No. In this case, though, the court had ruled that the legislature had not given the FTC the necessary power to operate and enforce the do not call list. The legislature, then, is now voting to give the FTC that power. The legislature is not overruling the court in any way, but rather doing what it said.
Reinstating slavery, OTOH, *would* require a constitutional amendment, not just an act of congress.
I hope that because none of these ISPs (yet) produce their own hardware or configuration software, hardware manufacturers and application programmers will default to following the "shoulds" in the RFCs. Few ISPs will bother to deviate from these defaults at first. If we're lucky, this will lead to people getting used to a/64 and rejecting an ISP where their microwave, refrigerator, tivo, PDA, telephone and all 4 of their PCs can't have routable addresses so they can control them from the office.
I know what you mean about cable ISPs, though. I just got rid of mine because their business practices made me so angry. This seems to be creating a market in itself, though. For example, speakeasy.net touts its "liberating policies" on the front page, along with the statistic that 6 out of 7 new subscribers come from another broadband ISP.
I understand that. Most single-family residential internet access customers still use IPv4:-).
I was replying to the assertion (by CowboyNeal in the OP) that people would wish to maintain this once IPv6 becomes common. At that point, every home user should have hundreds of addresses available, and IMO, even if the benefits of NAT are desirable, it will be better to NAT one-to-one.
I know I enjoy the added security of a NATed firewall, and without a really good reason, I won't be quick to give it up.
What makes you think that NAT implies one address for many machines? Even if you want the extra security provided by NAT, if you have many addresses available, you can translate one routable address per internal machine. I certainly look forward to IPv6 for this reason, but I'm not holding my breath:-)
What if I charge some $12.99 a month to be able to send email to her grandkids, and you block her from doing that, because you have a problem with a completely unrelated business relationship of mine ? Aren't you kind of holding the innocent customers hostage ? I don't like Microsoft, but I still think it would be a crime to write a virus to destroy people's data just because they did chose to use Windows.
I don't block her from sending anything; I merely refuse to accept traffic from certain parts of the net that are known to generate abusive traffic. If she's sending mail from those parts of the net, I may reject her mail. She should complain to you to stop supporting spam. She has no recourse towards me, however. Her grandkids, on the other hand (who presumably in your analogy pay me for email services) may have a grievance with me. If I am providing their service and don't allow traffic that they desire through, they should demand that I fix the service or demand a refund and leave. If I am competent, I will make my block more granular. If you support spammers, though, and your customers who pay $12.99 know that, they are not so "innocent". They are benefitting from your spam support (by getting below-market rates for connectivity which, incidentally, is sub-par because of your spammer support) and should choose a more reputable provider.
I am, by and large, "just blocking the spam". Some parts of the net are so spammy that it is more efficient for me to block them off altogether and resolve issues as my users bring them to my attention. Believe it or not, my users appreciate this. [FYI, I have been known to whitelist addresses, but only at my users' requests, not as a result of spammy senders' demands. It's happened twice in the past couple million messages.] (I am not AOL, BTW.)
Of course I've heard of tortious interference. And IANAL, but under any reasonable definition of tortious interference AOL's behavior is not. The mere fact that someone's activity injures someone else's business does not constitute tortious interference[1]. AOL is not going out and interfering with CI Host's email. They are simply refusing to take the action of accepting and storing it on their own servers. CI host has no agreement with AOL for AOL to accept, store and forward CI host's mail. When CI Host's customers contact AOL to ask why AOL does not accept their messages, AOL replies that the netblock has been linked to abusive traffic and that they blame CI Host for that. The only possible way tortious interference could occur here is if AOL were to approach CI Host's customers with the intent of destroying CI Host's business; the fact that CI Host customers approached AOL and asked their opinion changes everything.
[1] For example, if you charge people $5 to park their cars on my property, and I erect a fence to stop you from doing so, I have clearly interfered with your business but not committed tortious interference. In fact, you're lucky I didn't prosecute you for trespassing. Though it's an electronic trespass, the spam situation is similar.
