I've had run ins with SPEWS, they don't just list IP addresses that are spamming but will also list IPs only slightly associated with a spammer
You have misunderstood what SPEWS lists. They do not list spamming IP addresses. The "EW" in SPEWS is "Early Warning". They list IP addresses that are owned by people that support spammers.
Listing spamming IP addresses is pointless, because providers that support spam just shuffle them around. SPEWS lists the IP addresses owned by the bad providers.
The usual analogy is crack dealers. You may not be a crack dealer, but if you live in an apartment building full of crack dealers, where there are random shootings, and pizza delivery people get mugged whenever they try to deliver to that building, they are going to stop delivering to you. It doesn't matter that YOU are not a crack dealer. You are in a bad neighborhood.
That's what SPEWS lists: bad internet neighborhoods.
SPEWS starts out listing just the IP address that is spamming. They send complaints. They expand the listed range only if the complaints are not dealt with.
To get thousands or millions of addresses listed requires an ISP to ignore their spammers for a long time.
To get unlisted requires cleaning up the spammers.
Shufflepuck Cafe was fun, but actually, I had more fun breaking the copy protection on it, than I did actually playing it. They did some nice tricks that made breaking that one a bit of a puzzle.
Re:SYSV.. bah. BSD-style is the way to go.
on
Does launchd Beat cron?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
A few years later, in 1999 or so, I tried FreeBSD for the first time. (Here it comes, I'm gonna be modded troll for starting another BSD- vs. SYSV-style init script war...) There, the functionality is still implemented in scripts, but there was a much more sane system. There is one script that is the same across all FreeBSD installs of that version. Then, there's the script you get to customize if you want. There's one more file, and that's where you simply give yes or no answers, or provide other data, in the form of environment variables that influence the running of those two scripts. It's so simple, and works quite quickly. Also, since you really only mess with one file, and two if you modify the script, it's much easier to find where things are. It's more efficient, from many standpoints.
The main problem with that is it presumes that you have a human doing all the messing with that one file.
The SysV approach is much more friendly to programs, such as installers and uninstallers, and configuration managers, that wish to make changes, or that wish to start and stop individual daemons other than at startup or shutdown.
When QT7 shows up in "Software Update", be careful if you have QT6 Pro. If you let it update, you will now have QT7 non-Pro. QT7 replaces QT6, and QT6 license keys do not work with QT7.
This strikes me as an extremely obnoxious thing for Apple to have done. It seems to me that anything that shows up in "Software Update" should be just that: an update that will fix bugs and add new functionality, rather than replace your paid version of the software with the crippled free version of the next major release.
Here's a good one if you want to confuse a voice dictation system. In Burbank, CA, there is a street named Pass avenue, and it includes an overpass that passes over the freeway. If you were to travel that on a certain major Jewish holidy, you would "pass over Pass overpass over Passover".
Good luck getting that recognized by today's speech recognition systems!
That trailer makes the Star Wars III trailer look like a stupid cartoon
I noticed that. The sets and backgrounds in Serenity have striking contrasts and colors that make then visually interesting, yet they also seem believable in a way that few science fiction movies manage. Too often, things stand out as being different in order to look "futurey". Star Wars is full of this, especially the latest episodes.
I will not watch any new series on FOX anymore. Not even the first episode or two to see if it is any good. Most likely it is crap anyway. If it isn't crap, worst case is I wait a couple years and can rent the complete series on DVD.
When Simpsons, King of the Hill, Malcolm, and That 70's Show go away, the only use I'll have for that channel will be for watching syndicated stuff shown locally.
To my surprise, the drive still worked, and I was glad it did since I had a lot of crucial data on it
It's not that surprising it still works. Electronic devices are usually pretty tolerant of getting wet, as long as you dry them out before trying to use them.
The risks basically are that something that is disolved in the water and is conductive will be left behind as the device drys, causing shorts when you use it, and that the mechanical actions of the washer will damage the device, and that parts of the device might be sensitive to heat.
So, as long as your detergent doesn't leave conductive gunk behind, you are likely to be safe.
One of the IT guys at work tells me that he routinely cleans electronic components (cards, keyboards, etc) by putting them in the dishwasher. With some trepidation, I gave that a try on a remote control that I wanted to clean, and it mostly worked. Some segments on the LCD display didn't survive, and some areas of the LCD are cloudy. I suspect that this was from the heat, not the water itself, because it is similar to the damage I've seen on cheap calculators that I've carried around in my pocket over hot summers.
