This depends on the application. If you don't think exceptions have merit, you haven't learned to use them properly. Using exceptions where return codes make for simpler code is wrong. Using return codes where exceptions make for simpler code is just as wrong. If you blaim exceptions for spaghetti code, you are putting the blame at the wrong place. The problem isn't exceptions, it's people that haven't understood how and when to use them.
There will be a functional language in.Net, called F#.
Correction. Microsoft once announced that there would be an official language called F#, that would be based on Ocaml, if I remember correctly. This has long since been abandoned as an official.NET language. As such, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it.
On the other hand, the.NET platform is a pretty ok platform for ML-type languages, so there's no doubt that there will pop up some alternatives. But in the foreseeable future, probably not directly from Microsoft.
But as technology catches up, I would also like it to be inflatable so I could use it as a laptop, personal helicopter, liferaft, midi studio, and tent.
What I don't understand is why anyone who suggests something like the government covering up a disaster or questioning something like the moon landings is immediately ridiculed.
In general, they aren't. Unless one of the following occurs:
The "suggestion"/theory has been debunked many times in the past, and just because some new guy is telling it now, doesn't mean we should take it any more seriously
The thing is just patently absurd, such as e.g. the fake moon landings (do you think Soviet, the cold war, and the space race is also just fakery by the government? In that case, you could just as well claim nothing is real).
The thing is just beyond comprehension, e.g. David Icke's claims that most state leaders really are lizards.
The person that suggests these things are unable to discuss in a rational manner. E.g, everything against his thoughts is a proof of the conspiracy.
We're perfectly willing to believe conspiracies between SCO and Microsoft but we accept the government at face value on things such as this and ridicule the doubters? Why is this?
See the above list.
but I'm genuinely curious why we take such negative attitudes toward questions such as whether the government doesn't yet want to inform the public over seismic concerns in the Yellowstone area.
Mostly because nobody is able to see any reason for the government to keep it a secret. Thus there can't be a conspiracy. Who are they conspiring against? People in the yellowstone area? Why? That doesn't make sense...
If, as you say, there is "secret" research going on to find out if it's going to be dangerous there, then it's actually the opposite of a conspiracy. They are doing it in secret to prevent panic, loss of lives and property.
False. Memory and hard drives always format to units that divide out well into base 2 but rarely into base 10 units.
For memory it's true. It has to do with being simple to address, which is kind of important in todays binary computers.
For external storage, e.g. hard disks, storage is just a random subdivision of platters into cylinders and sectors, and eventually bits. There is no more reason to make those subdivisions binary then it is for your phone modem to work at some "binary" speed. On the other hand, when formatting those data for use in an operating system (or some firmware), subdivision into fixed size blocks is preferable, and for practical/historical reasons those blocks tend to be a power of 2, but the number of such blocks need not be a power of 2.
If we totally disregard historical context, there seems to be little practical benefit to insist on using multiplier=1024 for external media.
For example, your floppy disk holds EXACTLY 1440 KB using the base-2 KB definition.
To be pedantic, that is true (1474560B). Which means a 1.44MB floppy doesn't really hold 1.44MB (1509949B), but 1.40625MB. But the reasons for this are purely marketing, I guess.
Neither "bits" nor "bytes" are an SI unit, so this argument is screwed from the get-go...
That would be really pedantic, as bits are the same as 1 and bytes are the same as 8 (or in more practical terms, bytes are the same as 1, and bits are 1/8 bytes). I doubt the SI committee is going to shoot you if you start talking about megadozen too. After all, they were the ones to start it all, mandating a base unit (mol) for mass amount, and optional (and sometimes necessary) base units for radians and steradians.
The fact of the matter is, that the SI committee actually has issued a recommendation for using SI units with bits and bytes, which recommends using kibi, mebi, etc instead of kilo, mega, etc, when using the multiplier=1024 rule. So I doubt they are really against bits and bytes.
And here's the real key -- terminology in any field is defined by the practitioners of that field.
Here we tend to agree. Multiplier=1024 for storage and 1000 for data-rates. But then again, this is not what the SI committe thinks, as they would prefer us to use kibi, mebi, etc, when that is what we mean. Actually, I would prefer the SI alternative, but then again, there's nice to be able to communicate with people not being pendants (like me) at times.
