Oh if someone breaks a contract you may be able to go after them for that but that's a purely financial thing, not criminal. I'd be very very surprised if major ISP's don't have good laywers writing their contracts in the first place.
umm, question....who is the one that decided that the meta headers for emails must contain the ipadress where it comes from, and who pushes for some sort of standard in trying to discern mime types....just asking. I guess if I want to add any sort of info into and email sent across the wire.... I could, I just would not be following a standard protocal set by??? a governing body perhaps?
RFC stands for something- "Request for Comments"
That's all those documents are. They are not law. They are not even rules. They're barely guidelines. They are suggestions on a good way to do things. As it happens they often tend to be technically solid. There is no authority behind them other than consensus.
Who writes them? Anyone. And if they're solid then people might actually follow them.
Actually I'm fairly sure I still have the sense to look things up even when visiting other countries.
So you agree that even if you are not a lawyer, you can know laws, as this statement of yours implies you are not in networking but think you know about it.
Networking is not my main job though I've tracked the occasional cable through a data centre. That doesn't preclude me from spending 30 seconds typing keywords into a search engine to check if what I'm saying is obvious crap before I say it. Please for the love of all that is holy: culture this skill in yourself.
but here, we have a different situation then yours obvisouly
I was not talking about my country when it comes to blocking port 25. I was talking about the US. "the US" cannot block a port on your connection. "An ISP" however can do so if they want, they are not the government. Companies are not bound by the first amendment.
"If a phone company sold me a service, then all of a sudden, blocked the #2 key, it would impede the service they are contracting to me, and would be in breach of contract."
If their contract with you specified that they would provide you access to every valid phone number then maybe, if however your contract said that they reserved the right to block certain numbers or protocols then they would be perfectly free to do so as long as they don't stray into anti-competitive trading legislation.
"seems to be providing me with many lawsuits against these ISPs for doing such things,"
And if they wrote their contract poorly then some of those suits might win. that says nothing, absolutely nothing about the legality of it.
And yes, every now and then someone decides that god has leaned down and given them the authority to be the bosses of the internet. So far none seem to have gained much traction.
I spent 3 years a God followed by 7 years in the omniscience industry followed next by 4 years understanding everything. Given the level of general knowledge you've displayed this claim is about as credible as yours.
So anyway, would you like some sources since you seem too arrogant to simply type a few terms into google:
The internet has no central authority
http://www.isoc.org/briefings/020/ If you're too lazy to read they spend pages and pages saying this over and over in different ways: "There is no central authority that controls the operation of all root name servers"
Any single central authority is also a single point of failure. Far better is rough consensus and running code.
The closest is IP addresses and yet it's still only by consensus, you are utterly free to resolve any given IP address however you wish on your own network(assuming the intent is not to defraud). we've seen this when certain carriers get into conflicts with each other.
There are certainly groups which have influence on protocols etc on the net but they offer suggestions, not commands.
"The IETF process is interesting in that it is descriptive, not prescriptive. An IETF Standard is not a statement that all must abide by the technical specification unlike much law and some of the standards of government sanctioned standards bodies. Rather, it is a descriptive statement to say that (1) the policies specified by the document are desirable and (2) that the quality is high enough to permit developers to create independent implementations."
I can send a mail to any given IP without the slightest need for any kind of DNS service.
Since you seem too inept to write a simple bash script heres a quick tutorial.
Most basic possible script for sending an email. Tested on an SMTP server picked at random from one of my email headers and it works fine. echo "HELO myhostname\nMAIL FROM:$2\nRCPT TO:$3\nDATA\n$4\n.\nQUIT\n" | netcat $1 25
usage: ScriptName.sh [SMTP server name or IP address] [from] [to] [message body]
Note that from and to must have angle brackets around them.
A lot of servers don't accept these connections from random machines simply because of the spam problem but this is the basics. Anyone can do this. You don't need to go near your ISP's email servers unless they're blocking port 25. You don't need to touch the DNS system if you feed and IP in instead of a host name.
So. If you think my sources are wrong all you have to provide is some links to some decent sources yourself. using ALL CAPS doesn't count as providing sources by the way. It just makes you sound like a 12 year old AOLer.
