You're right, I wasn't thinking, and using HTTP and HTML interchangeably. [Grins red-faced]
But, you're running software in basically an RPC here aren't you?
Thus, you must trust the underlying software, such as.NET or ActiveX etc. If the security model of the underlying software that's being called (RPC) isn't really good, you've got all sorts of problems.
What you're saying is that the apps ON TOP of.NET don't have to be secure, as.NET is SUPPOSEDLY secure.
My point, is that HTTP is not a command language (RPC). The move to embed a new middleware with full hooks into the OS, and have it accept RPC calls really have some dangers. If you believe that MS has vetted.NET well, then you shouldn't be worried. If you never know what MS will do, like myself, you should be worried.
In basic, the original intent behind HTML was great. There were'nt all sort of ill concieved extensions to HTML to do RPC style calls, and the security model was easy to handle. Once the HTML code was extended and integrated into the OS (Windows) the ability of badly designed HTML documents to circumvent the sandbox and touch the OS became much a greater threat.
Jack, Herr Ashcroft and Lady Liberty (who we're whoring out to the highest bidder) told me so.
Just be a good consumer and bend over please. Oh, you're not a US citizen? Well, we're the land of freedom and honor - um...well at least for our citizens. If you're one of those EVIL forigners, we don't have any obligation to treat you "right."
True, and this raises lots of questions about the model MS proposes.
The beauty of a Client Server app is that the server can't dictate how the client "renders" the returned data.
Basically, HTTP isn't capable of doing all these nasties, but we want more and more bells and whistles, and extend HTTP to support more Client RPC style commands. This extends the client to a more peer-to-peer model, and then relies almost entirely on the RPC application to play defense.
It appears that SOAP and.NET move entirely to a client application style security model. The problem is that securing applications is very difficult. Securing large applications is (ultra difficult)^2 or 3 or 4. Since I don't trust many people to secure their apps and MS even less, this type of security model sucks.
We wouldn't have the IE and Outlook bugs, if MS hadn't basically extended the HTTP protocol to initiate actions on the client machine. The browser (HTTP renderer) should be independant to render any HTTP page as needed. A specific hack to support actions on the client is scary. (Don't get me wrong, lots of people have been guilty of extending the HTTP stuff, but MS seems the most guilty.) Finally, integrating the browser into the OS really blurs the line, and makes additional security a real nightmare.
That's the difference between proxy and packet filtering. The proxy "knows" enough about the application layer not to allow a non HTTP connection such as DNS or other stuff. Obviously, this will depend on the sophistication of the proxy, but a good proxy will understand a great deal about the session and application layers.
If security is really important, everything will pass through a proxy that really understands what's passing, and only pass what's appropriate. Plus, it will do user based authenticaion, and prevent non-priviledged users (inside or outside)from accessing services they don't need or shouldn't use. That's much more granular. Packet filtering in comparison is rock and flint compared to flame thrower.
Go read the best books on internet security.
Firewalls and Internet Security William R. Cheswick & Steven M. Bellovin Addison-Wesley and
Building Internet Firewalls Chapman & Zwicky O'Reilly
Basically, the premise is that you only need to really harden the gateway (firewall). Trying to harden every target in the net is an unreachable goal. You'll always fail, because the people in the org will do stupid things with their machines that you can't stop. Thus, harden the ingress and egress points to control access, and you have a workable strategy.
Yeah, let me run and open every port to every caller! I guess I was completely crazy to close off all those ports and limit connections for any and every service...
[Sheesh] Security and Convience will ALWAYS play off against each other. If you have locks on your house, you're not really getting the full benefit of a house!? Sure, locks make life more "inconvenient." But you trade some convenience for security. I close off all those ports because I don't know what might be used to exploit the openings.
Now, we'll get to arguing about packet filtering vs. proxy filtering and how proxies are better...blah blah blah.
In short, I want a BALANCE of convenience and security. Blocking some content (ports/hosts) is a way to do that. That's a good thing in a system that's setup right. Does your company let anyone into the building that wants to get in, and only disallow those that it activly sees doing mischief? No (at least for your sake I hope) they don't. They say, do you have some purpose here? Are you explicitly allowed. Then you get in.
Frankly you can argue about NAT and unblocked connections all you want. What my clients want is functionality. The functionality of the network is compromised by too open a security (too much functionality) of the internet. They want the machines to work, the data to get processed, and to spend as little money as possible fighting battles. The solution is only to open that which needs to be open to acomplish the business objectives.
How about a "test" for actually receiving funds in said account or method for any spam?
If you havn't received any spam funds, it shouldn't be too hard to prove, and thus would exempt you from the judgement.
There are some difficulties, but I do think, that in most cases, the link from spam to advertising to actual revenue should be fairly easy to prove or disprove.
Lets try this on for size...
Take your example from above. I get sued. I provide documentation showing the court (not the plaintiff) that revenue in my account is from other transactions unrelated to spam. (This keeps my privacy intact, as the hostile plaintiff doesn't get this material) The plaintiff then has to go another step to prove I'm the spammer. They would be left to subpoena the Korean relay.
Could this work? How about some refinement... It does presume some level of guilt until proven innocent, but this is civil not criminal, so that could work at least in a constitutional sense.
Someone with more knowledge of banking laws could tell you more, but I believe that most companies operating here in the US - i.e. doing business probably have a bank account here to bring funds into, then the funds are swept to the home country account... No?
but in terms of absolute dollars, cutting taxes ends up in higher revenues.
So, does that mean that if this were really true, you would then complain about the massive revenues the government was collecting as the effective tax rate approached zero, and when we actually cut it to zero, we'd have infinite revenues to spend?!
What crap you spew. If this was true, why wouldn't government just tax rates really really low? Like zero, because As any half-competent economics professor can tell you, cutting taxes results in an increase in tax revenues
[Sheesh!]
And just to continue this pipe dream (like crack pipe dream) would you pipe down when government did cut taxes and got "more tax revenue"? No, you would go even more ape than you are now. I'd bet the froth from your mouth would be astounding. So, if I were government, I'd plan to ignore you. Just like I'm going to do now.
