You know what would really suck though? IBM doing this deliberately in a titanic effort to destroy Linux as a competitor. Imagine the kind of evil that ploy would require; after all--since when did IBM suddenly become our friend? They used to be the big brother-like enemy, remember?
IBM's medium server (RS6000, 390) road map has been solidly Linux for some time. I doubt that after the money they poured into Linux, they would want to cut off it's head.
Evil they may be, stupid too, sometimes, but not that stupid. Let us not forget that some of the big wigs in the large shops are Linux fans, and have ROI to back them up. A dangerous pair that; Passion and the facts.
SMTP isn't that broken. It works for about a billion people. Any attempt to "fix" it will break it for way too many of them.
SMTP isn't broken, agreed. It's rather permissive, and that is a problem with spammers added to the mix.
After looking through the posts here (most of the +5 should be -5 Stupid), its clear that most of the experts don't understand email in the real world.
You, IMO, have a few things wrong too, bucky, so don't puff your chest out there too far and beat on it just yet.
Encryption:
The 1st tings is email must be interceptable. Many governments won't allow high level encryption that isn't full of holes that allow them to play pack recorded streams.
Debatable, IMO, but I'll grant that China may not be thrilled with strong encryption in email. Make it like mime is now, where the receipient can decide if they take low encryption or not.
Most large email servers can't deal with the CPU load of full encryption anyway so 100% solid encryption is out.
Uhm, you want to think about that again? What point would it be to send my message from my machine which I've (hopefully) secured properly to a large server that the ISP runs with who knows what kind of security and heaven knows how many admins with their fingers in the send q and I'm sending in clear text!... No, any encryption would be better spent being done on the client side. Only the header would not be encrypted, because so many machines in between might have to handle it. You could make another option to encrypt the header and SMTP chat, but doing so would require your system to exchange data with a foriegn system... Exactly how dial up spam works now. No thank you.
The only thing you can count on in a distributed system like email is that you can't count on anything like trust. Unless and until it is impossible to use a computer anywhere without strong authintication and identification (which IMO is worse than spam), you won't completely stop spammers technically. The thing people keep forgetting is that spam is not a technical problem. Spam is a human problem (Quirk objection noted), and any purely technical means to stop it will not be completely effective, though some are pretty good for a while.
The key is (and now more than ever programmers are not forgetting it) that spammers adapt. Every means to stop spam so far has not worked 100%. When spammers notice this, what do they do? Do they curl up and die the revolting death so many of us (there is no us) wish upon them? No. If 50% gets blocked, they fire up more servers and send 200% more spam. Block 90%? They fire up more servers and send 1000% more. Then they start writing viruses to infect home users and use those machines to send more spam.
No, spammers will spam because they are too stupid and lazy to make an honest buck. When you make it so that no one can make money sending spam is when the spam problem will end. (Unless people quit using computers.)
If Gartner simply stated that the SCO claims are false and their legal threats are FUD, a company paid for and followed their advice, and strangely SCO won the suit or sued Gartner's customer, then Gartner would be held legally liable for their legal advice.
Gartner isn't a law firm, nor do they give legal advice. They simply could have said nothing.
The question I have is what motivated Gartner's statement? What did they have to gain or lose by remaining on the sidelines vs. issuing advice?
The SCO case isn't about technology per se. It's about breach of contract. Why does this fall within Gartner's expertise? As noted many times before, even SCO's distro is infringing if SCO's statements are true.
The point is, many home users push their machines. Sure, they are the admins, but they're also just regular schmoes.
Well, if the system is important to them, they should bestir themselves to learn how to make backups.
My biggest gripe about Novell and MS operating systems, and the Intell platform in general, is the inability to make a boot tape. BRU is able to make a boot disk that will allow a full restore from tape, but that function last I checked was only availble on (gag) SCO.
I want to throw a tape in the drive, tell the BIOS to load the OS from tape, and restore that sucker to disk. I don't want to have to do partial installs, booting from floppy/CD, or any of that crap. Load and go is what I want. Once you've been able to restore a full system image from tape, you'll wonder why all vendors don't offer that function.
Can somebody come up with a practical idea that informs the public of the evils of RIAA and the true virtues and benefits of P2P and why RIAA must be stopped in their campaign to destroy the technology.
Gee, we could go on that 24 hour news program, CNN. Uh oh. It's owned by Time Warner...
I know, we can go on National news.... oh, yeah, maybe not....