You can practice your religion in private but the moment you express it in public in any way you're imposing on everyone else. I for one don't want to look at or hear *any symbols or expressions of your religion or lack thereof*
If a bunch of Sikhs turned up in Mecca and asked for permission to build a temple what do you think would happen?
I see, because some people in some places are intolerant, racist or bigoted we must all copy them and be intolerant, racist and bigoted.
Pretty high considering how people tend to act. In the US the majority in many of the southern states managed to keep laws that fucked over black people on the books for a long time. The slaughtering was just an example anyway, there's thousands of other posibilities:
The majority voting to ban a minorities harmless religious practices. The majority voting that a certain minority cannot use the same bathrooms or water fountains. The majority voting to exclude a minority from certain jobs. The majority voting to exclude a minority from living in certain places. The majority voting to force a minority to conform to the majorities religious or cultural practices. The majority voting to ignore basic human rights of any particular minority. The majority voting to exile people who don't look or talk the same way as the majority.
it doesn't tend to start with slaughter, it's baby steps all the way.
I'm not sure you quite understand what people mean when they ask for a "citation".
"A November 2009 television survey showed a majority of the public have been in favour of its return, and noted "High profile crimes against children often prompt calls for the return of the death penalty"."
which is about as useful as a sack of horse shit when it comes to gathering real data.
Perhaps we should base all our policies on television surveys. While we're at it lets replace the foreign office with the staff from the Sun newspaper and put the BNP in power.
I know car analogies are old on slashdot but I seriously wonder how long before car manufacturers start building the electronic components of their cars such that they are needlessly dependent on some online system run by the manufacturer so that your fuel indicator only works correctly if your car has been able to update this month from the manufacurers online fuel level measuring methods database and your aircon shuts down unless authenticated with a secure server on a regular basis as a "car theft prevention measure".
Idiot lawmakers make bypassing or removing the "anti car theft" systems for any reason a crime. Drivers pay through the nose to have an account with the manufacturer. Manufacturers get more profit since now people have an incentive to not buy used cars. Shills start trolling car enthusiast message boards talking about how it's a good thing because this way the car companies get more money to build better cars and everyone wins except those dirty car thieves.
It's called that for a reason. In a true democracy the majority have all the power. If 50% of the population vote yes then they can slaughter of all gays, black people or *generic unpopular group* I guess boo hoo, suck it up , thats what true democracy is about.
Fortunatly most democracies are constitutional democracies where the power of the majority is limited so that groups which are not a large portion of the population don't get shit upon by the majority.
I would however not oppose them since they do nobody an harm of any kind.
Freedom of speech is a bitch isn't it.
I don't like rape games so I don't buy them. if I had children I'd discourage them from playing rape games.(hell I'd outright stop them) I support minimum ages for purchasing them.
Great idea. If it's a crime it can't be the subject of a video game.
Any super hero game is out since it encourages vigilante behaviour which is a serious crime.
Uplink should be banned because it has the player commit serious crimes like breaking into computer systems without their owners consent.
Commander keen is out since obviously he flew without a pilots liscence while underage (encouraging kids to joy ride), operated firearms without a liscence(unless 8 year olde are commonly issued liscences for powerful weapons) and murdered large numbers of animals with no consideration for proper methods of humane slaughter.
Pacman is out since it encourages kids to consume pills which haven't been proscribed to them.
Dwarf fortress is out since it allows genocide, torture, theft and flooding of populated towns with magma.
The whole point of games is that they allow you to do things which would not be allowed in real life. I don't know about you but I wouldn't find "Accountancy: The Game" much fun. Similarly "Complying with building code regulations" is far less fun that lego. "Turning found large qantities of cash into the proper authorities to see if anyone claims it" is far less fun than rogue.
Why limit it to computer games. Any children playing guns with pieces of wood should be forcibly stopped from playing games in which they act out doing illegal things like kill people. The blocks of wood should be confiscated and replaced with math books so that they can become productive members of society.
The whole point of games is that they're not real life.
I've never stabbed anyone despite playing as an assasin in oblivion. I've never shot anyone despite playing doom and GTA. I've never undermined by house with tunnels depite playing digdug
actually it was in part a result of privatisation.
In the old building things were run the old government way, a cobbled together computer network run by the one teacher who knew anything about programming and students could do lots of things like compile programs etc.