I hope they win this one. First of all, CI Host are a bunch of f$cking spambags. Second of all, it'll be a dark day when a court forces someone to carry unwanted traffic. AOL owns their own network. AOL can decide who they want or don't want to accept mail from, for whatever reason AOL wants. If AOL customers don't like AOL's decision, they'll leave, and AOL will lose in the market. Oddly enough, only spammers seem to have any trouble grasping the fact that a network owner can restrict what flows over said network for any reason at all.
Free advice to CI Host: Your legal action has just landed you permanently on hundreds of private blocklists. I know of at least 5. You and your customers now going to have a lot more trouble getting your mail deliverd to many more places than AOL. Find a new line of work because no netblock you are associated with will ever be useful for email, which you indicate to be your main line of business in your lawsuit. Cut your losses and get off the net now. Sell your equipment on eBay. Sell your netblocks back to ARIN. Do something productive. You'll be happier if you avoid the world of frustration you just entered. Just unplug instead.
What sort of distribution are you running? here's what I get:
[petard@aq1sw2de3 petard]$ apropos eject cd
accept/reject [accept] (8) - accept/reject jobs sent to a destination
accept/reject [reject] (8) - accept/reject jobs sent to a destination
eject (1) - eject removable media
Maybe you need a better distribution? I agree, it's still not as good as the Apple help system or MS KB, but it certainly works in this case better than your results show.
(iDVD 3 requires a Macintosh computer configured with an Apple SuperDrive.)
Since they say this multiple times, and since they do not sell an external "Apple Superdrive", it is safe to assume that iDVD, even if purchased as part of iLife, will not work with external drives. (In fact, it does not check to see if a drive is the same model as a superdrive but rather whether or not it's connected internally.) Internal or external, if you're not using an apple drive it is not supported and may not work in the future.
I checked... fortunately all my applications comply with these provisions as described in the/. blurb. (Unfortunately I don't read swedish, so I don't know whether they really comply with the law.)
My application asks permission by sending the following header: Set-cookie: USERID=80b1818f4b0d3f21306b1982; expires=Saturday, 24-Jul-2004 13:28:11 GMT; path=/; domain=.example.com
This tells the user that the cookie will be used to identify them to *.example.com until 24 July 2004 at the latest. The user gives permission by sending this cookie back to me. If the user doesn't give permission, she doesn't send it back and my site doesn't track her identity.
Is this simply a case of lawmakers not understanding how cookies work? As I see it, anyone who sends me a cookie, as it requires active participation on their (client's) part to SEND it to me as part of subsequent requests, has given permission. If they didn't give permission, why would they send me the cookie?
If there weren't so many moronic laws on this side of the atlantic, I'd sit back and have a laugh at the Swedes' expense about now.
[OT] Read the whole thing
on
Pods Unite
·
· Score: 1
I changed my sent and drafts (OS X 10.2) by highlighting the mailbox I wanted to use, going to the "Mailbox" menu, and selecting "Use Selected Mailbox for" -> the option I wanted. Interestingly enough, mail.app appears to update all its message counts during its message cycles for me too, but I don't recall doing anything to cause that. (I have new messages distributed into approx. 15 folders.) It only shows the ones in the inbox(es) in its dock biff, however.
I use wifi around my apartment, and I encrypt everything via either ssl (imap, smtp and http) or ssh tunnels. After living on a non-switched college network for 4 years, I've learned to never trust the local network anywhere.
It's good that you've learned never to trust the local network anywhere, but your comment implies that you could rely on a switched network for some sort of added security. You can't. It is trivial to sniff traffic on a switched network.
I used to be a little into chemistry in secondary school, but not so much anymore. The reason I link to the story is that it provides the context for one of my favorite quotes:
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die."
-- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
It's so frequently misquoted that I wanted to link to the original article.
Unfortunately, my.sig doesn't convey that very well, because/. counts the link characters as.sig characters and truncates the.sig... i'd do a tinyurl, but the trolls have conditioned slashdotters not to click on that kind of link for fear of goatse dot cx or similar:-P
You missed my point. If the potential damages to you are worth more than the worth of person/company doing the work, no amount of care in constructing the contract will protect you. Your contract may enable you to get a judgement for 100 million dollars in the case of a backdoor, but if the contractor is only worth 100 thousand dollars, no contract in the world will enable you to collect on that judgement.