That would also be good for security. Pretty hard to hijack a plane if you are hibernating. There would not even need to be access from the passenger area to the cockpit. There wouldn't even need to be any way for communication between the passenger area and the cockpit, so even if a terrorist was able to get on and wake from hibernation, they wouldn't be able to make any threats to take control of the plane.
I am saved by the grace of Jesus Christ. Therefore, my guidelines for living are outlined in the New Testament:
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Co 6:9-10)
Well, that's what one particular translation into English says. The King James edition says:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God
The English Standard Version translation says:
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
That word that the KJ edition translates as effeminate, and that your ediition gives as homosexuals, and that the ESV gives as "men who practice homosexuality" is the greek word malakos, which refers to boys who served as live-in prostitutes for wealthy men (who usually had wives). Basically, boys kept purely for sexual purposes. The word your edition has translated as sodomite actually meant a male temple prostitute.
In other words, saying that 1 Cor 9 condemns homosexuality is about as ridiculous as saying that it condemns hererosexuality because it condemns adultry. All it actually condems is homosexuality in the context of certain kinds of prostitution.
Question: if you actually believe the Bible, why don't you think it is important enough to actually read in the original language? It always puzzles me that people can believe that this book records the actual will of God, but not care enough to want to discover what it says.
However, Apple have already come up with a perfect way of handling large groups of windows on one screen; it's called expose. I used to use virtual desktops on Linux, which was adequate, but when I got a Mac I settled in nicely with Expose; OS X has a near perfect user interface designed by actual HID experts
Wrong. Expose is nearly perfect for managing large groups of windows only in the case where you don't have multiple windows from an application being used in separate user tasks.
For example, suppose you are working on some graphics for your web site. You have a browser window opened on your site for reference, and other browser windows on other sites. You have Photoshop opened with various images being edited, so you have a bunch of Photoshop windows. You've got a mail application opened reading an email thread discussing the web site design.
Expose is perfect for managing your windows in that situation. All those windows belong to the same logical task ("update web graphics").
Expose even stays almost perfect if we throw in another logical task, if it doesn't use any of the same apps. For example, if you have a couple terminal windows opened to servers you are remotely admining, things are still fine.
However, when you get to multiple logical user tasks, with some apps being used for more than one of those, Expose becomes inadequate.
Consider this situation: you are working on three separate things. For thing A, you are using two terminal windows (say to ssh to two separate servers you admin), one spreadsheet window, and two browser windows.
For thing B, you are using one terminal window, two spreadsheet windows, and one word processor window.
For thing C, you are using one spreadsheet window, two word processor windows, and two browser windows.
Expose doesn't handle this very well at all. When used an all windows, it doesn't work well. Its "all windows" mode has windows from all three of your logical tasks, scattered all around, and it can be hard to tell which window is which (especially for terminals and spreadsheets).
What you need here is a way to hide or minimize a group of windows based on the user task they are associated with. Apple provides no mechanism for that. They provide a way to hide all the windows of a given app, but in my examples above, each app has windows associated with more than one user task.
What would be perfect would be Expose with multiple desktops. In my example above, you'd then do task A on one desktop, task B on another desktop, and task C on a third. On each desktop, you'd use Expose to manage the several windows that are on that desktop.
Basically, Expose, minimizing, and hiding only provide three levels of organization: by individual window, by application, or everything. What's missing is a way to manage all the widows of whatever the user is working on at the moment.
Bullshit. If you are a millionaire in real life then you can afford to play 24/7 while Joe Shmoe can't, so your real life *DOES* affect your in game situation
That doesn't affect what is achieved in game, just how fast it is achieved. That millionaire playing 24/7 takes as many hours in-game to accomplish things as I do, playing a few hours on weekends.
The makers of Second Life have taken a very unique approach to player rights with in the game
In SL, though, equipment and items don't play the same role they do in level-based fantasy and science fiction MMORPGs. In most MMORPGs, advancement in level and power is important to enjoy the game, and this advancement requires acquiring items, which are often from rare monsters that are highly contested.
Part of the charm of these games is that in the game world, what I can achieve is determined by my character's behavior in that world, rather than by my real-life situation. This is the very essence of a role-playing game. Bringing real-life money into the game can easily destroy this.
THANK YOU! I have been trying to explain this to our Novell folks at work for a while now. When you can belong to multiple groups, then you should be able to belong to more then one group and be able to rwx anything with the proper permissions. The UNIX model is a bit more nitty gritty and fine grained, but once you understand the octal model, it's easy to limit things by user, by group or world. Want it world readable and not executable? No problem!:D
The Unix model presumes that whenever you want to set up something that is shared among a group of people, you have someone with root access available to make appropriate group adjustments.