Never try to teach a pig to sing... It wastes your time, and it annoys the pig.
As any half-competent economics professor can tell you, cutting taxes results in an increase in tax revenues
Uhhhh...lets see, a zero percent tax rate will generate uhhh, lets see...hmmm Oh that would be NO TAX REVENUE
How about Keynes? I don't think we would blindly follow your assertion. Sure, at a 90% rate, it might actually work that way. At the rates they currently are now, who knows. But your assertion is just plain stupid. You (and obviously your economics profs - if you had any) are candidates for the short bus.
Frankly, I think GW looks and acts stupid. But that's not why I dislike him. I think he's as sucky a president as any of the last three we've had. But I would have to admit that attacking such a stupid chimp is very hard to resist. I try to restrain myself. [Grin]
Does anyone know the requlations regarding sending pornographic materials via the US Postal Service?
Yes, I'd like to know...
But, I think it would be very NEWSWORTHY for me to get "prosecuted" for sending porn in the mail to my representatives, when government refuses to do anything against the spammer and the beneficiary of the spam for sending it to me in th first place.
Plus, I think they would have a difficult time making it stick, as it would be the most protected speech. Speech to a representative for political discourse... (Or am I full of it?)
I would really hate the time spent fighting it, and the expense, but I could really raise the roof if I was able to get it in the press.
This is rather a cool idea. I might just "push the envelope" to see what a stink I can raise!
How's that going to help if the porn sites are in China? Passing a law won't change it,
No... I want to attack the MONEY trail. I don't propse attacking the spammer - but the beneficiary of the spam. They're the ones with money, that passes through your country. If you accept credit-cards from banks here in the US, you have to have a way to get that money home. I believe that you'll probably have to have a bank here. If you maintain a presence here for any length of time, I'll be able to get to your bank account.
And what the heck, if we can all support [yeah right] WIPO, how about some added provisions for SPAM!?
I understand the grief about the US putting their rules on the rest of the world - I agree mostly. But I'm just trying to attack the profits from spam, and only involving the money trail while here in the US.
I'd do exactly that, except they won't even see it. If I could obtain the personal email addresses of all my congressmen and senators, I'd do it in a heartbeat!
I'm thinking of faxing it every couple of days. No doubt that a full page porno pic (preferably with faked besitality or homoerotica) sitting in your fax tray every AM would really bring some attention to the matter.
But I think full color pictures might have more effect. So I'm in a quandry - fax or mail...or both?!
Anyway, does anyone have a personal email list of most/all congress or senators? I need some spam targets! [Evil Grin]
That's how I feel too. It (spam) is just so scummy. I can handle blantant commercialism, even though I find it distasteful, but the spams I get make me want to take a shower, and then park a Ryder truck outside their "business"
Most spam is just total hucksterism, and doesn't have any place, even as commercial speach.
I've come to the realization that the solution to spam is political/legislative.
I use SpamAssassin and it blocks virtually all spam, but that doesn't really solve the problem. Most users can't use spam assassin, or other good spam blocking system. Spamcop is good too, but that's now $3/month. Why should I be forced to pay to haul the spam, and $3/month not to see it?
The solution as I see it is this. We need legislation that allows for damages from the beneficiary of the spam. Almost all of the spam I get comes from SMTP servers in China and Eastern Europe. Good luck getting these people shutdown. Or, it comes from an open relay. Again, it's useless to attack the unwitting/stupid party, although it might have some effect here. But the spam beneficiary almost certainly has a bank account in your country, or some bank funds transfer mechanism. If they want to do lots of business with the US or other countries, there's going to be somefinancial presence there. So, we now have money...just tap into that money, by making the beneficiary of spam a civil tort, and spam just gets more expensive to promote.
When the demand for spam drops, because it's too expensive, then the demand for the out of country spam services drops, and eventually, most spam stops.
There would need to be some way to keep companies from being "set-up" as spam beneficiaries, but I think that shouldn't be too hard of a problem to solve. (Who's going to pay a spammer to "set-up" someone else, when the risk could be quite high if you get caught?)
Anyway, I'm starting to print out the most scummy spams, Porn etc (Esp pictures) and I'm going to mail them to my Congressmen and Senators. I don't know that they care, but I can pretty much guarantee they're going to get sick of getting such sicko stuff in the mail. Perhaps they'll actually do something. I've even pondered sending it all to every congressman and every senator, but that's a bit costly!
Lets make one thing clear, having some else richer than me, doesn't make me poorer. Fairness is about equal oppertunaties not equal actuallities.
But massive dis-equalities in capital (wealth) equals massive dis-equities in opportunity. I didn't promote a "free ticket" to the poor, I advocated meeting the immediate needs of the poor. In fact, the initial thread started because I advocated taking a bit of the revenue generated from a hypothetical GPS toll type system, and promoting and subsidizing a mass transit system. That doesn't seem like a "free ticket" to me at all. In fact, a rider pass won't pay my rent, or buy groceries or a car or a home or much at all.
Read the thread, get some smarts and get some compassion. [Sheesh!]
What about Regan wasn't he EVIL? Sure seems like it to me.
What about Nixon - wasn't he evil too?
Evil isn't communism or socialism or capitalism or democracy. It's the actions of these people. Capitalism breeds it's own evil. So does communism and socialism.
Again, I challange you. How is a system fair and free when 80%+ of the SU wealth is held by less than 10% of the population? How it that right. How can you defend the holders of that wealth who obviously are not doing their part to help those less fortunate? Government may not be the answer, but then what will make a difference?
Obviously most of the wealthy in America don't agree. When more than 80% of the wealth of a country is held by 10% of the population, you know that "it starts at home" just plain isn't working.
Sure, having us do charitable acts ourselves would be the best bet. But when it doesn't happen, the government has to take up the slack.
It's kind of like accountants. They want to be self regulating. That's all fine and good if it's actually done. When it isn't, someone has to "make" the accountants "accountable" to someone.
