...if extraterrestrial civilizations exist, at least one of them should have colonized the entire galaxy by now. But since there is no evidence of this, humankind must be the only intelligent life in the galaxy.
The paradox as stated above is an obvious attempt disregard a very simple idea that provides a non-paradoxical solution: Human civilization is evidence of galactic colonization.
I understand your position- I just have some issues with massive corps mindlessly enforcing rules and regulations that they themselves don't understand (and in my case - didn't even know they were doing) on a the entire user community without regard for the minority of individuals who have legitimate reasons to expect that things should be otherwise in their particular case.
This resembles some of the problems with governance, to me, since in so many cases the [US] governments these days are acting in ways that a) penalize certain users for no particular reason and to no effect, b) are ineffective in address the stated problem they claim to address, and c) are not remarked or noticed by the majority.
In my case w/ ATT, there is no possibility that the situation could have been resolved as you suggest it could have been w/ your ISP - they couldn't address it because they didn't know (or didn't admit) to their own policy. To drag out an old saw: "The first step in solving a problem is to admit you have one."
However, stating that all port25 redirects are useless and annoy people is simply not correct
Actually, in my own defense, I don't think I said they were, did I? If I did, that's not what I meant - My issue was more with the more or less random and unexpected nature of their actions, and their inability to talk to me about it when I contacted them with my concerns.
Frankly, my position has to be this: You can - and in fact [in order to have a reasonable expectation of survival as a company] must - run your ISP the way you see fit - your business is your business - if I'm to be a customer, it can only be because a) you have a product or service that I want, and b) I agree to pay you for that product or service under terms to which we both agree [I'm leaving out the common monopoly-mode "services" provided by e.g. cable companies here, to generalize a bit for clarity].
My solution in the situation in which I found myself was very simply to got to a different ISP who was able to address my concerns in a timely and effecitive fashion, and [by happy chance] in a manner similiar to what you postulated... The new ISP was also less expensive and a lot more response on the customer service side, but that was just gravy...
.
I hear of almost no complaints here. I have a reason. It has helped to identify and shut off users that had compromised computers.
I feel that sort of action is very appropriate to ISPs who have an interest in being "responsible netizens" - it actually harks back to the kind of mindset that brought the Internet into existence in the first place, and has kept it [such as it is] operational, imo. If all hosting providers, ISPs, etc, could exercise that kind of diligence, I think things like SPAM, Phishing, and DDOS attacks would be a much smaller percentage of total internet traffic than what we see right now. These kinds of responsibilities are just the "virtual" versions of business practices that have been honed by business owners and operators for a very long time, and it's pretty stupid, imo, to think that "all that is changed now" just because we have "gone virtual" - which really only means we have - using the "Internet" - amped up bandwidth on communications to a point where tthe medium is damned near transparent - I think the next step is going to be something along the lines of telepathy, and I'm just not sure we're ready for that until we get a good handle on the value of things like Formalism and Anonymity in Communications - i.e. do you really, really want to have to deal with mind-to-mind "brain spam" ? Hell, if anything, the Internet provides a loud and eloquent argument *against* the idea that comm tech should "go to the next level." We need to get a handle on what we've got before we start trying to push the envelope any more... but I digre
Grow up. Please? You are taking yourself - and apparenlty me - way too seriously. If you really, really truly think you know what you're talking about, and I don't guess what? Unless you can offer me some new information that might modify my opinion, I just don't give a crap - not even enough to try to convince you - far, far easier to just toss out some ad hominum tweaks, sit back, and laugh...
If you want the last word now's the time, I promise I won't respond again (well, not in this thread at least).
Well, I guess not, given what you said next...
but your argument was based on the assumption that open source is the One True Way,
Well, I guess this would HAVE TO BE your last response, since I freaking DEFY you to back that statement up using anything from any of my posts in this thread or any other - futhermore, I'll leave this contest open ended - you can email your response at any time to the email address listed for this account. I was almost interested in what you were posting - even with the stilted [humourless] styling - until I got to that...
and that all who didn't agree were either ignorant or deceitful.
Yeah - that old chestnut. You sound like my sister-in-law. Again, show me. Please. I will take back anything I ever said, award you cash prizes, etc etc if you can back that up to a jury of peers - or even just to me. You statement there is just pathetic beyond words...
By choosing this argument style you have made it difficult to attack your argument without attacking you.
Doh. You noticed that, did you? Perhaps you are a bit above average after all... My challenge stands. You picked the wrong weakness. You can do better. Or not. I'll check back tomorrow.
Some places, we even redirect port 25 rather than blocking so users will go through our servers without ever even knowing it. If it was seamlessly redirected to their servers, how did you even notice?
It wasn't seamless - I was trying to do a TLS login to a privately operated server privacy reasons - my login attempts hit the Worldnet SMTP servers despite that fact that I specified myhost.name.tld port 25 in my mailer configuration. They didn't admit that's what they were doing, so it took me a number of tries to figure out exactly what was going on.
