Isn't SPEWS just a blacklisting service? This is an end-to-end authenticating mail protocol. This essentially just allows for the exclusion of anonymous access, which is how you can get at spammers.
OK, look the first statement I guess was a bit too simplified. You don't immediately block the ISP. First, you email the ISP about the infringing emails and give them a notice of compliance. The ISP, since all email traffic is authenticated, can just block the account. But if the ISP does not block the account then the other amtp server blocks that ISP after a certain number of violations in a certain time period. Also, since everything is authenticated then it should be the destination ISPs right to obtain the user-info and sue him (make it economically infeasible to spam). Or sue the ISP if he does not provide the details of the user (make it economically infeasible to be an accomplice to a spammer). It works out, and it essentially equals drastic reduction of spam.
The spec does not require everyone to get a cert. It requires everyone to have a log in with an amtp server which has a cert. This way if one server is shown to allow too many spammers through the whole server can be effectively blocked. Essentially, it will force servers to authenticate all mail transfers. But user to server authentication would still be done using user/pass, kerberos, SRP, CRAM, or whatever the server sets up. Sounds pretty good to me. I haven't read the spec yet, I only hope it still includes SASL authentication to make the move a lot easier.
No all you do is block any Server with a fingerprint that has been shown to be the originator of spam, because that means that they are not authenticating its users, or that they are purposefully spreading spam.
I'm surprised nobody posted about Apache which has been protesting this for several days now.
And now for the solution to all patent issues (if respected countries would just enact it):
Patents are devised to protect an entities investment in their research and promise the possibility of gain from doing the research. Unfortunately patents last an arbitrarily long time, and can really stifle advancement in the field (duh). So all we need to do to counteract these problems is to provide monetary incentive to companies without sacrificing the rest of the market. To suffice this equation: all you need is a R&D market. People invest in the R&D market on problems which they think have a likelihood of being solved. This finds a natural balance of urgency which companies see and invest their time and money into finding the solution to the problem. First company to the solution, files with the R&D, R&D verifies, then company gets paid. Thats it!
You can't do satellite relays with the internet. You can't do Earth-Moon-Earth bounces with the internet.
Both of these are specific instances of the network which I just mentioned as being the only difference.
You can't get an internet connection if you're a poor farmer in the middle of Africa. But you can build an AM tranciever from spare parts.
If you are a really poor farmer you probably can't even do that. OK, so potential TCO is higher in some areas. Thats just nitpicking, and is not a universal "feature".
Why is 802.11a/b/g such a craze now if wires are so good? GHz-band transmissions were pioneered by hams. The things people are starting to take for granted today. The first wireless networks were made by hams. The first pictures were transmitted over radio by hams. The first video-like signals (using a spiraling optical scanner) were sent by hams before television was even invented.
"Firsts" have nothing to do with features. I suppose that is a big difference, their history. But suffice it to say you can pipe any signal you want over the internet as long as its digital.
You lose ham radio, you lose innovation, emergency services, and radio spectrum that belongs to the public. Anyone can get a ham license with a simple multiple-choice test. It's not like you even have to *work* to get one anymore.
I think you misunderstood my original comment as being a bash on hams. Hams have their place. Hams are cool. But the only difference between hams and the internet is the underlying connective medium itself. Nothing else. Thank you, have a nice day.
I was not devaluing ham radio usage. I think ham radios are fascinating, but the only thing it can do that the internet cannot is provide long distance communication without the need of a network. Am I wrong?
What the hell? Why would you want tcp/ip over ham. Thats limiting yourself to having to use IP addresses. Packetized transmission I understand, but ham is not exactly routable so why is tcp/ip needed?
No, but people do transmit data over it already. At least I hope there isn't any instances of tcp/ip over ham. Seeing as how radio is an unroutable beast. Now you can assign IPs to the endpoints and that would be good.
OK, so the proof that we are going to die a heat death is in the evidence of outward acceleration. Now do we definetely know that this object is accelerating radially outward or radially inward to another distant unknown universe. I.e. how can we claim to know the extents of the universe, if we don't have infinetely sensitive equipment. It could be we're on course to collide with a system (another known universe sized structure) like ours that is so distant we just can't see it yet. Maybe there are infinite systems like this out there. How can we possibly claim to know this?
No it frightens me that our government passes the Patriot act, and nobody realizes that they now have very few rights. And it frightens me how now we have little recourse for governmental reform without being considered a "terrorist".
