And if there are false positives in that, then it's time for the sender to properly set up their e-mail system. Greylisting is based on senders having proper mailers. A single retry after a few minutes and you're through. It's just that spammers' fire-and-forget mailers do not retry.
And after that it's SpamAssassin looking at the rest, using a.o. various RBLs.
I wouldn't consider using any RBL as fully authoritative though, like blocking on SMTP level based on an RBL listing. If DoS would become a serious problem for small sites then I'm sure soon enough we will see a sendmail/postfix plugin that will temporarily block any incoming connections from a site that connects too frequently. If that doesn't exist already.
Yes I was thinking about the same. Flash vulnerability after Windows critical flaw after Firefox hole... some with patches coming, others remaining unpatched (e.g. DNS problems).
It seems to be getting more and more these days. But I can't imagine that software is getting worse - even Microsoft is thinking about security these days.
And the flaws are becoming more and more obscure. OK I didn't RTFA but this has to do with users being vulnerable when servers accept file uploads, even if server doesn't do anything with Flash. So the user has to be able to UPload something and as a result RECEIVE something? From the site they upload to I suppose. Weird to say the least but then maybe I should RTFA to find out more.
To me the more and more of these issues I see the less it starts to worry me. It's starting to get normal, you start to get used to it, that's not good of course. On the other hand I have the feeling it simply has to do with more awareness, more and more researchers digging around trying out the strangest scenarios to find vulnerabilities. Which in a way is not bad at all.
For sure the prime source of inspiration and functions for Windows comes from Apple's work! And maybe now and then from somewhere else. So I'm more inclined to believe the interviewed employee than the higher-up managers refuting it. Of course they can not admit they simply copy Apple, after all.
Even if Apples were selling say 80-90% of the personal computer market, then still they can support whatever they like. They can sell Atom chips, or not. Currently they don't. They do not support their O/S to be run on third-party hardware, and have the business right to stop that.
It would be different if Apple had a monopoly, and then actively stopped supporting digital music players that are not iPods. That would become abuse.
Currently, if you wish to run OS/X, then you have to buy Apple hardware. Actually it is more like the other way around: buy Apple hardware, get OS/X with it.
Monopoly abuse that would be indeed when MS would stop supporting a processor without technical reason - after all they sell software, not hardware.
MS would possibly be able to get around that by becoming a hardware company and not selling their OS in the open market any more. Just with a Microsoft branded hardware. That would be an interesting scenario indeed.
Cars and trucks will not be in the same train of course. Or do you really think a car will really want to slow down to truck speed just to be part of that train?
Fyi: in most countries in Europe, trucks and cars pulling a trailer are allowed to do 80 km/h (almost 50 mph), while cars are allowed to do typically 100-130 km/h (62-81 mph). In Germany on many motorways have no speed limit. And yes cars there can and will do speeds well above 200 km/h (124 mph), legally. Trust me, that is bloody fast. Kinda scary even.
Furthermore uphill many trucks can't maintain 80 km/h, some fall back to 30-40 km/h even. That is on the steeper parts of the motorway. Just because their engines are not strong enough to haul that 40-50 tons up the slope faster.
This drag effect I don't think is big as the cars need significant distance (cyclists are driving often with no distance in between, if not overlapping each other). And cars are highly aerodynamic these days meaning relative less drag than a cyclist.
There is however a great fuel effect to be expected from the fact that these cars are not stuck in a traffic jam (thus wasting fuel by idling), and because they keep a very constant speed.
True, but not feasible any more these days. Work and living areas are separated: there are no houses at walking distance from most offices. Or they are very expensive. On top of that transportation is cheap. Fuel is cheap - also in Europe. And for anyone who doesn't believe that, ask the question: have you ever left your car and used alternative transportation (walking, bicycle, public transport) instead because you find the fuel too expensive? I bet the answer is "no".
On top of that it would almost always mean moving home when you change jobs. That's no fun either. Or what about if both husband and wife work, in different companies, and still want to live together.
People like to live in open, green space while many businesses prefer the convenience and availability of all kinds of services of central and business districts. We'd better live with that, and try to make the commute as fast, ecological friendly and safe as possible.
Well if only terrorists would be treated as criminals it would solve many problems... supsected criminals are arrested, charged, and put in front of a court of law. Even the worst criminals (serial killers, rapists, bankers) are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Interesting that the questions were asked on 11 Sept 2009... the anniversary of the 911 attacks.
