Pretty much, but there are differences. Do you handle the eMail for a company? I'd like to compare methodologies.
"You need a good blacklist (you're maintaining your own, but Spamhaus does too, and you'd probably be better off using theirs at the MTA because at the MTA you can deliver a permanent fatal, but at the router..."
That's one of the differences. I want to drop the entire connection from the open relays. My method saves a bit of bandwidth over the Spamhaus method and saves a bit of Spamhaus' bandwidth. But I do recommend using Spamhaus as the next step in the process.
"Next, you need a way to defend against forgery. SPF does that just fine."
Yep. That would be step #3. Once you've denied connections from the open relays and filtered out the stuff Spamhaus knows, then you have to make sure that the stuff you are getting is legitimate.
And so on. But that is all from the RECEIVING end. Which still means that I'm losing bandwidth and disk space (SpamAssassin going through the spam).
Which is why I also want the ISP's to handle the zombies by cutting off the SENDING portion AND to throttle the amount of eMail that their users can send.
Which is why I listed the categories where the spam message is SENT.
#1. Open relays #2. Zombies #3. Spam-friendly ISP's
You've set up 4 levels of defense which handle almost all of your spam. I'm also focusing on defense in depth, but I'm cutting off some of the connections before they're even established.
In the last 24 hours: 13440 messages received 7489 classified as spam 62 identified as viruses
Only 5 false negatives have managed to get through to the users (and one false positive from eTrade talking about instant home mortgages).
Right now, I have a handle on the spam problem. But every day I see the percentage of spam increase. Eventually, this will become a DDoS attack. My pipe will fill up with spam connections. I want to focus on preventing that problem BEFORE it happens.
No single method will stop all the spam. Well, not unless you set up a white list for only a few, extremely trusted sites...
The first step is to characterize the problem. #1. Open relays #2. Zombies #3. Spam-friendly ISP's
This doesn't even count the problem you mentioned of forgeries and bounces (mostly from phishing).
I've reduced my spam problem by 50% just by blocking a bunch of open relays at the firewall. Here's a list of them (badly formated because of/.'s character per line limitation): 4.11.76.148 is an open proxy 4.13.40.162 is an open proxy 4.26.28.164 is an open proxy 4.29.11.151 is an open proxy 12.218.78.176 is an open proxy 24.26.108.125 is an open proxy 24.37.17.190 is an open proxy 24.60.16.110 is an open proxy 24.61.74.173 is an open proxy 24.61.249.216 is an open proxy 24.129.88.117 is an open proxy 24.148.217.79 is an open proxy 24.164.77.154 is an open proxy 24.226.100.52 is an open proxy 61.42.186.118 is an open proxy 61.72.110.114 is an open proxy 61.98.37.130 is an open proxy 62.43.16.10 is an open proxy 62.57.82.180 is an open proxy 62.178.104.91 is an open proxy 62.211.155.246 is an open proxy 64.124.95.62 is an open proxy 64.203.40.98 is an open proxy 67.50.203.27 is an open proxy 67.129.236.145 is an open proxy 68.89.74.139 is an open proxy 68.94.104.97 is an open proxy 68.118.106.24 is an open proxy 68.122.142.207 is an open proxy 68.123.144.173 is an open proxy 68.172.169.236 is an open proxy 68.184.127.31 is an open proxy 68.226.211.28 is an open proxy 69.148.102.54 is an open proxy 69.151.105.214 is an open proxy 70.241.196.123 is an open proxy 80.57.89.8 is an open proxy 81.66.100.223 is an open proxy 81.104.162.84 is an open proxy 81.220.242.3 is an open proxy 82.33.146.142 is an open proxy 82.49.110.4 is an open proxy 82.67.195.173 is an open proxy 82.130.161.230 is an open proxy 82.139.136.174 is an open proxy 82.198.42.54 is an open proxy 141.155.254.147 is an open proxy 200.66.98.40 is an open proxy 200.83.53.139 is an open proxy 200.95.58.47 is an open proxy 200.150.135.200 is an open proxy 200.161.199.184 is an open proxy 200.207.159.156 is an open proxy 200.213.48.41 is an open proxy 200.210.190.148 is an open proxy 200.251.170.82 is an open proxy 200.251.201.82 is an open proxy 202.75.70.26 is an open proxy 203.197.217.142 is an open proxy 203.232.40.169 is an open proxy 211.49.57.110 is an open proxy 211.59.103.16 is an open proxy 211.106.130.186 is an open proxy 211.161.142.9 is an open proxy 211.173.186.138 is an open proxy 211.211.53.9 is an open proxy 211.211.177.206 is an open proxy 211.244.169.34 is an open proxy 212.0.218.14 is an open proxy 213.47.226.19 is an open proxy 213.47.234.37 is an open proxy 217.141.204.90 is an open proxy 218.2.160.132 is an open proxy 218.18.158.134 is an open proxy 218.22.252.146 is an open proxy 218.23.39.171 is an open proxy 218.35.40.90 is an open proxy 218.38.173.213 is an open proxy 218.156.168.56 is an open proxy 218.158.3.100 is an open proxy 218.159.33.222 is an open proxy 218.171.163.37 is an open proxy 218.186.37.118 is an open proxy 218.235.172.91 is an open proxy 218.239.145.199 is an open proxy 219.174.129.36 is an open proxy 220.85.139.91 is an open proxy 220.97.154.85 is an open proxy 220.125.136.137 is an open proxy 221.155.118.15 is an open proxy 222.241.221.101 is an open proxy
Now for the next part of the problem, the ISP's need to block port 25 on their networks. That would stop the zombies from sending spam (and email viruses).
