You just need to block access to port 1863, the entire subnet 64.4.13.0/24, and gateway.messenger.hotmail.com. It will then attempt to tunnel through port 80, so have your web proxy stop it there. This will stop the ability to authenticate, and works for us with Win98 and XP clients, haven't tried with other ones. Interestingly, the built in XP client was easier to stop, it was the Win98 version that took extra measures.
Well, it is providing an extremely valuable service, one desired by most of the phone using citizens of the country, for a reasonable price. This doesn't fit any use of "wasting" that I'm familiar with.
Two problems with that. One, what world is it where telemarketers cannot get your name and number if it is unlisted? That may be true in a few markets, but that usually just stops them from getting it from the cheap directory CD people. The other major problem is that you still have to waste the time, interrupt your activity, or have the kids wake up if you have to answer the phone to find out if it is a solicitor.
"Just hang up" may work in small markets, but when you get anywhere from 5-15 telemarketer calls each day, that is far too much wasted time and aggrivation to put up with if you have to answer and determine if each is a legitimate call or a marketer. If their entire business model is based around annoying people who do not want anything to do with them, they should not be surprised when the people fight back.
"I agree with you to a point, but I don't like the government mandating how that happens. The private sector should do that, and, in a large part, they are (ever heard of tele-zapper?)"
The problem is that, as in many of the other situations where "private industry will take care of it", it has not, and in fact has failed miserably in even making a tiny dent in the problem. The tele-zapper does not work with any modern telemarketing system. The only effect of private industry in this matter is to make me continually pay for new items to block the products they sell. Telco sells my number, charges me to make it unlisted, sells it a different way, charges me for caller ID, charges marketers for caller ID blocking, etc.
Yes, when given the choice between boycotts and laws, most of the time the US chooses laws. There is a reason for that, all the boycotts and appeals to ethics _do not work_ with near the reliability that the law does.
By this same logic, anti-stalking laws and restraining orders would also be illegitimate uses of governmental authority.
Also, this is not a silly law covering something that annoys certain individuals, this is a law covering something that annoys the _vast_ majority of the citizens of the United States. Hardly the same matter.
The problem is, this is a very subjective issue. Most of the people in my life consider telemarketing to be a very unwelcome intrusion, often disrupting their activities, and offering no positive benefit in response. I would be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't find these calls to reduce quality of life. A call from a friend might be nice, but calls from 10 of them may be annoying as well, but at least it has the potential to be something good. For most people, there is the negative effect of having to stop what you're doing to answer (if you have a home business or such, no, you can't just leave it or screen your calls) or maybe waking up the sleeping baby or some such, and no possibility at all of a positive effect. With both friend and telemarketer calls there is a disruption factor, but marketing calls don't offer the chance of something good or wanted in return. Bingo, reduction in quality of life that day, for no benefit whatsoever.
But hey, if you don't mind them, don't sign up on the list. It does default to opt-out, so no person will miss out on "valuable opportunities" without expressly requesting it.
The thing is, a lot of us have actually worked with SCO UnixWare and OpenServer, and can't imagine _anything_ that Linux would benefit from taking. SCO is not, and will never be, a serious contender in the Unix market, and does not offer any compelling advantages over their competitors, free or commercial. Most SCO shops that had the budget migrated to Linux as soon as it was viable, happy to be on a supported platform that actually had the potential to grow and develop into something better, not a has-been trying to ride on the coat tails of its very short lived superiority and legacy software tie-ins.
SCO could be right, and I could be the legitimate heir to the Scottish throne, and you can guess which one is more likely.
I have seen it used in other contexts, mainly apps written in (must hold back laughter...) Business Basic. Pretty much the same story, ancient software but some of the smaller companies using it won't upgrade until the current box spontaniously combusts.
Most of the vendors of the software (medical office management and warehouse management) dropped SCO to a tier two supported platform a couple of years ago. This means that SCO support is now $225/hour for these packages. On the other bright side, there is a great market for people who really know SCO OpenServer to migrate systems either to AIX or Linux, which are the 1st tier platforms they support. Of course, taking jobs working on SCO systems is not for those without mental health benefits...
"So, although I'm as eager to slam SCO as the next guy, I'm somewhat skeptical of this article's criticisms, seeing as they seem to be based entirely on SCO's website and product literature."
