Actually, the Deep Crack effort was in combination with Distributed.net. Deep Crack was just a "super client" of dnet in that contest (and the machine that did find the key).
I also dislike the "Free" software term - GPL is restricted and non-Free, too. Public-domain (and BSD-style licensing, to a slightly lesser extent) are more "Free".
They're just different kinds of freedom:
Once something is released as GPL, it will always remain GPL. The consequence is that when other people use and improve the code, more (and hopefully better) software will become available, so you choice (and thus freedom) expands (since if you have only one possibility to choose from, you can be as free as possible; yet you will always have to choose that one thing).
In the BSD license this is not guaranteed (everyone can use the source and keep his/her improvements closed -> no new free alternatives may emerge -> freedom is not guaranteed). Theoretically, it's even possible that suddenly only non-free versions remain of a BSD/public domain-licensed program, along with a completely outdated free version, which is useless for all practical purposes (except for heavy reworking or experimentation).
In the end, you could say the GPL tries to guarantee the freedom of the community (you have to share your improvements with everyone), while the BSD license is more a protection of individual freedom (you can do with the source whatever you like, as long as you give proper credits). I wouldn't say one is "more free" than the other, since it depends on your perspective...
...patheticly manipulated sound and video bites from for subversion of the TRUTH...
...a collage of the simple truth in terrorism...
The problem is that there is no such thing as the TRUTH - and most certainly not a simple truth - in this matter. That's exactly the point of the video: one version of the truth is what you see in the general media, but by manipulating those things you suddenly get a whole different version of the truth.
I don't think GNN is claiming that everything else is bullshit, or that what happened wasn't terrible, but they're showing that if they can manipulate those images to show you their view of the situation, then you should keep in mind that what you originally get to see is also manipulated to show you the politicians/media companies' version. At the same time, the maker obviously also voices his opinion ("war isn't going to solve this"), but so did the people that made the original footage (and the makers of the movie you link to).
Please don't use this link anymore, the gnn people mailed me to say that if the slashdotting of their servers continued like this, they'll be broke by morning. Either watch it at Sundance or use my mirror (for now at least, can't promise how long it will stay up).
I forewarned the gnn guys and got their permission to include direct links to the Quicktme versions on their site, but I just got a mail of them stating that if the slashdotting of their site continues like this, they'll be broke by morning:)
I've setup a mirror of the Quicktime version here. It's limited to 30 connections currently, but this may change at any time.
Quartz Extreme has nothing to do with AltiVec, it only depends on the video chipset (and the Radeon 7500 in the iBooks supports Quartz Extreme just fine).
Instead of upgrading the iBook line they introduce a new machine which features a processor that, according to my damaged memory, was introduced at least a year ago for $500 more than the iBook it should have gone in to.
You should try using your damaged memory a little more, then you'd notice that the price of the iBooks has dropped by $100-$200!
Also, pay no mind to the fact that the iBook they'd like you to buy has a graphics card that doesn't take advantage of the finder-level hardware graphics acceleration they built into sytem 10.2
There is no "finder-level hardware graphics acceleration". You're probably thinking about Quartz Extreme, which is window compositing-level hardware graphics acceleration. And guess what: the Radeon 7500 (either with 16MB or 32MB) in the iBooks supports the required features just fine.
FYI, Marklar is simply the code name for Darwin 6 for Intel (like Jaguar was the code name for Mac OS X 10.2). See here (use login/pass archives/archives).
Having something like six gigabytes of memory would make this perfectly feasible.
I'm not going to nitpick about how you're going to cram the contents of 3 DVD's in 6 GB, but in the days of DOS/Win 3.1 when people also had 8 or 16 MB of ram, they also didn't do this. At most, they used a ram disk for temp space. Nowadays, ram disks are even less usefull since the OS'es have much more intelligent caching functionality (like using all otherwise unused RAM as disk cache). So, yes, you could get a 4GB disk cache now, which will speed up your system.
I don't see this immediately happening in consumer (or even prosumer) systems however, because you'll either need a lot of dimm slots or very high density dimms and both will be quite expensive.