Exactly. But then again, there's this thing known as piracy, which really helps to bring the prices down for hobbyists, and up for everyone else.
There's also a strange tendency to offer multiple versions of the same software, the cheapest being crippled beyond usefulness, and the top version with totally unreasonable price. I wonder if they instead just sold one version at an affordable price, they would get more popularity points. It seems like FL studio is the only reasonably priced midi/audio studio software out there, although even they follow the practice of offering crippled versions.
Yes, I agree somewhat. But then again, it's not just parents neglecting children (the root cause) that causes trouble. It is also the consequences of that. In the words of a more familiar joke about safe driving: "It's not the speed that kills, it's the sudden stop".
And while you may have joked about your prison example, I don't. Try to google for "war on drugs", for example. You should be able to find plenty of arguments for not putting people into jail.
If you want to shield them from sex, perhaps you should not have a computer, television, radio, newspaper, magazine, or any other connection to the outside world. You can also blindfold them and lock them in a dark room with their hands tied behind the back. It's for the best-- sex is a horrible, hideous thing. If you see it, run the other way, it's a monster that will consume you.
Just like you want to shield your children from other things they are not mentally equipped to understand or handle yet, you should shield your children from porn.
While it's probably not wise to shield your children from knowing about sex after they have shown themselves too have an interest in it (which usually occurs long before puberty), it doesn't strike me as very smart to let them discover it through internet pornography either.
Let's face it, most internet pornography is to normal sex, as most horror movies is to experiencing a death in the family. Without the maturity and experience to separate fantasy from fiction, stuff like this can be damaging to children.
What is your scientific evidence that suggests porn will HARM kids in the slightest?
I doubt there is much, as this is a relatively new problem. The previous generation smuggled playboy (which is hardly comparable to most internet porn) under their mattresses. It's only in recent years that 5 year olds can see midgets pissing and shitting on women being unwillingly double-penetrated by a men with leather masks, and a dildo up her nose.
It's hardly a secret that kids that watch lots of movies intended for more mature audiences, on their own, without adult supervision, often becomes "cases" for the special teachers, school psychologists, etc...
Just tell it as it is. You are currently unemployed, due to layoffs in your previous company. A rational employer should thus be able to deduce that you might still be talented, as corporate layoffs are often somewhat random. If your potential employer is not rational, you don't want to work there anyway. Being unemployed even has a bonus when applying for jobs. You can start at once, and you are desperate...
Actually, it isn't so much revisionist history at all. Microsoft truly was one of the pioneers of closed source commercial software, back in the days when BASIC was their main product. On the other hand, there's little doubt that it would have happened anyway, and in the mean time, it has become the standard way of doing it.
Come on, the whole concept is ridiculous. Why would you want to have a cafe with computers on each desk. People come to cafe's to eat, drink, or chat (the soundwave protocol, not with computers).
While public internet access surely is a good thing for e.g. travellers, I never understood why people thought there was a big market for it, and given the lack of success for most internet cafes, it certainly seems like this feeling was right.
Just look at it this way. When the cost of the computers, furniture and other equipment is paid, you still have to bring in enough profits for salaries (and yourself), rent, advertisements, internet access, various maintenance issues, etc...
Personally, I would be very reluctant to do anything with cybercafes, unless it was obvious there was a real market for it, e.g. situated at an airport, railroad station, etc...
An gint (glib integer) is always going to be a set number of bytes, no matter if it's on a 64bit Alpha or a Motorola 68040 Mac. It makes porting code a LOT easier.
This is exactly what bothers me about it. I know, it's probably just nitpicking, but the C standard already have this, it's called int32_t, int64_t, etc... When you port GLIB to platforms that doesn't have these, it should provide a compatibility header for inttypes.h (such as glib/inttypes.h), instead of inventing yet another stupid name with a G-prefix.
While I have nothing against the nice features of Glib, I don't really see the necessity of demanding everything to be prefixed by a g, i.e. gsscanf, gfloat, gtan, gselect, (and probably soon gmain), etc...
The peace nobel-prize I guess, was made to make up for the fact that the money that funds the prizes come from the Nobel-weapon industry (although they have expanded and now cover more than just explosives).
Actually, Nobel himself believed that there would be no more wars after the invention of dynamite, because dynamite was so effective. Of course, the cold war didn't happen untill the invention of the atomic bomb, but even that couldn't stop other wars from happening.