It was after some public private partnership crap that the company which got the contract to maintain the network locked it down so hard that it was useless (but also cheap to run).
Also they refused to give the teacher who knew what he was doing admin access or any kind of access which would let him do anything useful because their contract didn't specificly require them to.
Government is bad. Private somehow manages to be worse.
Assuming we go with a sensible plan or assuming we go with insane plans decided on by hordes of politicians who have zero understanding of basic physics or chemistry?
I can only agree. when i was in high school we moved to a shiny new school building with a shiny new computer network and lots of computer labs.
It could have been fantastic. They could have taught students how to program. They could have used them as a real teaching aid.
What happened was that the company contracted to run the computer system had it locked down so tight you couldn't do anything worthwhile. Most of the teachers were terrified of the computers. One teacher tried to teach the ECDL while 2 lessons ahead of the students. There was no way to use the computers to program. They utterly wasted all the money they spent on the computers.
The problem wasn't the computers. the problem was the administration and the teachers.
As well suggesting they are blocking such an important port that would affect many enterprises on so many different levels, just shows me how little you know.
Do you even google these things before jumping back with a reply.
google "port 25" comcast First result. "We are singling out spammers on our network and blocking port 25,"
there are most certainly legit apps for it, that's why they don't block it on buisness connections.
"force me to know those laws that apply."
then how. how in the name of god do you manage to not know how those laws apply? I'm not a laywer either but I have enough sense to look things up.
my field is programming not networking, however that might seem the same to you.
Mine is programming too, databases, security and a small bit of networking but this is not specialist knowledge. This is basic stuff that comes up at the top of a quick search.
He thinks it's a waste of time, and I try to tell him otherwise, but I guess maybe that now I know
Ok now I'm getting a better picture. Last place I worked there were a few people who seemed to know about their fields but seemed to have absolutely no interest in or knowledge of basic general stuff about their field outside the finest area. I take it you're one of them?
Feel free to prove me wrong. A brief step program to emails over smtp would show you have a clue what you're talking about.No frills, no attachments, no nothing, just a hello world email. If you don't mind hardcoding in things or not bothering with errors you could do it in a few lines of bash.
here, we are not blocked as such a thing is illegal, they would be held accountable for selling you a service to you that you could not use.
How are you so convinced you know all about this while at every single turn you demonstrate your utter ignorance of the subject.
Comcast most certainly does port 25 filtering, although not necessarily on every line at every moment. So does Verizon, AT&T, and every other large North American consumer ISP.
It's perfectly legal in the US.
You know nothing about the law. You know nothing about the internet even on a technical level. You know nothing about how ISP's are run. You seem to know almost nothing about networking.
Stop pretending to be some kind of programmer or expert on anything at all.
With solar pannels you pay $1,760/kW for their absolute peak possible output. In perfect conditions you get that for about 2-5 hours out of the day during a hot summer. solar averages out at something bellow 20% or fated max on average.
With nuclear you pay $6000/kW and you get 90% of your rated max 24/7 12 months a year.
so you'd be pissing money away with that $1,760/kW.
You don't have to use fresh water. If there's ample fresh water available it can be the easiest thing to use but you can cool your reactor in lots and lots of ways.
What is this idea of barrels people keep going on about? You melt it into a huge chunk of glass, wrap that in thick thick steel, wrap that is whatever extra layers you like and store your waste inside that. This is not the simpsons. Nuclear waste does not come in rusty barrels with green glowing stuff dripping out of the holes.
I really wouldn't care if it was burried in my back yard if stored as described buried nice and deep though as stated earlier burying it in a hole in a mountain in the middle of nowhere is the best option.
Slashdot Mirror
despite your need to feel that parents are somehow being oppressed that comment is at zero because it's an AC with no ratings at all.
Nobody rated it down.
Oh if someone breaks a contract you may be able to go after them for that but that's a purely financial thing, not criminal.
I'd be very very surprised if major ISP's don't have good laywers writing their contracts in the first place.
umm, question....who is the one that decided that the meta headers for
emails must contain the ipadress where it comes from, and who pushes for
some sort of standard in trying to discern mime types....just asking.
I guess if I want to add any sort of info into and email sent across the wire....
I could, I just would not be following a standard protocal set by???
a governing body perhaps?
