There is a HUGE difference between bugs and security holes. I never said that Mozilla does not have bugs, it has a ton of them. However, Mozilla doesn't allow someone to execute arbitrary code on my machine!
If only more sites complied with standards, I could dismiss MS entirely for Opera.
Have you tried out Mozilla lately? The quirks mode in Mozilla renders bad HTML just as well as IE does, IMHO. Ever since Mozilla.99, I have not had a reason to use IE again, and I suspect I won't for quite some time.
Ok, it's good that they are at least finding and fixing these, but how many ways to execute code through IE can there possibly be?!?
There already are 16 unpatched security holes in IE, and now there are even more holes. While these ones have patches out there, think about how many Windows users actually do patch their systems; it's not very many. For most home Windows users, there might as well not be a patch available, since they won't patch IE anyway.
In the mean time, I'm more than happy to keep using OpenOffice and Mozilla and know that arbitrary code won't be executed on my system if I click the "back" button. Thanks, Microsoft, for giving us yet another reason to use Mozilla.
Opera supports the same standards Mozilla supports, and definitely fits in a footprint smaller than 50MB, with mouse gesture support.
While it is true that Opera tries to support the W3C DOM, the Opera engine does not do it nearly as well as Mozilla. Opera also has a weird interpretation of Javascript, making some sites which work in Moz choke in Opera.
Mozilla's support of CSS is unparalleled, I prefer Moz's mouse gestures to Opera, and Mozilla's smart popup-blocking (block only popups which I *didnt* request) is a million times better than blocking all or no popups. Also, since Mozilla doesn't allow switching user-agents in the GUI, it shows up as Mozilla in web logs, not as IE or something else. (I really dislike User-Agent spoofing, especially since it falsely increases IE's percentage of use.)
That said, if there were no Mozilla, I'd be using Opera; it is a sweet, small, fast browser and a joy to use. And while I don't like MDI in a web browser, it's still better to use than IE or Konqueror.
The best way to do that is to have an optional "compatiability" mode that will render as close to IE 5/6 as possible. Or even a good set of reg-exp's that convert bad code to good, and then render the good.
A mixed-approach would drastically improve Moz/Operate market share.
Mozilla already does have this; it is called Quirks Mode. And I must say, it works pretty damn well. Aside from sites that use MS-only scripting (document.all and the like), I don't see a difference in pages between IE & Moz at all. (Except for pages that use CSS1 & 2, in which case Mozilla renders it correctly, and IE chokes)
I don't think thats happening with Opera or Mozilla...yet.
To some extent, it is happening with Mozilla.
For those not familiar with the project, the MS-only MARQUEE tag was recently checked into Mozilla. So now, Marquee is supported in Moz & IE only.
It was originally only to be put in Chinese builds, since the top sites in China seem to have a near-fetish for using Marquee, but it managed to expand into all builds; and not just in quirks mode, but in strict mode also. That upsets me greatly, as strict mode should really only support W3 standards, of which marquee is certainly not. Also, marquee is a blow to usability, as it makes it hard for people who are not totally fluent in a language to read text. Frankly, I LIKED not seeing Marquees, as they drive me up a wall. Unfortunately, the 1.1. builds after checkin of this tag do not have an option to turn off Marquees.
This, IMHO, is one instance of Mozilla playing a bad game of catchup to IE. Fortunately this hasn't happened too often, but everytime it does, it's a blow to W3 Standards, and an acknowledgement of Microsoft's market share.
Fortunately, yes! Plextor makes 2 excellent Ultra SCSI models, a 12/4/32 and a 12/10/32. Both are available in internal & external models. You can view the 12/10/32 model here.
I've owned Plextor IDE & SCSI drives before, and never had a problem with any of them; I actually can't recommend them highly enough. While I wish they would make a faster SCSI model, I'm at least happy that they are still making SCSI models at all!
it did sound like updateing the licenses for the "new" computer was pretty simple.
Yes, it did sound pretty simple...for us! Now, imagine trying to explain to a non-technical person that they have to "Relicense" their own music because Windows thought they were a pirate. I can just imagine trying to explain to my mom over the phone why she can't play the Sinatra CD I ripped out to her PC anymore. (Fortunately, I won't ever have to deal with this scenario; my mom runs Linux;)
The fact is that DRM walks a VERY fine line between legitimate copy control & utter user frustration. If you go even slightly over the line, users will (eventually) rebel. Copy-protected CDs prove this point extremely well, as do proposed bills like the SSSCA (Sen. Holling's office has still not received one positive phone call from citizens over that bill).