My skills are mine alone. I learned them through hard work. I owe nothing to any one else. No one was there helping me stay up until 3am read books.
Again, you're a young man, at least in your personal growth - and no, that's not an attack. You owe lots of people...your parents. How about the government who subsidized the college/high-school/grade-school you went to - surely you don't believe that you alone covered the costs? How about the government who subsidized the roads you drive/rode on? How about your neighbors who tried to treat you and your family right? How about those of us around you that have and will defend your rights of freedom? How about the economic head-start your country has provided. There are so many people you and I owe, that I could go on forever. We're a society, and when societies start to think only of themselves, they break down.
Frankly, Marx is/was right, he just envisions a system that doesn't work here. (Oh, by the way, communism/socialism wasn't even tried here in any real way. What was "communism" wasn't even a pure communism expierement. It was a serf/master system, where greed wasn't the primary motivator. A system where freedom didn't exist. If that's supposed to "prove" that communism doesn't work, it was flawed - though I would speculate a perfect expierement wouldn't work either. It just bugs me to see people claim the soviets and chineese tried communism "right" and failed. They tried master/serf systems with a touch of communism.)
A system that is loosly based on greed seems to work best here on this earth. That doesn't mean it's the most honerable and best system. It's probably the best here, but I frankly aspire to more...
Sure, some poor people make lots of mistakes, but not all.
An individual who as been blessed with lots of resources does have a responsibility to take care of those who are less fortunate. The ideal way to do this, would be for you to take time and do it yourself. But in a socieity where this doesn't happen, the government can try to do it for you. It doesn't do nearly as good a job, but at least someone is trying.
You want the government to put a gun to my head and take money from ME that I worked hard to earn, and give it to a poor person so that they can ride mass transit?
You seem to think that your accomplishments are yours alone? Sure, I'm sure you worked hard and all, but that alone is rarely enough to put you at the top. I know that I'm where I am because of my parents, and their training and help. I'm who I am because of the beliefs I have been taught, and the social training I received.
Contacts, social skills, social awareness - these are skills that are EXTREMELY valuable, and can't really be learned outside of childhood. If you don't get these skills and resources, it's really difficult to "make it" big.
I hope that you'll mellow as you age. I also hope that you'll learn to be more compassionate. You DO have a responsibilty to those around you - so do I. Take that responsibilty seriously. Finally, I hope that you soon realize that when you get into a hole, it's really hard to get out. When you help those who have fallen, it makes YOU a better person, regardless of what it does for those you help.
Cheer up! Sure, life's not always fair, for you or the less fortunate. But you can make a difference, both in your life and in others.
How about just scrapping a SINGLE cruise missle, and comping me the funds. [Grin]
Frankly, when I see the cries of "Build up the military" from mostly the right, I hear..."Oh, I need some big perks for my friends in the defense industry. How can I send them some real big bucks? Oh, how about ~$1000 toilet seats?" etc.
I dunno, but I think the US would be a whole lot better off without any miltary at all. We learn to treat others kindly, rather than acting like a bully, because we couldn't just whack em' eith the millitary. (I know, there are lots of whackos that would attack us regardless of what we did to them, but we do create the bed we lie in often. Think Iran...who pissed them off so bad? US! (Pun intended) We supported and trained the Shaw who abused his people at our behest. They got sick of it, and threw him out, and looked around to find the keeper of the pitbull. It was the US, and then they came after us.)
A steady decline in the military would give us time to patch up "the bad things we done" and mend relations. It would cost us a whole lot less, and we could tax-rebate or pay back our debts.
It's a hard situation. We've created a real monster. The falls of almost every other world power in the past has been because of the military. (Bad wars, huge costs, etc) I hope we're smart enough to lean from history.
The right approach, would be to really beef up public transport, and possibly subsidize (in some cases at 100%) the fares of poor riders.
Sure, public transport isn't perfect, but it can be pretty good, even in US cities. (I'm from Portland OR by the way...)
Too many US Cities suffer from massive sprawl - think LA. This makes building adequate roads very difficult, because ot the huge costs and great travel lengths. Next, it also makes building a good mass transit system a real bitch and expensive too.
Finally, I don't think we're ever going to build enough roads to keep congestion down. (LA and Seattle sure haven't, what makes any other city think they can...) What people do understand is money. If it costs more, and you actually see it, you'll probably look for ways to save those costs. That would help spark change in behavior - and that's the crux. Pollution and congestion aren't caused by someone else - you and I do it. To fix it, you and I need to change...
I haven't given this time to percolate, but a comprehensive plan to charge and cause users of roads accordingly would be great. Tying this to actual emissions would be an even better thing. Thus, you might travel lots, but if you have a very clean emission vehicle, you're charges would be much less. Gas taxes only solve some of the problem. They don't take into account emmissions, as the same volume of fuel can produce lots or little emmissions. Also, the congestion thing - force a "market" economy! Heh, all those right-wingers are probably turning over in their graves now huh! [Grin] Supply and demand. Lots of supply and low demand (few cars on big roads) means low price. Lots of demand and low supply (Rush hours) means a high price. These things if allowed to work, might actually effect business. Workers might "tele-commute" more, or demand higher wages for employers in "expensive" locations/hours. That in turn might cause employers to move from massive down-town centers, to more localized live/work/shop communities.
This is an interesting idea, I'll have to ponder it more!
You're not going to respond either huh? I won't waste more time, except to say, how about some proof.
Min wage = lost jobs? Prove it!
Regulation kept Standard Oil from beefing the public. Same with IBM. Same with AT&T. You wouldn't have $0.045/min long distance without the breakup of AT&T.
Regulation makes your house safe. Inspections etc. Sure, regulation can be a pain, and sometimes it's unneccessasary. Regulation makes your car safer too, though the auto makers try their dardnest to make such regs toothless.
Regulation makes your water clean, and safe.
My economics course didn't teach anything about regulation. Regulation isn't tied to economics.
