For one thing, it would require some programming in order to make a hotmail configuration web UI affect the back-end. The SMTP servers that handle incoming mail would actually have to accept connections from spammers, take the envelope address, resolve it to a user profile, retrieve the preferences and then make a decision whether to drop the connection or accept the mail. This is extra overhead that could perhaps impact the existing scalability of Hotmail.
Actually, the way I would implement this is to have the SMTP program add an extra header to these emails (ones from RBL'ed hosts) before forwarding it to the user account. Something like "X-RBLStatus = TRUE", and then have the user's filtering software sort the mail based on that header however they want.
For one thing, it would require some programming in order to make a hotmail configuration web UI affect the back-end. The SMTP servers that handle incoming mail would actually have to accept connections from spammers, take the envelope address, resolve it to a user profile, retrieve the preferences and then make a decision whether to drop the connection or accept the mail. This is extra overhead that could perhaps impact the existing scalability of Hotmail. Actually, the way I would implement this is to have the SMTP program add an extra header to these emails (ones from RBL'ed hosts) before forwarding it to the user account. Something like "X-RBLStatus = TRUE", and then have the user's filtering software sort the mail based on that header however they want.
It doesn't specify what the "digital signature" is. It just says they can be used. Basically it says that digital contracts using digital signatures can be made legally binding if all the parties involved mutually agree on the exact form of those signatures.
Actually there are a whole bunch of other details as well, but that's one of the important points. Have a look at the bill itself.
Any attacker that knows what they are doing (even script kiddies), are using a relay site that is completely unrelated to them.... The only people they would catch are nitwits who probably aren't doing anything serious anyway.
That's naive. I wouldn't let a sys admin with that attitude anywhere near a critical server. It's stupid to presume that people who don't bother to cover thier tracks can't do any damage. How many script kiddies out there bother to route thier hack through half a dozen anonomous servers? Either they're lazy or they don't know how, but that doesn't affect thier ability to run some perl script they downloaded that'll make use of some obscure hole and trash your server.
That's the way to go! I don't give a crap what this guy thinks about anything, and I suspect that the percentage of/.'ers who are actually interested in getting his opinion on anything is so low that it's not worth the interview. What the majority of/.'ers want to do is ignore him and I think that's what we should do. He has been slamming reputable sites without decent justification, and most of what he publishes is a joke. He's only really interested in his image; he just wants to be popular. Highlightning him here on/. just serves to further his ego and makes him think he's all the more important. What most/.'ers *really* want to tell him is that he's a sham, and he knows next to nothing about what he claims to specialize in. The absolute LAST thing we want to do is make him think he's important. It's that praise that feeds every negative and counter-productive (from a community POV) thing that he does. Let's tell him what we really think of him, and work to educate the rest of the media.
I wish people whould quite bashing the media just because they think they're this big bad entity that's just out to rip everybody off. I've already read several posts about plagerism which pissed me off.
Cool off people, come on. These articles never attemped to pass/. opinions off as thier own, they explicitly said that they came from/. Everyone wants to complain about thier name not bieng metioned when a sentence of thier's gets quoted along with half a dozen others. To those people I say "What the hell is your problem??". I think it's a good thing that the media is telling other people that they think the opinions of/.'ers are important. Half the time people here are saying they wish the world would read/. and then when some of our posts do get metioned in the news, you go and jump and scream that "they stole my stuff!", "they didn't mail me a fat check for quoting me!", "my name won't be metioned in a national news article!". Loosen up people.
Dark City was cool! I loved it. Except I thought the ending was too cheesy and I was kinda dissapointed that the climax was just a fight between the good guy and bad guy that ended up destoying a bunch of stuff. Other then that the movie was awesome. I actually thought that it would be cooler if [**SPOLIER**] instead of floating through space, they were just floating in a void. No stars or anything, so there would be absolutly no way to tell where they are relative to "real" stuff. [**END SPOLIER**] But it was cool anyway.