Finally, the ISP's need to limit the amount of eMail that can be sent through their servers.
Since you cannot extrude the salt in the salt water (urine won't do it and neither will persperation), you will, over time, collect a lethal dosage of salt.
You will die.
Yes, I read that link. But doing further research didn't turn up anyone duplicating his test nor any medical reasoning on how you'd get rid of the excess salt.
You are incorrect. It is true. It is factual. There are numerous verified instances of it.
"MS does what's in its business interests."
You seem to believe that this somehow contradicts my previous statements.
WHY Microsoft sabotages other vendor's apps is NOT the question. Microsoft HAS done so.
"Occasionally that means breaking compatibility but usually it means going to great lengths to retain compatibility."
Keep claiming that. But you have not offered any supporting evidence for you claim.
"Try this query."
I went there. This is what I found.
"The various Interlocked functions (InterlockedIncrement, and so on) require that the variable being updated be properly aligned, even on x86, a platform where the CPU silently fixes unaligned memory access invisibly."
If Microsoft hasn't changed AND Microsoft used to do that, then they STILL do that.
But that directly contradicts your previous statement about: "That's simply not true. MS knows that business customers will resist upgrades that break applications. They go to great lengths to keep badly-written applications running."
"I suspect they would wilfully break competing applications again if they judged it to be in their strategic interests."
It seems that you aren't sure what you believe. You believe they WOULD do that. You know that they HAVE done that.
"I don't think this is likely to happen at all often though - the raised level of scrutiny of MS means it would probably damage their customer and developer relations too much to be worthwhile."
Check out the Netscape trial. It all depends upon what Microsoft considers "worthwhile".
"In general it is in their interests to maintain compatibility in order to retain customers, so that's what they do."
BZZZZZZTTTTTTT!!!!!!!
Look up "monopoly".
"Raymond Chen's blog...."
Sorry, guy. But the search tool couldn't find that in that page. Maybe you weren't reading it correctly?
Chasing Amy that is. I thought it was trite, badly done and badly acted. I keep wondering if it didn't have a lesbian getting laid, would it be as popular as it is.
Maybe, maybe not. But you have not provided any support that it is NOT accurate.
Yet there you have posted TWO references where it WAS accurate.
So far, the weight of evidence is against Microsoft.
"The latter incompatibility was somewhat justified in the fact that Windows needed to tweak the internals of DOS, but the way Windows reported it was extremely deceptive."
Then why was it encrypted and hidden?
"They go to great lengths to keep badly-written applications running."
So you claim, yet there are lots of examples that disprove your claim.
"I know that MS has made deliberate decisions in the past to make the OS incompatible with software that competed with another MS product, but that's unusual."
So, Microsoft has been guilty of this, yet without any evidence to support it, I'm supposed to believe that Microsoft has changed?
Does your dictionary have a definition for "Gullible"?
"I'm quite sure that four more years of Bush would suck. But what I'm not sure of is that four years of Kerry wouldn't suck more."
I guess that depends upon your personal goals and values. 4 years of Bush has been very good if you happen to benefit from his tax breaks and such.
If Kerry rolls back the tax cuts on the wealthiest, then 4 years of Kerry would be "worse" for them then 4 more years of Bush.
It isn't like Kerry's voting record is not publicly available.
"Unless someone is willing to at least do some minimal pro-Kerry arguing (i.e. "he's mediocre at worst"), then there's really no reason to vote for him."