Check out TNAC if you need computers which are resistant to harsh environmental situations. The computers are built into the displays for a single, tough unit, are available in pretty decent speeds (PII & PIII), and have good onboard components (USB, 10/100 ethernet, etc.) They also only use 5W in standby, which is good for houseboats, etc.
From the article: RIAA CEO Hilary Rosen said in a statement that Berman's bill was "an innovative approach," adding that "it makes sense to clarify existing laws to ensure that copyright owners--those who actually take the time and effort to create an artistic work--are at least able to defend their works from mass piracy."
Since when does the RIAA create *anything*??
I think what Hilary meant was "it makes sense to clarify existing laws to ensure that the RIAA can continue to steal money from the copyright owners..."
Is there anyway to upgrade Mozilla while still keeping the XFT core?? I think even doing a rpm -Uvh will overwrite the XFT portion and give me a nice, new 1.1b with crumbly looking fonts again, which I don't want to do. If anyone has any idea on how I can do this, please let me know. Thanks!!
Unfortunately, if vigilant admins set up their severs properly -- i.e., disable unused script mappings (like I did;-), this never would have happened, bug or no bug, worm or no worm.
Yeah, that's fine and dandy for those who don't need the IDA, et all mappings; but what of those people who DO use them?! You know, a lot of those corporate servers that were hacked had those script mappings set for a reason, i.e. they were using them.
That's great that you knew better than to keep the default script mappings, but what about people who needed them?? It would have been a lot nicer if Microsoft had written a secure server in the first place instead. Even the most vigilant sysadmin would still get infected running IIS if he needed to use the IDQ & IDA mappings. In short, don't blame the sysadmin, because it's not always their fault.
I decided a little while ago that I was tired of calls from my mom (and my sisters) with Windows problems, so I backed up their stuff, and gave them all Linux instead. SuSE 8.0 with KDE3.
I started off with the Redmond theme & window decorations, so that they would at least feel a little comfortable. I removed the Console from the kicker, and put up a minimum icon set on the Desktop:
Web Browser (Mozilla)
Word Processor (OpenOffice.org)
Spreadsheets (again, OpenOffice)
MineSweeper (Kmine)
Email (KMail or Evolution, my one sister is used to MS Outlook from Work).
Folder link to their documents.
XMMS.
I taught them how to log in, and they were pretty much set from there. They had access to everything they needed on the desktop, and had no problem figuring it out. Since I configured everything for them, they didn't have to worry about the guts of the OS, and since they really only browse the web and check email, they don't need to install software or anything else. Eventually I moved their window decorations away from the Redmond theme, so that they wouldn't confuse it for Windows; I still think it was a good beginner decision though.
Basically it came down to me asking "Why DO they need Windows?" one night, when my one sister asked me if she should buy XP. First I shuddered at the thought of her using XP, then I realized she really doesn't NEED it! And when I told her that her own copy of SuSE 8.0 would only cost $40, she was thrilled. (Yes, I had her buy a copy, I wanted to support SuSE. Besides, they each liked the idea of having a manual just in case). Let's face it though, for a lot of people, Linux does exactly what they need it to do. We just need to make it even easier so that they can set it up for themselves. And we as a community are getting there.
In the mean time, give your Mom Linux, and save yourself and her a headache:)
I noticed that several portions of the map are dedicated to PMG and their spamming users. Also, as a subscriber to SpamCop, if I report email that came from PMG, the report goes to a/dev/null'ed email address called "pmg_doesnt_care".
Given just this information, I think one can logically come the conclusion that PMG is nothing more than a Spamhaus, and doesn't care about stopping spam at all.
My question is, if we know for a fact that they allow spam, and probably even encourage it so long as they get paid nicely, isn't there anything we can do about it?! Can we not bring a class-action against them, or something? Surely there must be some recourse against a company/it's users that cost ISPs and end-users money.
Back when I still ran Windows, I used Windows 2000. One of the most annoying bugs I found was one with Mozilla installed as the default browser.
What I usually did was hit the windows key to bring up the start menu, go to the run line, then type in a URL and press enter. This loads your default browser. However, a certain Win2k security patch (I forget which one, it's been a while) would break this behavior; pressing enter would still load Moz to the page I typed, but immediately after I would get an Error Dialog from Windows saying that the location could not be opened. Mind you that if IE was the default browser, this wouldn't happen.