Oh, so who care what you label it. I'm sure you are more 31773 than most non-computer people, and feel superior for your technical knowledge. The net send command isn't exactly "hacking", it's a useful tool, albeit one that is also too easy to abuse, especially in a school setting.
Should the student have done it? No. He was probably feeling just as clever and superior for his technical knowledge of the net send command. And he probably did it for showing off. Nothing bad about that, but at the same time, he knew that he would annoy a lot of people. He shouldn't need a written policy to tell him to not annoy 50 people through the net send command. He should be able to deduce that from common sense.
Is it right to suspend him? Maybe. I'm not sure I understand all these crazy american school policies anymore, but a fair comparison would be with graffiti or tagging, but without the economic damages. I am not sure being suspended for three days is over the top for that. But it sure isn't way beyond reasonable imagination. Move on, I'm sure you are able to find better examples of injustice than this.
but what about the "helpful" software on the CDs? Probably some stuff to send mails, locate open proxies, forge this and that. Obviously stuff that was intended for criminal activity, and for which it would be hard to find legal excuses.
Yes, obviously intended for spamming, but hard to prove that it doesn't also have a legitimate purpose, such as running mailing lists, etc... Few people think mailing lists, or other kind of opt-in emails should be illegal.
How about faking such software.It shouldn't be too hard to rewrite some of that so that it sends mail to abuse@(local.isp) informing them that this spamming program is running on this address,
Good luch selling it to spammers. I am pretty sure they will prefer tools without such "enhancements".
All you have to do is pick a word. Let's use "dilbert". Then, when someone sends an email to scottadams@aol.com, they must put the word "dilbert" in the subject-line.
Fine. Now, please explain to me why none of the mails I get from my bank gets through.
Ok, that's probably a bit unfair, as I could set up a separate filter to let everything from my bank get through. But then, what about other people? Customers?
For this system to work, it would have to be standardized and automated, so that people didn't have to remember to insert "dilbert" whenever they wrote me (or Scott Adams) an email. At which point, "dilbert" could be considered part of the address, and you'd be back to where you started.
of course, the secret is that once they have bots parsing for "remove-me-to-reply-bob@bob.com" is to have email addresses that ACTUALLY have the "remove-me" text in them - so that if you remove the "remove-me" you have an invalid (or at least other) email address.:)
And exactly why do you suspect this would help? The spammers would be pretty stupid not to write their script in such a way that joeREMOVE.THIS@hotmail.com didn't end up as: joe@hotmail.com, joe.THIS@hotmail.com, joeREMOVE@hotmail.com, and joeREMOVE.THIS@hotmail.com.
Since the cost of email is practically zero, and they even can sell their addresses afterwards, this is what I'd expect them to do.
But one wonders if tools cant easily be written to remove basic patterns of that sort... a simple substitute (or regex, whatever) would cleanse quite a few addresses, especially on UseNet..
They probably can. And they are probably already in use by some spammers. No big deal here.
Why is this worth it ? playing devils advocate, if I wanted to market ThinkGeek-like toys, Slashdot readership would be squarely in my "target market". A bit of effort cleansing addresses would pay off (because presumably, a fair portion of the populace reading Slashdot have more disposable income to spend on toys and geeky appliances ? ) and thus the spam would be more "directed" ?
This isn't how spam works. You only care about target groups when it costs you money to reach people. The cost of sending spam is, for all practical purposes, zero. Thus, you don't care about target groups, instead you spam as many addresses as possible.
And as proven by the article, spammers don't care much about duplicates, abuse-accounts, etc.. either. By the time you have spammed a zillion people, your ISP will know about your spamming, regardless of whether you spammed their abuse-account yourself, or someone else notified them.
Along those lines, how much longer before someone just hires a highschool kid to manually "collect" addresses ? (a few bucks an hour payment, say).. all the fancy email obfuscation tricks would fly out the window then..
That would raise the cost of spamming enormously. The high-school kid would want $10/hour, and could proabably be expected to do 5-10 addresses/minute, meaning you'd pay up to 3 cent per address. This is 4 orders of magnitude higher cost than the CD in the article.
