It depends on what these computers are going to be used for. If they are for CS type learning, then your idea would work. If they are going to be used to 'teach' math or reading, or spelling, or anything non-CS related, you are going to need software for that. In those cases the teachers/students will be using aps, not an OS. If there are no usable educational aps, those Linux boxes are just going to be used as door stops or paper weights.
RedHat is doing the same. They just want a tax write-off for all that support they are donating. You don't really thing RedHat is doing this for the kids and/or just to bash MS?
Could do that, but I would guess that those dual-boot systems would mostly be booted into Windows. And that brings up the question: "Do schools want Linux?" If the schools can't/don't use the Linux boxes, it is kind of a waste. If we are going to push for Linux boxes to be part of the settlement, we had better make sure that there is usable educational software for the boxes.
The do 'profit' is some way. The same way people were howling about in the MS offer. RedHat will get a nice tax write-off. Despite how nice everyone thinks RedHat is, they are still a company. They want to make money. RedHat isn't dong this for the children any more than MS is.
How is this going to help the kids? People don't want MS to give the software cause it is a tax write-off and will force kids to learn Windows based OSes. It seems that RedHat wants the same thing: a tax break and to force kids to learn RedHat based OSes (Linux). Why not let the schools decide what would be best for their kids to learn? I think it will look bad for the OSS community to force schools to use OSS. Maybe a 50/50 split? This way kids can learn Windows (which is a valuable skill, despite what some people think of MS) and will learn Linux (which is an equaly valuable skill, despite what some people think of Linux).
No. I am saying that a theoretical someone could feel threatend by the fact that there are people that they don't know compiling information about their personal lives. This theoretical person had either live in a shcak in the hills and not interact with anyone he/she does not know, or learn to deal with it.
Wait! I thought I was the paranoid one, and you were the one who vanquished harrasing messages with a tap on your delete key No. You are the one who claims that spammers are terrorists. I am the one who deletes the spam and gets on with life instead of playing the victim.
Are you saying that stalkers don't terrorize their victims? We are talking about email. Are you saying that you are terrorized by a piece of spam?
By your logic, the victim should just deal with the inconvenience of ignoring them. In your world, everyone is nice and there are no bad people. Here in the Real World, people can be mean and do bad things. I should not have to deal with locking my door when I leave my home, but I do. I should not have to deal with people who are jerks, but I do.
If you feel terrorized by a piece of email, you need to get a grip on your life. Honestly, it is just a piece of email. Delete it and go on with your life.
Yeah. I work in a security/abuse department. I have seen both sides call the other terrorists. Spammers call anti-spammers terrorists. Anti-spammers are calling spammers terrorists. People who get scanned by a Nimda infected machine claim they are being scanned by hacker terrorists. Anyone who does something 'bad' to you is a terrorist now. Using terrorist in that way just cheapens the word terrorist.
I think that using the word terrorist to describe a spammer just cheapens the word terrorist. Terrorists are people who try to kill and/or harm people. While spammers may be bad people, I doubt they are trying to hurt or kill anyone.
Depends on what kind of warez site you are running. They say 'commercial scale. If it is just you and 2 or 3 friends trading programs, most likely no. But, if you are running a public access warez site (or any site with a large number of users), I think that would be covered in the treaty.
Do not call spammers terrorists. Terrorists kill people, spammers do not. I do not like spammers either, but calling them terrorists just weakens your argument and, to be honest, make you look like a kook. Feel free to call them thieves, liars, scumbags, or whatever, but not terrorists.
It will also try to gain entry via exploits. So, if your Linux box is not updated with securty patches, it will get you that way. You could prevent that by keeping up on patches, or using a non-commonplace (READ: not MS or linux based) OS.
More work for those of us who work in security departments and/or abuse departments. I think this will only work with stupid criminals. All one has to do to avoid this is keep up on security patches and not open email attachments. But, seeing how well SirCam and CodeRed spread, I guess the FBI will catch lots of people this way.
That was two years ago, nutball. Things have changed. And as far as SPEWS, what are you waiting for? Block them and be done with it, unless you just like bitching about WorldCom. If a network was causing me that much of a problem, I would just as their network to my blackhole router and be done with it.
Here is a free clue: "UUnet does not exist. They are called WorldCom now." As far as NANAE goes, no one cares what a bunch of kooks say in lusenet. And no sane admin that wants to keep thier job is going to black list all of WorldCom (aka AS701). If you want to block it on your low-rent ISP, that is fine, I doubt that WorldCom will care. Your customers might care when they find that most of the internet is not available to them, but that is between you and your customers. With respect to your acerebral comment about port 25 filtering not working, there are several ways for a spammer to get around that: insecure formmail scripts, SOCKS proxies, WinGates, SMTP servers on non-standard ports, etc. But, I can see you are too busy frothing on NANAE to figure that out. Also, his name is spelled St.Clair and there are no pink 'cursody' phones at WorldCom. And there are no pink contracts either, if you have proof of one, post it somewhere, otherwise STFU, loon.
