I don't believe it was in this article, but I read another one from a Segway owner who claimed it was around US$0.10 for a full charge. I have no independent verification of that.
My issue is putting all your eggs in one basket... A few years back when there was a giant ice storm in Quebec, we were reminded of how dependant people have become on electricity. Now lets just say that using the power grid to access information becomes popular- power grids are already very central to survival in the modern age.
Gosh. You're right! Since they're line sharing internet access and power, if the power goes out, they won't be able to access the internet either!
And there is the problem in a nutshell. The implementors only care about what they want.
Why should they care?
And I am tired of being victimized by lazy ISPs who can't be bothered to find out who those RBLs are actually blocking.
Fact not in evidence. While I'm sure this has happened, I see no evidence it's as prevalent as you claim. Proof, please, that the subscribers are not aware of the DNSbl listing criteria.
I'm all for blocking spammers by whatever works, but I'm caught in the crossfire and don't like it and won't sit still for it.
Where's this inherent right to transit you're claiming?
If it means sueing the RBLs to get my address off, also fine.
On what basis? Suing, with the knowledge it's unwinnable, with the intent to cost the defendent time and money is illegal in many places. It's a published opinion. The mere fact that you don't like that opinion is not basis for a lawsuit. (well, in most jurisdictions I know of)
As you said "The implementors don't care". If you want to call that whining, feel free.
Where is their obligation to care about your business? Where did they sign on the dotted line that you could subsidize your business costs by using their bandwidth/hardware? If they donate it freely, they're free to withdraw it at any time, for any reason.
You're a pititful little whiner. I feel sorry for you.
And yet some snot-faced kid hiding behind a web site that laughs about the fact you can't contact them says that my choice of hosting services is somehow wrong and I should change?
If reaching your customer base requires the cooperation of that "snot-faced kid", and there are enough "snot-faced kids" cooperating to affect your business, then, yes, I think you should listen to them.
Boycotts are entirely legal and legitimate form of social reform. Your ISP doesn't sound like it is social reforming very well.
The rest of the net is tired of being victimized by spammers and lazy ISPs. While the spam hasn't stopped, the shared blocklist idea has certainly been one of the most effective spam cost-reduction measures implemented. The fact that it's inconvenciencing you is by design. The implementors don't care. You don't pay their paychecks. Get over it. Do something about it. Just quit whining about it.
"Double opt-in" is the term the DMA invented to describe what the rest of the world calls "confirmed opt-in" or "closed loop opt-in". It was an attempt to make the process sound onerous so marketers could make excuses not to do it. As if proving the subscriber reallys owns the email address in question is a repetitive step. (It's not, it's an entirely logical next step)
"Double opt-in" is definitely spammer speak. Doing it, however, is not spammer action.
I mean, you can compare it to having your entire town roped off because one person was a fraud... completely destroying said town, but you still live in it.
You're right! I think the townspeople should talk to the sheriff and demand the fraud be arrested already, before he destroys the town's reputation even further. Or, better yet, run him out of town. (remember, this is a privately owned town, no one has a right to live here)
Instead, I think beating the tourists for driving past the town is a bit counterproductive. Don't you?
Then answer me one simple question. Why are only small ISPs netblocked? Why isn't AOL?
I can count the number of spams I actually received from AOL accounts this year on one hand. I got plenty of emails with a @aol.com forged in the From: header, but almost none of those came from AOL's servers. Don't tell me you're one of those people who actually believe the From: header. I thought we exterminated that species long ago.
Quit making excuses. Trying to turn the whole thing into some sort of conspiracy theory to weasel out of conditions for delivery. Remember, shiny side out for the tinfoil hat!
No. Only if the claim being made is a falsehood.
Causing actual harm to a company is not illegal.
Doing so by lying could be deemed illegal. Subject to a decision by court of law. Both libel and slander have the prerequisite of false claims.
If SPEWS says their list is of spam haboring ISPs, and then it is, then they're not lying.
Yes, you are free to block anyone you want at your own site. However, if you operate a service that maintains a list of "known spammers", and people incorrectly listed show you that they are incorrectly listed, and you still won't remove them, you're setting yourself up for libel/slander charges:
However, if you claim that your list contains IP ranges of ISPs that have harbored spammers and that unlisting might not be immediate then that's definitely not libel.
