If the only way we can retain our freedom and security is to allow them to be taken away, I don't mind. Heck, I like that kind of thinking, and am going right now to ask my wife to help me regain my virginity!
I have considered the matter at great length, and no, it's not inconvenient for me. What would be inconvenient would be sending email to the domain computer.biz and not knowing which computer.biz it would be delivered to. Does it go to the original owner of computer.biz, or to the owner of the stolen domain of the same name?
To my way of thinking, it should go to the rightful owner, the guy who's had that domain for a few years now. And if it's mailed from my domain, it will.
The inconvenience is for anyone ignorant or foolish enough to buy a Neulevel.biz TLD. They have no way to know that all of their mail will come to them, or that all of their HTML links will lead the user to their web site. That's a game I won't play, and have recommended to my clients that they either buy their.biz from both PacRoot and Neulevel, or don't buy it at all. And it galls me to suggest giving money to Neulevel.
The internet does not belong to ICANN, or to the government who appointed it. I pay my own way, as does everyone else -- the internet is built that way, as a cooperative. But ICANN wants dictatorial powers, rather than cooperation. I will never support that kind of behavior. Inconvenient? Perhaps. Proudly principled? Hell yes!
I've been seeing .biz for a long, long time!
on
.biz Open For Biz
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Open Root Server Confederation has been showing the first, original, REAL.biz for a long time now. I will never see any of Neulevel's colliders.
DSL is alive and well in those markets where it does not have to compete against digital cable. I live in Qwerst's region, but they don't offer DSL out here in the middle of nowhere -- so an ISP whose office is a couple hundred miles away sells DSL here.
Nine hops to the backbone... but still blows POTS away.
I'm doing this ("RBL like thing that is just for poisoned addresses") locally -- don't have the resources available to offer such a thing publicly, but have some ideas for a distributed system that would not only share the load (and therefor cost) but would make it difficult to attack because there would be no central node. If there were sufficient interest and enough talent to make it a viable project, I'd set up a mailing list and whatnot to assist the effort.
You interested? If so, email me by replacing slashdot with the user name asackett in the email address above.
It's called wpoison, and it's found at http://www.monkeys.com/wpoison/. The problem is that it's very easy to detect -- note the lack of punctuation marks, scarcity of two and three letter words, capital letters, verbs... and the fact that there's a four second pause in the same place, page after page... in short, it would be easy enough to spot a wpoison-generated page.
I've coded up an alternative that suffers none of those obvious defects, and instead of throwing out bogus email addresses, it throws out valid spamcatcher addresses. Any SMTP host who sends a message to one of those addresses is blocked (via DJB's rbldns) for a month from sending mail into my domain. The blocklist is self-maintaining, so I never need to mess with it.
It's been in place for about three months now, and my blocklist contains 125 entries right now -- five of which are netblocks I've manually added. The URL, sure to catch a bucketful of bad spiders thanks to this link, is http://www.artsackett.com/personnel/ and it is intentionally as slow as the rectification of sin.
If the certificate has no trustworthy third-party, it's a waste of time innit...
No, it's not. The cert proves identity, not trustworthiness. The "trusted third party" acts as a trusted introducer, nothing more. He does not make any claims about the second party's honesty, integrity, or sexual prowess.
Most H-P tech support folks are temps. They query the database to return the appropriate packaged response, and email that back to you. Unless you use telephone support, in which case they read it back to you.
... and I don't think anyone would argue against the well known write-only feature of perl code.
Maintainable yes...
Which is it? Write-only, or maintainable? My guess is maintainable, because I have never once heard one with a solid understanding of regular expressions state that perl is "write only".
The reason you want _everybody_ to tell where their satellites are is of course that you don't want any accidents. Having a satellite 'hidden' by placing it in a secret orbit defeats that.
[sarcasm:] It's an outrage! That nations who develop satellite and launch vehicle technology cannot count on the reports filed with the UN, and instead have to also develop sophisticated Radio Detection And Ranging (RADAR) technology, is unconscionable!
Please share with us your knowledge, and explain how those reports can have any impact on collision avoidance. How would a nation, relying upon those reports, apparently without RADAR technology, know where the spent rocket bodies and other miscellaneous detritus from their launch operations ended up? After their satellite decays into scrap and falls apart, how will they inform the rest of us where the bits are floating?
Here in the US, our Air Force runs this outfit (whom I used to work for, picture of the radar here) to keep track of the bits and pieces floating around in space. I suggest that any nation who cannot use similar technology has no business throwing their garbage into space in the first place.