A sworn statement, under oath, that uu.net does not allow pink contracts. You are going to have to contact their legal dept for that. Sales won't/shouldn't give a sworn statement.
I don't have time to sit on hold for hours. So, you have obviously never called. Their abuse desk is staffed 24/7 and the wait is never longer than 3-4 rings. Give them a try: 1-800-900-0241 opt2 opt3 then opt1.
I found complaining to sales got me removed from the lists. Sales would just forward it to abuse. They don't give a shit about your spam and don't have time to deal with it.
Spamhaus used to list an executive (vp?) who apparently liked spam for its revenue. I see that link is gone now. Is the exec gone? I don't think he is there. And, to be honest, the guy at Spamhaus kinda blows things out of proportion sometimes. So, that quote may not be on the up-and-up, IMHO.
Well, I won't call you an idiot, but be honest: If you look in any of the slashdot stories there lots of people chime in with "Oh, this is the end of MS!". Yet, MS is still here, and for better or worse, will be here for quite some time. Will this hurt MS? Maybe. Will it destroy MS? Doubtful.
Right. Why does sales refuse to deny their existance, hmmm? Yes I have emails from them, but not on this pc. Generally very evasive, not one outright denial. Why are you asking sales about policy? If sales said there were no pink contracts, would you believe them anyway? My guess is that you have already made up you mind and there is nothing anyone could say to change it.
I now see tags "uu.net does not wish to receive complaints about xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx" during the parsing. I forward these to abuse@uu.net and get the blanket statement which means nothing. What IP are you talking about? Are you sure that UUNet is responsible for it. SpamCop does make mistakes, ya know. Have you tried calling UUnet's Abuse dept?
I've spent time in their abuse department, so I can address this. You were in abuse more than 2 years ago, so no you should not comment on this.
First, they don't shut them down fast enough (it's sad) so the spammers can get about 3 months of fun and games from the initial notice time, then pretending that they're going to fix it, then the final 30 shutdown warning. However, that's the legal contract, to basically give joe blow consumer every possible chance to fix their problem before they cut them off. Bzzzzt. Wrong again. once a termination has started, if the customer continues to generate abuse, the circuit is termed asap.
Slashdot Mirror
So, RedHat's proposal is moot? Does RedHat's proposal have this in it?
It depends on what these computers are going to be used for. If they are for CS type learning, then your idea would work. If they are going to be used to 'teach' math or reading, or spelling, or anything non-CS related, you are going to need software for that. In those cases the teachers/students will be using aps, not an OS. If there are no usable educational aps, those Linux boxes are just going to be used as door stops or paper weights.
RedHat is doing the same. They just want a tax write-off for all that support they are donating. You don't really thing RedHat is doing this for the kids and/or just to bash MS?
Could do that, but I would guess that those dual-boot systems would mostly be booted into Windows. And that brings up the question: "Do schools want Linux?" If the schools can't/don't use the Linux boxes, it is kind of a waste. If we are going to push for Linux boxes to be part of the settlement, we had better make sure that there is usable educational software for the boxes.
RedHat is going to use that donation as a big tax write-off. A tax write-off of that size would be wonderful for a company in RedHat's position.
The do 'profit' is some way. The same way people were howling about in the MS offer. RedHat will get a nice tax write-off. Despite how nice everyone thinks RedHat is, they are still a company. They want to make money. RedHat isn't dong this for the children any more than MS is.
How is this going to help the kids? People don't want MS to give the software cause it is a tax write-off and will force kids to learn Windows based OSes. It seems that RedHat wants the same thing: a tax break and to force kids to learn RedHat based OSes (Linux). Why not let the schools decide what would be best for their kids to learn? I think it will look bad for the OSS community to force schools to use OSS. Maybe a 50/50 split? This way kids can learn Windows (which is a valuable skill, despite what some people think of MS) and will learn Linux (which is an equaly valuable skill, despite what some people think of Linux).
This theoretical person had either live in a shcak in the hills and not interact with anyone he/she does not know, or learn to deal with it.
Wait! I thought I was the paranoid one, and you were the one who vanquished harrasing messages with a tap on your delete key
No. You are the one who claims that spammers are terrorists. I am the one who deletes the spam and gets on with life instead of playing the victim.
We are talking about email. Are you saying that you are terrorized by a piece of spam?
By your logic, the victim should just deal with the inconvenience of ignoring them.
In your world, everyone is nice and there are no bad people. Here in the Real World, people can be mean and do bad things. I should not have to deal with locking my door when I leave my home, but I do. I should not have to deal with people who are jerks, but I do.
If it is a criminal matter, why don't you press charges? Deleting 50 emails is just as easy as deleting one.