That's why his criticism is so mild. Some of us have actually had to support SCO systems, and I guarantee that those of us who have would have much less friendly things to say. Linux took over from SCO almost instantly, mainly because the companies pushing SCO as a affordable Unix (check out Sun and IBM prices back then, ouch!) were desperate for _anything_ better than SCO's offerings. That's also why very few here believe SCO's claims, I can't imagine _anything_ in SCO Unix or OpenServer that Linux could benefit from having.
I think you're right about management for the most part, though I think golfing buddy loyalty may offer them somewhat more protection than the average employee. The professional organizations will be able to succeed because they control things via leasing congresscritters. Both the bar and the AMA can basically have whatever job restrictions they endorse written into law as requirements, that is what makes them so powerful. It also allows them to create artificial scarcity to keep wages up for the groups they represent.
Illegal? Absolutely. Theft? Hardly. I can define one as the result of 2+2, but that doesn't make it true. If you do not deprive someone of the use of their property, it is not theft. A copy is neither taking, nor depriving the rightful owner of the use of said property. It is a violation of several federal laws, and hence illegal, but a rose by any other name is still a rose.
Ahh, and the magical upgrade fairy will pay for each and every user, worldwide, to license a new version of their zip software, as well as installing it for them? The wonderful thing about zip is that it has remained stable for ages, and is supported everywhere. Even if a few companies license it, others won't, and others still won't be able to get a version for their ancient platform. Zip will no longer be usable by everyone.
"Expect to see this trend expanding into traditionally safe jobs, like accountants, lawyers, managers, etc."
No, I don't expect to see this. Groups like lawyers and doctors have professional guilds (the bar and AMA) representing them, and making sure that licensing requirements and similar provisions rule out large scale importing of cheap labor. Management, well, why would they choose to outsource themselves? I expect to see management getting progressively larger bonuses due to short term savings on outsourcing, and cashing out their options before the company collapses.
The problem is how differently they treat mental labor. If a factory worker is displaced, their union or, in some industries new employer, will take care of training them for a new position. In "knowledge industries", you are responsible for spending large amounts, often of your own time and money, just to stay even, never mind what it would take to retrain for a completely different field. Most employers expect IT guys to be functional right out of the box, but won't pay for training to keep them there.
Unfortunately, the US is the one country where they cannot force SCO to prove their allegations or shut up. In a number of other countries they have already either been shut up or are in the process of having it done, due to their inability to prove their slanderous statements.
No, whether it has to do with distribution or enterprise adoption is what is irrelevant. The point is that all the people who trot out the utility of not having to worry about being sued when they buy from a large commercial vendor, as you pointed out in your post, are incorrect. You may be sued just as easily when you buy from reputable, large Microsoft as when you buy from Bob's Linux Emporium. Witness the offers some large vendors are now making of covering client's legal costs if they are sued in relation to a product purchased from the vendor. Whether they will stand buy those commitments is another matter entirely.
Except for the small detail that Microsoft customers have also been sued for distribution of software MS had told them they had clear license to redistribute. The backing of a big corporation does not make any practical difference, enough they can buy enough legislators to change the law mid-suit. It is kind of like the argument of "who will you sue" with open source, that ignores the question of how many successful lawsuits have been filed against MS for their flaws?
The backup right is also only specified in law for computer software. It is widely considered reasonable that you can make a backup copy of music under fair use, but that has not yet been established by the courts.
Then what about the contract the copyright holders made with the citizens of their country to place their work in the public domain after a limited time. If twisting of the law to help them is OK, then what is the problem if consumers twist back?
I have to agree for the most part. I really don't enjoy going to concerts either. The problem is that you try to link the artist getting payed and the current model. Dropping copyright is not the solution, and most agree with that. The answer is that almost any other payment/funding model will get more money to the artist than the current scheme the RIAA is backing. If you want diversity in music, look at how many artists could be funded at RIAA/substinance levels with a different model not sucking all the money out of the industry.
How delightfully naive, you think there is a meaningful link between you paying the music conglomerates and the artist getting paid? Most of them would make more on a street corner.
I think you are missing the point on attackers. The machines are stored somewhere, transported, set up, etc by people in a position to access the filesystem directly, and to monitor the machine/card interface. The people interested in voter fraud on a large enough scale to influence an election will have no trouble at all doing anything they wish to the hardware to find out how it works. Heck, they will probably just buy one to play with.
Slashdot Mirror
It could be because people don't worry, or it could be because people have given up on voting significantly changing anything.