Please also note that I was reacting to the original poster's statement that 64bit processing would automatically make your system faster. That's simply not true. If you start adding lots of ram, then it will become faster because of the ram (which is indeed made possible because you have 64 bit address space, although like other have already said in this thread, the address bus is often already larger than 32 bits in the 32 bit processors we use today).
Most integer calculations however don't need 64bit precision, 32bits is often enough.
That reminds me of the 640kByte anecdote.
This was also in reaction to the statement that 64 bit processing would automatically make your system faster. If lots of programs had to do lots of 64bit calcuations, then this would be true. The fact is that very little calcualtions require 64 bit integer precision. Nothing says this won't change in the future, but until then your programs will not run any faster on a 64 bit processor (even when completely recompiled) than on a 32 bit processor. In fact, they'll most likely be slower because of the extra memory bandwidth that's necessary for loading pointers.
But if you don't need the extra memory, all you get is the overhead of having to load 64bit pointers all the time instead of 32bit ones. This means that you have more memory->processor traffic, slowing down things instead of speeding them up.
Opteron's extra registers help.
This doesn't have anything to do with 64bit.
64-bit calculations are easier, they don't have to be put into multiple 32-bit parts.
Most integer calculations however don't need 64bit precision, 32bits is often enough.
Really, apart from the increased memory address space, there aren't many advantages (which result in speedups) that 64bit processors hold compared to 32bit ones. And even that extra memory space is only useful to a select number of applications (such as 3D renderers and scientific applications) currently, although I suppose that will change over time.
If the spammer has a subnet of a class C, most of the time they do start with blocking only the spammer. If however the ISP doesn't take any action, after a while this block is indeed expanded to the/24 in which the subnet lies. It has nothing to do with the ease of notation, it's just an escalation of the block if the ISP doesn't care about its spamming customers. I don't think they include class C's or bigger blocks from an ISP if they don't contain a single spammer. Of course, if an ISP is stupid enough to start moving around its spammers from one block to another...
I think the reason that osirusoft.com doesn't state explicitely how SPEWS works, is that it contains so many different blocking lists that explaining how each individual one works would be a lot of work. They do link to all the blocking lists they use though, where you can get this information. Using the information without informing yourself first is asking for trouble imho.
SPEWS in my opinion is overzealous with blacklisting and it is unfortunate that osirusoft includes them in its list.
SPEWS not in the first place a list to block spammers, but to block spamfriendly ISP's. Given that goal, they're not overzealous at all. It's true this regularly results in collateral damage, but since this is the only way "regular" people can do something against spam-supporting ISP's, the users of SPEWS accept these consequences.
Not only that, it's simply not true. Look at this, more zoo and "incest porn" (whatever that is) from Ralsky than you can shake a stick at.
Re:$5 to anyone who proves this statement wrong-
on
The Economics of Spam
·
· Score: 1
She is paying for the bandwidth. If the downstream providers aren't being compensated properly for the use of their bandwidth they will charge her provider more for its use - and they in turn will charge her more for it's use. The bandwidth is being paid for.
She only sends one copy of the message with a list of recepients to an open relay (possibly via an open proxy). Her ISP/she only pays for that. The open relay then sends a copy of that message to each of the recipients, multiplying the bandwidth usage by a big factor. There is no tag on each of those messages indicating who initially sent it so that they can't bill the spamster extra. So she definitely does not pay the full costs, it's the intermediate and/or final carriers that do.
Do you really think the price of a stamp is not affected by the volume of mail the snail-spammers send through the system?
Actually, I do think it's affected, but in the positive way: the postal services have extra income, they are the ones that set the rates so they won't loose money. The difference with the Internet is that there is no global organization that bears all the costs and gets all the income. The spammers are using that fact to shift their costs to other people (and on top of that they make use of others people equipment without those peoples conscent).
I guess that's the price we pay for having a completely open Internet. Perhaps you'd prefer it if the Internet were regulated to control what types of speech are propagated?
It is already regulated that way, since the Internet is a concatenation of private networks and each owner decides which traffic he wants to carry and accept. The problem is that there are holes in those regulations (a Chinese ISP most likely doesn't want to route email traffic from the US back to the US, but an open relay doesn't check these constraints). This really has nothing to do with the right to free speech.