Note that, despite all your protestations above the bit I quoteed there, if you are doin as you say, it would have let zombie machines thru, since the zombie box would have the correct ATT user login for your server. The only thing you accomplished by this - Assuming you're working for ATT, for the sake of argument - is to make sure
a) I can't send mail except thru a place where you can parse it - assuming it's not encrypted, of course.
b) you get your header lines into my outgoing message - which actually what I was trying to avoid - as should be my right, I might add, since I'm paying you for the connection, and there's nothing in the user agreement that says I can only send email thru your server.
You're blustering, in your reponse, there, and trying to establish some sort of authority - based on the idea that "[you] are an ISP", you seem to expect me to be subservient to your need to control SPAM and so on. Note, though, that what you presented is flawed, and would not have the effect you are claiming.
As a user - and admittedly I do understand a bit more this stuff than the average user, so I don't claim to be an *average* user, just a user paying you for a service that I expect to recieve [and - incidicentally - a user who has been "into" this stuff since a time before ATT Worldnet even existed as an ISP] - as that user I expect all you johnny-come-lately ISP weenies to get a clue and actually do your jobs of fighting spam, and protecting the internet from zombies, and quit doing stupid stuff that a) doesn't futher those goals, and b) interferes with my legitimate use.
This statement:
So many people are getting viruses or ending up on a botnet that it's a good thing that protects everyone with the inconvenience of having to change your outbound email server.
...is so completely fallacious it makes me wonder why you even responded to my post?
If it was seamlessly redirected to their servers, how did you even notice? Or was it because they were truely brain-dead and forced redirection but still blocked relay so you could only send from your Worldnet account?
I think I explained this above, and I furthermore think that if you understand this stuff as you seem to, you can see how this might have been done. Short answer is: All port 25 outbound was redirected to mailhost.worldnet.att.net - also: and customer service denied it, and user agreement didn't address it.
I have see transparent port 25 capture and forward since then on hotel wireless networks - there was no authentication, so I'm guessing they went to a mailserver that accepted un-authenticated port 25 connects from the LAN - that would allow all the conspiracy theory applications of this, still has the same weaknesses as a SPAM and zombie strategy, but I wouldn't have noticed it unless I had just gotten off the phone with ATT lying to me. I was watching. Proof of concept is that my TLS mailhost login happened to be incorrect, and the send operation would *not* have succeeded if it had in fact gone to my intended SMTP host.
Note much more I can say about it - it was obvious, stupid, and had no appreciable purpose - execpt maybe for the NSA.
No. Go fucking read it yourself. I'll talk to your lonely ass up to a point (probably no further than here), but I'm not going to do your goddamn thinking for you too.
LoL - you couldn't think for me, buttfukker - you can't even think for yourself. Go get yerself a life.
Sorry, didn't mean to baffle you - sometimes I just forget how easy it is with folks like you - If I'm so lame, what compells you to continue to reply? I mean, honestly - wtf makes you so interested in *me*? I am, quite literally, no one - nothing - and yet you just can't let my remarks go by - if you can't think of anything else to say, you fall back on generic personal stuff like "lame"... is your mind really that blank, or is someone paying you to continue to delve this, or....?
Well, random port blocking is not unique to small-time Canadian providers - a few years ago I had to quit using ATT Worldnet dialup because I found them to be "capturing" (re-directing, and effectively blocking) outbound port 25 requests - effectively preventing me from using SMTP servers other than theirs - their customer service denied any such thing, but clearly didn't understand what I was talking about we I called them to complain about it. I didn't try inbound.
Yeah - right - and your bringing up non-sensical, unrelated arguments from your own sordid past why? No one cares - none of tha addresses the point, and none of it says anything about why any company may or may not produce a Linux driver...
Zealotry is one of the things that scares business away, and you just contributed.
Fuck you - you're a stupid twit, and stupid twits drive away a lot more business than zealots do - you nned to breathe deep and take a look at the Big Picture, for a change - sounds like you've been stuck in some dusty closet at the "Solaris Experts" department of Microsoft, or something - come on, can you be any more pathetic? Someone around here might be interested... probably not me, but... well, you never know, do you.
Ineptitude aside, you don't know what you're talking about well enough to even state your alleged point. You're argument is so lame you have to openly resort to bullshite just to come up with a response. Hysteria aside. Hah. You wouldn't know hysteria if it slavered on your face. And you apparenty can't smell your own bullshit, either. Salty dog? What's you, 13? 14?
SCO is using the court to commit a misdemeanor
on
SCO Vs. Groklaw
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
SCO's lawyers apparently believe that "Pamela Jones" does not exist and that Groklaw is penned by a team of IBM lawyers
Well, if they really believe that, why do they keep calling her [unlisted] phone number late at night, panting into the phone, engaging in crude sexual innuendo, and talking about they've got in their "briefs"? They're hot for IBM's legal team? Turned on by men in suits carrying breifcases? What?
For her to show up at court while the SCO pricks are there would de facto violate the restraining order she had to file against them back before christmas - she can't be required to comply with a subpeona which would cause her to nullify the order of another court, can she? The judge in the SCO case could just throw the bums out - the she could legal appear, but it would be moot. "Health reasons" indeed...