I don't really care if the person coding my project puts in a backdoor if I can sue them into oblivion when it's discovered/used.
If the damage the backdoor can do to you will cost you more than you could hope to recover from them by "suing them into oblivion," you'd be well served care a lot.
Microsoft declined to make a spokesman available but issued a statement saying it supports open standards.
Typical. The author must have contacted the security team instead of the.NET team. (Seriously, though, you'd think an MS-NBC reporter could get a little more than that!)
I find that privoxy works better for me than the mechanisms built in to any browser. It's based on the old junkbusters codebase with many more features. It's available for both windows and very nearly any form of UNIX (or UNIX-like) OS you might reasonably use to browse the net. (Of course, I have it set to allow ads for slashdot:-)) In combination with phoenix's popup blocking (which takes care of SSL sites such as hushmail that privoxy can't) I find that it gives me near-perfect control over my browsing experience.
That said, if I really suspect that a particular site may be malicious, as opposed to simply obnoxious, I look it over in lynx first.
It's been done by for-profits and failed. What makes you think a nonprofit would do better? Some time ago, Apple even made one of these "Kidsweb" type services available for free to all mac users. It was essentially a whitelist service. No one used it so the service was discontinued.
Personally, I think the government-sponsored program has similar prospects for success, but I've been called a cynic before. The problem will be such a dearth of "certified clean" content that in order for your kids to have access to even a moderate percentage of the information that makes you want to provide them with internet access in the first place you'll have to grant them access outside the.kids.us domain. That becomes a vicious cycle; if parents won't want to restrict their children to a whitelist, no sites will endeavor to meet the certification criteria (and go to the expense of producing and hosting a version with no outside links, getting it certified, etc.) because that won't gain them any additional eyeballs. Because there's so little content there, parents will only have a choice continue to allow their children to venture outside the domain or discontinuing their internet access.
Those who have received from Lindows.com the binaries for any GPL'd software can also find the source code available for download in their my.lindows.com account.
Take the GPL Quiz. Lindows is required to distribute the source to anyone who has received the binaries and requests the source... not just "those who have received [binaries] from Linxows.com".
Slashdot Mirror
No. In this case, though, the court had ruled that the legislature had not given the FTC the necessary power to operate and enforce the do not call list. The legislature, then, is now voting to give the FTC that power. The legislature is not overruling the court in any way, but rather doing what it said.
Reinstating slavery, OTOH, *would* require a constitutional amendment, not just an act of congress.
I hope that because none of these ISPs (yet) produce their own hardware or configuration software, hardware manufacturers and application programmers will default to following the "shoulds" in the RFCs. Few ISPs will bother to deviate from these defaults at first. If we're lucky, this will lead to people getting used to a /64 and rejecting an ISP where their microwave, refrigerator, tivo, PDA, telephone and all 4 of their PCs can't have routable addresses so they can control them from the office.
I know what you mean about cable ISPs, though. I just got rid of mine because their business practices made me so angry. This seems to be creating a market in itself, though. For example, speakeasy.net touts its "liberating policies" on the front page, along with the statistic that 6 out of 7 new subscribers come from another broadband ISP.
I understand that. Most single-family residential internet access customers still use IPv4 :-).
I was replying to the assertion (by CowboyNeal in the OP) that people would wish to maintain this once IPv6 becomes common. At that point, every home user should have hundreds of addresses available, and IMO, even if the benefits of NAT are desirable, it will be better to NAT one-to-one.
What makes you think that NAT implies one address for many machines? Even if you want the extra security provided by NAT, if you have many addresses available, you can translate one routable address per internal machine. I certainly look forward to IPv6 for this reason, but I'm not holding my breath :-)
What if I charge some $12.99 a month to be able to send email to her grandkids, and you block her from doing that, because you have a problem with a completely unrelated business relationship of mine ? Aren't you kind of holding the innocent customers hostage ? I don't like Microsoft, but I still think it would be a crime to write a virus to destroy people's data just because they did chose to use Windows.