I have lost all hope of ever expecting that slashdot moderators will ever gain a little understanding of the technology of middle of the LAST CENTURY!
Re:More information?
on
Code Red III
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
However, I had no luck with doing a "dir c:\*.*" previously so...
You may get 403'd several times, as the infected machines reach their limits after a while. Just keep poking at it, you'll get your directory listing. What you won't get, though, is privilege enough to shut down either IIS or the OS itself, format the drives, reboot the box, etc.
Some folks have taken to leaving graffiti in infected machines as they find them. It's awfully tempting...
I think I see a trend here: younger people seem more confident that they can multitask without penalty than older folks....
As one who has employed a lot of those multitasking youngsters, I am convinced that they're just delusional. Four half-assed jobs are not equal to two well-done jobs, or even one. Fifteen or 20 years ago, we were equally as delusional, and our mentors were just as aware of it. So, I don't hold it against the youngsters until they start telling me how pathetically stupid I am.
but now that I'm 41 (and feeling younger than before--I'll bet you're familiar with the phenomenon)
I don't feel younger, really, but self-directed, self-sufficient, unburdened, and independent. I don't call it younger because I never felt as good as I do now when I was younger. But I think you probably know what I mean...
I think you're right.
Us old guys gotta stick together!:-)
To hell with the gray, I've been growing it back for about 10 months.
Be careful, man, next thing ya know, you'll be listening to bluegrass music and not caring who knows it! Myself, I started growing my hair out in earnest about six years ago -- it's now kept just above my waist, and I am entertained by the looks I get from people.
Sounds to me like you're someone who thinks too highly of himself, who couldn't adapt to corporate industry, who hides behind his 'self-employment' as a way to keep from failing in the big time.
I've heard that before, and always from those who only see a a lip balm-encrusted middle manager's ass when they look up from the bottom rung of the ladder. Here's the brief explanation for you:
There is not enough room in senior and executive management for everyone who's qualified and motivated to be there.
There is not enough room in middle management for everyone who's qualified and motivated to be there.
The Peter Principal dictates that most of management will be those who are subcompetent.
Obviously, the mediocre are the most rewarded segment of the workforce at any given level.
If you believe that mediocrity is something one should aspire to, go for it. Me, I'm not updating my resume any time soon.
Interviewing for a gig with a division of H-P. The interviewing team all knew me, they all knew my work, that's why they were interviewing me.
One new age, diversity celebrating, politically correct company chick asked me, from her list of prepared questions, "Do you believe you multitask well?" So, I asked her, "Can you define multitask, so I can be sure I'm answering the question you want answered?"
"Doing more than one job at a time", she replied, "like debugging one minute, explaining an important process change to a coworker the next, and then going back to debugging." I thought on this for a moment, wondering if it was a trick question, an honest question, or perhaps an honest question that through the acts of self deception and corporate mind-fucking had become a trick question. So I figured I'd just be honest, and let the chips fall where they may. "No, I do not believe that I multitask well in environments such as this, and in fact I do not believe that anyone multitasks well in an environment such as this. When I worked at Burger King, as a teenager, I could make fries and fill drinks at the same time, but those were not mentally challenging tasks."
"I happen to think that I multitask very well, and don't find that it's all that difficult", she said to me. And it was at that very moment that I realized that I was not meant to work in the corporate environment. Which is fortunate, because I did not get that job, and I'm still self-employed. The PC company chick? She proved that she multitasked well by volunteering for every function that would keep her in meetings, all day every day, and for avoiding work so skillfully, but being seen rushing past on her way from one conference room to the next, she was promoted and now runs the department.
My point? There is a fallacy floating around in corporate America, that in order to produce more output with less time and fewer resources, we must all fill many roles. Instead of focusing on doing one job very, very well, we are supposed to compensate for the fact that jobs have been eliminated, but their roles have not. So we are expected to "multitask" -- and the harder we're expected to swap, the lower the work output, the lower the quality of it. We are never allowed to operate at our full potential because we cannot achieve the mental state necessary to do Great Work. We find ourselves staring at the same problem for half the day, only to spot it within 20 minutes first thing the next morning, before our minds are cluttered up with corporate crap.
Productivity and quality will not improve no matter how many policy changes and process controls we are subjected to. What has to change is the production budget has to rise in direct proportion to shareholder dividend reductions. We are not going to cure anorexia by starving it to death!