Let me explain something to you.
Democracy only works when the voters EDUCATE THEMSELVES about the issues.
You want someone to convince you to vote for Kerry. Well, that's very nice for you. But how do you know that what that person tells you is factual?
Windows XP is even more stable than Win2K and will be sure to slay *nix.
Go digging through the press releases and gushing "journalists" for every single release (except WinME) since (and including) Win95. You'll see the same quotes over and over and over.
"Let follow your line of reasoning. Your CO gives you an order, you question the order, he commands you to do it or be shot on site, you draw your gun and shoot your CO. In the court martial you explain your situation. You are fucked."
No, you will tell the judge the circumstances and the judge will rule that you CORRECTLY refused to obey an unlawful order AND that you were acting in self defense when you shot your CO.
"The example that I used before is that of the young German officers who were instructed to shoot the recaptured POWs involved in "The Great Escape". If they refused to kill the unarmed prisoners, they would be shot. After the war, they were captured, tried, and something like 15 out of 23 were hanged."
So? Do you think that the German army didn't have any deserters?
"Now think that military service was a compulsory part of life (as it still is in many countries), these guys had wives and maybe young families, and tell me that taking the bullet on priciple was the obvious choice."
So, your scenario only works if: #1. You are a soldier for an authoritarian regime. #2. You have a family that lives under that authoritarian regime. #3. Your superiors are corrupt/evil.
Now look at all the German families that risked everything they had to help Jews escape.
Because it is the easy choice does NOT mean that it is the only choice.
"No, because with War-Crimes the punishment for doing the right thing is an immediately administered bullet through the temple."
How the fuck is THAT supposed to happen?
Did my CO take my weapon PRIOR to giving me an order he knew I wouldn't follow? Did I somehow end up in a squad of sociopaths and not notice it?
"Your choice is "certain death now" or "do the wrong thing and live with my conscience and the posibility of execution/incarceration later"."
No, in that case, you are a HOSTAGE or a CAPTIVE or a PRISONER. And those do NOT have free choice.
"Unlike traffic cops, I feel that some people who committed war-crimes have a case, and are as much victims. This is especially true for conscripts."
No. Again, the only situation where that would be the case is where they were PRISONERS instead of conscripts. Once you issue the first weapon to the first conscript, the power balance changes.
"Our allies are simply those who interests align with ours."
That's a good enough working definition. Although I would put "temporary" and "current" in there. Today's "ally" can be tomorrow's enemy.
"Stop asking companies to do more than act in their own interests: it will never happen."
I guess that depends upon how you view software patents. I believe it would be in their best interest LONG TERM to get rid of software patents. Particularly the way our patent system is currently going.
"The advance of open source in the corporate world has been because it offers real value, not because of ideals."
Which is the point. They are NOT our allies. They do NOT share our ideals. It is just that both of our interests, in this specific matter, at this specific time, coincide.
IBM has ALREADY dragged their claims about "stolen" code into court. IBM is trying to get the judge to rule on it.
SCO says that they shouldn't be forced to present evidence in court to support their claims of stolen code because SCO didn't file a case about it and IBM's request for judgement isn't about the case that SCO did file.
So now this idiot is out there spewing MORE of the same crap.
Isn't this just helping IBM's request for judgement on that matter?
There was an old site once, "The Linux Hardware Database" I believe (before they were bought by ZDnet and killed), that listed hardware that people had that worked with Linux.
I think the MOST USEFUL database would combine the "compatible" databases with the "incompatible" databases AND incorporate your point about "I couldn't get x to work".
ONE site that listed the hardware and what steps people had to go through to get it to work on what platforms. Such as:
"works automatically on stock install of SuSE 9.0" or "must download and compile beta driver for Fedora from www.xxx.yyy" or "slip-streamed chipset changes - none of the existing drivers work" and so forth.
I was submitting info the the Linux Hardware Database and making sure that I gave enough information for someone to identify which specific version of the NIC they had. That was one of the cases where the make/model of the NIC didn't change, but the entire chipset did so it needed entirely different drivers.
"I think this is the point of contention - either they are talking bullshit about it being a 'firewall' or they are talking bullshit about being the 'first'."
And since it must be one or the other, then why trust ANYTHING in that press release.
A real "spam firewall" would be able to drop connections from spam sources instead of receiving all the messages from them and processing them. Now THAT would be revolutionary (provided it worked correctly and wasn't completely vulnerable to spoofing/DoS).