Well, there's always RADIO, but then again, I guess RIAA would take a dim view of Clear Channel doing that, and would cut them off...
Or, I know! We can use P2P to... Oh, yeah, P2P is being villified and made illegal...
(humor mode on)
Well, than it's back to what I've been saying for ages. Quit buying RIAA music, tell your friends, and ask they tell their friends. When RIAA members see their sales go down by even 30%, I suspect that they would start putting pressure on RIAA to tone it down.
Agree. Long uptimes are a recipe for disaster. 2 things can go wrong 1) the system on disk has changed under the system in memory. Broken or missing shared libraries and init scripts.
You're the admin. You're supposed to check for this. If the system isn't all that important, I may add patches without checking them on a test system, but if it's important, no patches get added until they are checked on a test system.
2) my fav, the disks stop spinning. This is lots of fun. Try it some time.
You're the admin. You're supposed to be doing backups. Personally, if I think there's a good chance that the drives will fail when I'm doing something ( eg: greater than.5 percent) I make 2 back ups. Tapes can break. Also, I've not seen disks refuse to spin up with out powering off for a while (more than 5 minues). Frequently, you can get the disks spinning again by (gently!) tapping them with a screwdriver. If that doesn't work, sometimes heating them with a lightbulb will work. Heatlamps work too, but you need to be careful not to overheat the drive. I also try to get drives on critical systems replaced every 2 to 3 years. RAID helps here.
Keeping the network, hardware, OS, and applications up is important, but just as important is abuse response. There are a few hosting companies out there that do a wonderful job of keeping things ticking over, but fail absolutely at terminating abusive accounts. Hosting at one of these sites is inviting having your email blocked at the very least. Some sites block all traffic based on what's in the block lists. Part of due dilligence is checking the history of a host by checking at SPEWS, SPAMHAUS, SPAMCOP, News.Admin.Net-Abuse.email, News.Admin.Net-Abuse.Sightings, and other customer's experiences.
I can't find my link to the dead tree report I use to check out hosting companies at the moment, but there are several very nice writeups out there that focus on choosing a good hosting/co-lo company.
you'd need a ton of retransmitting and error correction to get around that.
Not really. A pre-determined psudeo-random frequency hopping system sync'ed with a time signal from, say WWV, GPS, NTP, or a sync signal from the transponder itself would do fine. However, you are solving the wrong problem with this solution. (Police Fire and Ambulance use something called "trunking" that's quite a bit like this.)
The problem is that a stronger signal at the receiver can't be rejected based on transmission charateristics absent directional receiving antenna. That signal is going to be there, and it's going to interfere. Yes, you can use authintication to select the correct signal, but if the Automatic Gain Control (AGC) on the receiver is de-sensitized to the point that it can't get the correct signal (by virtue of the fact the the jammer is using more power than you are) then you are up a creek.
Using a directional antenna for the uplink receiver will mean that the jammer will have to be in the same geographic area your transmitter is in to jam you. The more directional the antenna on the receiver, the closer the jammer has to be to your uplink.
The advantage to that is to keep the jammer in the same jurisdiction you are in and all kinds of things can be done, up to and including a raid from armed police to stop it. You won't be able to prevent it, but retalliation in this situation would be swift and sure.
In an earlier post, someone asked how the jammer can be located. When sending a signal up to the transponder, the signal is sent using a directional antenna. Even the best antennas will have some broadcast leakage. At these frequencies, you can also detect the area of the beam from scatter introduced by dust, water vapor, and pollution. You can get at least a general sense of where the transmitter is, though pinning it down to 1000 feet would be a bit more difficult until you have a receiver in the area.
To see this in action, go outside at night and shine a flashlight up at the sky. You can see the beam going up. Same principal, different equipment.
Bad Company then asserts its copyright claims. "OMG! It seems our former employee, (Bad) Agent, contributed some of our copyrighted, closed-source (and for that matter, trade secret) code to Linux two years ago, and we didn't know about it! Everybody has to rip out the code... and pay us....
IANAL
As far as I know, if "bad agent" passed on closed code as his own, and told "halo goodguy OpenSource maintainer (hggosm)" that "bad agent" wrote the code and is contributing it, hggosm isn't in trouble. It's a level of fraud that hggosm has no way of avoiding.
If a newspaper printed something about you that is untrue, that isn't enough to win a suit. You have to prove the paper knew it was untrue.
I will never, ever purchase a Compaq product again.
