Just because it is a huge target doesn't make it accessible to terrorists, or any other kind of enemy.
The WTC was accessible in part because it was in the middle of a city. If this thing was built in the middle of Nellis Air Force Base (for example), just getting within sight of it would be a challenge.
From a spammers point of view, these blacklists are just another form of DDOS aimed directly at them.
DDOS = Distributed Denial of Service.
Distributed as in there are multiple computers involved, all coordinated by some central host. Denial of Service in that it inteferes with a desired activity.
If you are a spammer, any distributed sytem that blocks your ability to send email is a denial of service that should be dealt with using whatever resources are at your disposal. This DDOS is best dealt with by decapitating the central host (blacklist server) instead of by trying to deal with all the zombies (mail servers) involved.
The resources available to a spammer are limited. They don't have the ability to get a court order to force the blacklist server offline, they can't have Network Solutions yank the blacklist server out of DNS space, but they can launch a retributional DDOS attack back at the blacklist server.
Adapt or die, no? These blacklist servers are interfering with the ability of spammers to conduct their business. Any solution that stops this interference is going to be worth considering.
Newcomer. The nice thing about using a 300 baud modem is that the text came scrolling in at a nice readable pace. You had to be a speedreader to keep up when 1200 rolled around.
You would think that since intellectual property protection is so important to Microsoft, they would be more cautious about insuring that nothing they shipped infringed any patents instead of continuing to get caught in these embarassing lawsuits.
I lived for meany years in a city that had no publicly funded ambulance service, and there were several competing companies going after this "business". At the time it seemed perfectly normal to me, and learning that there were places where the government ran the ambulances seemed like a waste of tax dollars.
I also had the "opportunity" once to ride in one of these ambulances. First, because I was conscious and rational, I could have refused the ambulance if I wanted. I think that the bill for the ride to the hospital was around $300, and this was just one more expense that is covered by whatever insurance is covering your situation in general.
For what it is worth, the law allows emergency responders to "take over" your decisions if you are unconscious, in shock, or acting irrationally. So, yes, you would be held liable for paying your ambulance bill even if you hadn't been able to consent.
To me, having the government run the ambulance service to haul injured people to the hospital makes about as much sense as having them run a tow-truck service to haul broken cars to the garage. Private enterprise has demonstrated in many cities that it is able to fill the gap.
What would be the "right" ruling? I'd be happy to see one that says that clickwrap and eulas are not enforcable, that no contract was created by the act of clicking your mouse over a group of pixels that say "I agree". What about others?
...they also receive the same perks as other Microsoft employees. At the end of the summer they are treated to a catered barbecue at Bill Gates's house...
What's the big deal? Linux interns receive the same benefits as Linux developers, and they get a fancy meal in a big house at the end of the summer. They just have to build the house first and then cook their own food.
Ok slashdotters, I'm asking that you moderate this up for (mostly) selfish reasons.
I went to school with "Scott" Leviant. I don't mean went to school in the "we were in the same campus" sense, I mean it in the we were in the exact same geek cligue sense.
I'm wondering if he reads Slashdot.
So, "Scott", if you are out there...
Only you, me, and WR could answer these two questions...
"Gentle Ben, Gentle Ben, likes _________________" "It smells right with ____________"
And one only you might know:
What three-letter initials did you use when you set all those high scores on my Atari 800?
Re:Necessary gold standard link
on
The Future of Money
·
· Score: 2, Informative
hackwrench:"the gold standard was generally a bad idea, keeping gold from other purposes."
I think you meant to say that the gold standard was generally a good idea, keeping politicians from manipulating the value of money. Other than that, thanks for the link.
I'm going to address something Brian said from the perspective of a motherboard designer, because that is what my recent job was.
Brian says "So when a customer (or customers) comes to AMI and says "Our next motherboard will support TCPA, and we need a BIOS module", AMI has two choices:"
This really is the key. AMI doesn't sell their BIOS to "Linux Users", nor do they sell it to any other end users. AMI's customers are the companies that either design or specify designs for motherboards (think Dell, IBM, HP, Intel, Tyan, etc.) AMI simply can't say "no" to these customers, as they will simply go somewhere else. Or, as he pointed out, since the motherboard designer usually has a license for the code, they can just have their own programmers put in the offending feature.
The next question you have to ask yourself is why are the motherboard designers pushing for this feature? Extending Brian's argument, it is because their customers are system integrators and the system integrators are demanding it. In the case of Dell or HP, the system integrator is just another group in the same company, in the case of Tyan it is another company altogether, but the case is the same either way.
So why are the system integrators demanding it? The simple answer is, Microsoft doesn't give you any choice. No PC maker can be competitive without that little "Designed for Windows 2004" sticker on the front of their box. Our contracts with Microsoft give us a big discount on Windows licenses if we meet their demands, and one of those demands is that the hardware platform we ship meet all the requirements of a MS/Intel driven design guide.