ACLs allow sets of people to control accell among themselves WITHOUT having to get root involved.
Why couldn't unscrupulous companies just move the development and distribution of their spyware to countries not under the jurisdiction of US law? If WeatherBug is hosted in Australia, for example, there's not much the US Congress can do to stop it. Right?
If they make this kind of spyware criminal, then it will be treated like other crimes. Sometimes you are safe (e.g., publishing a pro-Taiwan website in the United States might be a crime in China, but the US won't do anything to stop you). Someimes not (murder someone one country and flee to another, and you'll generally be sent back).
If they make it a civil offense, so that victims of spyware can sue, then it again depends. Generally, if you operate in country X, doing business in country Y, you are subject to country Y's judgements, and country X will enforce them. (keep that in mind when someone says that product liability has driven various industries out of the US, such as general avaiation. That's bullshit...you make, say, airplanes in France and sell them in the US, and you are just as subject to product liability in the US as if you made them here. Those industries left to find cheap labor, and used the liability excuse to avoid looking bad).
If money is directly involved (e.g., they are selling a spyware-laden product over the internet), then it will be pretty easy. They will be found by Australia (or pretty much any other country) to be subject to US law. When they lose in US courts, the winner will be able to go to Australia, give the judgement to the Australian courts, and the Australian courts will enforce it.
Where it gets tricky is when the spyware producer isn't selling something to the spyware user. E.g., the spyware producer is using drive-by downloads from banner ads, or something like that. Then things get fuzzy.
However, someone will be making money, and whoever that is, they will be subject to US law, and that's all it takes. If the money dries up, so will the spyware.
The thing advertisers don't seem to get is that you don't sell products by annoying the hell out of people. Pop-ups, pop-unders, floating ads, the all singing all dancing flash ads, anything that blinks or wants you to answer a trivia question, ad infested web pages that have half a page of text and require you to hit the next button to continue to the next page. These are all ANNOYING, that is why people are blocking or otherwise avoiding them.
Interesting guess, but that is all it is: a guess. If you actually measure what sells products, you'll find that those things actually do sell products. Internet advertising is much easier than other forms of advertising to test, and the advertisers do test it, running samples of different kinds of ads and comparing the results.
The ads you see, annoying as they are, are the results of essentially a Darwinian process to select the most effictive forms of ads.
Apple says: "Go ahead and check your bank account and.Mac email at the library or shop for birthday presents on the family Mac. Using Safari's new Private Browsing feature, no information about where you visit on the Web, personal information you enter or pages you visit are saved or cached".
So...when I go to a library Mac and launch Safari and browse my bank account...how do I know it really is Safari?
If they had used an opensource SCM from the start, they would not have to worry about changing things around now
If they had used an opensource SCM from the start, we'd still be somewhere in the 2.4 kernel, and Linus would be insane. Linus picked BitKeeper because it was the only SCM system available that could handle the job.
Well, mine isn't best but I sure want to be counted as an "I told you" on this one too. But it seems like lots of people told him so, and we all got dissed because they said we weren't pragmatic. Well, we were pragmatic, and the folks who thought they were the pragmatic ones weren't thinking through consequences all of the way to the end-game
What consequences? Having the kernel be way better than it would have been if Linus had listened to you people and not used BitKeeper?
Sure, BitKeeper might be going away--but the things Linus accomplished while it was here will NOT go way.
Don't be silly. Just because it's not using gas doesn't mean that it's not using oil, or some worse form of energy conversion (it's noookular). How do you think the electricity gets made when you plug it into the wall? Just because you can plug it in, doesn't mean it's better than burning gasoline
A significant plus for electricity is that it is cleaner at the point of consumption. Even if the electricity is generated by burning oil, burning the oil in one place to make electricity to distribute to thousands of people means you have a single place where you can apply all your pollution control, as opposed to having thousands of people burn that oil, requiring pollution control at thousands of places.
Slashdot Mirror
You have misunderstood what SPEWS lists. They do not list spamming IP addresses. The "EW" in SPEWS is "Early Warning". They list IP addresses that are owned by people that support spammers.
Listing spamming IP addresses is pointless, because providers that support spam just shuffle them around. SPEWS lists the IP addresses owned by the bad providers.