Before this goes too far, allow me to clarify my political beliefs. I don't believe in "Conservative" or "Liberal". I see things as interactions between the following: #1. The Rights of individuals #2. Those individuals' Responsibilities to society #3. Society's Rights #4. Society's Responsibilities to the individual
Gun control. I believe the individual has a Right to own a gun, but by exercising that Right, the individual also incures a greater Responsibility to keep Society (other people) from any harm from that choice. Failing to fulfil your Responsibilities is a crime. Example, you bring a gun into your house but fail to secure it and your kid kills someone with it (either accidentally by showing it off or intentionally when angry). You are charged with a crime (the same crime regardless of whether the shooting is accidental or intentional).
"What I meant to do was a establish a simple theoretical basis for the two different ideologies, and show how this theoretical basis gives rise to differing opinions on societal phenomona."
I can understand that. I'd also like to point out that "Conservatives" and "Liberals" also diverge on the CORRECT way to deal with the problems (not just what causes the problems).
"It's just my observation that conservatives tend to see personal character flaws and inhibitions as being the primary reason why some people can't achieve personal wealth and satisfaction."
As a generalization, based upon what I hear on talk radio and such, I can agree with that. But that might just be the loudest voices I'm hearing and not the general belief.
"That's one reason why they don't like things such as affirmative action and welfare - because they feel that such actions don't do anything to help inviduals who are having trouble succeeding develop a personal intiative and drive."
-and-
"Liberals, on the other hand, seem to believe that it's mainly institutional and environmental factors that prevent some people from suceeding."
Here's the funny part: I believe that it is mainly institutional and environmental factors that support people. If your daddy was rich when he died, most likely you will be rich when you die. If your daddy was poor when he died, most likely you will be poor when you die. If your daddy was middle-class... etc.
I believe that the Conservative middle class and above are just rationalizing their place in the hierarchy. They want to believe that they got there because they worked hard.
But I know poor families who work more hours a week than those people. It's more family than choices.
But I also believe that poor people who say that the system is holding them back are, most often, rationalizing also. It is more difficult to overcome the obstacles when you're poor or a minority or do not have a supportive family or whatever, but it can be done.
Example: I believe that if G.W. Bush had been born to a poor family, he would NOT be President yet (nor would he have finished high school).
"So I don't label people as 'good' or 'bad' per se, but I do strongly beleive in the idea that certain people are prone to behave in certain ways, and there isn't much you can do about it."
Cool. I think I can agree with that. BUT! There is another side to that...
Can you agree that MOST of the "good" people currently inhabiting the middle-class would act the same as MOST of the people currently inhabiting the lower-class currently act IF the only change was that they were born into that family?
This is what I believe. Sure, there are some individuals who will choose crime no matter what (either mugging, armed robbery or Enron-style looting). But I believe that the majority of people could be switched between economic states and they would "choose" to act exactly the same as the other people in that class "choose" to act.
"As for your enron example, I think it validates the Conservative model of thinking but goes against the liberal model."
Pretty much.:) That's why I included it. But I believe it is an extreme instance and that the majority of people would not act that way.
Slashdot Mirror
"Having to madly swap domains to get is only going to swamp smaller spammers with enough extra cost to kill them."
Great! Fewer spammers is a Good Thing (TM).
There isn't any single solution to spam. But different solutions will whittle the big problem down, bit by bit.
For the average person, the ISP can charge $X.
But a lot of their server ports are blocked. Including outgoing SMTP.
For anyone else, they can pay $X+y(z).
The base price, plus the cost of opening a port times the number of ports opened.
"I run a webserver, I use cable on my home account. I consider it my right to run my webserver because I'm paying for internet access."
You're free to believe whatever you want to believe. But it is the ISP's call on that.
"If they did, or even hinted they were going to, I would be off like a shot to DSL and never look back."
With DSL, you still have an ISP.
"You're just repeating what I said."
Pretty much, but there are differences. Do you handle the eMail for a company? I'd like to compare methodologies.
"You need a good blacklist (you're maintaining your own, but Spamhaus does too, and you'd probably be better off using theirs at the MTA because at the MTA you can deliver a permanent fatal, but at the router..."
That's one of the differences. I want to drop the entire connection from the open relays. My method saves a bit of bandwidth over the Spamhaus method and saves a bit of Spamhaus' bandwidth. But I do recommend using Spamhaus as the next step in the process.
"Next, you need a way to defend against forgery. SPF does that just fine."