Oh, how about Regulation done by the central bank i.e. The Fed? That's bad huh? How about regulation that keeps the publicly traded companies from producing fraudulent financial statements (save for Enron et al.)
You're FULL OF COW CRAP! Regulation can be both good and bad. It depends on the regulation. The main purpose of regulation is to prevent the exploitation of others by a market that isn't transparent. If all information was perfect, and all markets responded prefectly, we would need much less regulation. But markets are NOT transparent, and they don't respond in perfect ways, thus we get regulation.
Frankly, I hate AC's like this. You're gutless, and clueless. Post as a real person and defend your position.
That might help, though I think that the REAL death penalty should also apply to the executives and board of directors.
I don't think that the risk to investors is enough to actually result in change. A shell corporation doesn't have much in the way of assets and investment, and any that does occur, can be returned in profits and divs quickly. Then the risk is gone.
Personally, though I used to _like_ the provisions in a corporation that protect the executives from liability for the acts of the corporation, I now wish we could change this.
The CEO, other executives and BOD (Board of Directors) _ARE_ responsible for the actions of the company. That's why they get paid the big bucks. That's why they get fired when things go wrong. And that's why they should be civially and criminally responsible for the acts of the corps that they run.
You hear Ken Lay say - I need a big salary, and stock options because I am responsible for this company, and I am directing it in these profitable times in essence - I am the main man responsible for the "good times" TM.
But, when things go wrong...the story changes. Oh, I'm just the stooge running things - don't ask me, I only work here. I shouldn't be held responsible, they did it behind my back etc.
Sheesh, either you're responsoble, or you're not. If not, then give back all your pay. If you are, then quit whining, and become Bubba's slave in your nearby max-security prison.
This is the court system, but I think we're just moving one step further to a Serf/Master system.
We're becoming the Serf's, and Ultra Large Corps are becoming the masters.
Government isn't interested in even seeming to keep such entities in check.
We have an executive and legislative branch that is only truly responsive to large monied interests. These branches both work to stack the courts with stooges that follow the party line as much as possible.
The manipulation of our Courts really began in earnest in the Regan administration, though I'm sure it happened to a lesser degree earlier. But Regan made it a public point to try to shape the legal system in it's image, rather than just appointing those who were strong mental thinkers, without requiring a specific "position.
I've ranted before about the horrible state of our government, but I'll keep doing so. (For those who will immediately say "Well go live in Cuba" - I say - Piss OFF! I know that we probably have the best system around (although Canada is looking more and more attractive - taxes regardless) but having the best system around doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to improve it.) One key approach in putting the brakes on our system is a control of power/money.
It seems that huge corporate interests are a key part of the problem. The campaign finance reform issues revolve around huge "investments" (so-called campaign contributions) to both the executive and legislative branches of government. What might help stem the problem is a smaller corporate system. Smaller corps means less power and money pooled in a single hand.
Look at the DMCA... We have a monied interest on one hand, and virtually no money-making interests on the other hand. Tell me, how are we going to defeat this? Consumers can't really effectively fight such legislation. And these trends just continue. The end result is a killing fields/scorched earch style environment. If you aren't represented by a massive corp with lots of money and financial gain, you're just screwed. We may eventually beat the DMCA, but the interests will just continue to assult the law until they get what they want. Sure we may win the battle, but eventually we loose the war.
Next, look at corp entities. (Lets take the defunct Value-Jet) They, as far as I can tell, intentially voliated rules that resulted in the death of 110 people. If you or I had done these things, we'd be charged with murder, and get a long prison term or the death penalty. If you're a corp, you say "Oops. Oh, by the way, we're bankrupt too - sorry." The CEO, executives and board members took home huge salaries, and all them walk away at the end of the day. If they aren't responsible for the acts of the corp, who is? What were they paid the high salary for then?
Basically, corps have "person" status - free speech and almost every other right a "person" has, but no limited limetime, and really no real threat of criminal prosecution. Sure, they will forfit all assets, but that's not a real threat. Esp. if the corp is setup right, as a shell corp., the available assets are very minimal.
So, in base, if we limit the rights and powers of corporations, I think we would then restore some oxygen to the "individual." Less power to corps, and more power to individuals, means a more responsive gvmt, and thus a gvmt that regulates where it must to protect the individual.
In todays world, the individual has NO power. Legal threats (DMCA/Sony Game Boy/Mattel Web filter hack/DVD etc) are very effective, because most of us don't have anywhere near the resources to defend ourselves. Even if we did, is there a financial justification? It's WAY cheaper just to fold. But the financial justification for a huge corp is enormous(sp)!
This comment has gotten way too long, but in general, we need an equalization of powers. The action of the courts just tilts the balance even more toward the ultra large corp, even in the face of lax regulation by the FCC. The courts ruled that the FCC, even as lax as it was, was too stringent!?*&*^!~! This is just another example of the continuing spiral that the US Gvmt is in. I hope that we can successfully counter this, 'cause if we don't, it's going to be a very sad day!
How about if "Rape Pillage and Plunder" (TM Microsoft) were common business practices...They sure were 150 years ago? That makes it OK, right?
When you're declared a monopoloy, you're excluded from participating in acts/activites that decrease competition.
Since MS HAS been declared a monopolist (the appeals court didn't throw out the determination, only the remedy...) these companies only need to show that MS harmed them through anti-competitive acts.
The real killer is that under monopoly law, they damages for a plaintiff that prevails are TREBLE DAMAGES That means if Be shows 500M in damages, the court will award 1.5B in compensatory damages
Slashdot Mirror
You're right, I wasn't thinking, and using HTTP and HTML interchangeably. [Grins red-faced]
.NET or ActiveX etc. If the security model of the underlying software that's being called (RPC) isn't really good, you've got all sorts of problems.
.NET don't have to be secure, as .NET is SUPPOSEDLY secure.
.NET well, then you shouldn't be worried. If you never know what MS will do, like myself, you should be worried.
But, you're running software in basically an RPC here aren't you?