I don't block her from sending anything; I merely refuse to accept traffic from certain parts of the net that are known to generate abusive traffic. If she's sending mail from those parts of the net, I may reject her mail. She should complain to you to stop supporting spam. She has no recourse towards me, however. Her grandkids, on the other hand (who presumably in your analogy pay me for email services) may have a grievance with me. If I am providing their service and don't allow traffic that they desire through, they should demand that I fix the service or demand a refund and leave. If I am competent, I will make my block more granular. If you support spammers, though, and your customers who pay $12.99 know that, they are not so "innocent". They are benefitting from your spam support (by getting below-market rates for connectivity which, incidentally, is sub-par because of your spammer support) and should choose a more reputable provider.
I am, by and large, "just blocking the spam". Some parts of the net are so spammy that it is more efficient for me to block them off altogether and resolve issues as my users bring them to my attention. Believe it or not, my users appreciate this. [FYI, I have been known to whitelist addresses, but only at my users' requests, not as a result of spammy senders' demands. It's happened twice in the past couple million messages.] (I am not AOL, BTW.)
Of course I've heard of tortious interference. And IANAL, but under any reasonable definition of tortious interference AOL's behavior is not. The mere fact that someone's activity injures someone else's business does not constitute tortious interference[1]. AOL is not going out and interfering with CI Host's email. They are simply refusing to take the action of accepting and storing it on their own servers. CI host has no agreement with AOL for AOL to accept, store and forward CI host's mail. When CI Host's customers contact AOL to ask why AOL does not accept their messages, AOL replies that the netblock has been linked to abusive traffic and that they blame CI Host for that. The only possible way tortious interference could occur here is if AOL were to approach CI Host's customers with the intent of destroying CI Host's business; the fact that CI Host customers approached AOL and asked their opinion changes everything.
[1] For example, if you charge people $5 to park their cars on my property, and I erect a fence to stop you from doing so, I have clearly interfered with your business but not committed tortious interference. In fact, you're lucky I didn't prosecute you for trespassing. Though it's an electronic trespass, the spam situation is similar.
I hope they win this one. First of all, CI Host are a bunch of f$cking spambags. Second of all, it'll be a dark day when a court forces someone to carry unwanted traffic. AOL owns their own network. AOL can decide who they want or don't want to accept mail from, for whatever reason AOL wants. If AOL customers don't like AOL's decision, they'll leave, and AOL will lose in the market. Oddly enough, only spammers seem to have any trouble grasping the fact that a network owner can restrict what flows over said network for any reason at all.
Free advice to CI Host: Your legal action has just landed you permanently on hundreds of private blocklists. I know of at least 5. You and your customers now going to have a lot more trouble getting your mail deliverd to many more places than AOL. Find a new line of work because no netblock you are associated with will ever be useful for email, which you indicate to be your main line of business in your lawsuit. Cut your losses and get off the net now. Sell your equipment on eBay. Sell your netblocks back to ARIN. Do something productive. You'll be happier if you avoid the world of frustration you just entered. Just unplug instead.
What sort of distribution are you running? here's what I get:
[petard@aq1sw2de3 petard]$ apropos eject cd
accept/reject [accept] (8) - accept/reject jobs sent to a destination
accept/reject [reject] (8) - accept/reject jobs sent to a destination
eject (1) - eject removable media
Maybe you need a better distribution? I agree, it's still not as good as the Apple help system or MS KB, but it certainly works in this case better than your results show.
Check out what apple has to say:
Since they say this multiple times, and since they do not sell an external "Apple Superdrive", it is safe to assume that iDVD, even if purchased as part of iLife, will not work with external drives. (In fact, it does not check to see if a drive is the same model as a superdrive but rather whether or not it's connected internally.) Internal or external, if you're not using an apple drive it is not supported and may not work in the future.
I checked... fortunately all my applications comply with these provisions as described in the /. blurb. (Unfortunately I don't read swedish, so I don't know whether they really comply with the law.)
My application asks permission by sending the following header:
Set-cookie: USERID=80b1818f4b0d3f21306b1982; expires=Saturday, 24-Jul-2004 13:28:11 GMT; path=/; domain=.example.com
This tells the user that the cookie will be used to identify them to *.example.com until 24 July 2004 at the latest. The user gives permission by sending this cookie back to me. If the user doesn't give permission, she doesn't send it back and my site doesn't track her identity.