Yep. That would be step #3. Once you've denied connections from the open relays and filtered out the stuff Spamhaus knows, then you have to make sure that the stuff you are getting is legitimate.
And so on. But that is all from the RECEIVING end. Which still means that I'm losing bandwidth and disk space (SpamAssassin going through the spam).
Which is why I also want the ISP's to handle the zombies by cutting off the SENDING portion AND to throttle the amount of eMail that their users can send.
Which is why I listed the categories where the spam message is SENT.
#1. Open relays
#2. Zombies
#3. Spam-friendly ISP's
You've set up 4 levels of defense which handle almost all of your spam. I'm also focusing on defense in depth, but I'm cutting off some of the connections before they're even established.
In the last 24 hours:
13440 messages received
7489 classified as spam
62 identified as viruses
Only 5 false negatives have managed to get through to the users (and one false positive from eTrade talking about instant home mortgages).
Right now, I have a handle on the spam problem. But every day I see the percentage of spam increase. Eventually, this will become a DDoS attack. My pipe will fill up with spam connections. I want to focus on preventing that problem BEFORE it happens.
No single method will stop all the spam. Well, not unless you set up a white list for only a few, extremely trusted sites ...
/.'s character per line limitation):
The first step is to characterize the problem.
#1. Open relays
#2. Zombies
#3. Spam-friendly ISP's
This doesn't even count the problem you mentioned of forgeries and bounces (mostly from phishing).
I've reduced my spam problem by 50% just by blocking a bunch of open relays at the firewall. Here's a list of them (badly formated because of
4.11.76.148 is an open proxy 4.13.40.162 is an open proxy 4.26.28.164 is an open proxy
4.29.11.151 is an open proxy 12.218.78.176 is an open proxy 24.26.108.125 is an open proxy 24.37.17.190 is an open proxy 24.60.16.110 is an open proxy 24.61.74.173 is an open proxy 24.61.249.216 is an open proxy 24.129.88.117 is an open proxy 24.148.217.79 is an open proxy 24.164.77.154 is an open proxy 24.226.100.52 is an open proxy 61.42.186.118 is an open proxy 61.72.110.114 is an open proxy 61.98.37.130 is an open proxy 62.43.16.10 is an open proxy 62.57.82.180 is an open proxy 62.178.104.91 is an open proxy 62.211.155.246 is an open proxy 64.124.95.62 is an open proxy 64.203.40.98 is an open proxy 67.50.203.27 is an open proxy 67.129.236.145 is an open proxy 68.89.74.139 is an open proxy 68.94.104.97 is an open proxy 68.118.106.24 is an open proxy 68.122.142.207 is an open proxy 68.123.144.173 is an open proxy 68.172.169.236 is an open proxy 68.184.127.31 is an open proxy 68.226.211.28 is an open proxy
69.148.102.54 is an open proxy 69.151.105.214 is an open proxy 70.241.196.123 is an open proxy 80.57.89.8 is an open proxy 81.66.100.223 is an open proxy 81.104.162.84 is an open proxy 81.220.242.3 is an open proxy 82.33.146.142 is an open proxy 82.49.110.4 is an open proxy 82.67.195.173 is an open proxy 82.130.161.230 is an open proxy 82.139.136.174 is an open proxy 82.198.42.54 is an open proxy 141.155.254.147 is an open proxy 200.66.98.40 is an open proxy 200.83.53.139 is an open proxy 200.95.58.47 is an open proxy 200.150.135.200 is an open proxy 200.161.199.184 is an open proxy 200.207.159.156 is an open proxy 200.213.48.41 is an open proxy 200.210.190.148 is an open proxy 200.251.170.82 is an open proxy 200.251.201.82 is an open proxy 202.75.70.26 is an open proxy 203.197.217.142 is an open proxy 203.232.40.169 is an open proxy 211.49.57.110 is an open proxy 211.59.103.16 is an open proxy 211.106.130.186 is an open proxy 211.161.142.9 is an open proxy 211.173.186.138 is an open proxy 211.211.53.9 is an open proxy 211.211.177.206 is an open proxy 211.244.169.34 is an open proxy 212.0.218.14 is an open proxy 213.47.226.19 is an open proxy 213.47.234.37 is an open proxy 217.141.204.90 is an open proxy 218.2.160.132 is an open proxy 218.18.158.134 is an open proxy 218.22.252.146 is an open proxy 218.23.39.171 is an open proxy 218.35.40.90 is an open proxy 218.38.173.213 is an open proxy 218.156.168.56 is an open proxy 218.158.3.100 is an open proxy 218.159.33.222 is an open proxy 218.171.163.37 is an open proxy 218.186.37.118 is an open proxy 218.235.172.91 is an open proxy 218.239.145.199 is an open proxy 219.174.129.36 is an open proxy 220.85.139.91 is an open proxy 220.97.154.85 is an open proxy 220.125.136.137 is an open proxy 221.155.118.15 is an open proxy 222.241.221.101 is an open proxy
Now for the next part of the problem, the ISP's need to block port 25 on their networks. That would stop the zombies from sending spam (and email viruses).