Thus, you must trust the underlying software, such as
What you're saying is that the apps ON TOP of
My point, is that HTTP is not a command language (RPC). The move to embed a new middleware with full hooks into the OS, and have it accept RPC calls really have some dangers. If you believe that MS has vetted
In basic, the original intent behind HTML was great. There were'nt all sort of ill concieved extensions to HTML to do RPC style calls, and the security model was easy to handle. Once the HTML code was extended and integrated into the OS (Windows) the ability of badly designed HTML documents to circumvent the sandbox and touch the OS became much a greater threat.
Am I off base here...?
Cheers!
Well of course we own the intenet!
Jack, Herr Ashcroft and Lady Liberty (who we're whoring out to the highest bidder) told me so.
Just be a good consumer and bend over please. Oh, you're not a US citizen? Well, we're the land of freedom and honor - um...well at least for our citizens. If you're one of those EVIL forigners, we don't have any obligation to treat you "right."
"Step aside please!" Next!
Cheers
True, and this raises lots of questions about the model MS proposes.
.NET move entirely to a client application style security model. The problem is that securing applications is very difficult. Securing large applications is (ultra difficult)^2 or 3 or 4. Since I don't trust many people to secure their apps and MS even less, this type of security model sucks.
The beauty of a Client Server app is that the server can't dictate how the client "renders" the returned data.
Basically, HTTP isn't capable of doing all these nasties, but we want more and more bells and whistles, and extend HTTP to support more Client RPC style commands. This extends the client to a more peer-to-peer model, and then relies almost entirely on the RPC application to play defense.
It appears that SOAP and
We wouldn't have the IE and Outlook bugs, if MS hadn't basically extended the HTTP protocol to initiate actions on the client machine. The browser (HTTP renderer) should be independant to render any HTTP page as needed. A specific hack to support actions on the client is scary. (Don't get me wrong, lots of people have been guilty of extending the HTTP stuff, but MS seems the most guilty.) Finally, integrating the browser into the OS really blurs the line, and makes additional security a real nightmare.
Cheers!
"PPP over DNS, anyone"
That's the difference between proxy and packet filtering. The proxy "knows" enough about the application layer not to allow a non HTTP connection such as DNS or other stuff. Obviously, this will depend on the sophistication of the proxy, but a good proxy will understand a great deal about the session and application layers.
If security is really important, everything will pass through a proxy that really understands what's passing, and only pass what's appropriate. Plus, it will do user based authenticaion, and prevent non-priviledged users (inside or outside)from accessing services they don't need or shouldn't use. That's much more granular. Packet filtering in comparison is rock and flint compared to flame thrower.
Go read the best books on internet security.
Firewalls and Internet Security
William R. Cheswick & Steven M. Bellovin
Addison-Wesley
and
Building Internet Firewalls
Chapman & Zwicky
O'Reilly
Basically, the premise is that you only need to really harden the gateway (firewall). Trying to harden every target in the net is an unreachable goal. You'll always fail, because the people in the org will do stupid things with their machines that you can't stop. Thus, harden the ingress and egress points to control access, and you have a workable strategy.
Cheers!
Yeah, let me run and open every port to every caller! I guess I was completely crazy to close off all those ports and limit connections for any and every service...
[Sheesh] Security and Convience will ALWAYS play off against each other. If you have locks on your house, you're not really getting the full benefit of a house!? Sure, locks make life more "inconvenient." But you trade some convenience for security. I close off all those ports because I don't know what might be used to exploit the openings.
Now, we'll get to arguing about packet filtering vs. proxy filtering and how proxies are better...blah blah blah.
In short, I want a BALANCE of convenience and security. Blocking some content (ports/hosts) is a way to do that. That's a good thing in a system that's setup right. Does your company let anyone into the building that wants to get in, and only disallow those that it activly sees doing mischief? No (at least for your sake I hope) they don't. They say, do you have some purpose here? Are you explicitly allowed. Then you get in.
Frankly you can argue about NAT and unblocked connections all you want. What my clients want is functionality. The functionality of the network is compromised by too open a security (too much functionality) of the internet. They want the machines to work, the data to get processed, and to spend as little money as possible fighting battles. The solution is only to open that which needs to be open to acomplish the business objectives.
Cheers!
How about a "test" for actually receiving funds in said account or method for any spam?
If you havn't received any spam funds, it shouldn't be too hard to prove, and thus would exempt you from the judgement.
There are some difficulties, but I do think, that in most cases, the link from spam to advertising to actual revenue should be fairly easy to prove or disprove.
Lets try this on for size...
Take your example from above. I get sued. I provide documentation showing the court (not the plaintiff) that revenue in my account is from other transactions unrelated to spam. (This keeps my privacy intact, as the hostile plaintiff doesn't get this material) The plaintiff then has to go another step to prove I'm the spammer. They would be left to subpoena the Korean relay.
Could this work? How about some refinement... It does presume some level of guilt until proven innocent, but this is civil not criminal, so that could work at least in a constitutional sense.
Someone with more knowledge of banking laws could tell you more, but I believe that most companies operating here in the US - i.e. doing business probably have a bank account here to bring funds into, then the funds are swept to the home country account... No?
Cheers!
Hey, lets take another run at this Einstein...
but in terms of absolute dollars, cutting taxes ends up in higher revenues.
So, does that mean that if this were really true, you would then complain about the massive revenues the government was collecting as the effective tax rate approached zero, and when we actually cut it to zero, we'd have infinite revenues to spend?!
What crap you spew. If this was true, why wouldn't government just tax rates really really low? Like zero, because As any half-competent economics professor can tell you, cutting taxes results in an increase in tax revenues
[Sheesh!]
And just to continue this pipe dream (like crack pipe dream) would you pipe down when government did cut taxes and got "more tax revenue"? No, you would go even more ape than you are now. I'd bet the froth from your mouth would be astounding. So, if I were government, I'd plan to ignore you. Just like I'm going to do now.
Never try to teach a pig to sing...