She could pay a lawyer to appear on her behalf, but then who is going to cover that cost out of her pocket? This is purely a vindictive move on the part of SCO in attempt to punish Groklaw for daring to have an opinion that runs counter to the M$-mandated opinions they are paid to perpetrate. Hasn't anyone looked at prosecuting SCO? Their actions have clearly crossed the line into criminal behavior.
This is just SCO's way of trying to get around the restraining order - it's harassment under color of Law. "Pricks" is a polite word for those sick, miserable fucks...
And again - since it bears repition: The legal content on Groklaw stands on its own - who wrote it is completely beside the point, and any attempt to introduce the author into the procedings is simply and attempt by SCO to disrupt the court by engaging in personal attacks which must - under the Law - have no bearing on the case. Any competent judge would see this immdediately. Your move, judge.
salespeople suggested they buy keywords including "pirated" and "bootleg movie download," and that a Google employee corroborated their sworn statements in a deposition that has been sealed by the court.
I think it makes 'em look pretty damned good without any spin at all... They siezed the moral high ground, served the customers needs, and made money for the share holders. What's your problem with that?
Do note, though, that Google is not God. More like a supplicant for the position Lucifer once held... you know: before.
Ever connected your Windows desktop to your corporate VPN over the Internet? The connections are dial-up slow over a cable modem - and: Yes, that is the arrangement most corps have in place right now. Don't worry about the net not being able to handle the load, the load will cause all those employee windows machines to lock up and drop connection, and probably overwhelm the windows [M$] servers - no work will get done, everyone will blame "the Internet", and the govt will use that as an exuse to start requiring bandwidth rationing - ciritical uses for national security [e.g. Dick Cheney's IMs with Osama bin Ladi, Dubya's kiddie pr0n downloads, and Condi's eharmony.com sessions] will of course be given special dispensations - think gasoline ratining during WW II.
This pandemic idea is interesting - I've been wondering what excuse they were going to use to shut down the interenet right before the congress is dismissed by executive order, and the 2008 elections are [indefinitely] postponed due the the "national state of emergency"....
Linux explicitly doesn't allow that. With Linux it is all or nothing, and many hardware manufacturers choose the predictable 'nothing' instead of the less predictable 'all'.
You're kidding yourself - I have used, and continue to use - a number of closed source binary Linux device drivers acquired from 3rd party manufacturers. The real reasons you don't see Linux device drivers shipping with hardware are:
The manufacturers typically lack the software skills to create a linux device driver in-house, and don't feel that sales to Linux users will comprise sufficient dollar amount sales to justify paying a developer to create one.
Plain Old Ingnorance (POI) due to not having anyone in a position of influence at the company with sufficient knowledge of things like GPL licensing and non-Windows systems to know just how full of shit remarks like the one you make above really are.
All the usual hate, religion, and bribery that are brought into play when anyone in the industry so much as thinks about doing something that is not Windows.
It's worth noting that in many cases Microsoft produces or buys drivers for hardware. thereby obviating the [percieved] need for the manufacturer to spend much effort on any OS drivers, let alone one as arcane as a *nix driver with some hippie "licensing" scheme...
Also, if a device is designed to an existing h/w spec utilitized by M$, again - no driver needs to be produced by the h/w manufacturer.
It's all about margins, market share, ignorance, and prejudice. The relative openness of the Linux systems has nothing to do with it, nor does your imagined inability of Systems other than "Solaris and Windows" to dynamically link a loaded binary module. Futhermore, I am unaware of any consumer-grade h/w device which has Solaris OS driver support, which does not also have support under Linux.
The fact that you and/or your shop have never so much as looked at the Linux OS to a degree sufficient to producing a device driver for it is obvious from your posting, so please: Sit down, and STFU until such time as you have poked around a bit and actually know someting about what you're talking about - you've forced me to waste an unacceptable amount of bitwidth trying to clear the smoke you've blowing in front of the mirrors...
how does the government plan to address the issue of unsecure wifi?
There has been some hinting around - mostly at the state level - a couple years ago that open WiFi will be made illegal - the rationale was [from the published articles, which unfortunately I don't have a cite for at hand] to "protect" the owner of the back-haul connection from "liability". The context here was the state of Michigan, who - it was my understanding - had just become the first state to successfully prosecute war-drivers.
Obviously the "protection" pretext was bogus - this fact was re-inforced by the information that in no case, of the several on record of individuals having been prosecuted criminally for use of an open WiFi hotspot, had the owner of the hotspot been thoght to be the perpetrator of illegal activity. Nevertheless, the "legal eagles" - as usual - choose to penalize the innocent as a "deterrent" to actual criminals, while creating loud, high pitched whining noises about protecting people from themselves...
There should be some Constitutional protection to prevent lawmakers from passing laws based on the idea that they are protecting us from ourselves - even if it's our own [purported] stupidity, imo.