The thing is that all movies (pretty much) are for entertainment. What changes between people is what they consider entertaining. Different people require different levels of acting skill and writing originality/complexity in order to be entertained, regardless of the special effects, action sequences, or the shock value of the movie. As a side note, that's exacly why I didn't like The Phantom Menace (let the flames fly). If you don't understand what I mean, then go to the theater and see The House on Haunted Hill which just came out the other day. It has tons of shock value. *diabolical smile*. That movie is an extreme case though. Matix is much better.
The first time I watched the Matrix I was entertained. It was fun. Cool premise. However, the second time I saw it I was a little disturbed by the poor acting and lack of originality in the script. I've since concluded that the movie is mediocre.
It was written by a university student for his thesis, so it's not going to even compare to Cadence. The only reason to use VBS is becuase it's free. It's a command line program. When you say VeriWell sucks I presume that's becuase of it's lack of features and it's bare interface; not because it makes mistakes. I expected that your going to decide that VBS really sucks. Justifiably, I guess. But you can't really judge a free program based on a comparsion to a commercial program. VBS is best for (as I tried to say in my original post) people who are just playing around with verilog; students and such. Basically, if your serious enough to be willing to pay real money for a good program, then VBS is not for you. That having been said, there are a couple of things that I did find annoying about it. The biggest one was that it doesn't seem to have any built-in gate level primitives (i.e. basic and, or, not, etc.). I had to build those with behavioral code. That was annoying. Oh well. It's free.:)
For any HDL hobbyists out there, or anyone who would be intersted in a bare-bones verilog simulator check out the VBS (Verilog Behavioral Simulator) project. You can download the Linux binaries and/or and source code. There's a pre-processor avialable too. This program works pretty well, I had it running on a Linux box of mine for a bit last year. I even wrote a CGI front end for it so I could run some simulations remotly over the web. That was cool.:)
Check out "The Nudist on the Late Shift" by Po Bronson. Thsi book dives right into Silicon Valley, it's a really captivating book. In fact he took his first chapter and published it as a Wired cover story on Silicon Valley a few months ago that a few of you may have read.
For any Canadians out there (like me) these guys who are just outside of Toronto, have three different boards in stock: the Asus K7M, Microstar 6167, and the Gigabyte GA-71X. They're not too cheap though.:(
Suppose it's fifty years ago, and a town is paralyzed in fear--there's a serial rapist. He's found, he's black, he's lynched.
Only a truly cruel and crazed person would violate the town women in that manner--something must be done to make them feel secure--no, to make the town more secure. The remaining black families must be run out of town, or live in eternal fear.
Most are run out. Some stay. None feel secure.
What's more tragic, I ask you? The women who were raped by the insane, or the families that were exiled by the righteous victims?
That's not a rephrase. When you take the same question and put it in a different context you get a different question. A geeky analogy would be like saying that 5 minus 3 is the same as 5 minus 2 just because they're both the same operation. My point being that even though I'm in strong support of my post (and would be a little appalled if you weren't as well), that doesn't preclude my agreement with you that the story you described is not nearly so black-and-white. Murder is worse then rape, and bieng kicked out of school is not nearly as bad as bieng kicked out of town.
I don't really have a yes/no opinion (I gather you don't either) but I can offer some insight and food for though at the least. One of the things you have to be sure to distinguish between is 'actions' and 'attitudes'. In your analysis I think you're focusing on the 'intolerance of the authority' as the evil in question with which your comparing the rape or murder. That's not the same as comparing the results of the actual act of retribution with the act of murder/rape/whatever.
Lets take a look at the example you described. Let's presume we agree that the attitude of the authority is a tradgy. So then I ask: why is it a tradgy? Answer: Because it results in an action that is unjust. In this light, the level of tradgy depends on the level of injustice of the action. Rape is also unjust, so the question is simply which is more unjust, which, in turn, requires explicitly defining "justice". That's the question to which there's no easy answer.