It wastes your time, and it annoys the pig.
Cheers!
As any half-competent economics professor can tell you, cutting taxes results in an increase in tax revenues
Uhhhh...lets see, a zero percent tax rate will generate uhhh, lets see...hmmm Oh that would be NO TAX REVENUE
How about Keynes? I don't think we would blindly follow your assertion. Sure, at a 90% rate, it might actually work that way. At the rates they currently are now, who knows. But your assertion is just plain stupid. You (and obviously your economics profs - if you had any) are candidates for the short bus.
Frankly, I think GW looks and acts stupid. But that's not why I dislike him. I think he's as sucky a president as any of the last three we've had. But I would have to admit that attacking such a stupid chimp is very hard to resist. I try to restrain myself. [Grin]
Cheers!
Does anyone know the requlations regarding sending pornographic materials via the US Postal Service?
Yes, I'd like to know...
But, I think it would be very NEWSWORTHY for me to get "prosecuted" for sending porn in the mail to my representatives, when government refuses to do anything against the spammer and the beneficiary of the spam for sending it to me in th first place.
Plus, I think they would have a difficult time making it stick, as it would be the most protected speech. Speech to a representative for political discourse... (Or am I full of it?)
I would really hate the time spent fighting it, and the expense, but I could really raise the roof if I was able to get it in the press.
This is rather a cool idea. I might just "push the envelope" to see what a stink I can raise!
Any suggestions?
Cheers!
How's that going to help if the porn sites are in China? Passing a law won't change it,
No... I want to attack the MONEY trail. I don't propse attacking the spammer - but the beneficiary of the spam. They're the ones with money, that passes through your country. If you accept credit-cards from banks here in the US, you have to have a way to get that money home. I believe that you'll probably have to have a bank here. If you maintain a presence here for any length of time, I'll be able to get to your bank account.
And what the heck, if we can all support [yeah right] WIPO, how about some added provisions for SPAM!?
I understand the grief about the US putting their rules on the rest of the world - I agree mostly. But I'm just trying to attack the profits from spam, and only involving the money trail while here in the US.
Cheers!
I'd do exactly that, except they won't even see it. If I could obtain the personal email addresses of all my congressmen and senators, I'd do it in a heartbeat!
I'm thinking of faxing it every couple of days. No doubt that a full page porno pic (preferably with faked besitality or homoerotica) sitting in your fax tray every AM would really bring some attention to the matter.
But I think full color pictures might have more effect. So I'm in a quandry - fax or mail...or both?!
Anyway, does anyone have a personal email list of most/all congress or senators? I need some spam targets! [Evil Grin]
Cheers!
[Grin]
That's how I feel too. It (spam) is just so scummy. I can handle blantant commercialism, even though I find it distasteful, but the spams I get make me want to take a shower, and then park a Ryder truck outside their "business"
Most spam is just total hucksterism, and doesn't have any place, even as commercial speach.
Cheers!
I've come to the realization that the solution to spam is political/legislative.
I use SpamAssassin and it blocks virtually all spam, but that doesn't really solve the problem. Most users can't use spam assassin, or other good spam blocking system. Spamcop is good too, but that's now $3/month. Why should I be forced to pay to haul the spam, and $3/month not to see it?
The solution as I see it is this. We need legislation that allows for damages from the beneficiary of the spam. Almost all of the spam I get comes from SMTP servers in China and Eastern Europe. Good luck getting these people shutdown. Or, it comes from an open relay. Again, it's useless to attack the unwitting/stupid party, although it might have some effect here. But the spam beneficiary almost certainly has a bank account in your country, or some bank funds transfer mechanism. If they want to do lots of business with the US or other countries, there's going to be somefinancial presence there. So, we now have money...just tap into that money, by making the beneficiary of spam a civil tort, and spam just gets more expensive to promote.
When the demand for spam drops, because it's too expensive, then the demand for the out of country spam services drops, and eventually, most spam stops.
There would need to be some way to keep companies from being "set-up" as spam beneficiaries, but I think that shouldn't be too hard of a problem to solve. (Who's going to pay a spammer to "set-up" someone else, when the risk could be quite high if you get caught?)
Anyway, I'm starting to print out the most scummy spams, Porn etc (Esp pictures) and I'm going to mail them to my Congressmen and Senators. I don't know that they care, but I can pretty much guarantee they're going to get sick of getting such sicko stuff in the mail. Perhaps they'll actually do something. I've even pondered sending it all to every congressman and every senator, but that's a bit costly!
Well, do your damage...
Cheers!
Lets make one thing clear, having some else richer than me, doesn't make me poorer. Fairness is about equal oppertunaties not equal
actuallities.
But massive dis-equalities in capital (wealth) equals massive dis-equities in opportunity. I didn't promote a "free ticket" to the poor, I advocated meeting the immediate needs of the poor. In fact, the initial thread started because I advocated taking a bit of the revenue generated from a hypothetical GPS toll type system, and promoting and subsidizing a mass transit system. That doesn't seem like a "free ticket" to me at all. In fact, a rider pass won't pay my rent, or buy groceries or a car or a home or much at all.
Read the thread, get some smarts and get some compassion. [Sheesh!]
Cheers!
You've put up a "straw man" agument.
How about comparing Portland OR to Denver CO?
From what I know, I prefer Portland, but I'm biased. But comparing Mexico to any city in the US is just plain stupid.
Next!
Cheers!
This isn't flamebait. Sure, you might not agree, but some good points non-the-less.
Thanks for the comment - I don't mod thus, no mod points, otherwise I'd give some.
Thanks!
I'll bite again.
What about Regan wasn't he EVIL? Sure seems like it to me.
What about Nixon - wasn't he evil too?
Evil isn't communism or socialism or capitalism or democracy. It's the actions of these people. Capitalism breeds it's own evil. So does communism and socialism.
Again, I challange you. How is a system fair and free when 80%+ of the SU wealth is held by less than 10% of the population? How it that right. How can you defend the holders of that wealth who obviously are not doing their part to help those less fortunate? Government may not be the answer, but then what will make a difference?