Being self employed, I no longer have to deal with the down-sized company (or being down-sized out of a job) and can focus on my work as long as the telephone doesn't ring. It always seems to be that client with the hairiest project who calls right at that moment when the feeling of an inspiration forming is building... and I let my wife answer the call and take a message. Gotta love it.
Hmmm... If you connect to my box and request a file named foo.bar, and my box sends you a file named foo.bar, but it's not got the content that you expected, am I using your computer without your consent?
My point exactly. Because of the facade, the collective "we" think they're on our side. I don't get it. So what if it's Apple? They're claiming rights to *look and feel*, a thing we have all carped about muckrosoft doing in the past.
I wonder, if the man in Redmond went after the open source fvwm95 window manager as a violation of their exclusive rights to a look and feel, would the collective we jump up in their defense?
This stuff has been going on in the semiconductor business for decades -- it ain't news, it's business as usual. Patent licensing and enforcement is very lucrative, and for many is the primary revenue stream.
How d'ya s'pose TI managed to survive the latter half of the 1980's? Check out this guy's resume: http://www.jaeckle.com/attys/fitzgeraldthomas.asp -- "As part of the Texas Instruments licensing program that generated over one billion dollars in patent royalties, he was responsible for identifying and enforcing TI patents against unlicensed U.S. companies. This activity included identifying infringers, reverse engineering and analysis of infringing devices, and presentations of that analysis to potential licensees to encourage them to take a license."
I've been saying for the past three or four years that if we don't learn from the semiconductor industry, whose path we, the builders and users of the internet are following, we will end up with the same environment here, as well. Or, more succinctly, "Work toward your vision of tomorrow, or surely you will live in someone else's".
Us middle-aged folks are to blame, ya know, if we don't do something about it during this decade. This is our time to make it happen, and if we don't, we have no one to blame but ourselves.
It's time to remember what it was like to have principles.
all used in the same paragraph. My butt cheeks are so firmly clenched that I may be driving myself to the emergency room in order that my next bowel movement can conclude successfully. I would trust an attorney with my privacy about as readily as I'd trust a rattlesnake to perform oral sex on me.
Okay, I'm at least moderately cynical and possibly more than minimally paranoid. But when a major multinational corporation appoints an attorney to a position supposedly advocating and protecting consumer privacy, and issues a press release about it, I check my calendar. Yep, sher enuff, it's still the year 2000. I still don't believe anything that comes out of an attorney's mouth, and I don't believe in a corporation that cares about me except as another contributor to the revenue stream.
If IBM has news it's released as a white paper. If it's released as a press release, it's just propaganda. Perhaps as the opposite of Your Rights Online, slashdot should have a category for this kind of thing called "Yeah Rights Online".
Slashdot Mirror
If the only way we can retain our freedom and security is to allow them to be taken away, I don't mind. Heck, I like that kind of thinking, and am going right now to ask my wife to help me regain my virginity!
Only a tyrant needs control of the people's speech.
I have considered the matter at great length, and no, it's not inconvenient for me. What would be inconvenient would be sending email to the domain computer.biz and not knowing which computer.biz it would be delivered to. Does it go to the original owner of computer.biz, or to the owner of the stolen domain of the same name?
To my way of thinking, it should go to the rightful owner, the guy who's had that domain for a few years now. And if it's mailed from my domain, it will.
The inconvenience is for anyone ignorant or foolish enough to buy a Neulevel .biz TLD. They have no way to know that all of their mail will come to them, or that all of their HTML links will lead the user to their web site. That's a game I won't play, and have recommended to my clients that they either buy their .biz from both PacRoot and Neulevel, or don't buy it at all. And it galls me to suggest giving money to Neulevel.
The internet does not belong to ICANN, or to the government who appointed it. I pay my own way, as does everyone else -- the internet is built that way, as a cooperative. But ICANN wants dictatorial powers, rather than cooperation. I will never support that kind of behavior. Inconvenient? Perhaps. Proudly principled? Hell yes!
I Can Abandon ICANN, So Can You. Use the name servers of the Open Root Server Confederation.
Who could do it? That's easy! The Open Root Server Confederation, for one. Try googling inclusive namespace
As I said in a previous comment on a similar subject, I Cann Abandon ICANN, So Can You!
DSL is alive and well in those markets where it does not have to compete against digital cable. I live in Qwerst's region, but they don't offer DSL out here in the middle of nowhere -- so an ISP whose office is a couple hundred miles away sells DSL here.
Nine hops to the backbone... but still blows POTS away.
Follow your joy. Do the things that satisfy your soul, but don't let temporary feelings drive permanent decisions.