But...I don't think that's what you're asking. I think you're considering the tradgy of an "attitude of intolerance" as directly related to the *potential* injustice that that attitude could produce. So what I think you're actually intending to ask is for a comparison between a real injustice and a potential injustice. Since we have a hard time defining justice itself, that becomes an extremly tough question. There's no real right answer, mainly because any answer would rely on assumptions and predictions of the future which would be subjective at best.
P.S. Those dead students? What's a bigger tragedy, dozens of students dead, or dozens of students being asked to leave their high school a year before they graduate because some yahoos shot up the school in their outfit, were weird, and made the cheerleaders nervous?
Are you completely insane?!? I don't care how many people they unjustifiably throw out of school, it's only a fraction of the tradgy of a dozen kids getting murdered!
I'm speechless... doumbfounded... agast that you would think something like that...I'm going to just presume that you weren't thinking too well when you said it.
In IE you specify different security options for "trusted sites" and "restricted sites" and then you list which hosts belong to which of these "zones". All I have to do is list "*.doubleclick.net" as a restricted site and, voila, no more cookies from the doubleclick banners, but I can still get cookies from the site that displays the banner.
I get around this by setting my browser to prompt for cookies then I just check manually if the originating domain is the same as the site I'm at. Works here at slashdot where the banner company (focalink) will occasionally try and save a cookie.
In reading thses two interviews, I have to say that I'm more impressed with Palmer. You can't just laugh at him and dismiss his views without understanding that this definition of 'hacker' is different from ours (i.e. most/. readers). If you keep his definition in mind when you read his interview then everything he says is quite reasonable and well informed.
Goldstien, though his definition is closer to mine, he crashes on a few points that indicate a slightly misguided attitude. Particularly with statments like:
The true violator of your privacy is the person who made the decision to make them easily accessible.
This is DEAD wrong. If I leave my house unlocked that doesn't absolve anyone of wrong doing who walks in and searches through my stuff. Goldstien doesn't understand that virtual trespassing DOES exist, and IS just as wrong and RL trespassing. If *my* data is on *my* machine and I don't intend you to read it, then if you to do so, it's an invasion of my privacy on your part. Period.
Either 1) B&N decides that it would be cheaper and eaiser to negotiate a licence then fight a legal battle or 2) they fight it out anyway - and probably win I expect. The latter case would pretty much nullify the patent claim so at that point anyone else will not have to worry about being sued over it.
Well, you have to admit that if/. didn't have some sort of filtering device then it would be in danger of some potentially major DoS attacks. Though I would expect that instead of refusing your POST, maybe a "lameness filter" should just automatically moderate it down to -1 (though warning you beforehand).
Contracts signed by minors are not legally binding so that waiver you signed woudn't hold up in court. No real was around it, unless you get a parent to sign.
This is not just you. Most of the/. posts I've read made the same *very* annoying mistake in interpreting the article. It uses phrases like "geeky oddballs" and "pants cuffs that stop just below the knees". NOWHERE in the article does it metion intelligent, educated technical-minded persons or anything about networking or mathematics!! You've casted yourself in that stereotype by assuming that's what they were implying. Read it again!!
It didn't say "If you don't want to attract programmers", or "If you don't want to attract network admins", it just said "geeks" and referred to bow-tie wearin' cowlicked losers without stereotyping who those people are. You did that.
As you said, everyone wants to compare this "not having to work" situation to Star Trek....why the hell does everyone forget about our *real life* history?
There are countless examples in history of people who were so rich that they didn't have to work, exmples include: the ancient Greeks (who had slaves up to thier eyeballs), as well as most of the European aristocratic families as they were a few hundred years ago. These people didn't have to "really" work for a living so what did they do? Primarily three things as I can figure: Politics, War, Philosophy (including math & sciences). Personal motives would include fame, leisure, and/or technological and philosophical advancement.
Well, that's my opinion anyway and food for thought at the very least.
Although it may not be feasible to design a single nanite that can self-replicate *and* preform some other useful function at the same time, you could probably design nanites whose sole job it is to replicate other nanites.