Oh... Wait... that's what SPEWS does! See their webpage.
Let's all click our heels three times and wish that SPEWS' published criteria magically matches whatever we want. Then we can accuse them of libel/slander for not following our fantasy criteria.
And spews doesn't? Spews randomly blocked a consulting company's netblock I worked for part-time simply because that our block was next to a "known spammer's" block.
I just went to SPEWS' website. It appears that this falls within their listing criteria. I'll take it you don't agree with their listing criteria.
When they politely asked to be removed and pointed out that according to their own evidence file that their netblock had nothing to with spam, they were met with very hostile responses and told to essentially ditch their teleco provider because they'd never unlist anyone.
They talked to SPEWS? It says here SPEWS doesn't talk to anyone. Are you sure? That statement appears highly misleading. Are you certain they didn't talk to news.admin.net-abuse.email?
They admitted that they simply block IPs in a form of "collateral damage" because they feel like it to hurt legitimate businesses so they flee their network provider.
Boy, this is so misleading as to be approaching a lie. They really, really talked to SPEWS, huh? And "spews said"...?
Look at antispews.org [antispews.org] for more info on their flagrant abuses and why you shouldn't use spews.
The fact that you disagree with their listing criteria is all fine and good; that is your right. But there seem to be lots of outright wrong information on that webpage.
My server, SPEWS recommends, my decision whether to trust them, and my decision as to their effectiveness.
And goodness knows it is more important to be able to assign blame than it is to get the job done right.
It's extremely difficult to get the job done right if a slacker knows he/she can do a half-assed job without consequence.
God forbid we should judge our co-workers based on performance.
I like the Sopranos, so I record all the episodes of Season (x). My TiVO 'realizes' I like gangster things, so (unrequested) it tapes The Godfather from TNT (despite my owning the DVD set). In the process, it nukes 2-3 of my Sopranos episodes. Do I understand this correectly? Is there no way to turn this 'feature' off?
Yes, you can turn the "suggestions" feature off if you like. But, there is no need. "Suggestions" only get recorded in the empty space not already taken by "explicitly stated" recordings.
The Tivo will never prioritize it's suggestions over any show you've explicitly told it to record and will never delete any such show to make space for a suggestion. The suggestions recordings basically rotate suggestions in the empty space you're not explicitly using.
You own an SMTP server and pay for bandwidth on it?
Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. Unsolicited Commercial Email to it is theft, AFAIAC. And, if I had paying users, I'd also optionally claim that no one has permission to market my users at these mailboxes without their explicit prior permission. Doing so would also constitute theft.
That's the way I read it, yes. Didn't the author only want integrated replayable audio? A little tape recorder functionality in his palm OS device?
I didn't see anything in the original article that suggested speech-to-text.
Re:Freenet signs it's own death warrant
on
Freenet 0.5 Released
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Actually, I'm assuming it's not secure.
All I have sitting here is 100 bytes. Is it a picture? Is it someone's termpaper? How could I possibly know? I don't have the rest of the pieces. How could a prosecutor know?
I think a lot of the people aren't fully understanding just how distributed this thing is. I don't just have fileX [encrypted] stored. I have pieces of files [encrypted] from all over the place. Breaking the encryption isn't going to help prove me guilty/innocent at all.
This isn't your traditional data-hiding, encryption argument. This is a plausible deniability argument. I have 100 bytes. Definitely isn't a picture. Am I responsible for the fact that it could be joined with 1000 other pieces, which I don't have, to make a picture of porno? If yes, where does one draw the line? I could make a porno picture out of any tidbit on your computer right now. You're now a pornographer and potentially prosecutable under child pornography laws?
Re:Freenet signs it's own death warrant
on
Freenet 0.5 Released
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I don't think you fully understand the technology. Or maybe I don't.
I have 100 bytes on my computer [1], mixed in with 100 million others, all encrypted. It's not a picture, it might be piece of a picture, but even assuming I could decrypt the datastore and take those bytes out it's certainly not recognizable as anything. I don't have the rest of the picture and am not sure who does. I might be able to find out, but I doubt it.
That picture could potentially be child pornography. Assuming it is, am I responsible? Are the other 1000 people who have other pieces responsible? I have 100 bytes of data which I volunteered to store for someone else.