I used to run a Compaq repair center for a few months. I would order a warranty replacement part. Wait a week. Call again. Wait four days, it arrives, with a note saying if I don't return the dead part five days ago, they would bill the company for the warranty repair part and not pay for labor.
It normally took several weeks to sort this out, with faxes of the shipping documents, delevery dates, receipts, and all kinds of looney stuff until I finally started screaming at the top of my lungs that it is impossible to return a bad part in the box demanded by Compaq with the RMA that was only ever sent in the paperwork with the new part before I got the new part.
I recall that Compaq used to bill HUGE amounts for warranty parts to us every week, and every week they would have to take charges off for the screwup from six-eight weeks ago. They even cut off our access to repair parts and demanded over USD $100K before they would ship anything to us at one point.
Bottom line, Compaq can KMA, and H-paq can too. Like you, I will NEVER use Compaq or Hewlett Packard.
Terrorists!! Terrorists!!
BOO!
BOO!
Be afraid. Be very afraid!!!!
Now, who precicely benifits from people being scared....
Cutting fiber may harm the internet, but terrorists would rather kill a bunch of people. In any town of any size, there are things that if blown up/attacked/sabotaged would kill many, many people rather quickly. As far as I know, only a very few (less than four) cities and towns have done anything about it.
The terrorism card is being used to push partisan political views into law, and actually addressing any of the problems isn't the point. The point is to scare people, frighten them, and stampeed them into allowing very bad laws to be passed without a stink. Someone once pointed out that I could be wrong. I'd rather be free and die in a free country because it is free than to turn America into a police state that total protection from terrorism would require. One cannot be free and not be willing to protect freedom. Even if it is the freedom to be stupidly wrong sometimes. (read: be a democrat).
I'm so tired of jerks teling me how stupid I am because I don't support Bush or his policy, and how I don't deserve any rights because I don't support him. Get a grip, ditto-heads. Freedom means I'm allowed to not agree with you, burn the flag, protest, and vote how I want, even if you don't like it.
"According to this article from CNet News, an anonymous X-Box security research team is threatening Microsoft: either release a digitally-signed official Linux bootloader or face the release of a new exploit that supposedly works without a modchip.....Sounds like a good way to end up in jail.
Rather than an exploit, this sounds like reverse engineering. Instead of extortion, it sounds like a deal "We won't do this if you do that."
I don't see a crime there. Then again, if you are M$, you can make a judge find you guilty of a crime if you don't pay M$ extortion^W tax^W for an OS even if you don't use M$.
I'm sorry but I agree with this. If a parent puts a filter on their computer system to keep a child from seeing pr0n0 sites (which is their right I might add) that child should not be able to go to the library to get their fix of sexual content which the parents have already deamed not suitable for their child. The Government SHOULD NEVER overrule the rights of the parent in this case.
IIRC, the problem is that the filters are manditory, and cannot be removed. In other words, when you go to the library, all you'll see is what the extreme right wing consertives deem approprate for children/constitutants.
I agree, children shouldn't be exposed to porn on the internet, just like they can't check out Playboy at the Library. This is what the ALA was asking for. Not out of line, IMO.
It feels fine, wee-wee boy.
Pigs like being coated in shit. They think it feels fine too. (You get what you give. Come back without the attitude and I'll be happy to debate you in a civil manner.)
Just as with software and shrink-wrap licenses, I buy music and movies, and I agree to the terms of use.
Except that software doesn't have something called "The Home Recording Act" to protect your fair use rights. Also, music and movies are not leased persuant to a contract, as most software is. It's called the "license agreement", and it's designed to limit your rights under exsisting law.
Such things must be a great nuisance to those who enjoy pirating software
I woundn't know. Would you speak to this point?
- because obviously your attitude is in keeping with that of the liberal hippies who think everything should be free.
I don't think Intellectual Property should be free unless the creator of it wants to release it or the term has expired. (The length of the term is another conversation.) I think the creator of the work should be paid. Too bad the major music labels don't think so too.
Oh, and you missed calling me a commie terrorist net nazi unix neck beard. Which is better than being a "compassionate conservitive", because I don't have to keep lying to myself and others while staving children and pregent women while I give my rich buddies huge tax breaks.
In short, we are free to choose what we want to buy or not buy.
I never said you weren't free to buy or not. I said you are a jerk if you keep buying knowing what use the corporation puts your money to. And you are if you keep buying (or going to see) movies by MPAA memebers. You are also a jerk if you keep buying music from RIAA memebers.