Slashdot Mirror
For one thing, it would require some programming in order to make a hotmail configuration web UI affect the back-end. The SMTP servers that handle incoming mail would actually have to accept connections from spammers, take the envelope address, resolve it to a user profile, retrieve the preferences and then make a decision whether to drop the connection or accept the mail. This is extra overhead that could perhaps impact the existing scalability of Hotmail.
Actually, the way I would implement this is to have the SMTP program add an extra header to these emails (ones from RBL'ed hosts) before forwarding it to the user account. Something like "X-RBLStatus = TRUE", and then have the user's filtering software sort the mail based on that header however they want.
For one thing, it would require some programming in order to make a hotmail configuration web UI affect the back-end. The SMTP servers that handle incoming mail would actually have to accept connections from spammers, take the envelope address, resolve it to a user profile, retrieve the preferences and then make a decision whether to drop the connection or accept the mail. This is extra overhead that could perhaps impact the existing scalability of Hotmail. Actually, the way I would implement this is to have the SMTP program add an extra header to these emails (ones from RBL'ed hosts) before forwarding it to the user account. Something like "X-RBLStatus = TRUE", and then have the user's filtering software sort the mail based on that header however they want.
It doesn't specify what the "digital signature" is. It just says they can be used. Basically it says that digital contracts using digital signatures can be made legally binding if all the parties involved mutually agree on the exact form of those signatures.
Actually there are a whole bunch of other details as well, but that's one of the important points. Have a look at the bill itself.
Any attacker that knows what they are doing (even script kiddies), are using a relay site that is completely unrelated to them .... The only people they would catch are nitwits who probably aren't doing anything serious anyway.
That's naive. I wouldn't let a sys admin with that attitude anywhere near a critical server. It's stupid to presume that people who don't bother to cover thier tracks can't do any damage. How many script kiddies out there bother to route thier hack through half a dozen anonomous servers? Either they're lazy or they don't know how, but that doesn't affect thier ability to run some perl script they downloaded that'll make use of some obscure hole and trash your server.
There's nothing wrong with posting a link to NY Times just 'cause you don't like 'em dumb ass. Slashdot doesn't exist to serve you exclusively.
That's the way to go! I don't give a crap what this guy thinks about anything, and I suspect that the percentage of /.'ers who are actually interested in getting his opinion on anything is so low that it's not worth the interview. What the majority of /.'ers want to do is ignore him and I think that's what we should do. He has been slamming reputable sites without decent justification, and most of what he publishes is a joke. He's only really interested in his image; he just wants to be popular. Highlightning him here on /. just serves to further his ego and makes him think he's all the more important. What most /.'ers *really* want to tell him is that he's a sham, and he knows next to nothing about what he claims to specialize in. The absolute LAST thing we want to do is make him think he's important. It's that praise that feeds every negative and counter-productive (from a community POV) thing that he does. Let's tell him what we really think of him, and work to educate the rest of the media.
I wish people whould quite bashing the media just because they think they're this big bad entity that's just out to rip everybody off. I've already read several posts about plagerism which pissed me off.
/. opinions off as thier own, they explicitly said that they came from /. Everyone wants to complain about thier name not bieng metioned when a sentence of thier's gets quoted along with half a dozen others. To those people I say "What the hell is your problem??". I think it's a good thing that the media is telling other people that they think the opinions of /.'ers are important. Half the time people here are saying they wish the world would read /. and then when some of our posts do get metioned in the news, you go and jump and scream that "they stole my stuff!", "they didn't mail me a fat check for quoting me!", "my name won't be metioned in a national news article!". Loosen up people.
Cool off people, come on. These articles never attemped to pass
-Ky'dishar
Dark City was cool! I loved it. Except I thought the ending was too cheesy and I was kinda dissapointed that the climax was just a fight between the good guy and bad guy that ended up destoying a bunch of stuff. Other then that the movie was awesome. I actually thought that it would be cooler if [**SPOLIER**] instead of floating through space, they were just floating in a void. No stars or anything, so there would be absolutly no way to tell where they are relative to "real" stuff. [**END SPOLIER**] But it was cool anyway.