Your link indicates that answer has been received on 29 Oct, however electronic text not available yet, so unfortunately we can not read the answer of the minister.
Besides I didn't realise that South America was a major source of terrorism, I always thought that was mainly around the Middle East and Afghanistan. That terrorism witch hunt really seems to get worse still!
Trying to remove universal access and Babylonize the internet under the fairly flimsy pretext of internationalization seems a very misplaced effort to me.
Sorry but this sounds very much like arrogant neo-colonialism.
Why would everyone have to use the Latin script? Just because it's convenient for you and the language of the people that happened to have set up the Internet? How about all those people that do not understand Latin scripts in the first place? Forcing them to use Latin scripts instead of their own is NOT universal access. Latin script is just one of the many scripts used in this world.
On top of htat you don't even need to know how to enter Chinese or Arabic scripts as the underlying tech is still using the legacy Latin scripts. You can enter the Chinese URL in that way as well.
For example in China this will be used a lot. Other countries using non-Latin scripts will do so as well.
Actually it was possible already for a few years to register domain names in Chinese characters in Hong Kong, but still ending in.hk. Now that part can also become Chinese characters as replacement for.hk,.cn or.tw.
The catch was that a Chinese URL would work only within HK/China. Now this will also start to work worldwide.
One big issue for many lower-educated Chinese is that the Latin script is as strange as Chinese characters to us. Of course you can look at the shape and recognise them, but that's it: the letters do not carry sounds to them. So it's impossible to remember an URL for those people. Even for Chinese that can read/understand the Latin script it is far harder to remember an URL that they see in say an advertisement, than if that URL were in Chinese.
I bet the same accounts for many other languages. Japanese, Indian languages, Vietnamese (Latin letters with lots and lots of accents to make it pronounceable for them), Korean, Russian. Even many West-European languages French would be happy with adding just the accents.
This is a major leap forward for the Internet at large, don't underestimate it just because your language (group) is doing fine with just a-z, 0-9 and hyphens. Already more than half of the Internet users worldwide is using a non-Latin script for their native language. And that's the users that are going to benefit most.
Pretty much all those law suits we read about on/. related to file sharing are civil cases, not criminal cases. At least the RIAA et.al. initiated cases are.
So while there certainly are criminal copyright cases, what we hear about primarily are civil cases.
Furthermore it seems to me that in these three-strike-law cases the complainant is normally a civil party (copyright holder), not the government. Again it may be that indeed the UK government starts policing the Internet for file sharing activities.
As we always say here on/.: copyright infringement is civil law. Not criminal law. Now I don't know how the current UK laws are, IANAL and so and not British on top of that, but it's possible that this three-strike thing does not fall under criminal laws. In that case it is not a criminal offence and your statement would be moot.
I can't imagine anyone buying such a machine specifically to run SETI@Home or similar projects. If you want/need a machine like this you will have a specific use for it, as I don't think it's that speedy for most games etc - to run your projects on graphics cores you will need special software, this is useless for generic computing. And those distributed projects are set up with the idea of using spare cycles - not to buy hardware specifically for it.
Now if you still happen to have spare time on the computer then maybe you could do a dataset or two of SETI. It will do those tasks really fast.
I wouldn't be surprised if just deleting those keys is good enough to destroy the data. After all the data itself is still there, it's just a bit harder to access. You are not talking practical here but legal. That is often a major difference.
And I doubt that deleting a particular key (and all of it's backups and other copies in existence) is much easier than to tackle the data itself.
Just remember that the backups and audits ALSO have to be destroyed. All of them. Especially the backups. And keep an audit maybe of the destruction of that information.
But it doesn't. This isn't like the US's ESRB (with which I have no problem, incidentally). This is a *government* rating system, and stuff the rating board doesn't like gets legally banned.
But then of course Oz is a democracy so if you as a people do not like the current practices you can vote for a different government and have it changed. Censorship to me is still something primarily political, like in China where books are forbidden because they talk about democracy or failings of the current communist system. And that is not a government that can be voted out. Nor is there freedom of expression allowing you to even talk about the censorship in the first place.