Ever notice that all computers now ship with a network port? Ever notice that no computers ship today with ISA slots? Ever wonder why? Because those are the demands that MS makes, and the costs of failing to meet their demands are so high that the PC makers really have no choice.
Don't get upset with AMI for enabling Palladium. They really have no choice. If you want to find out who you should be upset with, just follow the money and see where it leads.
Your data backup isn't complete unless you could be up and running after having all of your computer equipment seized, your safety deposit boxes frozen, and search warrants served on all of your known friends and family members.
Maybe there is some sort of "off-shore" backup service in business?
The heart of their problem is that their journalism is far too wacky-left-wing for the market. Maybe if they pulled a little more back to center they would stop driving readers away.
I don't look at this as the EFF supporting Gator, I look at this as the EFF looking to establish precedents that are favorable to their view of computer rights.
Most slashdotters probably agree that the user should control their computer. This is also the EFFs position. From the point of view of establishing a precedent, if Gator has a good looking case they should jump aboard.
I appreciate you responding, but I don't buy what you are telling me.
First, regarding your base station:
You are probably using the Apple Airport with base FCC ID #IMR-WLPC24H.
That radio is approved for use with antennas: AIN24-OD-ALAN AIN24-OD-AP05 AIN24-OD- AP07 AIN24-OD-AP11 AIN24-OD-0202
None of these antennas exceeds 2 dBi.
While you aren't specific as to what Orinoco attenna you are using on your AP, I doubt it is one of the above.
Meanwhile, back in the "war car" you have pictures of a Hawking bridge with a 14 dBi Orinoco. I'll bet if you post the FCC ID of the Hawking bridge we will find this is another uncertified configuration.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because it is a huge target doesn't make it accessible to terrorists, or any other kind of enemy.
The WTC was accessible in part because it was in the middle of a city. If this thing was built in the middle of Nellis Air Force Base (for example), just getting within sight of it would be a challenge.
Typos aside, this doesn't even read like fox news article.
Why would they care? It is perfectly legal and normal to check your ammunition (and firearms) at the airline counter.
Be careful what you say, or we'll have to come coup your head off too.
From a spammers point of view, these blacklists are just another form of DDOS aimed directly at them.
DDOS = Distributed Denial of Service.
Distributed as in there are multiple computers involved, all coordinated by some central host. Denial of Service in that it inteferes with a desired activity.
If you are a spammer, any distributed sytem that blocks your ability to send email is a denial of service that should be dealt with using whatever resources are at your disposal. This DDOS is best dealt with by decapitating the central host (blacklist server) instead of by trying to deal with all the zombies (mail servers) involved.
The resources available to a spammer are limited. They don't have the ability to get a court order to force the blacklist server offline, they can't have Network Solutions yank the blacklist server out of DNS space, but they can launch a retributional DDOS attack back at the blacklist server.
Adapt or die, no? These blacklist servers are interfering with the ability of spammers to conduct their business. Any solution that stops this interference is going to be worth considering.
Balony. Back in the day, there was no "I" for an "ISP" to "P".
Newcomer. The nice thing about using a 300 baud modem is that the text came scrolling in at a nice readable pace. You had to be a speedreader to keep up when 1200 rolled around.
This is a simple patent to engineer around. Simply embed all of the content within the document, so that there is no external data whatsoever.
Yeah, so, the html files will have to get bigger, but it will also solve the problem of all these "steaming only" media files that are flowing around.
You would think that since intellectual property protection is so important to Microsoft, they would be more cautious about insuring that nothing they shipped infringed any patents instead of continuing to get caught in these embarassing lawsuits.
Meanwhile... Didn't SCO's stock have a major rally yesterday? What's up with that?
Whoa!
> Last time I checked, it's not illegal for two programs to do the same thing, while having absolutely no code in common.
But it is illegal for two programs with no code in common to do the same thing, if the thing being done is protected by a patent.
I lived for meany years in a city that had no publicly funded ambulance service, and there were several competing companies going after this "business". At the time it seemed perfectly normal to me, and learning that there were places where the government ran the ambulances seemed like a waste of tax dollars.
I also had the "opportunity" once to ride in one of these ambulances. First, because I was conscious and rational, I could have refused the ambulance if I wanted. I think that the bill for the ride to the hospital was around $300, and this was just one more expense that is covered by whatever insurance is covering your situation in general.
For what it is worth, the law allows emergency responders to "take over" your decisions if you are unconscious, in shock, or acting irrationally. So, yes, you would be held liable for paying your ambulance bill even if you hadn't been able to consent.
To me, having the government run the ambulance service to haul injured people to the hospital makes about as much sense as having them run a tow-truck service to haul broken cars to the garage. Private enterprise has demonstrated in many cities that it is able to fill the gap.
I decided long ago then whenever I am asked to submit to an inkblot test, I will state that every inkblot looks like an inkblot.