You just need to block access to port 1863, the entire subnet 64.4.13.0/24, and gateway.messenger.hotmail.com. It will then attempt to tunnel through port 80, so have your web proxy stop it there. This will stop the ability to authenticate, and works for us with Win98 and XP clients, haven't tried with other ones. Interestingly, the built in XP client was easier to stop, it was the Win98 version that took extra measures.
Well, it is providing an extremely valuable service, one desired by most of the phone using citizens of the country, for a reasonable price. This doesn't fit any use of "wasting" that I'm familiar with.
Two problems with that. One, what world is it where telemarketers cannot get your name and number if it is unlisted? That may be true in a few markets, but that usually just stops them from getting it from the cheap directory CD people. The other major problem is that you still have to waste the time, interrupt your activity, or have the kids wake up if you have to answer the phone to find out if it is a solicitor.
"Just hang up" may work in small markets, but when you get anywhere from 5-15 telemarketer calls each day, that is far too much wasted time and aggrivation to put up with if you have to answer and determine if each is a legitimate call or a marketer. If their entire business model is based around annoying people who do not want anything to do with them, they should not be surprised when the people fight back.
Just a note, the costs of the list are paid for by the telemarketers, not tax funds, so it is not wasting its money.
"I agree with you to a point, but I don't like the government mandating how that happens. The private sector should do that, and, in a large part, they are (ever heard of tele-zapper?)"
The problem is that, as in many of the other situations where "private industry will take care of it", it has not, and in fact has failed miserably in even making a tiny dent in the problem. The tele-zapper does not work with any modern telemarketing system. The only effect of private industry in this matter is to make me continually pay for new items to block the products they sell. Telco sells my number, charges me to make it unlisted, sells it a different way, charges me for caller ID, charges marketers for caller ID blocking, etc.
Yes, when given the choice between boycotts and laws, most of the time the US chooses laws. There is a reason for that, all the boycotts and appeals to ethics _do not work_ with near the reliability that the law does.
By this same logic, anti-stalking laws and restraining orders would also be illegitimate uses of governmental authority.
Also, this is not a silly law covering something that annoys certain individuals, this is a law covering something that annoys the _vast_ majority of the citizens of the United States. Hardly the same matter.
The problem is, this is a very subjective issue. Most of the people in my life consider telemarketing to be a very unwelcome intrusion, often disrupting their activities, and offering no positive benefit in response. I would be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't find these calls to reduce quality of life. A call from a friend might be nice, but calls from 10 of them may be annoying as well, but at least it has the potential to be something good. For most people, there is the negative effect of having to stop what you're doing to answer (if you have a home business or such, no, you can't just leave it or screen your calls) or maybe waking up the sleeping baby or some such, and no possibility at all of a positive effect. With both friend and telemarketer calls there is a disruption factor, but marketing calls don't offer the chance of something good or wanted in return. Bingo, reduction in quality of life that day, for no benefit whatsoever.
But hey, if you don't mind them, don't sign up on the list. It does default to opt-out, so no person will miss out on "valuable opportunities" without expressly requesting it.
Wow...you're definately not the only one. Looks, attitude...maybe Darl is trying to make up for his failed film career?
The thing is, a lot of us have actually worked with SCO UnixWare and OpenServer, and can't imagine _anything_ that Linux would benefit from taking. SCO is not, and will never be, a serious contender in the Unix market, and does not offer any compelling advantages over their competitors, free or commercial. Most SCO shops that had the budget migrated to Linux as soon as it was viable, happy to be on a supported platform that actually had the potential to grow and develop into something better, not a has-been trying to ride on the coat tails of its very short lived superiority and legacy software tie-ins.
SCO could be right, and I could be the legitimate heir to the Scottish throne, and you can guess which one is more likely.
I have seen it used in other contexts, mainly apps written in (must hold back laughter...) Business Basic. Pretty much the same story, ancient software but some of the smaller companies using it won't upgrade until the current box spontaniously combusts.
Most of the vendors of the software (medical office management and warehouse management) dropped SCO to a tier two supported platform a couple of years ago. This means that SCO support is now $225/hour for these packages. On the other bright side, there is a great market for people who really know SCO OpenServer to migrate systems either to AIX or Linux, which are the 1st tier platforms they support. Of course, taking jobs working on SCO systems is not for those without mental health benefits...
"So, although I'm as eager to slam SCO as the next guy, I'm somewhat skeptical of this article's criticisms, seeing as they seem to be based entirely on SCO's website and product literature."