Exercising that choice, in a way which tweaks your collar, should not subject us to pathetic insult from those who disagree with us.
This from someone that uses liberal as an insult. Go study logic again. Oh, sorry, conservitives don't go for that long haired trash stuff like that, do they?
This is the wrong solution to this problem. While it would work fine if the d/l's were on your own network, it wouldn't help if the hits are off your network.
"The RIAA started yelling and tried to rescind my order of dismissal after they signed it because of comments that I made on CNN.", Jordan says on his site. "A very well-known top lawyer at the RIAA, while making threats of further legal actions, referred to himself as a 'dentist' that I would not want to 'have another visit with'"
It's obvious that RIAA is upset because now the object lesson of their terror campaign isn't projected the properly meek and submissive attitude to the world.
Sounds like another SLAPP suit on the way.
To those that are still buying RIAA music or MPAA movies, how does it feel to be part of the problem, jerk?
To those that are not buying RIAA music or MPAA movies, feels good being a small part of the solution, doesn't it?
Part of the pain is that ISPs have their IPA ranges listed more and more the longer the spammer stays. This causes pain and suffering on an ISP that is too clueless to respond to complaints or is in cahoots with the spammer. SPEWS attitude seems to be "As long as you take the spammers money, we don't want your traffic."
Personally, I think it's time and past to do more than just block the spammy ISP's mail. Time to block EVERYTHING from them.
"The New York Times has an article about a new court document in which SCO critizes Linus Torvalds touting the 'inability and/or unwillingness of the Linux process manager, Linus Torvalds, to identify the intellectual property origins of contributed source code.'
Everyone sees what is next, right? SCO is going to sue Linus Torvalds too.
Set DEFCON 2. Get yer checkbooks ready to contribute. Keep those pens in your pocket for now, but keep 'em handy.
2) (and more importantly) Microsoft is using SCO like a preliminary boxer to discover what tactics and skills the open source community can bring into the ring.
The world. I am always amazed at how much the opensource community knows, how clued they are, and just how little bull shit they'll put up with. (Not the wanna b's, I mean the real Mc Coy's here.)
Remember Linus's famous quote? "Talk is cheap. Show me the code."
So, what's going to happen?
As far as I know, if you have portions of code that is infringing, you have to tell the offender what code it is in order to sue their square pants off. You can't just come in and bitchslap 'em out of business without giving them the chance to correct any error.
SCO is out for blood. Too bad that it looks like the only blood in the water so far is from their own neck.
Is SCO going to sue the NSA too? What about all the government agencies that use Linux and/or AIX? I looked over the license I have for AIX. I don't see anything in it about having to stop using it because SCO puts their pinky to their mouth and utters, "Three BILLION dollars!". I didn't see a mention of SCO at all.
I've sent a note to purchasing to not renew our SCO support contracts. We haven't used it much anyway, and their helpless desk is just that. Shall we put together a list of companies that use SCO and start a boycot?
And the FTC needs secret powers exactly why? They don't have to go around the block beating a drum and tooting a horn during an investigation. They can keep their mouths shut exactly to the extent allowed by current law (which is plenty, during an investigation by law enforcement).
And go look at the FSA courts. Even the FSA judges were saying (before being ordered to shut up) that the abuse of power in that secret court was wide spread and shocking.
"Every body has access to it". Other government agencies and/or anti-government/terrorist organizations could easily search the code for exploits and vulnerabilities that would allow them to attack government computers.
As opposed to, say, searching the web for known expolits and d/l'ing the hack from a script kiddie.
Depending on how the gov designs their networks and implements the opensource software, it could lead to some serious troubles.
Or, using closed source, they can conviently remain ignorant of vulns that are known, but can't be reported because of NDAs. Also, if you set your network up stupidly, you are going to have problem no matter what OS you use.
2) Although one may argue that it would be wasting government money to buy software, they have the money anyway and it'll be better than just keepin it in a vault. Mainly, it would stimulate the economy (specifically the tech market) if a large government bought a rather large license from a company, or contracted a company to write them software.
Software, be it open source or closed source, doesn't:
write itself
install itself
configure itself
maintain itself
plan it's own phaseout at end-of-life.
When considering the TCO of a project, one must factor in such items as upgrade and update time, hardware costs (replacement and that), backup time and media expense, cost to maintain the systems, add users/features/whatever, configure/reconfigure.... you know. The stuff we do with our time all day long. Our employers don't keep us on staff for our fetching legs and cute giggle. (Well, not my legs or giggle anyway.)