Therefore, I see:
inkblot inkblot inkblot
inkblot inkblot inkblot
inkblot inkblot inkblot
inkblot
And my password is...
ibibibibibibibibibib
Sounds good to me!
This whole thing reads like an exercise in assuming the outcome is "Linux is unaffected".
What if:
1: A court rules that SCO code has been put into Linux by someone other than SCO.
2: A court rules that the GPL is non binding upon source code previously released by SCO.
3: A court rules that any party using such source is and has been in violation of SCO's patents, and is open game for damages.
No matter what me, or you, or the author of this "matrix" thinks the GPL says, the only thing that matters is what a court decides it says.
What would be the "right" ruling? I'd be happy to see one that says that clickwrap and eulas are not enforcable, that no contract was created by the act of clicking your mouse over a group of pixels that say "I agree". What about others?
...they also receive the same perks as other Microsoft employees. At the end of the summer they are treated to a catered barbecue at Bill Gates's house...
What's the big deal? Linux interns receive the same benefits as Linux developers, and they get a fancy meal in a big house at the end of the summer. They just have to build the house first and then cook their own food.
wrong, wrong, wrong
you aren't "Scott" Leviant
Ok slashdotters, I'm asking that you moderate this up for (mostly) selfish reasons.
I went to school with "Scott" Leviant. I don't mean went to school in the "we were in the same campus" sense, I mean it in the we were in the exact same geek cligue sense.
I'm wondering if he reads Slashdot.
So, "Scott", if you are out there...
Only you, me, and WR could answer these two questions...
"Gentle Ben, Gentle Ben, likes _________________"
"It smells right with ____________"
And one only you might know:
What three-letter initials did you use when you set all those high scores on my Atari 800?
hackwrench: "the gold standard was generally a bad idea, keeping gold from other purposes."
I think you meant to say that the gold standard was generally a good idea, keeping politicians from manipulating the value of money. Other than that, thanks for the link.
I'm going to address something Brian said from the perspective of a motherboard designer, because that is what my recent job was.
Brian says "So when a customer (or customers) comes to AMI and says "Our next motherboard will support TCPA, and we need a BIOS module", AMI has two choices:"
This really is the key. AMI doesn't sell their BIOS to "Linux Users", nor do they sell it to any other end users. AMI's customers are the companies that either design or specify designs for motherboards (think Dell, IBM, HP, Intel, Tyan, etc.) AMI simply can't say "no" to these customers, as they will simply go somewhere else. Or, as he pointed out, since the motherboard designer usually has a license for the code, they can just have their own programmers put in the offending feature.
The next question you have to ask yourself is why are the motherboard designers pushing for this feature? Extending Brian's argument, it is because their customers are system integrators and the system integrators are demanding it. In the case of Dell or HP, the system integrator is just another group in the same company, in the case of Tyan it is another company altogether, but the case is the same either way.
So why are the system integrators demanding it? The simple answer is, Microsoft doesn't give you any choice. No PC maker can be competitive without that little "Designed for Windows 2004" sticker on the front of their box. Our contracts with Microsoft give us a big discount on Windows licenses if we meet their demands, and one of those demands is that the hardware platform we ship meet all the requirements of a MS/Intel driven design guide.
Ever notice that all computers now ship with a network port? Ever notice that no computers ship today with ISA slots? Ever wonder why? Because those are the demands that MS makes, and the costs of failing to meet their demands are so high that the PC makers really have no choice.
Don't get upset with AMI for enabling Palladium. They really have no choice. If you want to find out who you should be upset with, just follow the money and see where it leads.
Your data backup isn't complete unless you could be up and running after having all of your computer equipment seized, your safety deposit boxes frozen, and search warrants served on all of your known friends and family members.
Maybe there is some sort of "off-shore" backup service in business?
The heart of their problem is that their journalism is far too wacky-left-wing for the market. Maybe if they pulled a little more back to center they would stop driving readers away.
I don't look at this as the EFF supporting Gator, I look at this as the EFF looking to establish precedents that are favorable to their view of computer rights.
Most slashdotters probably agree that the user should control their computer. This is also the EFFs position. From the point of view of establishing a precedent, if Gator has a good looking case they should jump aboard.
I appreciate you responding, but I don't buy what you are telling me.
- AP07
First, regarding your base station:
You are probably using the Apple Airport with base FCC ID #IMR-WLPC24H.
That radio is approved for use with antennas:
AIN24-OD-ALAN
AIN24-OD-AP05
AIN24-OD
AIN24-OD-AP11
AIN24-OD-0202
None of these antennas exceeds 2 dBi.
While you aren't specific as to what Orinoco attenna you are using on your AP, I doubt it is one of the above.
Meanwhile, back in the "war car" you have pictures of a Hawking bridge with a 14 dBi Orinoco. I'll bet if you post the FCC ID of the Hawking bridge we will find this is another uncertified configuration.