Besides, the GP was making the point that IPTV is certainly not a Microsoft innovation and has been around (in theory and in smaller implementations) for a while.
Two things: It will make gaining access slightly more difficult, thwarting the casual/curious "attacker" or the accidental-associater AND it acts as a clear sign to those looking for goodwill/free access that your network is private.
Will it stop determined attackers? No, but VPN and firewall are better suited to that task.
Your breathing scenario would be correct if UT took down the sender's outbound SMTP servers, resulting in them being unable to send any email at all. In this case, UT decided to stop the email from reaching their network and *only* the email destined for their network was affected.
A more correct (yet silly) scenario would be me asking you to stop breathing on me and, if you didn't comply, employing some method of blocking your breath from reaching me (enclosing myself in a bubble, perhaps).
DTrace's inventors say admins need "to have a good relationship with their brains" to use the software best.
I'll have to start using that in my conversations about lusers. "I wouldn't call him stupid; let's just say he doesn't have a good relationship with his brain...":)
3. Window peeling - this is kinda nifty. Instead of minimizing, resizing or moving your current window to see what is underneath you 'peel back' part of the parent.
That's what I always liked window managers that supported the "shade" feature.
"March is taking orders for the WaterCar on his Web site, www.watercar.com. The price is about $150,000. March's future plans call for a lower-priced SUV version in the $80,000 to $100,000 range."
...unless you want to be mobile. My wife and I each have newer Thinkpads and love the convenience of being able to work anywhere. Even in our own home, it's nice to take your work outside on the deck or even into another room. Wireless networking and good batteries let you cut the cables and get even further from the office/desk.
That said, I can't see spending over $3k for a portable gaming machine. That's what the WinXP desktop is for!
If you run virtual domains, Postfix or Sendmail is not an option, especially if you dont want to deliver john@d1.com and john@d2.com to john@localhost.
Re:this better not replace what's already at museu
on
Real-World Hyperlinks
·
· Score: 1
this will just encourage Joe to hop on his cell phone and chat with Mary
Yeah, I hate that Joe. He's really an inconsiderate bastard!
Re:Dang it, there goes my stomach lining...
on
I, Spammer
·
· Score: 1
The difference is that a driveway is personal property whereas yuor(sic) email service is a means of public communication.
Apples and oranges. You're comparing *property* to a *service*. But, to indulge your comparison, why can't someone park in your driveway? Personal property or not, it is possible for someone to drive their car into your yard and park in your driveway. Just like it is possible for me to send you an email or telephone/fax advertisement. You may not *want* these things, but they are technically possible. Should you say, "If you don't want advertisers contacting you, then you should use whitelists or something", I would respond that if you don't want me parking in your driveway you should put up a gate. Without a gate, how can I be expected to know that you don't want me to park there, or drive all over your lawn?
If you really don't like the messages you are receiveng then maybe you should stop paying for the service. It makes more sense than restricting the freedom of commercial speech.
Please explain why we (USA) have "Do not call" lists, or to another extreme, the ability to sue for harassment. If I don't like the phone calls I'm getting, be they threatening or commercial, I should just cease to have a telephone. Same for mobile phones and pagers; if someone's trying to sell me something via message to my mobile phone or pager, I should just stop the service. Never mind how much I pay for this service or whether it's by the message; send me your ad a thousand times so I'm sure to see it! If someone's standing on my front lawn screaming advertisements, I should just wear earplugs, right?
The point here is that it's not only silly to push the responsibility on to the message receipient, it's been shown to be not legal. Yes, advertisers have their right to advertise AS LONG AS it doesn't interfere with my rights. I'm not going to lose my phone, fax or email service and I'm sure as hell not going to walk around with blinders and earplugs just so I don't infringe on some advertiser's "right" to have their message heard. With the exception of eyes and ears, *I* am paying for these services - not to receive ads, but to keep in touch with people I need to. To claim "well, you were listening for messages, so..." as a defense is childish.
Pardon my conspiracy theory, but it may very well be that these "innocent" open relays are in fact sponsored by spam clearinghouses, in which case server admins have monetary incentive to NOT close their relays.
Interesting thought, but I doubt anybody's going to pay to have an open relay stay open. There's just so many of them out there from which to choose!;)
I would imagine they all fall into one of the following groups:
Insecure default setups
Admins who don't know better (or aren't really "admins")
Admins that don't give a crap
Besides, I'd hate to have a business relationship or paper trail with an open relay provider in case it ever becomes possible to sue over an open relay. I'm no lawyer but I'd think you'd be an accessory by paying them to provide a questionable service.
Slashdot Mirror
College dorms, for one...
Besides, the GP was making the point that IPTV is certainly not a Microsoft innovation and has been around (in theory and in smaller implementations) for a while.
Two things: It will make gaining access slightly more difficult, thwarting the casual/curious "attacker" or the accidental-associater AND it acts as a clear sign to those looking for goodwill/free access that your network is private.