Cheers!
That's good that your charity starts at home.
Obviously most of the wealthy in America don't agree. When more than 80% of the wealth of a country is held by 10% of the population, you know that "it starts at home" just plain isn't working.
Sure, having us do charitable acts ourselves would be the best bet. But when it doesn't happen, the government has to take up the slack.
It's kind of like accountants. They want to be self regulating. That's all fine and good if it's actually done. When it isn't, someone has to "make" the accountants "accountable" to someone.
My skills are mine alone. I learned them through hard work. I owe nothing to any one else. No one was there helping me stay up until 3am read books.
Again, you're a young man, at least in your personal growth - and no, that's not an attack. You owe lots of people...your parents. How about the government who subsidized the college/high-school/grade-school you went to - surely you don't believe that you alone covered the costs? How about the government who subsidized the roads you drive/rode on? How about your neighbors who tried to treat you and your family right? How about those of us around you that have and will defend your rights of freedom? How about the economic head-start your country has provided. There are so many people you and I owe, that I could go on forever. We're a society, and when societies start to think only of themselves, they break down.
Frankly, Marx is/was right, he just envisions a system that doesn't work here. (Oh, by the way, communism/socialism wasn't even tried here in any real way. What was "communism" wasn't even a pure communism expierement. It was a serf/master system, where greed wasn't the primary motivator. A system where freedom didn't exist. If that's supposed to "prove" that communism doesn't work, it was flawed - though I would speculate a perfect expierement wouldn't work either. It just bugs me to see people claim the soviets and chineese tried communism "right" and failed. They tried master/serf systems with a touch of communism.)
A system that is loosly based on greed seems to work best here on this earth. That doesn't mean it's the most honerable and best system. It's probably the best here, but I frankly aspire to more...
Cheers!
The "Voice of a young man" speaks.
Sure, some poor people make lots of mistakes, but not all.
An individual who as been blessed with lots of resources does have a responsibility to take care of those who are less fortunate. The ideal way to do this, would be for you to take time and do it yourself. But in a socieity where this doesn't happen, the government can try to do it for you. It doesn't do nearly as good a job, but at least someone is trying.
You want the government to put a gun to my head and take money from ME that I worked hard to earn, and give it to a poor person so that they can ride mass transit?
You seem to think that your accomplishments are yours alone? Sure, I'm sure you worked hard and all, but that alone is rarely enough to put you at the top. I know that I'm where I am because of my parents, and their training and help. I'm who I am because of the beliefs I have been taught, and the social training I received.
Contacts, social skills, social awareness - these are skills that are EXTREMELY valuable, and can't really be learned outside of childhood. If you don't get these skills and resources, it's really difficult to "make it" big.
I hope that you'll mellow as you age. I also hope that you'll learn to be more compassionate. You DO have a responsibilty to those around you - so do I. Take that responsibilty seriously. Finally, I hope that you soon realize that when you get into a hole, it's really hard to get out. When you help those who have fallen, it makes YOU a better person, regardless of what it does for those you help.
Cheer up! Sure, life's not always fair, for you or the less fortunate. But you can make a difference, both in your life and in others.
Cheers!
How about just scrapping a SINGLE cruise missle, and comping me the funds. [Grin]
Frankly, when I see the cries of "Build up the military" from mostly the right, I hear..."Oh, I need some big perks for my friends in the defense industry. How can I send them some real big bucks? Oh, how about ~$1000 toilet seats?" etc.
I dunno, but I think the US would be a whole lot better off without any miltary at all. We learn to treat others kindly, rather than acting like a bully, because we couldn't just whack em' eith the millitary. (I know, there are lots of whackos that would attack us regardless of what we did to them, but we do create the bed we lie in often. Think Iran...who pissed them off so bad? US! (Pun intended) We supported and trained the Shaw who abused his people at our behest. They got sick of it, and threw him out, and looked around to find the keeper of the pitbull. It was the US, and then they came after us.)
A steady decline in the military would give us time to patch up "the bad things we done" and mend relations. It would cost us a whole lot less, and we could tax-rebate or pay back our debts.
It's a hard situation. We've created a real monster. The falls of almost every other world power in the past has been because of the military. (Bad wars, huge costs, etc) I hope we're smart enough to lean from history.
Cheers!
You're right, cars are horrible money pits.
The right approach, would be to really beef up public transport, and possibly subsidize (in some cases at 100%) the fares of poor riders.
Sure, public transport isn't perfect, but it can be pretty good, even in US cities. (I'm from Portland OR by the way...)
Too many US Cities suffer from massive sprawl - think LA. This makes building adequate roads very difficult, because ot the huge costs and great travel lengths. Next, it also makes building a good mass transit system a real bitch and expensive too.
Finally, I don't think we're ever going to build enough roads to keep congestion down. (LA and Seattle sure haven't, what makes any other city think they can...) What people do understand is money. If it costs more, and you actually see it, you'll probably look for ways to save those costs. That would help spark change in behavior - and that's the crux. Pollution and congestion aren't caused by someone else - you and I do it. To fix it, you and I need to change...
I haven't given this time to percolate, but a comprehensive plan to charge and cause users of roads accordingly would be great. Tying this to actual emissions would be an even better thing. Thus, you might travel lots, but if you have a very clean emission vehicle, you're charges would be much less. Gas taxes only solve some of the problem. They don't take into account emmissions, as the same volume of fuel can produce lots or little emmissions. Also, the congestion thing - force a "market" economy! Heh, all those right-wingers are probably turning over in their graves now huh! [Grin] Supply and demand. Lots of supply and low demand (few cars on big roads) means low price. Lots of demand and low supply (Rush hours) means a high price. These things if allowed to work, might actually effect business. Workers might "tele-commute" more, or demand higher wages for employers in "expensive" locations/hours. That in turn might cause employers to move from massive down-town centers, to more localized live/work/shop communities.