That's why his criticism is so mild. Some of us have actually had to support SCO systems, and I guarantee that those of us who have would have much less friendly things to say. Linux took over from SCO almost instantly, mainly because the companies pushing SCO as a affordable Unix (check out Sun and IBM prices back then, ouch!) were desperate for _anything_ better than SCO's offerings. That's also why very few here believe SCO's claims, I can't imagine _anything_ in SCO Unix or OpenServer that Linux could benefit from having.
I think you're right about management for the most part, though I think golfing buddy loyalty may offer them somewhat more protection than the average employee. The professional organizations will be able to succeed because they control things via leasing congresscritters. Both the bar and the AMA can basically have whatever job restrictions they endorse written into law as requirements, that is what makes them so powerful. It also allows them to create artificial scarcity to keep wages up for the groups they represent.
Illegal? Absolutely. Theft? Hardly. I can define one as the result of 2+2, but that doesn't make it true. If you do not deprive someone of the use of their property, it is not theft. A copy is neither taking, nor depriving the rightful owner of the use of said property. It is a violation of several federal laws, and hence illegal, but a rose by any other name is still a rose.
Ahh, and the magical upgrade fairy will pay for each and every user, worldwide, to license a new version of their zip software, as well as installing it for them? The wonderful thing about zip is that it has remained stable for ages, and is supported everywhere. Even if a few companies license it, others won't, and others still won't be able to get a version for their ancient platform. Zip will no longer be usable by everyone.
"Expect to see this trend expanding into traditionally safe jobs, like accountants, lawyers, managers, etc."
No, I don't expect to see this. Groups like lawyers and doctors have professional guilds (the bar and AMA) representing them, and making sure that licensing requirements and similar provisions rule out large scale importing of cheap labor. Management, well, why would they choose to outsource themselves? I expect to see management getting progressively larger bonuses due to short term savings on outsourcing, and cashing out their options before the company collapses.
The problem is how differently they treat mental labor. If a factory worker is displaced, their union or, in some industries new employer, will take care of training them for a new position. In "knowledge industries", you are responsible for spending large amounts, often of your own time and money, just to stay even, never mind what it would take to retrain for a completely different field. Most employers expect IT guys to be functional right out of the box, but won't pay for training to keep them there.
Unfortunately, the US is the one country where they cannot force SCO to prove their allegations or shut up. In a number of other countries they have already either been shut up or are in the process of having it done, due to their inability to prove their slanderous statements.
No, whether it has to do with distribution or enterprise adoption is what is irrelevant. The point is that all the people who trot out the utility of not having to worry about being sued when they buy from a large commercial vendor, as you pointed out in your post, are incorrect. You may be sued just as easily when you buy from reputable, large Microsoft as when you buy from Bob's Linux Emporium. Witness the offers some large vendors are now making of covering client's legal costs if they are sued in relation to a product purchased from the vendor. Whether they will stand buy those commitments is another matter entirely.
Except for the small detail that Microsoft customers have also been sued for distribution of software MS had told them they had clear license to redistribute. The backing of a big corporation does not make any practical difference, enough they can buy enough legislators to change the law mid-suit. It is kind of like the argument of "who will you sue" with open source, that ignores the question of how many successful lawsuits have been filed against MS for their flaws?
The backup right is also only specified in law for computer software. It is widely considered reasonable that you can make a backup copy of music under fair use, but that has not yet been established by the courts.
Then what about the contract the copyright holders made with the citizens of their country to place their work in the public domain after a limited time. If twisting of the law to help them is OK, then what is the problem if consumers twist back?
I have to agree for the most part. I really don't enjoy going to concerts either. The problem is that you try to link the artist getting payed and the current model. Dropping copyright is not the solution, and most agree with that. The answer is that almost any other payment/funding model will get more money to the artist than the current scheme the RIAA is backing. If you want diversity in music, look at how many artists could be funded at RIAA/substinance levels with a different model not sucking all the money out of the industry.
How delightfully naive, you think there is a meaningful link between you paying the music conglomerates and the artist getting paid? Most of them would make more on a street corner.
I think you are missing the point on attackers. The machines are stored somewhere, transported, set up, etc by people in a position to access the filesystem directly, and to monitor the machine/card interface. The people interested in voter fraud on a large enough scale to influence an election will have no trouble at all doing anything they wish to the hardware to find out how it works. Heck, they will probably just buy one to play with.