Not only very annoying, but it took a very long time to figure out which patch caused the break. It also seemed very dubious, as it only caused the error when a browser besides IE (I've heard it did this with Opera too) was the default.
Of course, this "upgrade" will be ridiculously costly, and force users to buy new systems and new software.
Consider the latest Google zeitgeist. 46% of the visitors were still using Windows 98. People aren't upgrading like MS wants, they aren't buying new machines and a new $200 copy of Windows. They are using the system they bought a few years ago that still works. And they will continue to do so. Mind you, it's going to be a while before "Longhorn" is released, but what makes MS think people will start all over again when they wouldn't even shell out for XP and a new system?
There is a critical mass right now in the Windows world, with their latest offerings not giving much more functionality than their previous versions, but offering a larger price tag. If there was ever a time for Linux to catch up, this is it.
I have to pay for the United Linux product to get upgrades (free with any other linux distro) and tech support (mailing lists, faqs, deja, etc)? I must assume from this model that they are really only targeting the numb masses of people who don't like the nuts and bolts of linux. Seems clear that UL will become not a distro for linux users, but a crossover distro for people who don't like to think.
You're missing the point entirely. UnitedLinux is meant for businesses. (Whether or not you equate businesses with "people who don't like to think" is another topic altogether!)
A large corporation is not going to want to be told to check mailing lists and newgroups. A large corporation is going to want 24/7 phone support, and guaranteed system integrity and maintenance. This is a good thing! After all, it's what Microsoft tries to sell to their business customers. (Whether or not they deliver...again, another topic) Linux needs something like that to ever make it to some large corporations.
The questions I always had about retinal scans is what happens in the situation of someone who has a glass eye?
Do the scans ignore it, or do they try to recognize it as a real eye? If so, does it pass or fail the system?? I imagine it would fail, since there is no retina to scan.
And what happens when they change their glass eye to a new one, that might be slightly different looking; would they no longer be recognized as the same person?
Personally, I don't think the primary application of these will be CD replacements. Too many people are happy with their CDs right now, and don't want to replace them (which explains why DVD Audio is being so slowly adopted right now, as opposed to standard DVD movies which are flying off the shelves). These will be much better in PDAs, Digital Cameras, Portable Music Players (Imagine an Ipod with one of these drives), etc.
These things are far too small to be effective as Audio CDs. Too small to keep track of, too small for artwork, too small to effectively prevent theft in stores without very large surrounding packaging. And Philips is trying to shrink these even more!!
These discs will have a much better use for Data than Audio. This is the mistake that DataPlay is making; smaller discs that hold less than CDs and are copy-controlled; they will flop immediately. However, Philips knows that what is good for citizens (I hate to be called merely a consumer) is good for their bottom line. If they have their way, these will be small, efficient, and not copy-controlled.
Or if you want to keep using the IE engine for compatibility
Translation: If you want to keep seeing poorly-coded sites remain poorly-coded sites, use the IE engine.
The more people that use Mozilla, the more web designers have to code for standards compliancy. Using IE or IE's engine will only result in a monopoly on the web.
As soon as using your computer recklessly can kill someone.
In this day and age, taking down a large corporation's mail server could probably put you in a hotter pot of water then a hit-and-run could; you could certainly face more fines from the former than the latter.
CBDTPA stands for Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Protection Act, and is the formal version of the original SSSCA bill. The seemingly innocent name hides the horrible truth of the bill; it would require copy control devices in every digital device; from your computer to your camcorder to door locks on hotel rooms. The bill is authored by Senator Fritz Hollings from South Carolina, who receives a very large contribution each year from the major media companies like Disney, Viacom, and News Corp (Fox).
You can read more about this atrocious bill and ways to fight it at the EFF Action Alert site.
If this bill disgusts you, call your members of Congress today!
Slashdot Mirror
There is a HUGE difference between bugs and security holes. I never said that Mozilla does not have bugs, it has a ton of them. However, Mozilla doesn't allow someone to execute arbitrary code on my machine!
If only more sites complied with standards, I could dismiss MS entirely for Opera.
.99, I have not had a reason to use IE again, and I suspect I won't for quite some time.