RFC stands for something-
"Request for Comments"
That's all those documents are.
They are not law.
They are not even rules.
They're barely guidelines.
They are suggestions on a good way to do things.
As it happens they often tend to be technically solid.
There is no authority behind them other than consensus.
Who writes them?
Anyone.
And if they're solid then people might actually follow them.
Anyway.
Cheers.
In your own country maybe, not in mine....
Actually I'm fairly sure I still have the sense to look things up even when visiting other countries.
So you agree that even if you are not a lawyer, you can know laws, as this statement
of yours implies you are not in networking but think you know about it.
Networking is not my main job though I've tracked the occasional cable through a data centre.
That doesn't preclude me from spending 30 seconds typing keywords into a search engine to check if what I'm saying is obvious crap before I say it.
Please for the love of all that is holy: culture this skill in yourself.
but here, we have a different situation then yours obvisouly
I was not talking about my country when it comes to blocking port 25.
I was talking about the US.
"the US" cannot block a port on your connection.
"An ISP" however can do so if they want, they are not the government.
Companies are not bound by the first amendment.
"If a phone company sold me a service, then all of a sudden, blocked the #2 key, it would impede the service they are contracting to me, and would be in breach of contract."
If their contract with you specified that they would provide you access to every valid phone number then maybe, if however your contract said that they reserved the right to block certain numbers or protocols then they would be perfectly free to do so as long as they don't stray into anti-competitive trading legislation.
"seems to be providing me with many lawsuits against these ISPs for doing such things,"
And if they wrote their contract poorly then some of those suits might win. that says nothing, absolutely nothing about the legality of it.
And yes, every now and then someone decides that god has leaned down and given them the authority to be the bosses of the internet.
So far none seem to have gained much traction.
I spent 3 years a God followed by 7 years in the omniscience industry followed next by 4 years understanding everything.
Given the level of general knowledge you've displayed this claim is about as credible as yours.
So anyway, would you like some sources since you seem too arrogant to simply type a few terms into google:
The internet has no central authority
http://www.isoc.org/briefings/020/
If you're too lazy to read they spend pages and pages saying this over and over in different ways:
"There is no central authority that controls the operation of all root name servers"
Email:
go nuts:
find anything in here about a king of email and I'll withdraw all slurs on your knowledge of the field.
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2821.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2822.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2045.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2046.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2047.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2048.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2049.html
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/archived_content/people/reagle/regulation-19990326.html
This rambles on a bit but the general gist of it is that the Internet is based on decentralisation and consensus.
Any single central authority is also a single point of failure.
Far better is rough consensus and running code.
The closest is IP addresses and yet it's still only by consensus, you are utterly free to resolve any given IP address however you wish on your own network(assuming the intent is not to defraud).
we've seen this when certain carriers get into conflicts with each other.
There are certainly groups which have influence on protocols etc on the net but they offer suggestions, not commands.
"The IETF process is interesting in that it is descriptive, not prescriptive. An IETF Standard is not a statement that all must abide by the technical specification unlike much law and some of the standards of government sanctioned standards bodies. Rather, it is a descriptive statement to say that (1) the policies specified by the document are desirable and (2) that the quality is high enough to permit developers to create independent implementations."
I can send a mail to any given IP without the slightest need for any kind of DNS service.
Since you seem too inept to write a simple bash script heres a quick tutorial.
Most basic possible script for sending an email.
Tested on an SMTP server picked at random from one of my email headers and it works fine.
echo "HELO myhostname\nMAIL FROM:$2\nRCPT TO:$3\nDATA\n$4\n.\nQUIT\n" | netcat $1 25
usage:
ScriptName.sh [SMTP server name or IP address] [from] [to] [message body]
Note that from and to must have angle brackets around them.
A lot of servers don't accept these connections from random machines simply because of the spam problem but this is the basics.
Anyone can do this.
You don't need to go near your ISP's email servers unless they're blocking port 25.
You don't need to touch the DNS system if you feed and IP in instead of a host name.
So.
If you think my sources are wrong all you have to provide is some links to some decent sources yourself.
using ALL CAPS doesn't count as providing sources by the way.
It just makes you sound like a 12 year old AOLer.
ok.
but still [actual citation needed]
You can practice your religion in private but the moment you express it in public in any way you're imposing on everyone else.