Open Source gives you the freedom to control those costs. Closed source forces those costs onto you weather you want them or not.
No, the real problem isn't finding them, it's proving beyond all doubt it's them doing it that is the problem. A quick run through of their hard drives is always helpful. Some spammers even fail to secure their machines so all it takes is a web browser to browse their hard drive. Hey, what can I say? Spammers are stupid.
So far as enforcing the laws already on the books, only 28 or 29 states have laws against spamming. What laws are you thinking of that apply everywhere? (Think non-US too.)
Spam isn't a technical problem, and can't be completely solved with technical means. However, technical means can make spammy's life a bit harder, and I'm all for that.
...it leads to demands for what amounts to a system of internal passports, where you can't travel by air without registering, and getting -- and maintaining --- official permission.
Too late.
AmTrak
Of course, renting a car requires ID, and I was told by a friend that he was required to show ID to get a bus ticket on Greyhound. (R) Tom Delay was quoted as saying that he wants to make it so that in Texas, people don't feel that it's OK to be a democrat.
Weather it's the Taliban or Bush's government, a nazi is a nazi. The sad thing is how many people in the US willingly give up their freedom in the name of "War!" or "Patriotism". The founding fathers would weep.
Slashdot Mirror
IBM's medium server (RS6000, 390) road map has been solidly Linux for some time. I doubt that after the money they poured into Linux, they would want to cut off it's head.
Evil they may be, stupid too, sometimes, but not that stupid. Let us not forget that some of the big wigs in the large shops are Linux fans, and have ROI to back them up. A dangerous pair that; Passion and the facts.
SMTP isn't broken, agreed. It's rather permissive, and that is a problem with spammers added to the mix.
After looking through the posts here (most of the +5 should be -5 Stupid), its clear that most of the experts don't understand email in the real world.
You, IMO, have a few things wrong too, bucky, so don't puff your chest out there too far and beat on it just yet.
Encryption:
The 1st tings is email must be interceptable. Many governments won't allow high level encryption that isn't full of holes that allow them to play pack recorded streams.
Debatable, IMO, but I'll grant that China may not be thrilled with strong encryption in email. Make it like mime is now, where the receipient can decide if they take low encryption or not.
Most large email servers can't deal with the CPU load of full encryption anyway so 100% solid encryption is out.
Uhm, you want to think about that again? What point would it be to send my message from my machine which I've (hopefully) secured properly to a large server that the ISP runs with who knows what kind of security and heaven knows how many admins with their fingers in the send q and I'm sending in clear text! ...
No, any encryption would be better spent being done on the client side. Only the header would not be encrypted, because so many machines in between might have to handle it. You could make another option to encrypt the header and SMTP chat, but doing so would require your system to exchange data with a foriegn system... Exactly how dial up spam works now. No thank you.
The only thing you can count on in a distributed system like email is that you can't count on anything like trust. Unless and until it is impossible to use a computer anywhere without strong authintication and identification (which IMO is worse than spam), you won't completely stop spammers technically. The thing people keep forgetting is that spam is not a technical problem. Spam is a human problem (Quirk objection noted), and any purely technical means to stop it will not be completely effective, though some are pretty good for a while.
The key is (and now more than ever programmers are not forgetting it) that spammers adapt. Every means to stop spam so far has not worked 100%. When spammers notice this, what do they do? Do they curl up and die the revolting death so many of us (there is no us) wish upon them? No. If 50% gets blocked, they fire up more servers and send 200% more spam. Block 90%? They fire up more servers and send 1000% more. Then they start writing viruses to infect home users and use those machines to send more spam.
No, spammers will spam because they are too stupid and lazy to make an honest buck. When you make it so that no one can make money sending spam is when the spam problem will end. (Unless people quit using computers.)
Same place as it is now if the judge awards SCOX money in apportion to their damages. Say, a tenth of a cent.
Gartner isn't a law firm, nor do they give legal advice. They simply could have said nothing.
The question I have is what motivated Gartner's statement? What did they have to gain or lose by remaining on the sidelines vs. issuing advice?
The SCO case isn't about technology per se. It's about breach of contract. Why does this fall within Gartner's expertise? As noted many times before, even SCO's distro is infringing if SCO's statements are true.
Well, if the system is important to them, they should bestir themselves to learn how to make backups.