Furthermore, Open Mail Relays have not been outlawed, despite all the legal activity [allegedly] against SPAM email - it seems to me that, before we accept that the people who push these kinds of brain-dead legislation are qualified to do so, we should get an explanation from them concerning how and why it's a plausible defense against "terrorism" and "child porN" to ban open WiFi when they did not find it useful to outlaw open mail relays. If they can explain that, we might have a basis for conversation with the morons who like to claim they represent the citizens as "lawmakers"... of course, if they could do that, the situation that now exists almost certainly wouldn't.
If anonymity is made illegal, only criminals will have anonymity.
If you need a 536 page book to "Master" such a trivial part of web development as page and text formatting then CSS is a failure. Are there any wysiwyg "Html editors" that produce portable CSS? If so, then the book is obsolete.
Layout is not trivial. Clearly you have no concept of a) what you're talking about here, nor b) the power inherent in CSS.
There is no such thing as "WYSIWYG HTML". The "What You See..." part is CSS. HTML is not now, nor was it ever, intended to have anything to do with what you see - what you see is layout, and layout is the province of the stylesheet language - I.E. CSS. You might be able to make a good argument for a Visual CSS-aware Editor - in fact, I encourage you to... M$ should hvae done it with Word several versions ago - Open Office should have done it, Visio should have done it, Google PageMaker should have done it, Cold Fusion should have done it, the list of people who should have done it quite long - the list of who has done it is empty - probably for the same reason there are so many crappy, non-validating websites on the.com domain - because people like you just can't be bothered to get it right when you percieve there's a quick buck to be made doing it wrong over and over... That attitude you're flinging around gives the entire web design and development community a bad name, whether you know it or not...
Furthermore, There is more to the WWW than just "graphical browsers". How are your bastardized layouts using the TABLE element going to handle "layout" for e.g. a screen reader?
If you're only doing trivial things, you might get away with tables [provided you limit all your users to a small subset of client software], but if you think tables are even remotely useful for layout compared to e.g. CSS2 you are just sadly un-informed, and probably shouldn't be writing HTML, let alone building websites. In fact, the way you're carrying on about something that's been a standard for some time now, I would have to question whether or not you should try to involve yourself in any of the informatio disciplines - they pretty much all require adherence to some sort of standard, if if it's just the spelling or punctuation required to write English.
The "WYSIWYG HTML editors" which you postulate should exist - or rather, such pathetic attempts as have been made at such an animal invariably use TABLES for layout. All of them generate non-validating HTML, few of them even attempt CSS, and the ones that do generate broken CSS and/or broken HTML. In a word, they are crap [for non-trivial pages - let alone sites]. It seems that all the coders that produce such editors have an attitude very similar to yours - that is: totally lacking in understanding of what CSS is and can do, and equally lacking in any degree imagination that would take them [trivially] beyond the capabilities of the TABLE element as used for layout.
From where I sit, web developers who don't know and use CSS are just wannabes and diletantes, dude. Even the folks you might expect to support "Good Web Design" - e.g. OpenOffice or Google - can't produce credible [validating] HTML, let alone a useful stylesheet. Most of them *cough*Google*cough* are still using the FONT element, fer pity's sake, and some of them *ahem*google/picasa*cough* ship broken CSS in [it seems] a half-hearted attempt to force users back to a table-oriented layout...
Bottom line is,
CSS is the standard for web layout and presentation - deal with it
There are no WYSIWYG "HTML" editors - can't be, in fact, by definition, since HTML is markup - it would have to be a WYSIWYG CSS+xxML editor, since without CSS there is no way to control "What You See"....
If you want to create useful web sites, quit whining about how hard it is and learn the tools of the trade [CSS, XHTML, PHP, etc] - or are you still trying to write operating systems in BASIC?
While I suspect you are right about the 40-footer having radar - and probably a number of other gizmos and gadgets (which should include a radar reflector! - there is a need to be "seen" as well as to "see"), the basic rules of the road are designed to prevent collisions of this nature [sailboats getting run down by larger vessels, etc] are very low-tech, and are desgined to work in all cases, including those where the electrical system has failed or just doesn't exist. The US Coast Guard [and collaterally, the Dept of Homeland Security... huh?] publish these Navigation Rules ["Eules of the Road"] which are supposed to be followed by all vessels.
So basically, if the boat was run down, there is some liability, and it will almost certainly be investigated rigorously if and when it becomes known that this is what happened. A 40-foot yacht is not so small as to disapear easily that close to shore - it should show up on radar, have an emergency radio beacon, and would probably show up on sonar if it sank.
Also [regarding the possiblity of the solo operator going over the side]: it is common to rig a saftey line when sailing alone, so one at least stands a chance of hauling oneself back aboard should one go overboard. A wet suit is a reasonable expectation, too, if the weather is foul.
There are other possiblities that should be considered - pirates, for instance, kidnapping (the guy is obviously well off), a health emergency, etc. A missing person search is a well understood process, and typically begins with something like "Where did he say he was going?"... I'm sure M$ can afford to put the best trackers on something like this if they really care what happened to the guy, and don't already know...