The thing is that all movies (pretty much) are for entertainment. What changes between people is what they consider entertaining. Different people require different levels of acting skill and writing originality/complexity in order to be entertained, regardless of the special effects, action sequences, or the shock value of the movie. As a side note, that's exacly why I didn't like The Phantom Menace (let the flames fly). If you don't understand what I mean, then go to the theater and see The House on Haunted Hill which just came out the other day. It has tons of shock value. *diabolical smile*. That movie is an extreme case though. Matix is much better.
The first time I watched the Matrix I was entertained. It was fun. Cool premise. However, the second time I saw it I was a little disturbed by the poor acting and lack of originality in the script. I've since concluded that the movie is mediocre.
It was written by a university student for his thesis, so it's not going to even compare to Cadence. The only reason to use VBS is becuase it's free. It's a command line program. When you say VeriWell sucks I presume that's becuase of it's lack of features and it's bare interface; not because it makes mistakes. I expected that your going to decide that VBS really sucks. Justifiably, I guess. But you can't really judge a free program based on a comparsion to a commercial program. VBS is best for (as I tried to say in my original post) people who are just playing around with verilog; students and such. Basically, if your serious enough to be willing to pay real money for a good program, then VBS is not for you. That having been said, there are a couple of things that I did find annoying about it. The biggest one was that it doesn't seem to have any built-in gate level primitives (i.e. basic and, or, not, etc.). I had to build those with behavioral code. That was annoying. Oh well. It's free. :)
For any HDL hobbyists out there, or anyone who would be intersted in a bare-bones verilog simulator check out the VBS (Verilog Behavioral Simulator) project. You can download the Linux binaries and/or and source code. There's a pre-processor avialable too. This program works pretty well, I had it running on a Linux box of mine for a bit last year. I even wrote a CGI front end for it so I could run some simulations remotly over the web. That was cool. :)
Check out "The Nudist on the Late Shift" by Po Bronson. Thsi book dives right into Silicon Valley, it's a really captivating book. In fact he took his first chapter and published it as a Wired cover story on Silicon Valley a few months ago that a few of you may have read.
For any Canadians out there (like me) these guys who are just outside of Toronto, have three different boards in stock: the Asus K7M, Microstar 6167, and the Gigabyte GA-71X. They're not too cheap though. :(
Suppose it's fifty years ago, and a town is paralyzed in fear--there's a serial rapist. He's found, he's black, he's lynched.
:)
Only a truly cruel and crazed person would violate the town women in that manner--something must be done to make them feel secure--no, to make the town more secure. The remaining black families must be run out of town, or live in eternal fear.
Most are run out. Some stay. None feel secure.
What's more tragic, I ask you? The women who were raped by the insane, or the families that were exiled by the righteous victims?
That's not a rephrase. When you take the same question and put it in a different context you get a different question. A geeky analogy would be like saying that 5 minus 3 is the same as 5 minus 2 just because they're both the same operation. My point being that even though I'm in strong support of my post (and would be a little appalled if you weren't as well), that doesn't preclude my agreement with you that the story you described is not nearly so black-and-white. Murder is worse then rape, and bieng kicked out of school is not nearly as bad as bieng kicked out of town.
I don't really have a yes/no opinion (I gather you don't either) but I can offer some insight and food for though at the least. One of the things you have to be sure to distinguish between is 'actions' and 'attitudes'. In your analysis I think you're focusing on the 'intolerance of the authority' as the evil in question with which your comparing the rape or murder. That's not the same as comparing the results of the actual act of retribution with the act of murder/rape/whatever.
Lets take a look at the example you described. Let's presume we agree that the attitude of the authority is a tradgy. So then I ask: why is it a tradgy? Answer: Because it results in an action that is unjust. In this light, the level of tradgy depends on the level of injustice of the action. Rape is also unjust, so the question is simply which is more unjust, which, in turn, requires explicitly defining "justice". That's the question to which there's no easy answer.