My biggest gripe about Novell and MS operating systems, and the Intell platform in general, is the inability to make a boot tape. BRU is able to make a boot disk that will allow a full restore from tape, but that function last I checked was only availble on (gag) SCO.
I want to throw a tape in the drive, tell the BIOS to load the OS from tape, and restore that sucker to disk. I don't want to have to do partial installs, booting from floppy/CD, or any of that crap. Load and go is what I want. Once you've been able to restore a full system image from tape, you'll wonder why all vendors don't offer that function.
Gee, we could go on that 24 hour news program, CNN. Uh oh. It's owned by Time Warner...
I know, we can go on National news.... oh, yeah, maybe not....
Well, there's always RADIO, but then again, I guess RIAA would take a dim view of Clear Channel doing that, and would cut them off...
Or, I know! We can use P2P to... Oh, yeah, P2P is being villified and made illegal...
(humor mode on)
Well, than it's back to what I've been saying for ages. Quit buying RIAA music, tell your friends, and ask they tell their friends. When RIAA members see their sales go down by even 30%, I suspect that they would start putting pressure on RIAA to tone it down.
You're the admin. You're supposed to check for this. If the system isn't all that important, I may add patches without checking them on a test system, but if it's important, no patches get added until they are checked on a test system.
2) my fav, the disks stop spinning. This is lots of fun. Try it some time.
You're the admin. You're supposed to be doing backups. Personally, if I think there's a good chance that the drives will fail when I'm doing something ( eg: greater than .5 percent) I make 2 back ups. Tapes can break. Also, I've not seen disks refuse to spin up with out powering off for a while (more than 5 minues). Frequently, you can get the disks spinning again by (gently!) tapping them with a screwdriver. If that doesn't work, sometimes heating them with a lightbulb will work. Heatlamps work too, but you need to be careful not to overheat the drive. I also try to get drives on critical systems replaced every 2 to 3 years. RAID helps here.
Keeping the network, hardware, OS, and applications up is important, but just as important is abuse response. There are a few hosting companies out there that do a wonderful job of keeping things ticking over, but fail absolutely at terminating abusive accounts. Hosting at one of these sites is inviting having your email blocked at the very least. Some sites block all traffic based on what's in the block lists. Part of due dilligence is checking the history of a host by checking at SPEWS, SPAMHAUS, SPAMCOP, News.Admin.Net-Abuse.email, News.Admin.Net-Abuse.Sightings, and other customer's experiences.
I can't find my link to the dead tree report I use to check out hosting companies at the moment, but there are several very nice writeups out there that focus on choosing a good hosting/co-lo company.
Not really. A pre-determined psudeo-random frequency hopping system sync'ed with a time signal from, say WWV, GPS, NTP, or a sync signal from the transponder itself would do fine. However, you are solving the wrong problem with this solution. (Police Fire and Ambulance use something called "trunking" that's quite a bit like this.)
The problem is that a stronger signal at the receiver can't be rejected based on transmission charateristics absent directional receiving antenna. That signal is going to be there, and it's going to interfere. Yes, you can use authintication to select the correct signal, but if the Automatic Gain Control (AGC) on the receiver is de-sensitized to the point that it can't get the correct signal (by virtue of the fact the the jammer is using more power than you are) then you are up a creek.
Using a directional antenna for the uplink receiver will mean that the jammer will have to be in the same geographic area your transmitter is in to jam you. The more directional the antenna on the receiver, the closer the jammer has to be to your uplink.
The advantage to that is to keep the jammer in the same jurisdiction you are in and all kinds of things can be done, up to and including a raid from armed police to stop it. You won't be able to prevent it, but retalliation in this situation would be swift and sure.
In an earlier post, someone asked how the jammer can be located. When sending a signal up to the transponder, the signal is sent using a directional antenna. Even the best antennas will have some broadcast leakage. At these frequencies, you can also detect the area of the beam from scatter introduced by dust, water vapor, and pollution. You can get at least a general sense of where the transmitter is, though pinning it down to 1000 feet would be a bit more difficult until you have a receiver in the area.
To see this in action, go outside at night and shine a flashlight up at the sky. You can see the beam going up. Same principal, different equipment.
IANAL
As far as I know, if "bad agent" passed on closed code as his own, and told "halo goodguy OpenSource maintainer (hggosm)" that "bad agent" wrote the code and is contributing it, hggosm isn't in trouble. It's a level of fraud that hggosm has no way of avoiding.
If a newspaper printed something about you that is untrue, that isn't enough to win a suit. You have to prove the paper knew it was untrue.