Have you tried out Mozilla lately? The quirks mode in Mozilla renders bad HTML just as well as IE does, IMHO. Ever since Mozilla
Ok, it's good that they are at least finding and fixing these, but how many ways to execute code through IE can there possibly be?!?
There already are 16 unpatched security holes in IE, and now there are even more holes. While these ones have patches out there, think about how many Windows users actually do patch their systems; it's not very many. For most home Windows users, there might as well not be a patch available, since they won't patch IE anyway.
In the mean time, I'm more than happy to keep using OpenOffice and Mozilla and know that arbitrary code won't be executed on my system if I click the "back" button. Thanks, Microsoft, for giving us yet another reason to use Mozilla.
Opera supports the same standards Mozilla supports, and definitely fits in a footprint smaller than 50MB, with mouse gesture support.
While it is true that Opera tries to support the W3C DOM, the Opera engine does not do it nearly as well as Mozilla. Opera also has a weird interpretation of Javascript, making some sites which work in Moz choke in Opera.
Mozilla's support of CSS is unparalleled, I prefer Moz's mouse gestures to Opera, and Mozilla's smart popup-blocking (block only popups which I *didnt* request) is a million times better than blocking all or no popups. Also, since Mozilla doesn't allow switching user-agents in the GUI, it shows up as Mozilla in web logs, not as IE or something else. (I really dislike User-Agent spoofing, especially since it falsely increases IE's percentage of use.)
That said, if there were no Mozilla, I'd be using Opera; it is a sweet, small, fast browser and a joy to use. And while I don't like MDI in a web browser, it's still better to use than IE or Konqueror.
The best way to do that is to have an optional "compatiability" mode that will render as close to IE 5/6 as possible. Or even a good set of reg-exp's that convert bad code to good, and then render the good.
A mixed-approach would drastically improve Moz/Operate market share.
Mozilla already does have this; it is called Quirks Mode. And I must say, it works pretty damn well. Aside from sites that use MS-only scripting (document.all and the like), I don't see a difference in pages between IE & Moz at all. (Except for pages that use CSS1 & 2, in which case Mozilla renders it correctly, and IE chokes)
I don't think thats happening with Opera or Mozilla...yet.
To some extent, it is happening with Mozilla.
For those not familiar with the project, the MS-only MARQUEE tag was recently checked into Mozilla. So now, Marquee is supported in Moz & IE only.
It was originally only to be put in Chinese builds, since the top sites in China seem to have a near-fetish for using Marquee, but it managed to expand into all builds; and not just in quirks mode, but in strict mode also. That upsets me greatly, as strict mode should really only support W3 standards, of which marquee is certainly not. Also, marquee is a blow to usability, as it makes it hard for people who are not totally fluent in a language to read text. Frankly, I LIKED not seeing Marquees, as they drive me up a wall. Unfortunately, the 1.1. builds after checkin of this tag do not have an option to turn off Marquees.
This, IMHO, is one instance of Mozilla playing a bad game of catchup to IE. Fortunately this hasn't happened too often, but everytime it does, it's a blow to W3 Standards, and an acknowledgement of Microsoft's market share.
Does anyone still develop SCSI CDRW drives?
Fortunately, yes! Plextor makes 2 excellent Ultra SCSI models, a 12/4/32 and a 12/10/32. Both are available in internal & external models. You can view the 12/10/32 model here.
I've owned Plextor IDE & SCSI drives before, and never had a problem with any of them; I actually can't recommend them highly enough. While I wish they would make a faster SCSI model, I'm at least happy that they are still making SCSI models at all!
it did sound like updateing the licenses for the "new" computer was pretty simple.
;)
Yes, it did sound pretty simple...for us! Now, imagine trying to explain to a non-technical person that they have to "Relicense" their own music because Windows thought they were a pirate. I can just imagine trying to explain to my mom over the phone why she can't play the Sinatra CD I ripped out to her PC anymore. (Fortunately, I won't ever have to deal with this scenario; my mom runs Linux
The fact is that DRM walks a VERY fine line between legitimate copy control & utter user frustration. If you go even slightly over the line, users will (eventually) rebel. Copy-protected CDs prove this point extremely well, as do proposed bills like the SSSCA (Sen. Holling's office has still not received one positive phone call from citizens over that bill).