But...I don't think that's what you're asking. I think you're considering the tradgy of an "attitude of intolerance" as directly related to the *potential* injustice that that attitude could produce. So what I think you're actually intending to ask is for a comparison between a real injustice and a potential injustice. Since we have a hard time defining justice itself, that becomes an extremly tough question. There's no real right answer, mainly because any answer would rely on assumptions and predictions of the future which would be subjective at best.
My $0.02 anyway.
Ky'dishar
P.S. Those dead students? What's a bigger tragedy, dozens of students dead, or dozens of students being asked to leave their high school a year before they graduate because some yahoos shot up the school in their outfit, were weird, and made the cheerleaders nervous?
Are you completely insane?!? I don't care how many people they unjustifiably throw out of school, it's only a fraction of the tradgy of a dozen kids getting murdered!
I'm speechless... doumbfounded... agast that you would think something like that...I'm going to just presume that you weren't thinking too well when you said it.
In IE you specify different security options for "trusted sites" and "restricted sites" and then you list which hosts belong to which of these "zones". All I have to do is list "*.doubleclick.net" as a restricted site and, voila, no more cookies from the doubleclick banners, but I can still get cookies from the site that displays the banner.
I get around this by setting my browser to prompt for cookies then I just check manually if the originating domain is the same as the site I'm at. Works here at slashdot where the banner company (focalink) will occasionally try and save a cookie.
In reading thses two interviews, I have to say that I'm more impressed with Palmer. You can't just laugh at him and dismiss his views without understanding that this definition of 'hacker' is different from ours (i.e. most /. readers). If you keep his definition in mind when you read his interview then everything he says is quite reasonable and well informed.
Goldstien, though his definition is closer to mine, he crashes on a few points that indicate a slightly misguided attitude. Particularly with statments like:
The true violator of your privacy is the person who made the decision to make them easily accessible.
This is DEAD wrong. If I leave my house unlocked that doesn't absolve anyone of wrong doing who walks in and searches through my stuff. Goldstien doesn't understand that virtual trespassing DOES exist, and IS just as wrong and RL trespassing. If *my* data is on *my* machine and I don't intend you to read it, then if you to do so, it's an invasion of my privacy on your part. Period.
Goldstien really needs a wakeup call in this.
Either 1) B&N decides that it would be cheaper and eaiser to negotiate a licence then fight a legal battle or 2) they fight it out anyway - and probably win I expect. The latter case would pretty much nullify the patent claim so at that point anyone else will not have to worry about being sued over it.
Well, you have to admit that if /. didn't have some sort of filtering device then it would be in danger of some potentially major DoS attacks. Though I would expect that instead of refusing your POST, maybe a "lameness filter" should just automatically moderate it down to -1 (though warning you beforehand).
Contracts signed by minors are not legally binding so that waiver you signed woudn't hold up in court. No real was around it, unless you get a parent to sign.
This is not just you. Most of the /. posts I've read made the same *very* annoying mistake in interpreting the article. It uses phrases like "geeky oddballs" and "pants cuffs that stop just below the knees". NOWHERE in the article does it metion intelligent, educated technical-minded persons or anything about networking or mathematics!! You've casted yourself in that stereotype by assuming that's what they were implying. Read it again!!
It didn't say "If you don't want to attract programmers", or "If you don't want to attract network admins", it just said "geeks" and referred to bow-tie wearin' cowlicked losers without stereotyping who those people are. You did that.
As you said, everyone wants to compare this "not having to work" situation to Star Trek....why the hell does everyone forget about our *real life* history?
There are countless examples in history of people who were so rich that they didn't have to work, exmples include: the ancient Greeks (who had slaves up to thier eyeballs), as well as most of the European aristocratic families as they were a few hundred years ago. These people didn't have to "really" work for a living so what did they do? Primarily three things as I can figure: Politics, War, Philosophy (including math & sciences). Personal motives would include fame, leisure, and/or technological and philosophical advancement.
Well, that's my opinion anyway and food for thought at the very least.
Although it may not be feasible to design a single nanite that can self-replicate *and* preform some other useful function at the same time, you could probably design nanites whose sole job it is to replicate other nanites.