The air purifier manufacturer is contributing to the need to purchase their product.
Again: spammers are the sole reason for the existence of anti-spam software, air-purifier manufacterers are not the sole reason that air purifiers are necessary. Take your trolling elsewhere, please.
BTW, I hate spam as much as the next person
Search news.admin.net-abuse.email for that quote and see why this doesn't give you any credibility at all.
Note: all mail from verio isn't stopped, only the mail sent through their corporate mailservers (ie. those used by upper management). Even the spammers won't notice the block (except when, hopefully, their lines are cut).
Re:Are we diverging, or converging... I can't tell
on
The Economics of Spam
·
· Score: 2
I agree, it is not my call to make. But, like it or not, getting spam in your mailbox is not your call to make either. Admitedly, you could threaten to drop your ISP unless they block all spam for you, and never shop anywhere or do anything with anyone unless you have an iron clad guarantee that they will not sell your name out to some list, so maybe it is your call.
Hmm, maybe I don't have a good understanding of what "call to make" means. I thought it meant whether you have the right to demand/decide something. What I meant is that no matter how ugly you may find those billboards, you are not the person who can decide what other people place on their property. Similarly, my mailbox is room that my internet provider sells/rents to me, and as such it's not there for the spammers to do with as they please. I consider a mailbox to be sort of private property. That doesn't mean I want to deny everyone that I don't know to mail me (that would be pretty silly), but I don't want any people to "vandalize" it like spammers do and I do think that's my decision to make.
I would say that the flaw in the burglary analogy is that if I am robbed, then I have been denied use of my property. I have never heard of a case where spam was so bad that a user actually lost the use, or a resource was even significantly impaired.
I have experienced one first-hand. The cvs server for the Free Pascal Compiler (see URL link in my info) used to be an open relay. When a spammer discovered that, he slowed down the server to a near halt by stuffing it with spam to send until the root partition filled up (/var wasn't mounted on a separate partition). Of course this happened on a Friday night and the only person that could fix it was visiting family that weekend. It wouldn't surprise me if this happened to a lot of open relays...
As for the spam in my inbox, that's indeed not something like a burglary. Maybe a better analogy in that case would be tresspassing and leaving thrash behind, which I then have to clean up. Using your dog anology, it's as if 20 people a day would let their dog drop its, well, droppings in your garden. With the addition that you would have to pay part of the transportation cost of the droppings from the owners house to yours (bandwidth usage).
Evil, to me, is something that should, without question, be destroyed.
We're definitely using different interpretations of the word "evil":) Apart from that, I think there's some kind of convergence except on the points noted above.
When a commercial is broadcast into my television, I have recieved no compensation for watching or being subjected to those ideas. They have paid for neither my television, my cable connection (if I had one), or, most importantly, my time.
They do pay the channel you are watching though, allowing them to continue broadcasting and providing you their service. Magazines can be sold cheaper because the ads pay for part of the publishers operating cost costs. The spammers ISP otoh is the only one that benefits from the spamming (along with possibly the seller of the spamvertized wares), neither of which benefits the recipient of the spam (unless you're one of the 81 peple out of 3.5 million that actually buys something from the spammers, and even that is debatable).
Besides TV commercials, billboards obstruct my line of and deface my city and scenery (which is very certainly a resource). I am not compensated.
If those billboards are on city (public) property, the city is compensated for it and can do useful things with the money (for you and other people). If it's on private property, the owners of that property have givens their conscent to place those billboards there. You may not like the view, but whether or not they can place their billboards there is not your call to make. Spammers don't ask me or my ISP anything before they put their spam in my mailbox aren't paying either of us for it either. If you wat to compare it to snailmail commercials: the transporation of those is paid for to the mail service (= ISP), giving the mail service more money -> mail can be cheaper.
Now, on to spam. All those systems you speak have the ability to effectively block all spam activity, and to do so is typically not all that difficult. Sure, some will always get through, but you are surely not suggesting that an email or two a month (after proper steps have been taken) is anything to worry about?
Yes, and if you secure your house well enough, burglaries will be rare. That doesn't mean you shouldn't complain when it does happen. The fact that you can protect your property against abuse and as such limit the abuse, doesn't make the abuse a non-issue imho.