The usual analogy is crack dealers. You may not be a crack dealer, but if you live in an apartment building full of crack dealers, where there are random shootings, and pizza delivery people get mugged whenever they try to deliver to that building, they are going to stop delivering to you. It doesn't matter that YOU are not a crack dealer. You are in a bad neighborhood.
That's what SPEWS lists: bad internet neighborhoods.
iTMS proves that it does cut the mustard.
To get thousands or millions of addresses listed requires an ISP to ignore their spammers for a long time.
To get unlisted requires cleaning up the spammers.
Shufflepuck Cafe was fun, but actually, I had more fun breaking the copy protection on it, than I did actually playing it. They did some nice tricks that made breaking that one a bit of a puzzle.
The main problem with that is it presumes that you have a human doing all the messing with that one file.
The SysV approach is much more friendly to programs, such as installers and uninstallers, and configuration managers, that wish to make changes, or that wish to start and stop individual daemons other than at startup or shutdown.
This strikes me as an extremely obnoxious thing for Apple to have done. It seems to me that anything that shows up in "Software Update" should be just that: an update that will fix bugs and add new functionality, rather than replace your paid version of the software with the crippled free version of the next major release.
Good luck getting that recognized by today's speech recognition systems!
So now they are getting blasted for taking them out.
Sounds like MS gets to choose: make Gibson happy, or make Fyodor happy.
I noticed that. The sets and backgrounds in Serenity have striking contrasts and colors that make then visually interesting, yet they also seem believable in a way that few science fiction movies manage. Too often, things stand out as being different in order to look "futurey". Star Wars is full of this, especially the latest episodes.
When Simpsons, King of the Hill, Malcolm, and That 70's Show go away, the only use I'll have for that channel will be for watching syndicated stuff shown locally.
It's not that surprising it still works. Electronic devices are usually pretty tolerant of getting wet, as long as you dry them out before trying to use them.
The risks basically are that something that is disolved in the water and is conductive will be left behind as the device drys, causing shorts when you use it, and that the mechanical actions of the washer will damage the device, and that parts of the device might be sensitive to heat.
So, as long as your detergent doesn't leave conductive gunk behind, you are likely to be safe.
One of the IT guys at work tells me that he routinely cleans electronic components (cards, keyboards, etc) by putting them in the dishwasher. With some trepidation, I gave that a try on a remote control that I wanted to clean, and it mostly worked. Some segments on the LCD display didn't survive, and some areas of the LCD are cloudy. I suspect that this was from the heat, not the water itself, because it is similar to the damage I've seen on cheap calculators that I've carried around in my pocket over hot summers.
That would also be good for security. Pretty hard to hijack a plane if you are hibernating. There would not even need to be access from the passenger area to the cockpit. There wouldn't even need to be any way for communication between the passenger area and the cockpit, so even if a terrorist was able to get on and wake from hibernation, they wouldn't be able to make any threats to take control of the plane.
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Co 6:9-10)
Well, that's what one particular translation into English says. The King James edition says:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God
The English Standard Version translation says:
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
That word that the KJ edition translates as effeminate, and that your ediition gives as homosexuals, and that the ESV gives as "men who practice homosexuality" is the greek word malakos, which refers to boys who served as live-in prostitutes for wealthy men (who usually had wives). Basically, boys kept purely for sexual purposes. The word your edition has translated as sodomite actually meant a male temple prostitute.
In other words, saying that 1 Cor 9 condemns homosexuality is about as ridiculous as saying that it condemns hererosexuality because it condemns adultry. All it actually condems is homosexuality in the context of certain kinds of prostitution.
Question: if you actually believe the Bible, why don't you think it is important enough to actually read in the original language? It always puzzles me that people can believe that this book records the actual will of God, but not care enough to want to discover what it says.
Wrong. Expose is nearly perfect for managing large groups of windows only in the case where you don't have multiple windows from an application being used in separate user tasks.
For example, suppose you are working on some graphics for your web site. You have a browser window opened on your site for reference, and other browser windows on other sites. You have Photoshop opened with various images being edited, so you have a bunch of Photoshop windows. You've got a mail application opened reading an email thread discussing the web site design.
Expose is perfect for managing your windows in that situation. All those windows belong to the same logical task ("update web graphics").
Expose even stays almost perfect if we throw in another logical task, if it doesn't use any of the same apps. For example, if you have a couple terminal windows opened to servers you are remotely admining, things are still fine.
However, when you get to multiple logical user tasks, with some apps being used for more than one of those, Expose becomes inadequate.