If you feel terrorized by a piece of email, you need to get a grip on your life. Honestly, it is just a piece of email. Delete it and go on with your life.
Yeah. I work in a security/abuse department. I have seen both sides call the other terrorists. Spammers call anti-spammers terrorists. Anti-spammers are calling spammers terrorists. People who get scanned by a Nimda infected machine claim they are being scanned by hacker terrorists. Anyone who does something 'bad' to you is a terrorist now. Using terrorist in that way just cheapens the word terrorist.
I think that using the word terrorist to describe a spammer just cheapens the word terrorist. Terrorists are people who try to kill and/or harm people. While spammers may be bad people, I doubt they are trying to hurt or kill anyone.
I am NOT a lawyer
Depends on what kind of warez site you are running. They say 'commercial scale. If it is just you and 2 or 3 friends trading programs, most likely no. But, if you are running a public access warez site (or any site with a large number of users), I think that would be covered in the treaty.
Just remember: The best way to extract someones passphrase is with a rubber hose. :)
Why are you testing security on a box that is not yours in the first place?
Do not call spammers terrorists. Terrorists kill people, spammers do not. I do not like spammers either, but calling them terrorists just weakens your argument and, to be honest, make you look like a kook. Feel free to call them thieves, liars, scumbags, or whatever, but not terrorists.
It will also try to gain entry via exploits. So, if your Linux box is not updated with securty patches, it will get you that way. You could prevent that by keeping up on patches, or using a non-commonplace (READ: not MS or linux based) OS.
More work for those of us who work in security departments and/or abuse departments. I think this will only work with stupid criminals. All one has to do to avoid this is keep up on security patches and not open email attachments. But, seeing how well SirCam and CodeRed spread, I guess the FBI will catch lots of people this way.
That was two years ago, nutball. Things have changed. And as far as SPEWS, what are you waiting for? Block them and be done with it, unless you just like bitching about WorldCom. If a network was causing me that much of a problem, I would just as their network to my blackhole router and be done with it.
Here is a free clue: "UUnet does not exist. They are called WorldCom now."
As far as NANAE goes, no one cares what a bunch of kooks say in lusenet. And no sane admin that wants to keep thier job is going to black list all of WorldCom (aka AS701). If you want to block it on your low-rent ISP, that is fine, I doubt that WorldCom will care. Your customers might care when they find that most of the internet is not available to them, but that is between you and your customers. With respect to your acerebral comment about port 25 filtering not working, there are several ways for a spammer to get around that: insecure formmail scripts, SOCKS proxies, WinGates, SMTP servers on non-standard ports, etc. But, I can see you are too busy frothing on NANAE to figure that out. Also, his name is spelled St.Clair and there are no pink 'cursody' phones at WorldCom. And there are no pink contracts either, if you have proof of one, post it somewhere, otherwise STFU, loon.
You are going to have to contact their legal dept for that. Sales won't/shouldn't give a sworn statement.
I don't have time to sit on hold for hours.
So, you have obviously never called. Their abuse desk is staffed 24/7 and the wait is never longer than 3-4 rings. Give them a try: 1-800-900-0241 opt2 opt3 then opt1.
I found complaining to sales got me removed from the lists.
Sales would just forward it to abuse. They don't give a shit about your spam and don't have time to deal with it.
Spamhaus used to list an executive (vp?) who apparently liked spam for its revenue. I see that link is gone now. Is the exec gone?
I don't think he is there. And, to be honest, the guy at Spamhaus kinda blows things out of proportion sometimes. So, that quote may not be on the up-and-up, IMHO.
Well, I won't call you an idiot, but be honest: If you look in any of the slashdot stories there lots of people chime in with "Oh, this is the end of MS!". Yet, MS is still here, and for better or worse, will be here for quite some time. Will this hurt MS? Maybe. Will it destroy MS? Doubtful.
Why are you asking sales about policy? If sales said there were no pink contracts, would you believe them anyway? My guess is that you have already made up you mind and there is nothing anyone could say to change it.
I now see tags "uu.net does not wish to receive complaints about xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx" during the parsing. I forward these to abuse@uu.net and get the blanket statement which means nothing.
What IP are you talking about? Are you sure that UUNet is responsible for it. SpamCop does make mistakes, ya know. Have you tried calling UUnet's Abuse dept?
You were in abuse more than 2 years ago, so no you should not comment on this.
First, they don't shut them down fast enough (it's sad) so the spammers can get about 3 months of fun and games from the initial notice time, then pretending that they're going to fix it, then the final 30 shutdown warning. However, that's the legal contract, to basically give joe blow consumer every possible chance to fix their problem before they cut them off.
Bzzzzt. Wrong again. once a termination has started, if the customer continues to generate abuse, the circuit is termed asap.
BTW, How are things at Erols? *snicker*