install real anti-spyware software (not just more spyware that claims to be), and then we can slowly start to move towards lowering the number of infected machines.
a m a i m a n AT y a h o o
Thanks a lot.
I'll take it, if you still have it.
General Failure Reading Drive A:
Abort, Retry, Fail?
Their servers are overloaded. The demand for a free product is infinite.
I was clicking on the link periodically for about 3 hours before the page finally loaded and let me download the song.
Cowboyneal is just the Slashdot staff member who posted the story. The person referring to themself attending Purdue is 'newdamage', the person who submitted the story to Slashdot.
Well, they HAVE bought some access points (libraries, E. Moore Hall, a few at Engineering), the problem is they are resistant to give students access to them if they want to use their own computers and not just temporarily sign-out a University computer.
Well, the good thing about the Internet is that while Apple may shut down the Playfair site, the source code is already distributed and is all over the Internet, they won't be able to purge all of the copies.
Putting it up on a University server under your own name is not a very bright idea, though. Hope you don't get in trouble with them.