I'm doing this ("RBL like thing that is just for poisoned addresses") locally -- don't have the resources available to offer such a thing publicly, but have some ideas for a distributed system that would not only share the load (and therefor cost) but would make it difficult to attack because there would be no central node. If there were sufficient interest and enough talent to make it a viable project, I'd set up a mailing list and whatnot to assist the effort.
You interested? If so, email me by replacing slashdot with the user name asackett in the email address above.
It's called wpoison, and it's found at http://www.monkeys.com/wpoison/. The problem is that it's very easy to detect -- note the lack of punctuation marks, scarcity of two and three letter words, capital letters, verbs... and the fact that there's a four second pause in the same place, page after page... in short, it would be easy enough to spot a wpoison-generated page.
I've coded up an alternative that suffers none of those obvious defects, and instead of throwing out bogus email addresses, it throws out valid spamcatcher addresses. Any SMTP host who sends a message to one of those addresses is blocked (via DJB's rbldns) for a month from sending mail into my domain. The blocklist is self-maintaining, so I never need to mess with it.
It's been in place for about three months now, and my blocklist contains 125 entries right now -- five of which are netblocks I've manually added. The URL, sure to catch a bucketful of bad spiders thanks to this link, is http://www.artsackett.com/personnel/ and it is intentionally as slow as the rectification of sin.
No, it's not. The cert proves identity, not trustworthiness. The "trusted third party" acts as a trusted introducer, nothing more. He does not make any claims about the second party's honesty, integrity, or sexual prowess.
Most H-P tech support folks are temps. They query the database to return the appropriate packaged response, and email that back to you. Unless you use telephone support, in which case they read it back to you.
Maintainable yes...
Which is it? Write-only, or maintainable? My guess is maintainable, because I have never once heard one with a solid understanding of regular expressions state that perl is "write only".
If not, you should!
Who do you suppose is responsible for the problem, in the first place?
The reason you want _everybody_ to tell where their satellites are is of course that you don't want any accidents. Having a satellite 'hidden' by placing it in a secret orbit defeats that.
[sarcasm:] It's an outrage! That nations who develop satellite and launch vehicle technology cannot count on the reports filed with the UN, and instead have to also develop sophisticated Radio Detection And Ranging (RADAR) technology, is unconscionable!
Please share with us your knowledge, and explain how those reports can have any impact on collision avoidance. How would a nation, relying upon those reports, apparently without RADAR technology, know where the spent rocket bodies and other miscellaneous detritus from their launch operations ended up? After their satellite decays into scrap and falls apart, how will they inform the rest of us where the bits are floating?
Here in the US, our Air Force runs this outfit (whom I used to work for, picture of the radar here) to keep track of the bits and pieces floating around in space. I suggest that any nation who cannot use similar technology has no business throwing their garbage into space in the first place.
I have lost all hope of ever expecting that slashdot moderators will ever gain a little understanding of the technology of middle of the LAST CENTURY!
You may get 403'd several times, as the infected machines reach their limits after a while. Just keep poking at it, you'll get your directory listing. What you won't get, though, is privilege enough to shut down either IIS or the OS itself, format the drives, reboot the box, etc.
Some folks have taken to leaving graffiti in infected machines as they find them. It's awfully tempting...
I think I see a trend here: younger people seem more confident that they can multitask without penalty than older folks....
As one who has employed a lot of those multitasking youngsters, I am convinced that they're just delusional. Four half-assed jobs are not equal to two well-done jobs, or even one. Fifteen or 20 years ago, we were equally as delusional, and our mentors were just as aware of it. So, I don't hold it against the youngsters until they start telling me how pathetically stupid I am.
but now that I'm 41 (and feeling younger than before--I'll bet you're familiar with the phenomenon)I don't feel younger, really, but self-directed, self-sufficient, unburdened, and independent. I don't call it younger because I never felt as good as I do now when I was younger. But I think you probably know what I mean...
I think you're right.
Us old guys gotta stick together! :-)
To hell with the gray, I've been growing it back for about 10 months.
Be careful, man, next thing ya know, you'll be listening to bluegrass music and not caring who knows it! Myself, I started growing my hair out in earnest about six years ago -- it's now kept just above my waist, and I am entertained by the looks I get from people.
I've heard that before, and always from those who only see a a lip balm-encrusted middle manager's ass when they look up from the bottom rung of the ladder. Here's the brief explanation for you:
If you believe that mediocrity is something one should aspire to, go for it. Me, I'm not updating my resume any time soon.