Consider this situation: you are working on three separate things. For thing A, you are using two terminal windows (say to ssh to two separate servers you admin), one spreadsheet window, and two browser windows.
For thing B, you are using one terminal window, two spreadsheet windows, and one word processor window.
For thing C, you are using one spreadsheet window, two word processor windows, and two browser windows.
Expose doesn't handle this very well at all. When used an all windows, it doesn't work well. Its "all windows" mode has windows from all three of your logical tasks, scattered all around, and it can be hard to tell which window is which (especially for terminals and spreadsheets).
What you need here is a way to hide or minimize a group of windows based on the user task they are associated with. Apple provides no mechanism for that. They provide a way to hide all the windows of a given app, but in my examples above, each app has windows associated with more than one user task.
What would be perfect would be Expose with multiple desktops. In my example above, you'd then do task A on one desktop, task B on another desktop, and task C on a third. On each desktop, you'd use Expose to manage the several windows that are on that desktop.
Basically, Expose, minimizing, and hiding only provide three levels of organization: by individual window, by application, or everything. What's missing is a way to manage all the widows of whatever the user is working on at the moment.
That doesn't affect what is achieved in game, just how fast it is achieved. That millionaire playing 24/7 takes as many hours in-game to accomplish things as I do, playing a few hours on weekends.
In SL, though, equipment and items don't play the same role they do in level-based fantasy and science fiction MMORPGs. In most MMORPGs, advancement in level and power is important to enjoy the game, and this advancement requires acquiring items, which are often from rare monsters that are highly contested.
Part of the charm of these games is that in the game world, what I can achieve is determined by my character's behavior in that world, rather than by my real-life situation. This is the very essence of a role-playing game. Bringing real-life money into the game can easily destroy this.
The Unix model presumes that whenever you want to set up something that is shared among a group of people, you have someone with root access available to make appropriate group adjustments.
ACLs allow sets of people to control accell among themselves WITHOUT having to get root involved.
If they make this kind of spyware criminal, then it will be treated like other crimes. Sometimes you are safe (e.g., publishing a pro-Taiwan website in the United States might be a crime in China, but the US won't do anything to stop you). Someimes not (murder someone one country and flee to another, and you'll generally be sent back).
If they make it a civil offense, so that victims of spyware can sue, then it again depends. Generally, if you operate in country X, doing business in country Y, you are subject to country Y's judgements, and country X will enforce them. (keep that in mind when someone says that product liability has driven various industries out of the US, such as general avaiation. That's bullshit...you make, say, airplanes in France and sell them in the US, and you are just as subject to product liability in the US as if you made them here. Those industries left to find cheap labor, and used the liability excuse to avoid looking bad).
If money is directly involved (e.g., they are selling a spyware-laden product over the internet), then it will be pretty easy. They will be found by Australia (or pretty much any other country) to be subject to US law. When they lose in US courts, the winner will be able to go to Australia, give the judgement to the Australian courts, and the Australian courts will enforce it.
Where it gets tricky is when the spyware producer isn't selling something to the spyware user. E.g., the spyware producer is using drive-by downloads from banner ads, or something like that. Then things get fuzzy.
However, someone will be making money, and whoever that is, they will be subject to US law, and that's all it takes. If the money dries up, so will the spyware.
Interesting guess, but that is all it is: a guess. If you actually measure what sells products, you'll find that those things actually do sell products. Internet advertising is much easier than other forms of advertising to test, and the advertisers do test it, running samples of different kinds of ads and comparing the results.
The ads you see, annoying as they are, are the results of essentially a Darwinian process to select the most effictive forms of ads.
So...when I go to a library Mac and launch Safari and browse my bank account...how do I know it really is Safari?
You might RTFA, where that is covered in the first page.
If they had used an opensource SCM from the start, we'd still be somewhere in the 2.4 kernel, and Linus would be insane. Linus picked BitKeeper because it was the only SCM system available that could handle the job.
What makes you think you have to use iTunes to use an iPod? There are plenty of free, open source, programs that can load MP3s onto an iPod.
What consequences? Having the kernel be way better than it would have been if Linus had listened to you people and not used BitKeeper?
Sure, BitKeeper might be going away--but the things Linus accomplished while it was here will NOT go way.
A significant plus for electricity is that it is cleaner at the point of consumption. Even if the electricity is generated by burning oil, burning the oil in one place to make electricity to distribute to thousands of people means you have a single place where you can apply all your pollution control, as opposed to having thousands of people burn that oil, requiring pollution control at thousands of places.