It all depends on the payment model for spammers (which I never could understand anyway..). Paid per email sent (with incentive to forge or do shoddy cleansing), or paid per items bought ? If its per item, then there is a good incentive to cleanse, I'd think..
There are all kinds of silly models for spammers to get their money. But if anyone is stupid enough to pay spammers per mail sent, they can expect to get bankrupt soon. As a spammer, I could then send emails to dummyacct000000001@hotmail.com, dummyacct000000002@hotmail.com, and so on, and still get paid.
I believe CLR is supposed to be portable like Java, but functions are compiled to machine level code upon their first call.
Actually, that would be exactly like java. There are very few JVM implementations that doesn't do JIT these days... (At least that people actually use).
So, slashdotters, we need to find a copy of the letter and tear it apart with specificity before tomorrow morning in the US East Coast, so that any analysts/reporters will not be distracted."
It doesn't matter much what analysts think about the case itself. What matters is what analysts think other people think about the case. Even if every analyst on earth would think the lawsuit was fraudulent, doesn't mean they wouldn't recommend buying stock, because people are doing it anyway.
They want to protect their bandwidth from abuse by p2p apps that are mostly used to transport illicit content.
Well, then. Don't abuse the bandwidth the university provides you with, then.
If the university blocks ports, I can understand people want to work around it, but if all they do are deprioritizing your file-trading to let other traffic through, you'd better play nice with them, since they are actually quite nice to you!
# Mark packets to select which priority they should have (1..5) $iptables -t mangle -N PRIO_MARK $iptables -t mangle -A POSTROUTING -j PRIO_MARK $iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -j PRIO_MARK # ICMP in queue 1 $iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -p icmp -j MARK --set-mark 1 #$iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -m length --length 0:80 -j MARK --set-mark 1 # "Fast" ports in queue 1 for port in $FAST_TCP; do $iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -p tcp --sport $port -j MARK --set-mark 1 $iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -p tcp --dport $port -j MARK --set-mark 1 done for port in $FAST_UDP; do $iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -p udp --sport $port -j MARK --set-mark 1 $iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -p udp --dport $port -j MARK --set-mark 1 done # Too many large packets in queue 1, and they go to queue 4 (e.g. scp) $iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -m mark --mark 1 -m length --length 0:512 \ -j RETURN $iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -m mark --mark 1 -m recent --name bulk1 --set $iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -m mark --mark 1 -m recent --rcheck \ --seconds 1 --hitcount 2 -j RETURN $iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -m mark --mark 1 -j MARK --set-mark 4 $iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -m mark --mark 4 -j RETURN # Streaming to queue 2 for port in $STREAM_TCP; do $iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -p tcp --sport $port -j MARK --set-mark 2 $iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -p tcp --dport $port -j MARK --set-mark 2 done for port in $STREAM_UDP; do $iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -p udp --sport $port -j MARK --set-mark 2 $iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -p udp --dport $port -j MARK --set-mark 2 done # Packets from "bulk" ports get Maximize-Throughput, and queue 5 for port in $BULK_TCP; do $iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -p tcp --sport $port -j MARK --set-mark 5 $iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -p tcp --dport $port -j MARK --set-mark 5 done $iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -m mark --mark 5 -j RETURN # Everything left is now normal data (queue 3) $iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -j MARK --set-mark 3 # If packet is small, let it go $iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -m length --length 0:512 -j RETURN # 2 large packets per connection per second is ok $iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -m recent --name bulk3 --set $iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -m recent --name bulk3 --rcheck \ --seconds 1 --hitcount 2 -j RETURN # The remaining large packets are demoted to queue 4 $iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -m mark --mark 3 -j RETURN $iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -j MARK --set-mark 4
# Mangle TOS fields of outgoing packets to prioritize non-bulk data $iptables -t mangle -N MANGLE_TOS $iptables -t mangle -A POSTROUTING -j MANGLE_TOS $iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -j MANGLE_TOS $iptables -t mangle -A MANGLE_TOS -m mark --mark 1 -j TOS \ --set-tos Minimize-Delay $iptables -t mangle -A MANGLE_TOS -m mark --mark 2 -j TOS \ --set-tos Minimize-Delay $iptables -t mangle -A MANGLE_TOS -m mark --mark 3 -j TOS \ --set-tos Normal-Service $iptables -t mangle -A MANGLE_TOS -m mark --mark 4 -j TOS \ --set-tos Maximize-Throughput $iptables -t mangle -A MANGLE_TOS -m mark --mark 5 -j TOS \ --set-tos Maximize-Throughput
# Prioritize traffic according to firewall marks $tc qdisc add dev $IF_INET root handle 1: htb default 15 $tc class add dev $IF_INET parent 1: classid 1:1 htb rate ${UPLOAD_SPEED}kbit \ ceil ${UPLOAD_SPEED}kbit for i in 1 2 3 4 5; do $tc class add dev $IF_INET parent 1:1 classid 1:1$i htb \ rate $[$UPLOAD_SPEED/5]kbit ceil ${UPLOAD_SPEED}kbit burst 6k prio $i $tc qdisc add dev $IF_INET parent 1:1$i handle 1${i}0: sfq perturb 10 $tc filter add dev $IF_INET parent 1:0 protocol ip prio $i \ handle $i fw classid 1:1$i done
# Now throttle inbound speed to avoid long queues at the ISP $tc qdisc add dev $IF_INET handle ffff: ingress $tc filter add dev $IF
But why would you want to defeat traffic shaping at the router level? Most ISP's do no traffic shaping, and only optimize for max throughput, since that's what looks good in their advertizing brochures. It also happens to be best for most of their customers, who are in a better position to judge what kind of traffic shaping they want.
Hire an electrician. You know, these guys are specializing in setting up stuff like electrical chords. There is a good chance they could help you setting up your electrical chords...
Slashdot Mirror
This depends on the application. If you don't think exceptions have merit, you haven't learned to use them properly. Using exceptions where return codes make for simpler code is wrong. Using return codes where exceptions make for simpler code is just as wrong. If you blaim exceptions for spaghetti code, you are putting the blame at the wrong place. The problem isn't exceptions, it's people that haven't understood how and when to use them.
Correction. Microsoft once announced that there would be an official language called F#, that would be based on Ocaml, if I remember correctly. This has long since been abandoned as an official .NET language. As such, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it.
On the other hand, the .NET platform is a pretty ok platform for ML-type languages, so there's no doubt that there will pop up some alternatives. But in the foreseeable future, probably not directly from Microsoft.
But as technology catches up, I would also like it to be inflatable so I could use it as a laptop, personal helicopter, liferaft, midi studio, and tent.
In general, they aren't. Unless one of the following occurs:
We're perfectly willing to believe conspiracies between SCO and Microsoft but we accept the government at face value on things such as this and ridicule the doubters? Why is this?
See the above list.
but I'm genuinely curious why we take such negative attitudes toward questions such as whether the government doesn't yet want to inform the public over seismic concerns in the Yellowstone area.
Mostly because nobody is able to see any reason for the government to keep it a secret. Thus there can't be a conspiracy. Who are they conspiring against? People in the yellowstone area? Why? That doesn't make sense...
If, as you say, there is "secret" research going on to find out if it's going to be dangerous there, then it's actually the opposite of a conspiracy. They are doing it in secret to prevent panic, loss of lives and property.
For memory it's true. It has to do with being simple to address, which is kind of important in todays binary computers.
For external storage, e.g. hard disks, storage is just a random subdivision of platters into cylinders and sectors, and eventually bits. There is no more reason to make those subdivisions binary then it is for your phone modem to work at some "binary" speed. On the other hand, when formatting those data for use in an operating system (or some firmware), subdivision into fixed size blocks is preferable, and for practical/historical reasons those blocks tend to be a power of 2, but the number of such blocks need not be a power of 2.
If we totally disregard historical context, there seems to be little practical benefit to insist on using multiplier=1024 for external media.
For example, your floppy disk holds EXACTLY 1440 KB using the base-2 KB definition.
To be pedantic, that is true (1474560B). Which means a 1.44MB floppy doesn't really hold 1.44MB (1509949B), but 1.40625MB. But the reasons for this are purely marketing, I guess.
Neither "bits" nor "bytes" are an SI unit, so this argument is screwed from the get-go...
That would be really pedantic, as bits are the same as 1 and bytes are the same as 8 (or in more practical terms, bytes are the same as 1, and bits are 1/8 bytes). I doubt the SI committee is going to shoot you if you start talking about megadozen too. After all, they were the ones to start it all, mandating a base unit (mol) for mass amount, and optional (and sometimes necessary) base units for radians and steradians.