Now assume someone wants to prosecute me.
"Excuse me judge, but where's the evidence (porno)?"
[1] How many bytes is a nitpick I'm not interested in.
Does anyone know of any serious tech hurdle that would make it cost more than $100K or so to develop the necessary software?
Regarding this hypothetical expense of $100k let us weigh the potential generated income versus investing it in something else.
Hrm, my market research indicates I can draw 10x the potential customers by spending that $100k on improving my service toward the unix/windows/other market. (This is just an sample explanation of possible reasons, I have not actually had such research done.)
These people posting these nightvison warnings are idiots who have not gone throught the procedure. They "know someone, who knows someone". Don't listen to these so-called experts.
The primary gripe about night vision problems are from Radial-Keratotomy patients. This uses a scalpel to make spoked incisions in the eye of varying depth (hence "radial"), this causes the eyeball to collapse in on itself before healing, effectively refocusing the camera that is the eyeball.
Lasik reshapes the lens itself. The thickness and shape of the lens. Effectively, this is replacing the cameras lens to focus it. While it might have some "night aura", there is no way in hell it is nearly as bad as RK.
RK can do more fune tuned changes and is used to lesser correction. LASIK has the ability to change greater vision deficiency. There is some overlap between the two.
I have had RK surgery. I am satisfied with it, but LASIK would probably have been better. At 20/400 vision prior to surgery, I had the option of either. I was, however, extremely young for the surgery (26). The older you are, the better candidate you are; rapid healing is your enemy in this.
Is this going to help spread awareness, or is this just going to encourage people to abuse the (apparently) ignorant?
You act as if these are two mutually exclusive events. I do not believe them to be. Awareness is nice to be given in homeopathic doses, but I'm glad to see it spread given any opportunity.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't believe it was in this article, but I read another one from a Segway owner who claimed it was around US$0.10 for a full charge. I have no independent verification of that.
My issue is putting all your eggs in one basket... A few years back when there was a giant ice storm in Quebec, we were reminded of how dependant people have become on electricity. Now lets just say that using the power grid to access information becomes popular- power grids are already very central to survival in the modern age.
Gosh. You're right! Since they're line sharing internet access and power, if the power goes out, they won't be able to access the internet either!
Oh... wait...
And there is the problem in a nutshell. The implementors only care about what they want.
Why should they care?
And I am tired of being victimized by lazy ISPs who can't be bothered to find out who those RBLs are actually blocking.
Fact not in evidence. While I'm sure this has happened, I see no evidence it's as prevalent as you claim. Proof, please, that the subscribers are not aware of the DNSbl listing criteria.
I'm all for blocking spammers by whatever works, but I'm caught in the crossfire and don't like it and won't sit still for it.
Where's this inherent right to transit you're claiming?
If it means sueing the RBLs to get my address off, also fine.
On what basis? Suing, with the knowledge it's unwinnable, with the intent to cost the defendent time and money is illegal in many places. It's a published opinion. The mere fact that you don't like that opinion is not basis for a lawsuit. (well, in most jurisdictions I know of)
As you said "The implementors don't care". If you want to call that whining, feel free.
Where is their obligation to care about your business? Where did they sign on the dotted line that you could subsidize your business costs by using their bandwidth/hardware? If they donate it freely, they're free to withdraw it at any time, for any reason.
You're a pititful little whiner. I feel sorry for you.
And yet some snot-faced kid hiding behind a web site that laughs about the fact you can't contact them says that my choice of hosting services is somehow wrong and I should change?
If reaching your customer base requires the cooperation of that "snot-faced kid", and there are enough "snot-faced kids" cooperating to affect your business, then, yes, I think you should listen to them.
Boycotts are entirely legal and legitimate form of social reform. Your ISP doesn't sound like it is social reforming very well.
The rest of the net is tired of being victimized by spammers and lazy ISPs. While the spam hasn't stopped, the shared blocklist idea has certainly been one of the most effective spam cost-reduction measures implemented. The fact that it's inconvenciencing you is by design. The implementors don't care. You don't pay their paychecks. Get over it. Do something about it. Just quit whining about it.
You do pay your ISP's paycheck.