Question. I can imagine and understand that certain material is considered taboo (child porn is an obvious candidate) and is illegal. That is pretty much all over the world, the main difference is what a people think is acceptable and what not, that are cultural differences. Back to Oz, how about material that has not (yet) been submitted for rating? Does it have to be submitted for rating first to become RC and in effect forbidden? Do e.g. movies have to be classified before they are allowed to be distributed?
According to TFA (which I actually read before commenting, yes unbelievable) this is about computer games. AU already rates console games and movies, they want to extend to online games and with that mobile phone games. Rating functional apps is of course nonsensical.
This is not censorship: this is rating, like done with movies and so already. And this kind of rating can be a great help for parents to rate suitability of some game/movie for their kids. So I don't see this as a bad thing, and it is definitely not censorship as the content in question remains available.
Now how they are going to process and rate the tens of thousands of games available (tfa talks about games, not all applications) that is another matter. They may need to hire some extra staff.
Still I think it is basically a good thing, as long as it is just rating, allowing the buyer to get a better idea what they want to buy. Just like going to the movies, the rating gives you an extra clue on the kind of movie you are going to watch, or in this case what application you are going to buy. Or which you may want to pass on.
Disney is dead, indeed. Walt Disney that is - the creator, and the original creative force behind it all. The innovator, bringing animation to a new level. I always loved how smooth and natural looking the animations of Disney are, compared to virtually all other studios. Animals walking like animals, moving naturally and so. Mighty expensive to make of course: having real animals in the studio to study their movements when making a movie. Only now that computer animation reaches the same level for cheap, the rest of the world catches up on that.
But indeed in the last couple decades nothing really original or new came out. They still make beautiful movies, though more and more are based on old fairy tales and so.
Walt Disney was to his company what Steve Jobs is to Apple. The company can survive without him for a while but will whither and die in the long run. It's simply stagnating.
Slashdot Mirror
That site is very little more than a showcase of the very worst, morally, psychologically, and emotionally, that humanity is capable of.
Which is why /b/ tends to provide great entertainment. It is always impressive to see how low people can go for their 15 seconds of "fame".
Well I'm happy to hear that you are so filthy rich that you do not care about paying for extra bandwidth just to receive other people's junk.
Greylisting takes out 90% of the spam for me.
And if there are false positives in that, then it's time for the sender to properly set up their e-mail system. Greylisting is based on senders having proper mailers. A single retry after a few minutes and you're through. It's just that spammers' fire-and-forget mailers do not retry.
And after that it's SpamAssassin looking at the rest, using a.o. various RBLs.
I wouldn't consider using any RBL as fully authoritative though, like blocking on SMTP level based on an RBL listing. If DoS would become a serious problem for small sites then I'm sure soon enough we will see a sendmail/postfix plugin that will temporarily block any incoming connections from a site that connects too frequently. If that doesn't exist already.
Yes I was thinking about the same. Flash vulnerability after Windows critical flaw after Firefox hole... some with patches coming, others remaining unpatched (e.g. DNS problems).
It seems to be getting more and more these days. But I can't imagine that software is getting worse - even Microsoft is thinking about security these days.
And the flaws are becoming more and more obscure. OK I didn't RTFA but this has to do with users being vulnerable when servers accept file uploads, even if server doesn't do anything with Flash. So the user has to be able to UPload something and as a result RECEIVE something? From the site they upload to I suppose. Weird to say the least but then maybe I should RTFA to find out more.
To me the more and more of these issues I see the less it starts to worry me. It's starting to get normal, you start to get used to it, that's not good of course. On the other hand I have the feeling it simply has to do with more awareness, more and more researchers digging around trying out the strangest scenarios to find vulnerabilities. Which in a way is not bad at all.
For sure the prime source of inspiration and functions for Windows comes from Apple's work! And maybe now and then from somewhere else. So I'm more inclined to believe the interviewed employee than the higher-up managers refuting it. Of course they can not admit they simply copy Apple, after all.
No, that happens when you ABUSE a monopoly.
Even if Apples were selling say 80-90% of the personal computer market, then still they can support whatever they like. They can sell Atom chips, or not. Currently they don't. They do not support their O/S to be run on third-party hardware, and have the business right to stop that.
It would be different if Apple had a monopoly, and then actively stopped supporting digital music players that are not iPods. That would become abuse.