Check out TNAC if you need computers which are resistant to harsh environmental situations. The computers are built into the displays for a single, tough unit, are available in pretty decent speeds (PII & PIII), and have good onboard components (USB, 10/100 ethernet, etc.) They also only use 5W in standby, which is good for houseboats, etc.
P.S. No, I don't work for them.
From the article:
RIAA CEO Hilary Rosen said in a statement that Berman's bill was "an innovative approach," adding that "it makes sense to clarify existing laws to ensure that copyright owners--those who actually take the time and effort to create an artistic work--are at least able to defend their works from mass piracy."
Since when does the RIAA create *anything*??
I think what Hilary meant was "it makes sense to clarify existing laws to ensure that the RIAA can continue to steal money from the copyright owners..."
I'm currently running Mozilla 1.0 with XFT (Available here: http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/nightly/experim ental/xft/Red_Hat_7x_RPMS/1.0/SRPMS/), and it is just excellent. The font smoothing provided by XFT makes Mozilla look just amazing. (if you've never seen it, there is a nice screenshot available here) So, here is my question:
Is there anyway to upgrade Mozilla while still keeping the XFT core?? I think even doing a rpm -Uvh will overwrite the XFT portion and give me a nice, new 1.1b with crumbly looking fonts again, which I don't want to do. If anyone has any idea on how I can do this, please let me know. Thanks!!
Unfortunately, if vigilant admins set up their severs properly -- i.e., disable unused script mappings (like I did ;-), this never would have happened, bug or no bug, worm or no worm.
Yeah, that's fine and dandy for those who don't need the IDA, et all mappings; but what of those people who DO use them?! You know, a lot of those corporate servers that were hacked had those script mappings set for a reason, i.e. they were using them.
That's great that you knew better than to keep the default script mappings, but what about people who needed them?? It would have been a lot nicer if Microsoft had written a secure server in the first place instead. Even the most vigilant sysadmin would still get infected running IIS if he needed to use the IDQ & IDA mappings. In short, don't blame the sysadmin, because it's not always their fault.
I started off with the Redmond theme & window decorations, so that they would at least feel a little comfortable. I removed the Console from the kicker, and put up a minimum icon set on the Desktop:
I taught them how to log in, and they were pretty much set from there. They had access to everything they needed on the desktop, and had no problem figuring it out. Since I configured everything for them, they didn't have to worry about the guts of the OS, and since they really only browse the web and check email, they don't need to install software or anything else. Eventually I moved their window decorations away from the Redmond theme, so that they wouldn't confuse it for Windows; I still think it was a good beginner decision though.
Basically it came down to me asking "Why DO they need Windows?" one night, when my one sister asked me if she should buy XP. First I shuddered at the thought of her using XP, then I realized she really doesn't NEED it! And when I told her that her own copy of SuSE 8.0 would only cost $40, she was thrilled. (Yes, I had her buy a copy, I wanted to support SuSE. Besides, they each liked the idea of having a manual just in case). Let's face it though, for a lot of people, Linux does exactly what they need it to do. We just need to make it even easier so that they can set it up for themselves. And we as a community are getting there.
In the mean time, give your Mom Linux, and save yourself and her a headache
I noticed that several portions of the map are dedicated to PMG and their spamming users. Also, as a subscriber to SpamCop, if I report email that came from PMG, the report goes to a /dev/null'ed email address called "pmg_doesnt_care".
Given just this information, I think one can logically come the conclusion that PMG is nothing more than a Spamhaus, and doesn't care about stopping spam at all.
My question is, if we know for a fact that they allow spam, and probably even encourage it so long as they get paid nicely, isn't there anything we can do about it?! Can we not bring a class-action against them, or something? Surely there must be some recourse against a company/it's users that cost ISPs and end-users money.
Back when I still ran Windows, I used Windows 2000. One of the most annoying bugs I found was one with Mozilla installed as the default browser.
What I usually did was hit the windows key to bring up the start menu, go to the run line, then type in a URL and press enter. This loads your default browser. However, a certain Win2k security patch (I forget which one, it's been a while) would break this behavior; pressing enter would still load Moz to the page I typed, but immediately after I would get an Error Dialog from Windows saying that the location could not be opened. Mind you that if IE was the default browser, this wouldn't happen.
Not only very annoying, but it took a very long time to figure out which patch caused the break. It also seemed very dubious, as it only caused the error when a browser besides IE (I've heard it did this with Opera too) was the default.
Of course, this "upgrade" will be ridiculously costly, and force users to buy new systems and new software.