Finally, the ISP's need to limit the amount of eMail that can be sent through their servers.
SPF would help by preventing fogeries.
Since you cannot extrude the salt in the salt water (urine won't do it and neither will persperation), you will, over time, collect a lethal dosage of salt.
You will die.
Yes, I read that link. But doing further research didn't turn up anyone duplicating his test nor any medical reasoning on how you'd get rid of the excess salt.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=119836&cid=101 09017
You say:
"That's simply not true."
You are incorrect. It is true. It is factual. There are numerous verified instances of it.
"MS does what's in its business interests."
You seem to believe that this somehow contradicts my previous statements.
WHY Microsoft sabotages other vendor's apps is NOT the question. Microsoft HAS done so.
"Occasionally that means breaking compatibility but usually it means going to great lengths to retain compatibility."
Keep claiming that. But you have not offered any supporting evidence for you claim.
"Try this query."
I went there. This is what I found.
"The various Interlocked functions (InterlockedIncrement, and so on) require that the variable being updated be properly aligned, even on x86, a platform where the CPU silently fixes unaligned memory access invisibly."
It does not support your position.
This conversation is over.
"I'm not saying MS has changed."
If Microsoft hasn't changed AND Microsoft used to do that, then they STILL do that.
But that directly contradicts your previous statement about:
"That's simply not true. MS knows that business customers will resist upgrades that break applications. They go to great lengths to keep badly-written applications running."
"I suspect they would wilfully break competing applications again if they judged it to be in their strategic interests."
It seems that you aren't sure what you believe. You believe they WOULD do that. You know that they HAVE done that.
"I don't think this is likely to happen at all often though - the raised level of scrutiny of MS means it would probably damage their customer and developer relations too much to be worthwhile."
Check out the Netscape trial. It all depends upon what Microsoft considers "worthwhile".
"In general it is in their interests to maintain compatibility in order to retain customers, so that's what they do."
BZZZZZZTTTTTTT!!!!!!!
Look up "monopoly".
"Raymond Chen's blog...."
Sorry, guy. But the search tool couldn't find that in that page. Maybe you weren't reading it correctly?
Chasing Amy that is. I thought it was trite, badly done and badly acted. I keep wondering if it didn't have a lesbian getting laid, would it be as popular as it is.
"That's simply not true."
Maybe, maybe not. But you have not provided any support that it is NOT accurate.
Yet there you have posted TWO references where it WAS accurate.
So far, the weight of evidence is against Microsoft.
"The latter incompatibility was somewhat justified in the fact that Windows needed to tweak the internals of DOS, but the way Windows reported it was extremely deceptive."
Then why was it encrypted and hidden?
"They go to great lengths to keep badly-written applications running."
So you claim, yet there are lots of examples that disprove your claim.
"I know that MS has made deliberate decisions in the past to make the OS incompatible with software that competed with another MS product, but that's unusual."
So, Microsoft has been guilty of this, yet without any evidence to support it, I'm supposed to believe that Microsoft has changed?
Does your dictionary have a definition for "Gullible"?
All they worry about is whether Microsoft software works. And since they have the source code, arranging that shouldn't be too difficult.
I'm sure you remember the old saying "It isn't done until Lotus won't run".
"I'm quite sure that four more years of Bush would suck. But what I'm not sure of is that four years of Kerry wouldn't suck more."
I guess that depends upon your personal goals and values. 4 years of Bush has been very good if you happen to benefit from his tax breaks and such.
If Kerry rolls back the tax cuts on the wealthiest, then 4 years of Kerry would be "worse" for them then 4 more years of Bush.
It isn't like Kerry's voting record is not publicly available.
"Unless someone is willing to at least do some minimal pro-Kerry arguing (i.e. "he's mediocre at worst"), then there's really no reason to vote for him."
Let me explain something to you.
Democracy only works when the voters EDUCATE THEMSELVES about the issues.
You want someone to convince you to vote for Kerry. Well, that's very nice for you. But how do you know that what that person tells you is factual?