Again, IANAL.
I used to run a Compaq repair center for a few months. I would order a warranty replacement part. Wait a week. Call again. Wait four days, it arrives, with a note saying if I don't return the dead part five days ago, they would bill the company for the warranty repair part and not pay for labor.
It normally took several weeks to sort this out, with faxes of the shipping documents, delevery dates, receipts, and all kinds of looney stuff until I finally started screaming at the top of my lungs that it is impossible to return a bad part in the box demanded by Compaq with the RMA that was only ever sent in the paperwork with the new part before I got the new part.
I recall that Compaq used to bill HUGE amounts for warranty parts to us every week, and every week they would have to take charges off for the screwup from six-eight weeks ago. They even cut off our access to repair parts and demanded over USD $100K before they would ship anything to us at one point.
Bottom line, Compaq can KMA, and H-paq can too. Like you, I will NEVER use Compaq or Hewlett Packard.
Now, who precicely benifits from people being scared.... Cutting fiber may harm the internet, but terrorists would rather kill a bunch of people. In any town of any size, there are things that if blown up/attacked/sabotaged would kill many, many people rather quickly. As far as I know, only a very few (less than four) cities and towns have done anything about it.
The terrorism card is being used to push partisan political views into law, and actually addressing any of the problems isn't the point. The point is to scare people, frighten them, and stampeed them into allowing very bad laws to be passed without a stink. Someone once pointed out that I could be wrong. I'd rather be free and die in a free country because it is free than to turn America into a police state that total protection from terrorism would require. One cannot be free and not be willing to protect freedom. Even if it is the freedom to be stupidly wrong sometimes. (read: be a democrat).
I'm so tired of jerks teling me how stupid I am because I don't support Bush or his policy, and how I don't deserve any rights because I don't support him. Get a grip, ditto-heads. Freedom means I'm allowed to not agree with you, burn the flag, protest, and vote how I want, even if you don't like it.
Read my sig.
Rather than an exploit, this sounds like reverse engineering. Instead of extortion, it sounds like a deal "We won't do this if you do that."
I don't see a crime there. Then again, if you are M$, you can make a judge find you guilty of a crime if you don't pay M$ extortion^W tax^W for an OS even if you don't use M$.
I am incorrect. It is allowed to turn off the filter for adults.
IIRC, the problem is that the filters are manditory, and cannot be removed. In other words, when you go to the library, all you'll see is what the extreme right wing consertives deem approprate for children/constitutants.
I agree, children shouldn't be exposed to porn on the internet, just like they can't check out Playboy at the Library. This is what the ALA was asking for. Not out of line, IMO.
Pigs like being coated in shit. They think it feels fine too. (You get what you give. Come back without the attitude and I'll be happy to debate you in a civil manner.)
Just as with software and shrink-wrap licenses, I buy music and movies, and I agree to the terms of use.
Except that software doesn't have something called "The Home Recording Act" to protect your fair use rights. Also, music and movies are not leased persuant to a contract, as most software is. It's called the "license agreement", and it's designed to limit your rights under exsisting law.
Such things must be a great nuisance to those who enjoy pirating software
I woundn't know. Would you speak to this point?
- because obviously your attitude is in keeping with that of the liberal hippies who think everything should be free.
I don't think Intellectual Property should be free unless the creator of it wants to release it or the term has expired. (The length of the term is another conversation.) I think the creator of the work should be paid. Too bad the major music labels don't think so too.
Oh, and you missed calling me a commie terrorist net nazi unix neck beard. Which is better than being a "compassionate conservitive", because I don't have to keep lying to myself and others while staving children and pregent women while I give my rich buddies huge tax breaks.
In short, we are free to choose what we want to buy or not buy.
I never said you weren't free to buy or not. I said you are a jerk if you keep buying knowing what use the corporation puts your money to. And you are if you keep buying (or going to see) movies by MPAA memebers. You are also a jerk if you keep buying music from RIAA memebers.
Exercising that choice, in a way which tweaks your collar, should not subject us to pathetic insult from those who disagree with us.
This from someone that uses liberal as an insult. Go study logic again. Oh, sorry, conservitives don't go for that long haired trash stuff like that, do they?
This is the wrong solution to this problem. While it would work fine if the d/l's were on your own network, it wouldn't help if the hits are off your network.
Sounds like another SLAPP suit on the way.
To those that are still buying RIAA music or MPAA movies, how does it feel to be part of the problem, jerk?