The fact of the matter is, that the SI committee actually has issued a recommendation for using SI units with bits and bytes, which recommends using kibi, mebi, etc instead of kilo, mega, etc, when using the multiplier=1024 rule. So I doubt they are really against bits and bytes.
And here's the real key -- terminology in any field is defined by the practitioners of that field.
Here we tend to agree. Multiplier=1024 for storage and 1000 for data-rates. But then again, this is not what the SI committe thinks, as they would prefer us to use kibi, mebi, etc, when that is what we mean. Actually, I would prefer the SI alternative, but then again, there's nice to be able to communicate with people not being pendants (like me) at times.
There's also a strange tendency to offer multiple versions of the same software, the cheapest being crippled beyond usefulness, and the top version with totally unreasonable price. I wonder if they instead just sold one version at an affordable price, they would get more popularity points. It seems like FL studio is the only reasonably priced midi/audio studio software out there, although even they follow the practice of offering crippled versions.
And while you may have joked about your prison example, I don't. Try to google for "war on drugs", for example. You should be able to find plenty of arguments for not putting people into jail.
Just like you want to shield your children from other things they are not mentally equipped to understand or handle yet, you should shield your children from porn.
While it's probably not wise to shield your children from knowing about sex after they have shown themselves too have an interest in it (which usually occurs long before puberty), it doesn't strike me as very smart to let them discover it through internet pornography either.
Let's face it, most internet pornography is to normal sex, as most horror movies is to experiencing a death in the family. Without the maturity and experience to separate fantasy from fiction, stuff like this can be damaging to children.
What is your scientific evidence that suggests porn will HARM kids in the slightest?
I doubt there is much, as this is a relatively new problem. The previous generation smuggled playboy (which is hardly comparable to most internet porn) under their mattresses. It's only in recent years that 5 year olds can see midgets pissing and shitting on women being unwillingly double-penetrated by a men with leather masks, and a dildo up her nose.
It's hardly a secret that kids that watch lots of movies intended for more mature audiences, on their own, without adult supervision, often becomes "cases" for the special teachers, school psychologists, etc...
Just tell it as it is. You are currently unemployed, due to layoffs in your previous company. A rational employer should thus be able to deduce that you might still be talented, as corporate layoffs are often somewhat random. If your potential employer is not rational, you don't want to work there anyway. Being unemployed even has a bonus when applying for jobs. You can start at once, and you are desperate...
Actually, it isn't so much revisionist history at all. Microsoft truly was one of the pioneers of closed source commercial software, back in the days when BASIC was their main product. On the other hand, there's little doubt that it would have happened anyway, and in the mean time, it has become the standard way of doing it.
While public internet access surely is a good thing for e.g. travellers, I never understood why people thought there was a big market for it, and given the lack of success for most internet cafes, it certainly seems like this feeling was right.
Just look at it this way. When the cost of the computers, furniture and other equipment is paid, you still have to bring in enough profits for salaries (and yourself), rent, advertisements, internet access, various maintenance issues, etc...
Personally, I would be very reluctant to do anything with cybercafes, unless it was obvious there was a real market for it, e.g. situated at an airport, railroad station, etc...
You mean you like Gates so much you'd allow him to use emacs? I would rather force him to use notepad.exe!
This is exactly what bothers me about it. I know, it's probably just nitpicking, but the C standard already have this, it's called int32_t, int64_t, etc... When you port GLIB to platforms that doesn't have these, it should provide a compatibility header for inttypes.h (such as glib/inttypes.h), instead of inventing yet another stupid name with a G-prefix.
While I have nothing against the nice features of Glib, I don't really see the necessity of demanding everything to be prefixed by a g, i.e. gsscanf, gfloat, gtan, gselect, (and probably soon gmain), etc...
Actually, Nobel himself believed that there would be no more wars after the invention of dynamite, because dynamite was so effective. Of course, the cold war didn't happen untill the invention of the atomic bomb, but even that couldn't stop other wars from happening.
Should the student have done it? No. He was probably feeling just as clever and superior for his technical knowledge of the net send command. And he probably did it for showing off. Nothing bad about that, but at the same time, he knew that he would annoy a lot of people. He shouldn't need a written policy to tell him to not annoy 50 people through the net send command. He should be able to deduce that from common sense.