"Double opt-in" is the term the DMA invented to describe what the rest of the world calls "confirmed opt-in" or "closed loop opt-in". It was an attempt to make the process sound onerous so marketers could make excuses not to do it. As if proving the subscriber reallys owns the email address in question is a repetitive step. (It's not, it's an entirely logical next step)
"Double opt-in" is definitely spammer speak. Doing it, however, is not spammer action.
I mean, you can compare it to having your entire town roped off because one person was a fraud... completely destroying said town, but you still live in it.
You're right! I think the townspeople should talk to the sheriff and demand the fraud be arrested already, before he destroys the town's reputation even further. Or, better yet, run him out of town. (remember, this is a privately owned town, no one has a right to live here)
Instead, I think beating the tourists for driving past the town is a bit counterproductive. Don't you?
Then answer me one simple question. Why are only small ISPs netblocked? Why isn't AOL?
I can count the number of spams I actually received from AOL accounts this year on one hand. I got plenty of emails with a @aol.com forged in the From: header, but almost none of those came from AOL's servers. Don't tell me you're one of those people who actually believe the From: header. I thought we exterminated that species long ago.
Quit making excuses. Trying to turn the whole thing into some sort of conspiracy theory to weasel out of conditions for delivery. Remember, shiny side out for the tinfoil hat!
No. Only if the claim being made is a falsehood.
Causing actual harm to a company is not illegal.
Doing so by lying could be deemed illegal. Subject to a decision by court of law. Both libel and slander have the prerequisite of false claims.
If SPEWS says their list is of spam haboring ISPs, and then it is, then they're not lying.
Yes, you are free to block anyone you want at your own site. However, if you operate a service that maintains a list of "known spammers", and people incorrectly listed show you that they are incorrectly listed, and you still won't remove them, you're setting yourself up for libel/slander charges:
However, if you claim that your list contains IP ranges of ISPs that have harbored spammers and that unlisting might not be immediate then that's definitely not libel.
Oh... Wait... that's what SPEWS does! See their webpage.
Let's all click our heels three times and wish that SPEWS' published criteria magically matches whatever we want. Then we can accuse them of libel/slander for not following our fantasy criteria.
Let's see...
SPEWS- Anonymous - no contact info provided
- Voluntary - no one is forced to use it
AntiSPEWSWhom do you trust to be more impartial?
Come on folks, it's no contest.
And spews doesn't? Spews randomly blocked a consulting company's netblock I worked for part-time simply because that our block was next to a "known spammer's" block.
I just went to SPEWS' website. It appears that this falls within their listing criteria. I'll take it you don't agree with their listing criteria.
When they politely asked to be removed and pointed out that according to their own evidence file that their netblock had nothing to with spam, they were met with very hostile responses and told to essentially ditch their teleco provider because they'd never unlist anyone.
They talked to SPEWS? It says here SPEWS doesn't talk to anyone. Are you sure? That statement appears highly misleading. Are you certain they didn't talk to news.admin.net-abuse.email?
They admitted that they simply block IPs in a form of "collateral damage" because they feel like it to hurt legitimate businesses so they flee their network provider.
Boy, this is so misleading as to be approaching a lie. They really, really talked to SPEWS, huh? And "spews said"...?
Look at antispews.org [antispews.org] for more info on their flagrant abuses and why you shouldn't use spews.
The fact that you disagree with their listing criteria is all fine and good; that is your right. But there seem to be lots of outright wrong information on that webpage.
My server, SPEWS recommends, my decision whether to trust them, and my decision as to their effectiveness.
And goodness knows it is more important to be able to assign blame than it is to get the job done right.
It's extremely difficult to get the job done right if a slacker knows he/she can do a half-assed job without consequence.
God forbid we should judge our co-workers based on performance.
I like the Sopranos, so I record all the episodes of Season (x). My TiVO 'realizes' I like gangster things, so (unrequested) it tapes The Godfather from TNT (despite my owning the DVD set). In the process, it nukes 2-3 of my Sopranos episodes. Do I understand this correectly? Is there no way to turn this 'feature' off?
Yes, you can turn the "suggestions" feature off if you like. But, there is no need. "Suggestions" only get recorded in the empty space not already taken by "explicitly stated" recordings.