I for one don't want to look at or hear *any symbols or expressions of your religion or lack thereof*
If a bunch of Sikhs turned up in Mecca and asked for permission to build a temple what do you think would happen?
I see, because some people in some places are intolerant, racist or bigoted we must all copy them and be intolerant, racist and bigoted.
And the chances of that happening are ....
Pretty high considering how people tend to act.
In the US the majority in many of the southern states managed to keep laws that fucked over black people on the books for a long time.
The slaughtering was just an example anyway, there's thousands of other posibilities:
The majority voting to ban a minorities harmless religious practices.
The majority voting that a certain minority cannot use the same bathrooms or water fountains.
The majority voting to exclude a minority from certain jobs.
The majority voting to exclude a minority from living in certain places.
The majority voting to force a minority to conform to the majorities religious or cultural practices.
The majority voting to ignore basic human rights of any particular minority.
The majority voting to exile people who don't look or talk the same way as the majority.
it doesn't tend to start with slaughter, it's baby steps all the way.
I'm not sure you quite understand what people mean when they ask for a "citation".
"A November 2009 television survey showed a majority of the public have been in favour of its return, and noted "High profile crimes against children often prompt calls for the return of the death penalty"."
which is about as useful as a sack of horse shit when it comes to gathering real data.
Perhaps we should base all our policies on television surveys.
While we're at it lets replace the foreign office with the staff from the Sun newspaper and put the BNP in power.
you make a good point.
I know car analogies are old on slashdot but I seriously wonder how long before car manufacturers start building the electronic components of their cars such that they are needlessly dependent on some online system run by the manufacturer so that your fuel indicator only works correctly if your car has been able to update this month from the manufacurers online fuel level measuring methods database and your aircon shuts down unless authenticated with a secure server on a regular basis as a "car theft prevention measure".
Idiot lawmakers make bypassing or removing the "anti car theft" systems for any reason a crime.
Drivers pay through the nose to have an account with the manufacturer.
Manufacturers get more profit since now people have an incentive to not buy used cars.
Shills start trolling car enthusiast message boards talking about how it's a good thing because this way the car companies get more money to build better cars and everyone wins except those dirty car thieves.
I can honestly see it happening.
It's called that for a reason.
In a true democracy the majority have all the power.
If 50% of the population vote yes then they can slaughter of all gays, black people or *generic unpopular group*
I guess boo hoo, suck it up , thats what true democracy is about.
Fortunatly most democracies are constitutional democracies where the power of the majority is limited so that groups which are not a large portion of the population don't get shit upon by the majority.
You're changing the goalposts.
No I would not "support" any of those games.
I would however not oppose them since they do nobody an harm of any kind.
Freedom of speech is a bitch isn't it.
I don't like rape games so I don't buy them.
if I had children I'd discourage them from playing rape games.(hell I'd outright stop them)
I support minimum ages for purchasing them.
But there's zero reason to ban any of those.
Great idea.
If it's a crime it can't be the subject of a video game.
Any super hero game is out since it encourages vigilante behaviour which is a serious crime.
Uplink should be banned because it has the player commit serious crimes like breaking into computer systems without their owners consent.
Commander keen is out since obviously he flew without a pilots liscence while underage (encouraging kids to joy ride), operated firearms without a liscence(unless 8 year olde are commonly issued liscences for powerful weapons) and murdered large numbers of animals with no consideration for proper methods of humane slaughter.
Pacman is out since it encourages kids to consume pills which haven't been proscribed to them.
Dwarf fortress is out since it allows genocide, torture, theft and flooding of populated towns with magma.
The whole point of games is that they allow you to do things which would not be allowed in real life.
I don't know about you but I wouldn't find "Accountancy: The Game" much fun.
Similarly "Complying with building code regulations" is far less fun that lego.
"Turning found large qantities of cash into the proper authorities to see if anyone claims it" is far less fun than rogue.
Why limit it to computer games.
Any children playing guns with pieces of wood should be forcibly stopped from playing games in which they act out doing illegal things like kill people.
The blocks of wood should be confiscated and replaced with math books so that they can become productive members of society.
The whole point of games is that they're not real life.
I've never stabbed anyone despite playing as an assasin in oblivion.