Is it right to suspend him? Maybe. I'm not sure I understand all these crazy american school policies anymore, but a fair comparison would be with graffiti or tagging, but without the economic damages. I am not sure being suspended for three days is over the top for that. But it sure isn't way beyond reasonable imagination. Move on, I'm sure you are able to find better examples of injustice than this.
Yes, obviously intended for spamming, but hard to prove that it doesn't also have a legitimate purpose, such as running mailing lists, etc... Few people think mailing lists, or other kind of opt-in emails should be illegal.
How about faking such software.It shouldn't be too hard to rewrite some of that so that it sends mail to abuse@(local.isp) informing them that this spamming program is running on this address,
Good luch selling it to spammers. I am pretty sure they will prefer tools without such "enhancements".
Fine. Now, please explain to me why none of the mails I get from my bank gets through.
Ok, that's probably a bit unfair, as I could set up a separate filter to let everything from my bank get through. But then, what about other people? Customers?
For this system to work, it would have to be standardized and automated, so that people didn't have to remember to insert "dilbert" whenever they wrote me (or Scott Adams) an email. At which point, "dilbert" could be considered part of the address, and you'd be back to where you started.
And exactly why do you suspect this would help? The spammers would be pretty stupid not to write their script in such a way that joeREMOVE.THIS@hotmail.com didn't end up as: joe@hotmail.com, joe.THIS@hotmail.com, joeREMOVE@hotmail.com, and joeREMOVE.THIS@hotmail.com.
Since the cost of email is practically zero, and they even can sell their addresses afterwards, this is what I'd expect them to do.
They probably can. And they are probably already in use by some spammers. No big deal here.
Why is this worth it ? playing devils advocate, if I wanted to market ThinkGeek-like toys, Slashdot readership would be squarely in my "target market". A bit of effort cleansing addresses would pay off (because presumably, a fair portion of the populace reading Slashdot have more disposable income to spend on toys and geeky appliances ? ) and thus the spam would be more "directed" ?
This isn't how spam works. You only care about target groups when it costs you money to reach people. The cost of sending spam is, for all practical purposes, zero. Thus, you don't care about target groups, instead you spam as many addresses as possible.
And as proven by the article, spammers don't care much about duplicates, abuse-accounts, etc.. either. By the time you have spammed a zillion people, your ISP will know about your spamming, regardless of whether you spammed their abuse-account yourself, or someone else notified them.
Along those lines, how much longer before someone just hires a highschool kid to manually "collect" addresses ? (a few bucks an hour payment, say).. all the fancy email obfuscation tricks would fly out the window then..
That would raise the cost of spamming enormously. The high-school kid would want $10/hour, and could proabably be expected to do 5-10 addresses/minute, meaning you'd pay up to 3 cent per address. This is 4 orders of magnitude higher cost than the CD in the article.
It all depends on the payment model for spammers (which I never could understand anyway..). Paid per email sent (with incentive to forge or do shoddy cleansing), or paid per items bought ? If its per item, then there is a good incentive to cleanse, I'd think..
There are all kinds of silly models for spammers to get their money. But if anyone is stupid enough to pay spammers per mail sent, they can expect to get bankrupt soon. As a spammer, I could then send emails to dummyacct000000001@hotmail.com, dummyacct000000002@hotmail.com, and so on, and still get paid.
Actually, that would be exactly like java. There are very few JVM implementations that doesn't do JIT these days... (At least that people actually use).
It doesn't matter much what analysts think about the case itself. What matters is what analysts think other people think about the case. Even if every analyst on earth would think the lawsuit was fraudulent, doesn't mean they wouldn't recommend buying stock, because people are doing it anyway.
Well, then. Don't abuse the bandwidth the university provides you with, then.
If the university blocks ports, I can understand people want to work around it, but if all they do are deprioritizing your file-trading to let other traffic through, you'd better play nice with them, since they are actually quite nice to you!