The Tivo will never prioritize it's suggestions over any show you've explicitly told it to record and will never delete any such show to make space for a suggestion. The suggestions recordings basically rotate suggestions in the empty space you're not explicitly using.
You own an SMTP server and pay for bandwidth on it?
Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. Unsolicited Commercial Email to it is theft, AFAIAC. And, if I had paying users, I'd also optionally claim that no one has permission to market my users at these mailboxes without their explicit prior permission. Doing so would also constitute theft.
You use POP and IMAP to fetch the mail off servers you have explicit permission to access. The email is delivered via SMTP.
You read his message via POST?
Not true. The HTTP protocol is a pull medium. SMTP is push.
Aren't you glad AOL designed this neat "internet thingy" for you in between serving you all those popups?
That's the way I read it, yes. Didn't the author only want integrated replayable audio? A little tape recorder functionality in his palm OS device? I didn't see anything in the original article that suggested speech-to-text.
Actually, I'm assuming it's not secure.
All I have sitting here is 100 bytes. Is it a picture? Is it someone's termpaper? How could I possibly know? I don't have the rest of the pieces. How could a prosecutor know?
I think a lot of the people aren't fully understanding just how distributed this thing is. I don't just have fileX [encrypted] stored. I have pieces of files [encrypted] from all over the place. Breaking the encryption isn't going to help prove me guilty/innocent at all.
This isn't your traditional data-hiding, encryption argument. This is a plausible deniability argument. I have 100 bytes. Definitely isn't a picture. Am I responsible for the fact that it could be joined with 1000 other pieces, which I don't have, to make a picture of porno? If yes, where does one draw the line? I could make a porno picture out of any tidbit on your computer right now. You're now a pornographer and potentially prosecutable under child pornography laws?
I don't think you fully understand the technology. Or maybe I don't.
I have 100 bytes on my computer [1], mixed in with 100 million others, all encrypted. It's not a picture, it might be piece of a picture, but even assuming I could decrypt the datastore and take those bytes out it's certainly not recognizable as anything. I don't have the rest of the picture and am not sure who does. I might be able to find out, but I doubt it.
That picture could potentially be child pornography. Assuming it is, am I responsible? Are the other 1000 people who have other pieces responsible? I have 100 bytes of data which I volunteered to store for someone else.
Now assume someone wants to prosecute me.
"Excuse me judge, but where's the evidence (porno)?"
[1] How many bytes is a nitpick I'm not interested in.
Check out Gentoo Linux.
That's very nice, but this article is/was about Debian. Now move along and let the adults discuss important, on-topic issues.
Does anyone know of any serious tech hurdle that would make it cost more than $100K or so to develop the necessary software?
Regarding this hypothetical expense of $100k let us weigh the potential generated income versus investing it in something else.
Hrm, my market research indicates I can draw 10x the potential customers by spending that $100k on improving my service toward the unix/windows/other market. (This is just an sample explanation of possible reasons, I have not actually had such research done.)
These people posting these nightvison warnings are idiots who have not gone throught the procedure. They "know someone, who knows someone". Don't listen to these so-called experts.
The primary gripe about night vision problems are from Radial-Keratotomy patients. This uses a scalpel to make spoked incisions in the eye of varying depth (hence "radial"), this causes the eyeball to collapse in on itself before healing, effectively refocusing the camera that is the eyeball.
Lasik reshapes the lens itself. The thickness and shape of the lens. Effectively, this is replacing the cameras lens to focus it. While it might have some "night aura", there is no way in hell it is nearly as bad as RK.
RK can do more fune tuned changes and is used to lesser correction. LASIK has the ability to change greater vision deficiency. There is some overlap between the two.
I have had RK surgery. I am satisfied with it, but LASIK would probably have been better. At 20/400 vision prior to surgery, I had the option of either. I was, however, extremely young for the surgery (26). The older you are, the better candidate you are; rapid healing is your enemy in this.
Is this going to help spread awareness, or is this just going to encourage people to abuse the (apparently) ignorant?
You act as if these are two mutually exclusive events. I do not believe them to be. Awareness is nice to be given in homeopathic doses, but I'm glad to see it spread given any opportunity.
Oh great. Now you've gone and slashdotted Google. Way to go.
Only if I get to set the price of my time and bandwidth.