Yeah, god is used to abstract out the things we can't explain. Therefore, the refinement of the model in which god exists is a theoretical science just like all the crap in this article. Sure, there is NO NEED for any science. There is no need to try to explain anything. You can go pick nuts and berrys and never have to worry about science, and or justification of anything. But if you truly want to consider yourself a man of science you cannot just turn your back on something because you don't believe in it. By the way, believe it or not, the Earth is round and we have a helio-centric model of our solar system (and before you go spouting off the controversy over that because of religion, maybe you should try to realize that there is quite a bit of seperation between man and the faith that he abides by, everything quoted as being crimes against humanity induced by religion, is actually just induced by other humans with [usually] misinterpretations). The capacity to prove or disprove god and creationism is beyond our current technical capabilities. Live with it and try to be more open minded on the issue.
OK, I don't think you guys understand the appeal of this. Its a 2 Megapixel CCD so the pictures are lousy quality. It being digital means you can keep the shots you want and delete the others, but there is no CCD to verify what those shots are. So that is not a selling point, either.
So there can be only two possible selling points to this new digital system. Price, it costs a whole lot less to print a digital image than to develop film, and also since there is no film the camera itself saves additional $$$ with each reuse. The "digital is better" false axiom that half-wit consumers have had injected into their brains by DVD and computer commercials. I have never bought a disposable 35mm or anything like that before so I don't know if its cheaper. I really hope its a lot cheaper seeing as how it has about 21 times less resolution than 35mm (assuming its not a 2 Megapixel 3 layered CMOS, in which case it would only have about 7 times less resolution than standard 35mm). I'm pretty much betting on their real selling point being the stupidity of consumers assuming that digital is better. Argh, capitalism doesn't work very well when consumers don't understand what they are buying, and are just spoon fed marketing propoganda.
Instead of going the technical approach, have you ever considered proposing the idea of docking pay, and/or firing? Most people need their jobs more than they need instant messaging. Also, why are you letting your users install programs on the company's computers? Do you have everyone run as admin?
Slashdot Mirror
Or you can just link to their website on the front page of slashdot. The slashdot effect strikes again.
Thank you, that was bugging the hell out of me too.
Isn't SPEWS just a blacklisting service? This is an end-to-end authenticating mail protocol. This essentially just allows for the exclusion of anonymous access, which is how you can get at spammers.
OK, look the first statement I guess was a bit too simplified. You don't immediately block the ISP. First, you email the ISP about the infringing emails and give them a notice of compliance. The ISP, since all email traffic is authenticated, can just block the account. But if the ISP does not block the account then the other amtp server blocks that ISP after a certain number of violations in a certain time period. Also, since everything is authenticated then it should be the destination ISPs right to obtain the user-info and sue him (make it economically infeasible to spam). Or sue the ISP if he does not provide the details of the user (make it economically infeasible to be an accomplice to a spammer). It works out, and it essentially equals drastic reduction of spam.
The spec does not require everyone to get a cert. It requires everyone to have a log in with an amtp server which has a cert. This way if one server is shown to allow too many spammers through the whole server can be effectively blocked. Essentially, it will force servers to authenticate all mail transfers. But user to server authentication would still be done using user/pass, kerberos, SRP, CRAM, or whatever the server sets up. Sounds pretty good to me. I haven't read the spec yet, I only hope it still includes SASL authentication to make the move a lot easier.
No all you do is block any Server with a fingerprint that has been shown to be the originator of spam, because that means that they are not authenticating its users, or that they are purposefully spreading spam.
I'm surprised nobody posted about Apache which has been protesting this for several days now.
And now for the solution to all patent issues (if respected countries would just enact it):
Patents are devised to protect an entities investment in their research and promise the possibility of gain from doing the research. Unfortunately patents last an arbitrarily long time, and can really stifle advancement in the field (duh). So all we need to do to counteract these problems is to provide monetary incentive to companies without sacrificing the rest of the market. To suffice this equation: all you need is a R&D market. People invest in the R&D market on problems which they think have a likelihood of being solved. This finds a natural balance of urgency which companies see and invest their time and money into finding the solution to the problem. First company to the solution, files with the R&D, R&D verifies, then company gets paid. Thats it!
Who here believes Apache is absolutely secure? I see vulnerability/exploit reports fairly frequently.
You can't do satellite relays with the internet. You can't do Earth-Moon-Earth bounces with the internet.
Both of these are specific instances of the network which I just mentioned as being the only difference.
You can't get an internet connection if you're a poor farmer in the middle of Africa. But you can build an AM tranciever from spare parts.
If you are a really poor farmer you probably can't even do that. OK, so potential TCO is higher in some areas. Thats just nitpicking, and is not a universal "feature".