To those that are not buying RIAA music or MPAA movies, feels good being a small part of the solution, doesn't it?
Which is why I think SPEWS rocks.
Part of the pain is that ISPs have their IPA ranges listed more and more the longer the spammer stays. This causes pain and suffering on an ISP that is too clueless to respond to complaints or is in cahoots with the spammer. SPEWS attitude seems to be "As long as you take the spammers money, we don't want your traffic."
Personally, I think it's time and past to do more than just block the spammy ISP's mail. Time to block EVERYTHING from them.
For some insight into just how fast a major ISP can kick a spammer when it wants to,, see this thread in News.Admin.Net-Abuse.Email.
Everyone sees what is next, right? SCO is going to sue Linus Torvalds too.
Set DEFCON 2. Get yer checkbooks ready to contribute. Keep those pens in your pocket for now, but keep 'em handy.
The world. I am always amazed at how much the opensource community knows, how clued they are, and just how little bull shit they'll put up with. (Not the wanna b's, I mean the real Mc Coy's here.)
Remember Linus's famous quote? "Talk is cheap. Show me the code."
Hey, SCO! Put up or shut up.
So, what's going to happen?
As far as I know, if you have portions of code that is infringing, you have to tell the offender what code it is in order to sue their square pants off. You can't just come in and bitchslap 'em out of business without giving them the chance to correct any error.
SCO is out for blood. Too bad that it looks like the only blood in the water so far is from their own neck.
Is SCO going to sue the NSA too? What about all the government agencies that use Linux and/or AIX?
I looked over the license I have for AIX. I don't see anything in it about having to stop using it because SCO puts their pinky to their mouth and utters, "Three BILLION dollars!". I didn't see a mention of SCO at all.
I've sent a note to purchasing to not renew our SCO support contracts. We haven't used it much anyway, and their helpless desk is just that. Shall we put together a list of companies that use SCO and start a boycot?
And go look at the FSA courts. Even the FSA judges were saying (before being ordered to shut up) that the abuse of power in that secret court was wide spread and shocking.
As opposed to, say, searching the web for known expolits and d/l'ing the hack from a script kiddie.
Depending on how the gov designs their networks and implements the opensource software, it could lead to some serious troubles.
Or, using closed source, they can conviently remain ignorant of vulns that are known, but can't be reported because of NDAs. Also, if you set your network up stupidly, you are going to have problem no matter what OS you use.
2) Although one may argue that it would be wasting government money to buy software, they have the money anyway and it'll be better than just keepin it in a vault. Mainly, it would stimulate the economy (specifically the tech market) if a large government bought a rather large license from a company, or contracted a company to write them software.
Software, be it open source or closed source, doesn't:
write itself
install itself
configure itself
maintain itself
plan it's own phaseout at end-of-life.
When considering the TCO of a project, one must factor in such items as upgrade and update time, hardware costs (replacement and that), backup time and media expense, cost to maintain the systems, add users/features/whatever, configure/reconfigure.... you know. The stuff we do with our time all day long. Our employers don't keep us on staff for our fetching legs and cute giggle. (Well, not my legs or giggle anyway.)
Open Source gives you the freedom to control those costs. Closed source forces those costs onto you weather you want them or not.
No problem. SpamHaus is a good resource. So is SPEWS. SPAMCOP isn't much help FINDING the spammer, but News.Admin.Net-abuse.email is always a good choice and News.Admin.Net-abuse.sightings is another.
No, the real problem isn't finding them, it's proving beyond all doubt it's them doing it that is the problem. A quick run through of their hard drives is always helpful.
Some spammers even fail to secure their machines so all it takes is a web browser to browse their hard drive. Hey, what can I say? Spammers are stupid.
So far as enforcing the laws already on the books, only 28 or 29 states have laws against spamming. What laws are you thinking of that apply everywhere? (Think non-US too.)
Spam isn't a technical problem, and can't be completely solved with technical means. However, technical means can make spammy's life a bit harder, and I'm all for that.
Too late.
AmTrak
Of course, renting a car requires ID, and I was told by a friend that he was required to show ID to get a bus ticket on Greyhound. (R) Tom Delay was quoted as saying that he wants to make it so that in Texas, people don't feel that it's OK to be a democrat.
Weather it's the Taliban or Bush's government, a nazi is a nazi. The sad thing is how many people in the US willingly give up their freedom in the name of "War!" or "Patriotism". The founding fathers would weep.