Try this:
# Mark packets to select which priority they should have (1..5)
$iptables -t mangle -N PRIO_MARK
$iptables -t mangle -A POSTROUTING -j PRIO_MARK
$iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -j PRIO_MARK
# ICMP in queue 1
$iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -p icmp -j MARK --set-mark 1
#$iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -m length --length 0:80 -j MARK --set-mark 1
# "Fast" ports in queue 1
for port in $FAST_TCP; do
$iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -p tcp --sport $port -j MARK --set-mark 1
$iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -p tcp --dport $port -j MARK --set-mark 1
done
for port in $FAST_UDP; do
$iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -p udp --sport $port -j MARK --set-mark 1
$iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -p udp --dport $port -j MARK --set-mark 1
done
# Too many large packets in queue 1, and they go to queue 4 (e.g. scp)
$iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -m mark --mark 1 -m length --length 0:512 \
-j RETURN
$iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -m mark --mark 1 -m recent --name bulk1 --set
$iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -m mark --mark 1 -m recent --rcheck \
--seconds 1 --hitcount 2 -j RETURN
$iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -m mark --mark 1 -j MARK --set-mark 4
$iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -m mark --mark 4 -j RETURN
# Streaming to queue 2
for port in $STREAM_TCP; do
$iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -p tcp --sport $port -j MARK --set-mark 2
$iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -p tcp --dport $port -j MARK --set-mark 2
done
for port in $STREAM_UDP; do
$iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -p udp --sport $port -j MARK --set-mark 2
$iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -p udp --dport $port -j MARK --set-mark 2
done
# Packets from "bulk" ports get Maximize-Throughput, and queue 5
for port in $BULK_TCP; do
$iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -p tcp --sport $port -j MARK --set-mark 5
$iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -p tcp --dport $port -j MARK --set-mark 5
done
$iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -m mark --mark 5 -j RETURN
# Everything left is now normal data (queue 3)
$iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -j MARK --set-mark 3
# If packet is small, let it go
$iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -m length --length 0:512 -j RETURN
# 2 large packets per connection per second is ok
$iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -m recent --name bulk3 --set
$iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -m recent --name bulk3 --rcheck \
--seconds 1 --hitcount 2 -j RETURN
# The remaining large packets are demoted to queue 4
$iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -m mark --mark 3 -j RETURN
$iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -j MARK --set-mark 4
# Mangle TOS fields of outgoing packets to prioritize non-bulk data
$iptables -t mangle -N MANGLE_TOS
$iptables -t mangle -A POSTROUTING -j MANGLE_TOS
$iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -j MANGLE_TOS
$iptables -t mangle -A MANGLE_TOS -m mark --mark 1 -j TOS \
--set-tos Minimize-Delay
$iptables -t mangle -A MANGLE_TOS -m mark --mark 2 -j TOS \
--set-tos Minimize-Delay
$iptables -t mangle -A MANGLE_TOS -m mark --mark 3 -j TOS \
--set-tos Normal-Service
$iptables -t mangle -A MANGLE_TOS -m mark --mark 4 -j TOS \
--set-tos Maximize-Throughput
$iptables -t mangle -A MANGLE_TOS -m mark --mark 5 -j TOS \
--set-tos Maximize-Throughput
# Prioritize traffic according to firewall marks
$tc qdisc add dev $IF_INET root handle 1: htb default 15
$tc class add dev $IF_INET parent 1: classid 1:1 htb rate ${UPLOAD_SPEED}kbit \
ceil ${UPLOAD_SPEED}kbit
for i in 1 2 3 4 5; do
$tc class add dev $IF_INET parent 1:1 classid 1:1$i htb \
rate $[$UPLOAD_SPEED/5]kbit ceil ${UPLOAD_SPEED}kbit burst 6k prio $i
$tc qdisc add dev $IF_INET parent 1:1$i handle 1${i}0: sfq perturb 10
$tc filter add dev $IF_INET parent 1:0 protocol ip prio $i \
handle $i fw classid 1:1$i
done
# Now throttle inbound speed to avoid long queues at the ISP
$tc qdisc add dev $IF_INET handle ffff: ingress
$tc filter add dev $IF
But why would you want to defeat traffic shaping at the router level? Most ISP's do no traffic shaping, and only optimize for max throughput, since that's what looks good in their advertizing brochures. It also happens to be best for most of their customers, who are in a better position to judge what kind of traffic shaping they want.
Hire an electrician. You know, these guys are specializing in setting up stuff like electrical chords. There is a good chance they could help you setting up your electrical chords...