And finally, if you think spam is "evil," you really should get out more. Talk to a WWII veteran, a murder victim, someone's who's house has burned down, or lost their dog.
Oh puh-lease. This is like saying "If you thing the WTC towers burning down and 3000 people being killed was evil, talk to someone who survived the concentration camps in WWII or some child soldier in Rwanda that has been forced to kill its own parrents". The fact that one thing is more evil than another, does not make the former automatically not evil anymore. Nevertheless, maybe "evil" is indeed a bit strong, it's just that the arrogance of spammers annoys the hell out of me.
Re:$5 to anyone who proves this statement wrong-
on
The Economics of Spam
·
· Score: 2
She's paying for the open relays and proxies. She's getting charged by her ISP for the amount of bandwidth she's taking up.
And what good does that do to the owners of those proxies and relays? And to my ISP (which happens to be a government funded university)? She's stealing their and our bandwidth and resources.
Besides, if your really want to nitpick: the bandwidth she has to pay for is orders of a magnitude smaller than the amount that's used by the open relay. The reason is that spammers usually send one copy of the body together with a couple thousands of email addresses to an open relay, which then diligently starts sending out a copy of the spam message to all specified recipients. She's not paying for that at all.
The owners of the pipelines between her and your inbox have business arrangements with each other that account for traffic loads. So, when she pays her monthly ISP bill (which covers her traffic load) she IS paying the postage in the same way snail-mailers do.
She is not paying a single dime for the bandwidth costs that my ISP incurs. She also only pays a fraction of the communication cost that the open relay has, plus that when such an open relay belongs to someone who has to pay for each byte he sends, you can bet she's not going to pay the owners bill either.
I really don't understand you're even trying to argue these points... She is using other peoples equipment and bandwidth without their conscent (to annoy millions of other people; those 81 people that replied on a total of 3.5 million emails sent clearly show that most people are not interested in her crap) and you are trying to protect such an abuse?
If your ISP has high bandwidth charges then set up your mail program to retrieve headers first. Delete what you don't want to waste real bandwidth on and download the message bodies later.
Although I personally don't have any direct bandwidth costs (I work at the university and I read my mail there), why on earth should I have to change my ways so that missy can continue spamming? If people would come dropping roaches in front of your house, would you just go to the store, buy lots of repellent and not complain about their actions? If people would come into your garden and start shouting commercial slogans every now and then, would you just buy ear buds and turn the music a little louder?
In terms of the cost of storage - your mailbox costs you as well. You pay for it through the postage you, and others, pay.
My mailbox costs me nothing. I don't know what it's like in the US, but here you buy a mailbox in some shop, you plant it in front of your house and it costs nothing from then on, no matter how much (commercial or other) mail is deposited in it.
Commercial speech is protected speech
Indeed, here I was wrong. It's not as protected as other speech, but it's still protected. The right to free speech is something entirely different from the (non-existing) right to be heard however, and that's the main problem here: these spammers are forcing you to listen to them and make you pay for it.
Her business is no more 'mob like' than many other manufacturer in the country. Companies that sell you air purifiers are contributing to air pollution, for example.
The big difference is that her business' sole purpose is spamming. If "people" like her wouldn't exist, no-one would need anti-spam software. The main purpose of a manufacturer of air purifiers is not to polute, but to manufacture air purifiers. Even if no air purifier manufacturers existed, people would still want air purifiers since there would still be polution.
Ok, now that you've had your laughs because I took you seriously, please come out and admit you're troll.
Re: It certainly is more evil than commercials
on
The Economics of Spam
·
· Score: 2
It's true that advertising automatically makes the advertized products more expensive, but at the same time it can make other things cheaper (sporting events, television channels, newspapers, magazines,...). So with classic advertising, there's also always a positive aspect (whether or not it's worth it, is another question), which you don't have with spam (the only one that gets better from it the spammer and possibly the seller).