If a bank robber jumps into your car and does NOT point a gun at you, are you an accomplice if you drive where he tells you to?
No, you are not.
"By your logic, Hitler was the only person accountable for the Holocaust."
Wow. And here I thought they actually taught WWII history in classrooms. How many people did Hitler personally shoot? Hmmmmm?
Again, how about all those Germans who helped Jews escape? Despite knowing that they'd be tried and executed as traitors if they were caught.
Just because it is the EASY option does not make it the ONLY option.
Your position depends upon the easy option being the ONLY option. History shows that you are wrong.
gl4ss is completely correct.
Win95 was THE MOST ADVANCED OS in the world!
Win98 fixed all the bugs in Win95.
Win98SE fixed all the bugs in Win98.
Windows2000 is crash proof and the Unix killer!
Windows XP is even more stable than Win2K and will be sure to slay *nix.
Go digging through the press releases and gushing "journalists" for every single release (except WinME) since (and including) Win95. You'll see the same quotes over and over and over.
Remember, a bug is just another word for "upgrade incentive".
"Let follow your line of reasoning. Your CO gives you an order, you question the order, he commands you to do it or be shot on site, you draw your gun and shoot your CO. In the court martial you explain your situation. You are fucked."
No, you will tell the judge the circumstances and the judge will rule that you CORRECTLY refused to obey an unlawful order AND that you were acting in self defense when you shot your CO.
"The example that I used before is that of the young German officers who were instructed to shoot the recaptured POWs involved in "The Great Escape". If they refused to kill the unarmed prisoners, they would be shot. After the war, they were captured, tried, and something like 15 out of 23 were hanged."
So? Do you think that the German army didn't have any deserters?
"Now think that military service was a compulsory part of life (as it still is in many countries), these guys had wives and maybe young families, and tell me that taking the bullet on priciple was the obvious choice."
So, your scenario only works if:
#1. You are a soldier for an authoritarian regime.
#2. You have a family that lives under that authoritarian regime.
#3. Your superiors are corrupt/evil.
Now look at all the German families that risked everything they had to help Jews escape.
Because it is the easy choice does NOT mean that it is the only choice.
"No, because with War-Crimes the punishment for doing the right thing is an immediately administered bullet through the temple."
How the fuck is THAT supposed to happen?
Did my CO take my weapon PRIOR to giving me an order he knew I wouldn't follow? Did I somehow end up in a squad of sociopaths and not notice it?
"Your choice is "certain death now" or "do the wrong thing and live with my conscience and the posibility of execution/incarceration later"."
No, in that case, you are a HOSTAGE or a CAPTIVE or a PRISONER. And those do NOT have free choice.
"Unlike traffic cops, I feel that some people who committed war-crimes have a case, and are as much victims. This is especially true for conscripts."
No. Again, the only situation where that would be the case is where they were PRISONERS instead of conscripts. Once you issue the first weapon to the first conscript, the power balance changes.
"I do agree with you. But what about the soldier being ordered to do these things by his CO when a gun is being pointed at him?"
That is not the same as an unlawful order.
If someone robs a bank and jumps into your car and pulls gun on you and orders you to drive away, you are not an accomplice. You are a hostage.
If you are given an unlawful order and you carry it out, then you are guilty.
If someone pulls a gun on you and orders you to commit a crime, you are not guilty.
"Our allies are simply those who interests align with ours."
That's a good enough working definition. Although I would put "temporary" and "current" in there. Today's "ally" can be tomorrow's enemy.
"Stop asking companies to do more than act in their own interests: it will never happen."
I guess that depends upon how you view software patents. I believe it would be in their best interest LONG TERM to get rid of software patents. Particularly the way our patent system is currently going.
"The advance of open source in the corporate world has been because it offers real value, not because of ideals."
Which is the point. They are NOT our allies. They do NOT share our ideals. It is just that both of our interests, in this specific matter, at this specific time, coincide.
I haven't seen IBM do one single thing that would adversely affect their bottom line.
Now, if IBM would fund a drive to eliminate software patents in the US, THAT would show they were a friend.
They are an "ally" only because they see Linux (and Open Source) as useful and profitable and an alternative to being second to Microsoft.
IBM has ALREADY dragged their claims about "stolen" code into court. IBM is trying to get the judge to rule on it.
SCO says that they shouldn't be forced to present evidence in court to support their claims of stolen code because SCO didn't file a case about it and IBM's request for judgement isn't about the case that SCO did file.
So now this idiot is out there spewing MORE of the same crap.