Consider the latest Google zeitgeist. 46% of the visitors were still using Windows 98. People aren't upgrading like MS wants, they aren't buying new machines and a new $200 copy of Windows. They are using the system they bought a few years ago that still works. And they will continue to do so. Mind you, it's going to be a while before "Longhorn" is released, but what makes MS think people will start all over again when they wouldn't even shell out for XP and a new system?
There is a critical mass right now in the Windows world, with their latest offerings not giving much more functionality than their previous versions, but offering a larger price tag. If there was ever a time for Linux to catch up, this is it.
Insert your Conan the Librarian or Wheel of Fish joke here.
;)
Of course, all the real UHF fans make their jokes about "Spatula City" or the cut scene of "Oh Those Homos!".
If you haven't seen that last one, I suggest you rent/buy the DVD immediately! It's worth it just for Al's commentary alone!
I have to pay for the United Linux product to get upgrades (free with any other linux distro) and tech support (mailing lists, faqs, deja, etc)? I must assume from this model that they are really only targeting the numb masses of people who don't like the nuts and bolts of linux. Seems clear that UL will become not a distro for linux users, but a crossover distro for people who don't like to think.
You're missing the point entirely. UnitedLinux is meant for businesses. (Whether or not you equate businesses with "people who don't like to think" is another topic altogether!)
A large corporation is not going to want to be told to check mailing lists and newgroups. A large corporation is going to want 24/7 phone support, and guaranteed system integrity and maintenance. This is a good thing! After all, it's what Microsoft tries to sell to their business customers. (Whether or not they deliver...again, another topic) Linux needs something like that to ever make it to some large corporations.
The questions I always had about retinal scans is what happens in the situation of someone who has a glass eye?
Do the scans ignore it, or do they try to recognize it as a real eye? If so, does it pass or fail the system?? I imagine it would fail, since there is no retina to scan.
And what happens when they change their glass eye to a new one, that might be slightly different looking; would they no longer be recognized as the same person?
If anyone knows, please respond, I'm curious!
Personally, I don't think the primary application of these will be CD replacements. Too many people are happy with their CDs right now, and don't want to replace them (which explains why DVD Audio is being so slowly adopted right now, as opposed to standard DVD movies which are flying off the shelves). These will be much better in PDAs, Digital Cameras, Portable Music Players (Imagine an Ipod with one of these drives), etc.
These things are far too small to be effective as Audio CDs. Too small to keep track of, too small for artwork, too small to effectively prevent theft in stores without very large surrounding packaging. And Philips is trying to shrink these even more!!
These discs will have a much better use for Data than Audio. This is the mistake that DataPlay is making; smaller discs that hold less than CDs and are copy-controlled; they will flop immediately. However, Philips knows that what is good for citizens (I hate to be called merely a consumer) is good for their bottom line. If they have their way, these will be small, efficient, and not copy-controlled.
Or if you want to keep using the IE engine for compatibility
Translation: If you want to keep seeing poorly-coded sites remain poorly-coded sites, use the IE engine.
The more people that use Mozilla, the more web designers have to code for standards compliancy. Using IE or IE's engine will only result in a monopoly on the web.
As soon as using your computer recklessly can kill someone.
In this day and age, taking down a large corporation's mail server could probably put you in a hotter pot of water then a hit-and-run could; you could certainly face more fines from the former than the latter.
This is unsolicited bulk/commercial/junk email, it is not Spam and these are not Spamer's, Spamer is a proper surname, my surname.
You're right, they're not spamers. A person who sends out "spam" mail is a "spammer", not a "spamer".
Do people really think your last name has anything to do with UCE?
CBDTPA? what is it? how about a link?
CBDTPA stands for Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Protection Act, and is the formal version of the original SSSCA bill. The seemingly innocent name hides the horrible truth of the bill; it would require copy control devices in every digital device; from your computer to your camcorder to door locks on hotel rooms. The bill is authored by Senator Fritz Hollings from South Carolina, who receives a very large contribution each year from the major media companies like Disney, Viacom, and News Corp (Fox).
You can read more about this atrocious bill and ways to fight it at the EFF Action Alert site.
If this bill disgusts you, call your members of Congress today!
And the first thing the story about the spam-battling startup does is to load some popup advertising.
Simple solution: Use Mozilla, and turn off unrequested popups. I haven't seen one in months.