Re:$5 to anyone who proves this statement wrong-
on
The Economics of Spam
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
It's different than snail-mailing because
she doesn't pay for the open relays or open proxies that she abuses (if you don't use such tricks, you're terminated by pretty much every ISP faster than you can say SPEWS), while snail-mailers do pay for the postage. She also doesn't pay for the consumed bandwidth of your ISP nor for the storage of her junk in your inbox, which means that in the end it's you that pays part of her six-bedroom house with pool on her 5000 square-foot property.
Commercial speech has absolutely no freedom of speech protection
Since she makes a lot of money from selling anti-spam software, this is no better than mob gangs that demand protection money: she's asking you to pay for a "solution" to a problem she causes herself!
If such things are "the basics of business" for you, I feel sorry for all people that have to do business with you.
It certainly is more evil than commercials. Spammers abuse other peoples property (open proxies, open mail relays, bandwidth, inbox space); they don't pay (or even ask) for using those resources. "Normal" advertisers do pay for the resources that they use.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the Deep Crack effort was in combination with Distributed.net. Deep Crack was just a "super client" of dnet in that contest (and the machine that did find the key).
- Once something is released as GPL, it will always remain GPL. The consequence is that when other people use and improve the code, more (and hopefully better) software will become available, so you choice (and thus freedom) expands (since if you have only one possibility to choose from, you can be as free as possible; yet you will always have to choose that one thing).
- In the BSD license this is not guaranteed (everyone can use the source and keep his/her improvements closed -> no new free alternatives may emerge -> freedom is not guaranteed). Theoretically, it's even possible that suddenly only non-free versions remain of a BSD/public domain-licensed program, along with a completely outdated free version, which is useless for all practical purposes (except for heavy reworking or experimentation).
In the end, you could say the GPL tries to guarantee the freedom of the community (you have to share your improvements with everyone), while the BSD license is more a protection of individual freedom (you can do with the source whatever you like, as long as you give proper credits). I wouldn't say one is "more free" than the other, since it depends on your perspective...I don't think GNN is claiming that everything else is bullshit, or that what happened wasn't terrible, but they're showing that if they can manipulate those images to show you their view of the situation, then you should keep in mind that what you originally get to see is also manipulated to show you the politicians/media companies' version. At the same time, the maker obviously also voices his opinion ("war isn't going to solve this"), but so did the people that made the original footage (and the makers of the movie you link to).
The jazzy piece is called take five.
Please don't use this link anymore, the gnn people mailed me to say that if the slashdotting of their servers continued like this, they'll be broke by morning. Either watch it at Sundance or use my mirror (for now at least, can't promise how long it will stay up).
Keep in mind that the sundance site is still ok to use!
I've setup a mirror of the Quicktime version here. It's limited to 30 connections currently, but this may change at any time.
Quartz Extreme has nothing to do with AltiVec, it only depends on the video chipset (and the Radeon 7500 in the iBooks supports Quartz Extreme just fine).
You should try using your damaged memory a little more, then you'd notice that the price of the iBooks has dropped by $100-$200!
There is no "finder-level hardware graphics acceleration". You're probably thinking about Quartz Extreme, which is window compositing-level hardware graphics acceleration. And guess what: the Radeon 7500 (either with 16MB or 32MB) in the iBooks supports the required features just fine.
FYI, Marklar is simply the code name for Darwin 6 for Intel (like Jaguar was the code name for Mac OS X 10.2). See here (use login/pass archives/archives).
Put simply: why on earth would someone who is against the logging of a forest be automatically anti-technology?
I don't see this immediately happening in consumer (or even prosumer) systems however, because you'll either need a lot of dimm slots or very high density dimms and both will be quite expensive.
Please also note that I was reacting to the original poster's statement that 64bit processing would automatically make your system faster. That's simply not true. If you start adding lots of ram, then it will become faster because of the ram (which is indeed made possible because you have 64 bit address space, although like other have already said in this thread, the address bus is often already larger than 32 bits in the 32 bit processors we use today).