I've never shot anyone despite playing doom and GTA.
I've never undermined by house with tunnels depite playing digdug
actually it was in part a result of privatisation.
In the old building things were run the old government way, a cobbled together computer network run by the one teacher who knew anything about programming and students could do lots of things like compile programs etc.
It was after some public private partnership crap that the company which got the contract to maintain the network locked it down so hard that it was useless (but also cheap to run).
Also they refused to give the teacher who knew what he was doing admin access or any kind of access which would let him do anything useful because their contract didn't specificly require them to.
Government is bad.
Private somehow manages to be worse.
Assuming we go with a sensible plan or assuming we go with insane plans decided on by hordes of politicians who have zero understanding of basic physics or chemistry?
I can only agree. when i was in high school we moved to a shiny new school building with a shiny new computer network and lots of computer labs.
It could have been fantastic.
They could have taught students how to program.
They could have used them as a real teaching aid.
What happened was that the company contracted to run the computer system had it locked down so tight you couldn't do anything worthwhile.
Most of the teachers were terrified of the computers.
One teacher tried to teach the ECDL while 2 lessons ahead of the students.
There was no way to use the computers to program.
They utterly wasted all the money they spent on the computers.
The problem wasn't the computers.
the problem was the administration and the teachers.
As well suggesting they are blocking such an important port that would affect
many enterprises on so many different levels, just shows me how little you know.
Do you even google these things before jumping back with a reply.
google
"port 25" comcast
First result.
"We are singling out spammers on our network and blocking port 25,"
there are most certainly legit apps for it, that's why they don't block it on buisness connections.
"force me to know those laws that apply."
then how. how in the name of god do you manage to not know how those laws apply?
I'm not a laywer either but I have enough sense to look things up.
my field is programming not networking, however that might seem the same to you.
Mine is programming too, databases, security and a small bit of networking but this is not specialist knowledge.
This is basic stuff that comes up at the top of a quick search.
He thinks it's a waste of time, and I try to tell him otherwise, but I guess maybe that now I know
Ok now I'm getting a better picture. Last place I worked there were a few people who seemed to know about their fields but seemed to have absolutely no interest in or knowledge of basic general stuff about their field outside the finest area.
I take it you're one of them?
Feel free to prove me wrong.
A brief step program to emails over smtp would show you have a clue what you're talking about.No frills, no attachments, no nothing, just a hello world email.
If you don't mind hardcoding in things or not bothering with errors you could do it in a few lines of bash.
That example was an american ISP.
here, we are not blocked as such a thing is illegal, they would be
held accountable for selling you a service to you that you could not use.
How are you so convinced you know all about this while at every single turn you demonstrate your utter ignorance of the subject.
Comcast most certainly does port 25 filtering, although not necessarily on every line at every moment. So does Verizon, AT&T, and every other large North American consumer ISP.
It's perfectly legal in the US.
You know nothing about the law.
You know nothing about the internet even on a technical level.
You know nothing about how ISP's are run.
You seem to know almost nothing about networking.
Stop pretending to be some kind of programmer or expert on anything at all.
With solar pannels you pay $1,760/kW for their absolute peak possible output.
In perfect conditions you get that for about 2-5 hours out of the day during a hot summer.
solar averages out at something bellow 20% or fated max on average.
With nuclear you pay $6000/kW and you get 90% of your rated max 24/7 12 months a year.
so you'd be pissing money away with that $1,760/kW.
that isn't really going to help.
Read the sections on wind and how much it could generate assuming we ignore all cost constraints:
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/book/tex/sewtha.pdf
You don't have to use fresh water.
If there's ample fresh water available it can be the easiest thing to use but you can cool your reactor in lots and lots of ways.
you sound a lot like a preacher.
Sure everyone can stop sinning or we can be realistic.
What is this idea of barrels people keep going on about?
You melt it into a huge chunk of glass, wrap that in thick thick steel, wrap that is whatever extra layers you like and store your waste inside that.
This is not the simpsons.
Nuclear waste does not come in rusty barrels with green glowing stuff dripping out of the holes.
I really wouldn't care if it was burried in my back yard if stored as described buried nice and deep though as stated earlier burying it in a hole in a mountain in the middle of nowhere is the best option.