Isn't this just helping IBM's request for judgement on that matter?
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://lhd.zdnet.com
Suh-weet!
There was an old site once, "The Linux Hardware Database" I believe (before they were bought by ZDnet and killed), that listed hardware that people had that worked with Linux.
I think the MOST USEFUL database would combine the "compatible" databases with the "incompatible" databases AND incorporate your point about "I couldn't get x to work".
ONE site that listed the hardware and what steps people had to go through to get it to work on what platforms. Such as:
"works automatically on stock install of SuSE 9.0"
or
"must download and compile beta driver for Fedora from www.xxx.yyy"
or
"slip-streamed chipset changes - none of the existing drivers work"
and so forth.
I was submitting info the the Linux Hardware Database and making sure that I gave enough information for someone to identify which specific version of the NIC they had. That was one of the cases where the make/model of the NIC didn't change, but the entire chipset did so it needed entirely different drivers.
"I think this is the point of contention - either they are talking bullshit about it being a 'firewall' or they are talking bullshit about being the 'first'."
And since it must be one or the other, then why trust ANYTHING in that press release.
A real "spam firewall" would be able to drop connections from spam sources instead of receiving all the messages from them and processing them. Now THAT would be revolutionary (provided it worked correctly and wasn't completely vulnerable to spoofing/DoS).
I've sent lots of emails to people while I'm talking to them on the phone. That way you can be sure that they received it.
Before this goes too far, allow me to clarify my political beliefs. I don't believe in "Conservative" or "Liberal". I see things as interactions between the following:
... etc.
:)
#1. The Rights of individuals
#2. Those individuals' Responsibilities to society
#3. Society's Rights
#4. Society's Responsibilities to the individual
Gun control. I believe the individual has a Right to own a gun, but by exercising that Right, the individual also incures a greater Responsibility to keep Society (other people) from any harm from that choice. Failing to fulfil your Responsibilities is a crime. Example, you bring a gun into your house but fail to secure it and your kid kills someone with it (either accidentally by showing it off or intentionally when angry). You are charged with a crime (the same crime regardless of whether the shooting is accidental or intentional).
"What I meant to do was a establish a simple theoretical basis for the two different ideologies, and show how this theoretical basis gives rise to differing opinions on societal phenomona."
I can understand that. I'd also like to point out that "Conservatives" and "Liberals" also diverge on the CORRECT way to deal with the problems (not just what causes the problems).
"It's just my observation that conservatives tend to see personal character flaws and inhibitions as being the primary reason why some people can't achieve personal wealth and satisfaction."
As a generalization, based upon what I hear on talk radio and such, I can agree with that. But that might just be the loudest voices I'm hearing and not the general belief.
"That's one reason why they don't like things such as affirmative action and welfare - because they feel that such actions don't do anything to help inviduals who are having trouble succeeding develop a personal intiative and drive."
-and-
"Liberals, on the other hand, seem to believe that it's mainly institutional and environmental factors that prevent some people from suceeding."
Here's the funny part: I believe that it is mainly institutional and environmental factors that support people. If your daddy was rich when he died, most likely you will be rich when you die. If your daddy was poor when he died, most likely you will be poor when you die. If your daddy was middle-class
I believe that the Conservative middle class and above are just rationalizing their place in the hierarchy. They want to believe that they got there because they worked hard.
But I know poor families who work more hours a week than those people. It's more family than choices.
But I also believe that poor people who say that the system is holding them back are, most often, rationalizing also. It is more difficult to overcome the obstacles when you're poor or a minority or do not have a supportive family or whatever, but it can be done.
Example: I believe that if G.W. Bush had been born to a poor family, he would NOT be President yet (nor would he have finished high school).
"So I don't label people as 'good' or 'bad' per se, but I do strongly beleive in the idea that certain people are prone to behave in certain ways, and there isn't much you can do about it."
Cool. I think I can agree with that. BUT! There is another side to that...
Can you agree that MOST of the "good" people currently inhabiting the middle-class would act the same as MOST of the people currently inhabiting the lower-class currently act IF the only change was that they were born into that family?
This is what I believe. Sure, there are some individuals who will choose crime no matter what (either mugging, armed robbery or Enron-style looting). But I believe that the majority of people could be switched between economic states and they would "choose" to act exactly the same as the other people in that class "choose" to act.
"As for your enron example, I think it validates the Conservative model of thinking but goes against the liberal model."
Pretty much.
That's why I included it. But I believe it is an extreme instance and that the majority of people would not act that way.