Also, the boatyard should know what gear he had aboard, and the Coast Guard should be able to figure out what the weather and seas were, and what shipping was in the area when the he went missing.
I don't agree with that at all - the teacher looks more the fool trying to censor the video instead of voicing appreciation to YouTube for allowing the proof of the crime to be posted. This is clearly just another case of someone trying to blame "The Internet" for something that is a) already covered by existing law, and/or b) would be happening regardless of any internet video or the lack thereof.
Very st00pid of the techer and/or administration of the schools to be trying to use this as an excuse for censorship. Much more st00pid than the teacher being victimzed [proprty damage] by a disgruntled, mal-adjusted student. Someone needs to tell this teacher and this school to "grow up".
It may take a court or legislative intervention to point out to the school that "killing the messenger" has been something they've been actively engaged in preaching should not be practiced in these sorts of cases, but I think it will be a shame for the teacher and the school if has to be taken that far.
Despite all that, we're still the most free place on Earth, or else we wouldn't even be allowed to post sensationalist coverage of this story and talk about it and the so-called "Bush regime."
For some reason, the phrase "hook, line and sinker" springs to mind:D
... yet even the apologists now avail themselves of [respond to] the "Bush Regime" meme; it'll probably take them another 8 years to "get" what's happened to the "free-est place on earth" chestnut they're still toasting...
I feel like I did last time I yelled "Hey, you - asshole!" in a crowd, and the person I was talking to looked around...
Fwiw [OT], I keep seeing your tagline as 'cat BSD > GPL' - sorry, I just thought it was funny.
Slashdot Mirror
The paradox as stated above is an obvious attempt disregard a very simple idea that provides a non-paradoxical solution: Human civilization is evidence of galactic colonization.
Occam's Razor.
I understand your position- I just have some issues with massive corps mindlessly enforcing rules and regulations that they themselves don't understand (and in my case - didn't even know they were doing) on a the entire user community without regard for the minority of individuals who have legitimate reasons to expect that things should be otherwise in their particular case.
This resembles some of the problems with governance, to me, since in so many cases the [US] governments these days are acting in ways that a) penalize certain users for no particular reason and to no effect, b) are ineffective in address the stated problem they claim to address, and c) are not remarked or noticed by the majority.
In my case w/ ATT, there is no possibility that the situation could have been resolved as you suggest it could have been w/ your ISP - they couldn't address it because they didn't know (or didn't admit) to their own policy. To drag out an old saw: "The first step in solving a problem is to admit you have one."
Actually, in my own defense, I don't think I said they were, did I? If I did, that's not what I meant - My issue was more with the more or less random and unexpected nature of their actions, and their inability to talk to me about it when I contacted them with my concerns.
Frankly, my position has to be this: You can - and in fact [in order to have a reasonable expectation of survival as a company] must - run your ISP the way you see fit - your business is your business - if I'm to be a customer, it can only be because a) you have a product or service that I want, and b) I agree to pay you for that product or service under terms to which we both agree [I'm leaving out the common monopoly-mode "services" provided by e.g. cable companies here, to generalize a bit for clarity].
My solution in the situation in which I found myself was very simply to got to a different ISP who was able to address my concerns in a timely and effecitive fashion, and [by happy chance] in a manner similiar to what you postulated... The new ISP was also less expensive and a lot more response on the customer service side, but that was just gravy...
I feel that sort of action is very appropriate to ISPs who have an interest in being "responsible netizens" - it actually harks back to the kind of mindset that brought the Internet into existence in the first place, and has kept it [such as it is] operational, imo. If all hosting providers, ISPs, etc, could exercise that kind of diligence, I think things like SPAM, Phishing, and DDOS attacks would be a much smaller percentage of total internet traffic than what we see right now. These kinds of responsibilities are just the "virtual" versions of business practices that have been honed by business owners and operators for a very long time, and it's pretty stupid, imo, to think that "all that is changed now" just because we have "gone virtual" - which really only means we have - using the "Internet" - amped up bandwidth on communications to a point where tthe medium is damned near transparent - I think the next step is going to be something along the lines of telepathy, and I'm just not sure we're ready for that until we get a good handle on the value of things like Formalism and Anonymity in Communications - i.e. do you really, really want to have to deal with mind-to-mind "brain spam" ? Hell, if anything, the Internet provides a loud and eloquent argument *against* the idea that comm tech should "go to the next level." We need to get a handle on what we've got before we start trying to push the envelope any more... but I digre
Grow up. Please? You are taking yourself - and apparenlty me - way too seriously. If you really, really truly think you know what you're talking about, and I don't guess what? Unless you can offer me some new information that might modify my opinion, I just don't give a crap - not even enough to try to convince you - far, far easier to just toss out some ad hominum tweaks, sit back, and laugh...
Well, I guess not, given what you said next...
Well, I guess this would HAVE TO BE your last response, since I freaking DEFY you to back that statement up using anything from any of my posts in this thread or any other - futhermore, I'll leave this contest open ended - you can email your response at any time to the email address listed for this account. I was almost interested in what you were posting - even with the stilted [humourless] styling - until I got to that...