Will it stop determined attackers? No, but VPN and firewall are better suited to that task.
Nice try, but you're arguing the wrong case.
Your breathing scenario would be correct if UT took down the sender's outbound SMTP servers, resulting in them being unable to send any email at all. In this case, UT decided to stop the email from reaching their network and *only* the email destined for their network was affected.
A more correct (yet silly) scenario would be me asking you to stop breathing on me and, if you didn't comply, employing some method of blocking your breath from reaching me (enclosing myself in a bubble, perhaps).
(replying to myself)
Quick Google search found Hormel's "SPAM and the Internet" page.
I seem to recall Hormel being somewhat okay with the use of the word "spam" sans caps. IIRC, "SPAM" is a trademark but "spam" is not.
'DSPAM', as a company name, would seem to be a perfect example of what Hormel has *not* tolerated...
I'll bet Ted Hitler was watching and knows what it is ;)
"No system in the world is 100 percent secure from a sophisticated and determined hacker"
I can't see what is so highly sophisticated about incrementing an ID passed as a URL parameter.
I think they are lucky to not have been visited by some real "sophisticated hackers"...
Wouldn't that be kilograms? ;)
I'll have to start using that in my conversations about lusers. "I wouldn't call him stupid; let's just say he doesn't have a good relationship with his brain..." :)
Gee, I feel bad for you then. How horrible it must be to go through life not being able to tell if that naked chick has nipples or udders.... ;)
That's what I always liked window managers that supported the "shade" feature.
I don't think so. From the article, it looks like the loss was limited to one customer so, in this case, "customer's" is correctly possessive :)
BUT WHAT IS THE PRICE?
From the Jan '04 issue of Popular Mechanics:
"March is taking orders for the WaterCar on his Web site, www.watercar.com. The price is about $150,000. March's future plans call for a lower-priced SUV version in the $80,000 to $100,000 range."
I know, I know; it was probably a troll...
They already have! It's called a GLOVE ;)
Smart criminals don't assemble packages/leave home without them.
Well, that would explain why it was registered prior to google.com ;)
They must have had this idea for a while then:
Registrant:
Google Inc.
(DOM-425410)
2400 E. Bayshore Pkwy Mountain View
CA
94043 US
Domain Name: gmail.com
Created on..............: 1995-Aug-13.
Expires on..............: 2006-Aug-12.
Record last updated on..: 2004-Mar-31 16:50:22.
Either that or NetSol's in on the joke...
Nine days is still an awful long time to be out of service.
"You got TrackPoint in my Touch Pad!" "You got Touch Pad in my TrackPoint!"
Just trying to please everyone, I guess.
That said, I can't see spending over $3k for a portable gaming machine. That's what the WinXP desktop is for!
Obviously, you haven't heard of virtusertable...
Yeah, I hate that Joe. He's really an inconsiderate bastard!
Apples and oranges. You're comparing *property* to a *service*. But, to indulge your comparison, why can't someone park in your driveway? Personal property or not, it is possible for someone to drive their car into your yard and park in your driveway. Just like it is possible for me to send you an email or telephone/fax advertisement. You may not *want* these things, but they are technically possible. Should you say, "If you don't want advertisers contacting you, then you should use whitelists or something", I would respond that if you don't want me parking in your driveway you should put up a gate. Without a gate, how can I be expected to know that you don't want me to park there, or drive all over your lawn?
If you really don't like the messages you are receiveng then maybe you should stop paying for the service. It makes more sense than restricting the freedom of commercial speech.
Please explain why we (USA) have "Do not call" lists, or to another extreme, the ability to sue for harassment. If I don't like the phone calls I'm getting, be they threatening or commercial, I should just cease to have a telephone. Same for mobile phones and pagers; if someone's trying to sell me something via message to my mobile phone or pager, I should just stop the service. Never mind how much I pay for this service or whether it's by the message; send me your ad a thousand times so I'm sure to see it! If someone's standing on my front lawn screaming advertisements, I should just wear earplugs, right?
The point here is that it's not only silly to push the responsibility on to the message receipient, it's been shown to be not legal. Yes, advertisers have their right to advertise AS LONG AS it doesn't interfere with my rights. I'm not going to lose my phone, fax or email service and I'm sure as hell not going to walk around with blinders and earplugs just so I don't infringe on some advertiser's "right" to have their message heard. With the exception of eyes and ears, *I* am paying for these services - not to receive ads, but to keep in touch with people I need to. To claim "well, you were listening for messages, so..." as a defense is childish.
Interesting thought, but I doubt anybody's going to pay to have an open relay stay open. There's just so many of them out there from which to choose! ;)
I would imagine they all fall into one of the following groups:
Besides, I'd hate to have a business relationship or paper trail with an open relay provider in case it ever becomes possible to sue over an open relay. I'm no lawyer but I'd think you'd be an accessory by paying them to provide a questionable service.