Is this simply a case of lawmakers not understanding how cookies work? As I see it, anyone who sends me a cookie, as it requires active participation on their (client's) part to SEND it to me as part of subsequent requests, has given permission. If they didn't give permission, why would they send me the cookie?
If there weren't so many moronic laws on this side of the atlantic, I'd sit back and have a laugh at the Swedes' expense about now.
--petard
I changed my sent and drafts (OS X 10.2) by highlighting the mailbox I wanted to use, going to the "Mailbox" menu, and selecting "Use Selected Mailbox for" -> the option I wanted. Interestingly enough, mail.app appears to update all its message counts during its message cycles for me too, but I don't recall doing anything to cause that. (I have new messages distributed into approx. 15 folders.) It only shows the ones in the inbox(es) in its dock biff, however.
HTH-
petard
It's good that you've learned never to trust the local network anywhere, but your comment implies that you could rely on a switched network for some sort of added security. You can't. It is trivial to sniff traffic on a switched network.
I used to be a little into chemistry in secondary school, but not so much anymore. The reason I link to the story is that it provides the context for one of my favorite quotes:
.sig doesn't convey that very well, because /. counts the link characters as .sig characters and truncates the .sig... i'd do a tinyurl, but the trolls have conditioned slashdotters not to click on that kind of link for fear of goatse dot cx or similar :-P
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die."
-- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
It's so frequently misquoted that I wanted to link to the original article.
Unfortunately, my
It was an LCD. That whole page is good and brings back memories.
Has anyone done a study as to why people who program computers cannot correctly conjugate the Spanish verb sentir? It really interests me!
You missed my point. If the potential damages to you are worth more than the worth of person/company doing the work, no amount of care in constructing the contract will protect you. Your contract may enable you to get a judgement for 100 million dollars in the case of a backdoor, but if the contractor is only worth 100 thousand dollars, no contract in the world will enable you to collect on that judgement.
I don't really care if the person coding my project puts in a backdoor if I can sue them into oblivion when it's discovered/used.
If the damage the backdoor can do to you will cost you more than you could hope to recover from them by "suing them into oblivion," you'd be well served care a lot.
not hoisting its own :-)
Typical. The author must have contacted the security team instead of the .NET team. (Seriously, though, you'd think an MS-NBC reporter could get a little more than that!)
- Mozilla 1.0.1
- Sun JDK 1.4.1_01
- Red Hat 8.0
It also worked with the same Mozilla and JRE under Red Hat 7.2. It did not work under Mac OS X, but I didn't have time to see what the problem was.I find that privoxy works better for me than the mechanisms built in to any browser. It's based on the old junkbusters codebase with many more features. It's available for both windows and very nearly any form of UNIX (or UNIX-like) OS you might reasonably use to browse the net. (Of course, I have it set to allow ads for slashdot :-)) In combination with phoenix's popup blocking (which takes care of SSL sites such as hushmail that privoxy can't) I find that it gives me near-perfect control over my browsing experience.
That said, if I really suspect that a particular site may be malicious, as opposed to simply obnoxious, I look it over in lynx first.
It's been done by for-profits and failed. What makes you think a nonprofit would do better? Some time ago, Apple even made one of these "Kidsweb" type services available for free to all mac users. It was essentially a whitelist service. No one used it so the service was discontinued.
Personally, I think the government-sponsored program has similar prospects for success, but I've been called a cynic before. The problem will be such a dearth of "certified clean" content that in order for your kids to have access to even a moderate percentage of the information that makes you want to provide them with internet access in the first place you'll have to grant them access outside the .kids.us domain. That becomes a vicious cycle; if parents won't want to restrict their children to a whitelist, no sites will endeavor to meet the certification criteria (and go to the expense of producing and hosting a version with no outside links, getting it certified, etc.) because that won't gain them any additional eyeballs. Because there's so little content there, parents will only have a choice continue to allow their children to venture outside the domain or discontinuing their internet access.
Perhaps I'm being a bit nitpicky, but wouldn't STFW be the correct response? If the switch is not documented in the manual, RTFM is incorrect.
Take the GPL Quiz. Lindows is required to distribute the source to anyone who has received the binaries and requests the source... not just "those who have received [binaries] from Linxows.com".