Yeah - that old chestnut. You sound like my sister-in-law. Again, show me. Please. I will take back anything I ever said, award you cash prizes, etc etc if you can back that up to a jury of peers - or even just to me. You statement there is just pathetic beyond words...
Doh. You noticed that, did you? Perhaps you are a bit above average after all... My challenge stands. You picked the wrong weakness. You can do better. Or not. I'll check back tomorrow.
It wasn't seamless - I was trying to do a TLS login to a privately operated server privacy reasons - my login attempts hit the Worldnet SMTP servers despite that fact that I specified myhost.name.tld port 25 in my mailer configuration. They didn't admit that's what they were doing, so it took me a number of tries to figure out exactly what was going on.
Note that, despite all your protestations above the bit I quoteed there, if you are doin as you say, it would have let zombie machines thru, since the zombie box would have the correct ATT user login for your server. The only thing you accomplished by this - Assuming you're working for ATT, for the sake of argument - is to make sure
a) I can't send mail except thru a place where you can parse it - assuming it's not encrypted, of course.
b) you get your header lines into my outgoing message - which actually what I was trying to avoid - as should be my right, I might add, since I'm paying you for the connection, and there's nothing in the user agreement that says I can only send email thru your server.
You're blustering, in your reponse, there, and trying to establish some sort of authority - based on the idea that "[you] are an ISP", you seem to expect me to be subservient to your need to control SPAM and so on. Note, though, that what you presented is flawed, and would not have the effect you are claiming.
As a user - and admittedly I do understand a bit more this stuff than the average user, so I don't claim to be an *average* user, just a user paying you for a service that I expect to recieve [and - incidicentally - a user who has been "into" this stuff since a time before ATT Worldnet even existed as an ISP] - as that user I expect all you johnny-come-lately ISP weenies to get a clue and actually do your jobs of fighting spam, and protecting the internet from zombies, and quit doing stupid stuff that a) doesn't futher those goals, and b) interferes with my legitimate use.
This statement:
...is so completely fallacious it makes me wonder why you even responded to my post?
I think I explained this above, and I furthermore think that if you understand this stuff as you seem to, you can see how this might have been done. Short answer is: All port 25 outbound was redirected to mailhost.worldnet.att.net - also: and customer service denied it, and user agreement didn't address it.
I have see transparent port 25 capture and forward since then on hotel wireless networks - there was no authentication, so I'm guessing they went to a mailserver that accepted un-authenticated port 25 connects from the LAN - that would allow all the conspiracy theory applications of this, still has the same weaknesses as a SPAM and zombie strategy, but I wouldn't have noticed it unless I had just gotten off the phone with ATT lying to me. I was watching. Proof of concept is that my TLS mailhost login happened to be incorrect, and the send operation would *not* have succeeded if it had in fact gone to my intended SMTP host.
Note much more I can say about it - it was obvious, stupid, and had no appreciable purpose - execpt maybe for the NSA.
LoL - you couldn't think for me, buttfukker - you can't even think for yourself. Go get yerself a life.
Sorry, you can't claim that one - please cite.
Sorry, didn't mean to baffle you - sometimes I just forget how easy it is with folks like you - If I'm so lame, what compells you to continue to reply? I mean, honestly - wtf makes you so interested in *me*? I am, quite literally, no one - nothing - and yet you just can't let my remarks go by - if you can't think of anything else to say, you fall back on generic personal stuff like "lame"... is your mind really that blank, or is someone paying you to continue to delve this, or ....?
Oops, sorry - make that "ESA's mailers"....
well you coulda provided the headers so we could blackhole cogeco's mailers...
Well, random port blocking is not unique to small-time Canadian providers - a few years ago I had to quit using ATT Worldnet dialup because I found them to be "capturing" (re-directing, and effectively blocking) outbound port 25 requests - effectively preventing me from using SMTP servers other than theirs - their customer service denied any such thing, but clearly didn't understand what I was talking about we I called them to complain about it. I didn't try inbound.
Don't you?
Zing!
Yeah - right - and your bringing up non-sensical, unrelated arguments from your own sordid past why? No one cares - none of tha addresses the point, and none of it says anything about why any company may or may not produce a Linux driver...
Fuck you - you're a stupid twit, and stupid twits drive away a lot more business than zealots do - you nned to breathe deep and take a look at the Big Picture, for a change - sounds like you've been stuck in some dusty closet at the "Solaris Experts" department of Microsoft, or something - come on, can you be any more pathetic? Someone around here might be interested ... probably not me, but ... well, you never know, do you.
heh - okay - well, since you admit it...
Actually it's not -
Ineptitude aside, you don't know what you're talking about well enough to even state your alleged point. You're argument is so lame you have to openly resort to bullshite just to come up with a response. Hysteria aside. Hah. You wouldn't know hysteria if it slavered on your face. And you apparenty can't smell your own bullshit, either. Salty dog? What's you, 13? 14?