This was also in reaction to the statement that 64 bit processing would automatically make your system faster. If lots of programs had to do lots of 64bit calcuations, then this would be true. The fact is that very little calcualtions require 64 bit integer precision. Nothing says this won't change in the future, but until then your programs will not run any faster on a 64 bit processor (even when completely recompiled) than on a 32 bit processor. In fact, they'll most likely be slower because of the extra memory bandwidth that's necessary for loading pointers.Really, apart from the increased memory address space, there aren't many advantages (which result in speedups) that 64bit processors hold compared to 32bit ones. And even that extra memory space is only useful to a select number of applications (such as 3D renderers and scientific applications) currently, although I suppose that will change over time.
I think the reason that osirusoft.com doesn't state explicitely how SPEWS works, is that it contains so many different blocking lists that explaining how each individual one works would be a lot of work. They do link to all the blocking lists they use though, where you can get this information. Using the information without informing yourself first is asking for trouble imho.
SPEWS not in the first place a list to block spammers, but to block spamfriendly ISP's. Given that goal, they're not overzealous at all. It's true this regularly results in collateral damage, but since this is the only way "regular" people can do something against spam-supporting ISP's, the users of SPEWS accept these consequences.
Not only that, it's simply not true. Look at this, more zoo and "incest porn" (whatever that is) from Ralsky than you can shake a stick at.
Note: all mail from verio isn't stopped, only the mail sent through their corporate mailservers (ie. those used by upper management). Even the spammers won't notice the block (except when, hopefully, their lines are cut).
As for the spam in my inbox, that's indeed not something like a burglary. Maybe a better analogy in that case would be tresspassing and leaving thrash behind, which I then have to clean up. Using your dog anology, it's as if 20 people a day would let their dog drop its, well, droppings in your garden. With the addition that you would have to pay part of the transportation cost of the droppings from the owners house to yours (bandwidth usage).
We're definitely using different interpretations of the word "evil"Besides, if your really want to nitpick: the bandwidth she has to pay for is orders of a magnitude smaller than the amount that's used by the open relay. The reason is that spammers usually send one copy of the body together with a couple thousands of email addresses to an open relay, which then diligently starts sending out a copy of the spam message to all specified recipients. She's not paying for that at all.
She is not paying a single dime for the bandwidth costs that my ISP incurs. She also only pays a fraction of the communication cost that the open relay has, plus that when such an open relay belongs to someone who has to pay for each byte he sends, you can bet she's not going to pay the owners bill either.I really don't understand you're even trying to argue these points... She is using other peoples equipment and bandwidth without their conscent (to annoy millions of other people; those 81 people that replied on a total of 3.5 million emails sent clearly show that most people are not interested in her crap) and you are trying to protect such an abuse?
Although I personally don't have any direct bandwidth costs (I work at the university and I read my mail there), why on earth should I have to change my ways so that missy can continue spamming? If people would come dropping roaches in front of your house, would you just go to the store, buy lots of repellent and not complain about their actions? If people would come into your garden and start shouting commercial slogans every now and then, would you just buy ear buds and turn the music a little louder? My mailbox costs me nothing. I don't know what it's like in the US, but here you buy a mailbox in some shop, you plant it in front of your house and it costs nothing from then on, no matter how much (commercial or other) mail is deposited in it. Indeed, here I was wrong. It's not as protected as other speech, but it's still protected. The right to free speech is something entirely different from the (non-existing) right to be heard however, and that's the main problem here: these spammers are forcing you to listen to them and make you pay for it. The big difference is that her business' sole purpose is spamming. If "people" like her wouldn't exist, no-one would need anti-spam software. The main purpose of a manufacturer of air purifiers is not to polute, but to manufacture air purifiers. Even if no air purifier manufacturers existed, people would still want air purifiers since there would still be polution.Ok, now that you've had your laughs because I took you seriously, please come out and admit you're troll.
It's true that advertising automatically makes the advertized products more expensive, but at the same time it can make other things cheaper (sporting events, television channels, newspapers, magazines, ...). So with classic advertising, there's also always a positive aspect (whether or not it's worth it, is another question), which you don't have with spam (the only one that gets better from it the spammer and possibly the seller).
If such things are "the basics of business" for you, I feel sorry for all people that have to do business with you.
It certainly is more evil than commercials. Spammers abuse other peoples property (open proxies, open mail relays, bandwidth, inbox space); they don't pay (or even ask) for using those resources. "Normal" advertisers do pay for the resources that they use.