Currently, if you wish to run OS/X, then you have to buy Apple hardware. Actually it is more like the other way around: buy Apple hardware, get OS/X with it.
Monopoly abuse that would be indeed when MS would stop supporting a processor without technical reason - after all they sell software, not hardware.
MS would possibly be able to get around that by becoming a hardware company and not selling their OS in the open market any more. Just with a Microsoft branded hardware. That would be an interesting scenario indeed.
I have never heard such a complaint about certain other language's names... such as "C". So it doesn't seem to be too much of a problem.
Cars and trucks will not be in the same train of course. Or do you really think a car will really want to slow down to truck speed just to be part of that train?
Fyi: in most countries in Europe, trucks and cars pulling a trailer are allowed to do 80 km/h (almost 50 mph), while cars are allowed to do typically 100-130 km/h (62-81 mph). In Germany on many motorways have no speed limit. And yes cars there can and will do speeds well above 200 km/h (124 mph), legally. Trust me, that is bloody fast. Kinda scary even.
Furthermore uphill many trucks can't maintain 80 km/h, some fall back to 30-40 km/h even. That is on the steeper parts of the motorway. Just because their engines are not strong enough to haul that 40-50 tons up the slope faster.
This drag effect I don't think is big as the cars need significant distance (cyclists are driving often with no distance in between, if not overlapping each other). And cars are highly aerodynamic these days meaning relative less drag than a cyclist.
There is however a great fuel effect to be expected from the fact that these cars are not stuck in a traffic jam (thus wasting fuel by idling), and because they keep a very constant speed.
True, but not feasible any more these days. Work and living areas are separated: there are no houses at walking distance from most offices. Or they are very expensive. On top of that transportation is cheap. Fuel is cheap - also in Europe. And for anyone who doesn't believe that, ask the question: have you ever left your car and used alternative transportation (walking, bicycle, public transport) instead because you find the fuel too expensive? I bet the answer is "no".
On top of that it would almost always mean moving home when you change jobs. That's no fun either. Or what about if both husband and wife work, in different companies, and still want to live together.
People like to live in open, green space while many businesses prefer the convenience and availability of all kinds of services of central and business districts. We'd better live with that, and try to make the commute as fast, ecological friendly and safe as possible.
It will narrow it down very much from near infinite places to go look, to some tens of thousands of places.
And cars are quite easy to filter: they are on roads. Not likely those balloons are going to be on top of a road. Give those red spots lower priority.
Well if only terrorists would be treated as criminals it would solve many problems... supsected criminals are arrested, charged, and put in front of a court of law. Even the worst criminals (serial killers, rapists, bankers) are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Interesting that the questions were asked on 11 Sept 2009... the anniversary of the 911 attacks.
Your link indicates that answer has been received on 29 Oct, however electronic text not available yet, so unfortunately we can not read the answer of the minister.
Besides I didn't realise that South America was a major source of terrorism, I always thought that was mainly around the Middle East and Afghanistan. That terrorism witch hunt really seems to get worse still!
Trying to remove universal access and Babylonize the internet under the fairly flimsy pretext of internationalization seems a very misplaced effort to me.
Sorry but this sounds very much like arrogant neo-colonialism.
Why would everyone have to use the Latin script? Just because it's convenient for you and the language of the people that happened to have set up the Internet? How about all those people that do not understand Latin scripts in the first place? Forcing them to use Latin scripts instead of their own is NOT universal access. Latin script is just one of the many scripts used in this world.
On top of htat you don't even need to know how to enter Chinese or Arabic scripts as the underlying tech is still using the legacy Latin scripts. You can enter the Chinese URL in that way as well.
For example in China this will be used a lot. Other countries using non-Latin scripts will do so as well.
Actually it was possible already for a few years to register domain names in Chinese characters in Hong Kong, but still ending in .hk. Now that part can also become Chinese characters as replacement for .hk, .cn or .tw.
The catch was that a Chinese URL would work only within HK/China. Now this will also start to work worldwide.
One big issue for many lower-educated Chinese is that the Latin script is as strange as Chinese characters to us. Of course you can look at the shape and recognise them, but that's it: the letters do not carry sounds to them. So it's impossible to remember an URL for those people. Even for Chinese that can read/understand the Latin script it is far harder to remember an URL that they see in say an advertisement, than if that URL were in Chinese.