Well, if they really believe that, why do they keep calling her [unlisted] phone number late at night, panting into the phone, engaging in crude sexual innuendo, and talking about they've got in their "briefs"? They're hot for IBM's legal team? Turned on by men in suits carrying breifcases? What?
For her to show up at court while the SCO pricks are there would de facto violate the restraining order she had to file against them back before christmas - she can't be required to comply with a subpeona which would cause her to nullify the order of another court, can she? The judge in the SCO case could just throw the bums out - the she could legal appear, but it would be moot. "Health reasons" indeed...
She could pay a lawyer to appear on her behalf, but then who is going to cover that cost out of her pocket? This is purely a vindictive move on the part of SCO in attempt to punish Groklaw for daring to have an opinion that runs counter to the M$-mandated opinions they are paid to perpetrate. Hasn't anyone looked at prosecuting SCO? Their actions have clearly crossed the line into criminal behavior.
This is just SCO's way of trying to get around the restraining order - it's harassment under color of Law. "Pricks" is a polite word for those sick, miserable fucks...
And again - since it bears repition: The legal content on Groklaw stands on its own - who wrote it is completely beside the point, and any attempt to introduce the author into the procedings is simply and attempt by SCO to disrupt the court by engaging in personal attacks which must - under the Law - have no bearing on the case. Any competent judge would see this immdediately. Your move, judge.
I think it makes 'em look pretty damned good without any spin at all... They siezed the moral high ground, served the customers needs, and made money for the share holders. What's your problem with that?
Do note, though, that Google is not God. More like a supplicant for the position Lucifer once held... you know: before.
Ever connected your Windows desktop to your corporate VPN over the Internet? The connections are dial-up slow over a cable modem - and: Yes, that is the arrangement most corps have in place right now. Don't worry about the net not being able to handle the load, the load will cause all those employee windows machines to lock up and drop connection, and probably overwhelm the windows [M$] servers - no work will get done, everyone will blame "the Internet", and the govt will use that as an exuse to start requiring bandwidth rationing - ciritical uses for national security [e.g. Dick Cheney's IMs with Osama bin Ladi, Dubya's kiddie pr0n downloads, and Condi's eharmony.com sessions] will of course be given special dispensations - think gasoline ratining during WW II.
This pandemic idea is interesting - I've been wondering what excuse they were going to use to shut down the interenet right before the congress is dismissed by executive order, and the 2008 elections are [indefinitely] postponed due the the "national state of emergency"....
You're kidding yourself - I have used, and continue to use - a number of closed source binary Linux device drivers acquired from 3rd party manufacturers. The real reasons you don't see Linux device drivers shipping with hardware are:
It's worth noting that in many cases Microsoft produces or buys drivers for hardware. thereby obviating the [percieved] need for the manufacturer to spend much effort on any OS drivers, let alone one as arcane as a *nix driver with some hippie "licensing" scheme...
Also, if a device is designed to an existing h/w spec utilitized by M$, again - no driver needs to be produced by the h/w manufacturer.
It's all about margins, market share, ignorance, and prejudice. The relative openness of the Linux systems has nothing to do with it, nor does your imagined inability of Systems other than "Solaris and Windows" to dynamically link a loaded binary module. Futhermore, I am unaware of any consumer-grade h/w device which has Solaris OS driver support, which does not also have support under Linux.
The fact that you and/or your shop have never so much as looked at the Linux OS to a degree sufficient to producing a device driver for it is obvious from your posting, so please: Sit down, and STFU until such time as you have poked around a bit and actually know someting about what you're talking about - you've forced me to waste an unacceptable amount of bitwidth trying to clear the smoke you've blowing in front of the mirrors...
There has been some hinting around - mostly at the state level - a couple years ago that open WiFi will be made illegal - the rationale was [from the published articles, which unfortunately I don't have a cite for at hand] to "protect" the owner of the back-haul connection from "liability". The context here was the state of Michigan, who - it was my understanding - had just become the first state to successfully prosecute war-drivers.
Obviously the "protection" pretext was bogus - this fact was re-inforced by the information that in no case, of the several on record of individuals having been prosecuted criminally for use of an open WiFi hotspot, had the owner of the hotspot been thoght to be the perpetrator of illegal activity. Nevertheless, the "legal eagles" - as usual - choose to penalize the innocent as a "deterrent" to actual criminals, while creating loud, high pitched whining noises about protecting people from themselves...
There should be some Constitutional protection to prevent lawmakers from passing laws based on the idea that they are protecting us from ourselves - even if it's our own [purported] stupidity, imo.
Furthermore, Open Mail Relays have not been outlawed, despite all the legal activity [allegedly] against SPAM email - it seems to me that, before we accept that the people who push these kinds of brain-dead legislation are qualified to do so, we should get an explanation from them concerning how and why it's a plausible defense against "terrorism" and "child porN" to ban open WiFi when they did not find it useful to outlaw open mail relays. If they can explain that, we might have a basis for conversation with the morons who like to claim they represent the citizens as "lawmakers"... of course, if they could do that, the situation that now exists almost certainly wouldn't.
If anonymity is made illegal, only criminals will have anonymity.