One new age, diversity celebrating, politically correct company chick asked me, from her list of prepared questions, "Do you believe you multitask well?" So, I asked her, "Can you define multitask, so I can be sure I'm answering the question you want answered?"
"Doing more than one job at a time", she replied, "like debugging one minute, explaining an important process change to a coworker the next, and then going back to debugging." I thought on this for a moment, wondering if it was a trick question, an honest question, or perhaps an honest question that through the acts of self deception and corporate mind-fucking had become a trick question. So I figured I'd just be honest, and let the chips fall where they may. "No, I do not believe that I multitask well in environments such as this, and in fact I do not believe that anyone multitasks well in an environment such as this. When I worked at Burger King, as a teenager, I could make fries and fill drinks at the same time, but those were not mentally challenging tasks."
"I happen to think that I multitask very well, and don't find that it's all that difficult", she said to me. And it was at that very moment that I realized that I was not meant to work in the corporate environment. Which is fortunate, because I did not get that job, and I'm still self-employed. The PC company chick? She proved that she multitasked well by volunteering for every function that would keep her in meetings, all day every day, and for avoiding work so skillfully, but being seen rushing past on her way from one conference room to the next, she was promoted and now runs the department.
My point? There is a fallacy floating around in corporate America, that in order to produce more output with less time and fewer resources, we must all fill many roles. Instead of focusing on doing one job very, very well, we are supposed to compensate for the fact that jobs have been eliminated, but their roles have not. So we are expected to "multitask" -- and the harder we're expected to swap, the lower the work output, the lower the quality of it. We are never allowed to operate at our full potential because we cannot achieve the mental state necessary to do Great Work. We find ourselves staring at the same problem for half the day, only to spot it within 20 minutes first thing the next morning, before our minds are cluttered up with corporate crap.
Productivity and quality will not improve no matter how many policy changes and process controls we are subjected to. What has to change is the production budget has to rise in direct proportion to shareholder dividend reductions. We are not going to cure anorexia by starving it to death!
Being self employed, I no longer have to deal with the down-sized company (or being down-sized out of a job) and can focus on my work as long as the telephone doesn't ring. It always seems to be that client with the hairiest project who calls right at that moment when the feeling of an inspiration forming is building... and I let my wife answer the call and take a message. Gotta love it.
Hmmm... If you connect to my box and request a file named foo.bar, and my box sends you a file named foo.bar, but it's not got the content that you expected, am I using your computer without your consent?
Film at eleven if the station is not hit by a power company mindfuck, er, uh, rolling blackout.
--
I wonder, if the man in Redmond went after the open source fvwm95 window manager as a violation of their exclusive rights to a look and feel, would the collective we jump up in their defense?
--
How d'ya s'pose TI managed to survive the latter half of the 1980's? Check out this guy's resume: http://www.jaeckle.com/attys/fitzgeraldthomas.asp -- "As part of the Texas Instruments licensing program that generated over one billion dollars in patent royalties, he was responsible for identifying and enforcing TI patents against unlicensed U.S. companies. This activity included identifying infringers, reverse engineering and analysis of infringing devices, and presentations of that analysis to potential licensees to encourage them to take a license."
I've been saying for the past three or four years that if we don't learn from the semiconductor industry, whose path we, the builders and users of the internet are following, we will end up with the same environment here, as well. Or, more succinctly, "Work toward your vision of tomorrow, or surely you will live in someone else's".
--
Us middle-aged folks are to blame, ya know, if we don't do something about it during this decade. This is our time to make it happen, and if we don't, we have no one to blame but ourselves.
It's time to remember what it was like to have principles.
--
- Multinational Corporation
- An attorney
- The word "Privacy"
all used in the same paragraph. My butt cheeks are so firmly clenched that I may be driving myself to the emergency room in order that my next bowel movement can conclude successfully. I would trust an attorney with my privacy about as readily as I'd trust a rattlesnake to perform oral sex on me.Okay, I'm at least moderately cynical and possibly more than minimally paranoid. But when a major multinational corporation appoints an attorney to a position supposedly advocating and protecting consumer privacy, and issues a press release about it, I check my calendar. Yep, sher enuff, it's still the year 2000. I still don't believe anything that comes out of an attorney's mouth, and I don't believe in a corporation that cares about me except as another contributor to the revenue stream.
If IBM has news it's released as a white paper. If it's released as a press release, it's just propaganda. Perhaps as the opposite of Your Rights Online, slashdot should have a category for this kind of thing called "Yeah Rights Online".
--