Why is 802.11a/b/g such a craze now if wires are so good? GHz-band transmissions were pioneered by hams. The things people are starting to take for granted today. The first wireless networks were made by hams. The first pictures were transmitted over radio by hams. The first video-like signals (using a spiraling optical scanner) were sent by hams before television was even invented.
"Firsts" have nothing to do with features. I suppose that is a big difference, their history. But suffice it to say you can pipe any signal you want over the internet as long as its digital.
You lose ham radio, you lose innovation, emergency services, and radio spectrum that belongs to the public. Anyone can get a ham license with a simple multiple-choice test. It's not like you even have to *work* to get one anymore.
I think you misunderstood my original comment as being a bash on hams. Hams have their place. Hams are cool. But the only difference between hams and the internet is the underlying connective medium itself. Nothing else. Thank you, have a nice day.
Ham = good. Free = good. Ham = open global network.
I was not devaluing ham radio usage. I think ham radios are fascinating, but the only thing it can do that the internet cannot is provide long distance communication without the need of a network. Am I wrong?
What the hell? Why would you want tcp/ip over ham. Thats limiting yourself to having to use IP addresses. Packetized transmission I understand, but ham is not exactly routable so why is tcp/ip needed?
No, but people do transmit data over it already. At least I hope there isn't any instances of tcp/ip over ham. Seeing as how radio is an unroutable beast. Now you can assign IPs to the endpoints and that would be good.
It can go around the world without the need of a network. That is all.
I know what a fucking trader. iD stand strong with OpenGL and don't go to the dark side.
OK, so the proof that we are going to die a heat death is in the evidence of outward acceleration. Now do we definetely know that this object is accelerating radially outward or radially inward to another distant unknown universe. I.e. how can we claim to know the extents of the universe, if we don't have infinetely sensitive equipment. It could be we're on course to collide with a system (another known universe sized structure) like ours that is so distant we just can't see it yet. Maybe there are infinite systems like this out there. How can we possibly claim to know this?
No it frightens me that our government passes the Patriot act, and nobody realizes that they now have very few rights. And it frightens me how now we have little recourse for governmental reform without being considered a "terrorist".
Yeah, god is used to abstract out the things we can't explain. Therefore, the refinement of the model in which god exists is a theoretical science just like all the crap in this article. Sure, there is NO NEED for any science. There is no need to try to explain anything. You can go pick nuts and berrys and never have to worry about science, and or justification of anything. But if you truly want to consider yourself a man of science you cannot just turn your back on something because you don't believe in it. By the way, believe it or not, the Earth is round and we have a helio-centric model of our solar system (and before you go spouting off the controversy over that because of religion, maybe you should try to realize that there is quite a bit of seperation between man and the faith that he abides by, everything quoted as being crimes against humanity induced by religion, is actually just induced by other humans with [usually] misinterpretations). The capacity to prove or disprove god and creationism is beyond our current technical capabilities. Live with it and try to be more open minded on the issue.
Knoppix CD would be quite handy.
OK, I don't think you guys understand the appeal of this. Its a 2 Megapixel CCD so the pictures are lousy quality. It being digital means you can keep the shots you want and delete the others, but there is no CCD to verify what those shots are. So that is not a selling point, either.
So there can be only two possible selling points to this new digital system. Price, it costs a whole lot less to print a digital image than to develop film, and also since there is no film the camera itself saves additional $$$ with each reuse. The "digital is better" false axiom that half-wit consumers have had injected into their brains by DVD and computer commercials. I have never bought a disposable 35mm or anything like that before so I don't know if its cheaper. I really hope its a lot cheaper seeing as how it has about 21 times less resolution than 35mm (assuming its not a 2 Megapixel 3 layered CMOS, in which case it would only have about 7 times less resolution than standard 35mm). I'm pretty much betting on their real selling point being the stupidity of consumers assuming that digital is better. Argh, capitalism doesn't work very well when consumers don't understand what they are buying, and are just spoon fed marketing propoganda.
Oooh oooh, I got a better idea!!!! Sue Microsoft!!!!! Or better yet, sue yourself. That way Microsoft will be forced to foot the bill.
Instead of going the technical approach, have you ever considered proposing the idea of docking pay, and/or firing? Most people need their jobs more than they need instant messaging. Also, why are you letting your users install programs on the company's computers? Do you have everyone run as admin?
Not to mention the catastrophic effects of the flywheel if it gets hit to hard and touches the edge :-P. Its a battery that doubles as a bomb!
I find the batteries that hold the greatest charge the longest are the magnetically levitated in a vacuum flywheel electric motor.
Yes, I know Sony (like a million other handheld CD player manufacturers) added a buffer. Did you even read my post?