I bet the same accounts for many other languages. Japanese, Indian languages, Vietnamese (Latin letters with lots and lots of accents to make it pronounceable for them), Korean, Russian. Even many West-European languages French would be happy with adding just the accents.
This is a major leap forward for the Internet at large, don't underestimate it just because your language (group) is doing fine with just a-z, 0-9 and hyphens. Already more than half of the Internet users worldwide is using a non-Latin script for their native language. And that's the users that are going to benefit most.
Pretty much all those law suits we read about on /. related to file sharing are civil cases, not criminal cases. At least the RIAA et.al. initiated cases are.
So while there certainly are criminal copyright cases, what we hear about primarily are civil cases.
Furthermore it seems to me that in these three-strike-law cases the complainant is normally a civil party (copyright holder), not the government. Again it may be that indeed the UK government starts policing the Internet for file sharing activities.
As we always say here on /.: copyright infringement is civil law. Not criminal law. Now I don't know how the current UK laws are, IANAL and so and not British on top of that, but it's possible that this three-strike thing does not fall under criminal laws. In that case it is not a criminal offence and your statement would be moot.
I can't imagine anyone buying such a machine specifically to run SETI@Home or similar projects. If you want/need a machine like this you will have a specific use for it, as I don't think it's that speedy for most games etc - to run your projects on graphics cores you will need special software, this is useless for generic computing. And those distributed projects are set up with the idea of using spare cycles - not to buy hardware specifically for it.
Now if you still happen to have spare time on the computer then maybe you could do a dataset or two of SETI. It will do those tasks really fast.
I wouldn't be surprised if just deleting those keys is good enough to destroy the data. After all the data itself is still there, it's just a bit harder to access. You are not talking practical here but legal. That is often a major difference.
And I doubt that deleting a particular key (and all of it's backups and other copies in existence) is much easier than to tackle the data itself.
Just remember that the backups and audits ALSO have to be destroyed. All of them. Especially the backups. And keep an audit maybe of the destruction of that information.
But it doesn't. This isn't like the US's ESRB (with which I have no problem, incidentally). This is a *government* rating system, and stuff the rating board doesn't like gets legally banned.
But then of course Oz is a democracy so if you as a people do not like the current practices you can vote for a different government and have it changed. Censorship to me is still something primarily political, like in China where books are forbidden because they talk about democracy or failings of the current communist system. And that is not a government that can be voted out. Nor is there freedom of expression allowing you to even talk about the censorship in the first place.
True I'm not Australian.
Question. I can imagine and understand that certain material is considered taboo (child porn is an obvious candidate) and is illegal. That is pretty much all over the world, the main difference is what a people think is acceptable and what not, that are cultural differences. Back to Oz, how about material that has not (yet) been submitted for rating? Does it have to be submitted for rating first to become RC and in effect forbidden? Do e.g. movies have to be classified before they are allowed to be distributed?
According to TFA (which I actually read before commenting, yes unbelievable) this is about computer games. AU already rates console games and movies, they want to extend to online games and with that mobile phone games. Rating functional apps is of course nonsensical.
This is not censorship: this is rating, like done with movies and so already. And this kind of rating can be a great help for parents to rate suitability of some game/movie for their kids. So I don't see this as a bad thing, and it is definitely not censorship as the content in question remains available.
Now how they are going to process and rate the tens of thousands of games available (tfa talks about games, not all applications) that is another matter. They may need to hire some extra staff.
Still I think it is basically a good thing, as long as it is just rating, allowing the buyer to get a better idea what they want to buy. Just like going to the movies, the rating gives you an extra clue on the kind of movie you are going to watch, or in this case what application you are going to buy. Or which you may want to pass on.
Disney is dead, indeed. Walt Disney that is - the creator, and the original creative force behind it all. The innovator, bringing animation to a new level. I always loved how smooth and natural looking the animations of Disney are, compared to virtually all other studios. Animals walking like animals, moving naturally and so. Mighty expensive to make of course: having real animals in the studio to study their movements when making a movie. Only now that computer animation reaches the same level for cheap, the rest of the world catches up on that.
But indeed in the last couple decades nothing really original or new came out. They still make beautiful movies, though more and more are based on old fairy tales and so.
Walt Disney was to his company what Steve Jobs is to Apple. The company can survive without him for a while but will whither and die in the long run. It's simply stagnating.