Layout is not trivial. Clearly you have no concept of a) what you're talking about here, nor b) the power inherent in CSS.
There is no such thing as "WYSIWYG HTML". The "What You See..." part is CSS. HTML is not now, nor was it ever, intended to have anything to do with what you see - what you see is layout, and layout is the province of the stylesheet language - I.E. CSS. You might be able to make a good argument for a Visual CSS-aware Editor - in fact, I encourage you to... M$ should hvae done it with Word several versions ago - Open Office should have done it, Visio should have done it, Google PageMaker should have done it, Cold Fusion should have done it, the list of people who should have done it quite long - the list of who has done it is empty - probably for the same reason there are so many crappy, non-validating websites on the .com domain - because people like you just can't be bothered to get it right when you percieve there's a quick buck to be made doing it wrong over and over... That attitude you're flinging around gives the entire web design and development community a bad name, whether you know it or not...
Furthermore, There is more to the WWW than just "graphical browsers". How are your bastardized layouts using the TABLE element going to handle "layout" for e.g. a screen reader?
If you're only doing trivial things, you might get away with tables [provided you limit all your users to a small subset of client software], but if you think tables are even remotely useful for layout compared to e.g. CSS2 you are just sadly un-informed, and probably shouldn't be writing HTML, let alone building websites. In fact, the way you're carrying on about something that's been a standard for some time now, I would have to question whether or not you should try to involve yourself in any of the informatio disciplines - they pretty much all require adherence to some sort of standard, if if it's just the spelling or punctuation required to write English.
The "WYSIWYG HTML editors" which you postulate should exist - or rather, such pathetic attempts as have been made at such an animal invariably use TABLES for layout. All of them generate non-validating HTML, few of them even attempt CSS, and the ones that do generate broken CSS and/or broken HTML. In a word, they are crap [for non-trivial pages - let alone sites]. It seems that all the coders that produce such editors have an attitude very similar to yours - that is: totally lacking in understanding of what CSS is and can do, and equally lacking in any degree imagination that would take them [trivially] beyond the capabilities of the TABLE element as used for layout.
From where I sit, web developers who don't know and use CSS are just wannabes and diletantes, dude. Even the folks you might expect to support "Good Web Design" - e.g. OpenOffice or Google - can't produce credible [validating] HTML, let alone a useful stylesheet. Most of them *cough*Google*cough* are still using the FONT element, fer pity's sake, and some of them *ahem*google/picasa*cough* ship broken CSS in [it seems] a half-hearted attempt to force users back to a table-oriented layout...
Bottom line is,
While I suspect you are right about the 40-footer having radar - and probably a number of other gizmos and gadgets (which should include a radar reflector! - there is a need to be "seen" as well as to "see"), the basic rules of the road are designed to prevent collisions of this nature [sailboats getting run down by larger vessels, etc] are very low-tech, and are desgined to work in all cases, including those where the electrical system has failed or just doesn't exist. The US Coast Guard [and collaterally, the Dept of Homeland Security ... huh?] publish these Navigation Rules ["Eules of the Road"] which are supposed to be followed by all vessels.
So basically, if the boat was run down, there is some liability, and it will almost certainly be investigated rigorously if and when it becomes known that this is what happened. A 40-foot yacht is not so small as to disapear easily that close to shore - it should show up on radar, have an emergency radio beacon, and would probably show up on sonar if it sank.
Also [regarding the possiblity of the solo operator going over the side]: it is common to rig a saftey line when sailing alone, so one at least stands a chance of hauling oneself back aboard should one go overboard. A wet suit is a reasonable expectation, too, if the weather is foul.
There are other possiblities that should be considered - pirates, for instance, kidnapping (the guy is obviously well off), a health emergency, etc. A missing person search is a well understood process, and typically begins with something like "Where did he say he was going?" ... I'm sure M$ can afford to put the best trackers on something like this if they really care what happened to the guy, and don't already know...
Also, the boatyard should know what gear he had aboard, and the Coast Guard should be able to figure out what the weather and seas were, and what shipping was in the area when the he went missing.
I don't agree with that at all - the teacher looks more the fool trying to censor the video instead of voicing appreciation to YouTube for allowing the proof of the crime to be posted. This is clearly just another case of someone trying to blame "The Internet" for something that is a) already covered by existing law, and/or b) would be happening regardless of any internet video or the lack thereof.
Very st00pid of the techer and/or administration of the schools to be trying to use this as an excuse for censorship. Much more st00pid than the teacher being victimzed [proprty damage] by a disgruntled, mal-adjusted student. Someone needs to tell this teacher and this school to "grow up".
It may take a court or legislative intervention to point out to the school that "killing the messenger" has been something they've been actively engaged in preaching should not be practiced in these sorts of cases, but I think it will be a shame for the teacher and the school if has to be taken that far.
I feel like I did last time I yelled "Hey, you - asshole!" in a crowd, and the person I was talking to looked around...
Fwiw [OT], I keep seeing your tagline as 'cat BSD > GPL' - sorry, I just thought it was funny.
But does it spellcheck the titles?