This is an interesting idea, I'll have to ponder it more!
Cheers!
Well, me AC. How about some statistics?
You're not going to respond either huh? I won't waste more time, except to say, how about some proof.
Min wage = lost jobs? Prove it!
Regulation kept Standard Oil from beefing the public. Same with IBM. Same with AT&T. You wouldn't have $0.045/min long distance without the breakup of AT&T.
Regulation makes your house safe. Inspections etc. Sure, regulation can be a pain, and sometimes it's unneccessasary. Regulation makes your car safer too, though the auto makers try their dardnest to make such regs toothless.
Regulation makes your water clean, and safe.
My economics course didn't teach anything about regulation. Regulation isn't tied to economics.
Oh, how about Regulation done by the central bank i.e. The Fed? That's bad huh? How about regulation that keeps the publicly traded companies from producing fraudulent financial statements (save for Enron et al.)
You're FULL OF COW CRAP! Regulation can be both good and bad. It depends on the regulation. The main purpose of regulation is to prevent the exploitation of others by a market that isn't transparent. If all information was perfect, and all markets responded prefectly, we would need much less regulation. But markets are NOT transparent, and they don't respond in perfect ways, thus we get regulation.
Frankly, I hate AC's like this. You're gutless, and clueless. Post as a real person and defend your position.
Cheers!
That might help, though I think that the REAL death penalty should also apply to the executives and board of directors.
I don't think that the risk to investors is enough to actually result in change. A shell corporation doesn't have much in the way of assets and investment, and any that does occur, can be returned in profits and divs quickly. Then the risk is gone.
Personally, though I used to _like_ the provisions in a corporation that protect the executives from liability for the acts of the corporation, I now wish we could change this.
The CEO, other executives and BOD (Board of Directors) _ARE_ responsible for the actions of the company. That's why they get paid the big bucks. That's why they get fired when things go wrong. And that's why they should be civially and criminally responsible for the acts of the corps that they run.
You hear Ken Lay say - I need a big salary, and stock options because I am responsible for this company, and I am directing it in these profitable times in essence - I am the main man responsible for the "good times" TM.
But, when things go wrong...the story changes. Oh, I'm just the stooge running things - don't ask me, I only work here. I shouldn't be held responsible, they did it behind my back etc.
Sheesh, either you're responsoble, or you're not. If not, then give back all your pay. If you are, then quit whining, and become Bubba's slave in your nearby max-security prison.
This is the court system, but I think we're just moving one step further to a Serf/Master system.
We're becoming the Serf's, and Ultra Large Corps are becoming the masters.
Government isn't interested in even seeming to keep such entities in check.
We have an executive and legislative branch that is only truly responsive to large monied interests. These branches both work to stack the courts with stooges that follow the party line as much as possible.
The manipulation of our Courts really began in earnest in the Regan administration, though I'm sure it happened to a lesser degree earlier. But Regan made it a public point to try to shape the legal system in it's image, rather than just appointing those who were strong mental thinkers, without requiring a specific "position.
I've ranted before about the horrible state of our government, but I'll keep doing so. (For those who will immediately say "Well go live in Cuba" - I say - Piss OFF! I know that we probably have the best system around (although Canada is looking more and more attractive - taxes regardless) but having the best system around doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to improve it.) One key approach in putting the brakes on our system is a control of power/money.
It seems that huge corporate interests are a key part of the problem. The campaign finance reform issues revolve around huge "investments" (so-called campaign contributions) to both the executive and legislative branches of government. What might help stem the problem is a smaller corporate system. Smaller corps means less power and money pooled in a single hand.
Look at the DMCA... We have a monied interest on one hand, and virtually no money-making interests on the other hand. Tell me, how are we going to defeat this? Consumers can't really effectively fight such legislation. And these trends just continue. The end result is a killing fields/scorched earch style environment. If you aren't represented by a massive corp with lots of money and financial gain, you're just screwed. We may eventually beat the DMCA, but the interests will just continue to assult the law until they get what they want. Sure we may win the battle, but eventually we loose the war.
Next, look at corp entities. (Lets take the defunct Value-Jet) They, as far as I can tell, intentially voliated rules that resulted in the death of 110 people. If you or I had done these things, we'd be charged with murder, and get a long prison term or the death penalty. If you're a corp, you say "Oops. Oh, by the way, we're bankrupt too - sorry." The CEO, executives and board members took home huge salaries, and all them walk away at the end of the day. If they aren't responsible for the acts of the corp, who is? What were they paid the high salary for then?
Basically, corps have "person" status - free speech and almost every other right a "person" has, but no limited limetime, and really no real threat of criminal prosecution. Sure, they will forfit all assets, but that's not a real threat. Esp. if the corp is setup right, as a shell corp., the available assets are very minimal.
So, in base, if we limit the rights and powers of corporations, I think we would then restore some oxygen to the "individual." Less power to corps, and more power to individuals, means a more responsive gvmt, and thus a gvmt that regulates where it must to protect the individual.
In todays world, the individual has NO power. Legal threats (DMCA/Sony Game Boy/Mattel Web filter hack/DVD etc) are very effective, because most of us don't have anywhere near the resources to defend ourselves. Even if we did, is there a financial justification? It's WAY cheaper just to fold. But the financial justification for a huge corp is enormous(sp)!
This comment has gotten way too long, but in general, we need an equalization of powers. The action of the courts just tilts the balance even more toward the ultra large corp, even in the face of lax regulation by the FCC. The courts ruled that the FCC, even as lax as it was, was too stringent!?*&*^!~! This is just another example of the continuing spiral that the US Gvmt is in. I hope that we can successfully counter this, 'cause if we don't, it's going to be a very sad day!
How about if "Rape Pillage and Plunder" (TM Microsoft) were common business practices...They sure were 150 years ago? That makes it OK, right?
When you're declared a monopoloy, you're excluded from participating in acts/activites that decrease competition.
Since MS HAS been declared a monopolist (the appeals court didn't throw out the determination, only the remedy...) these companies only need to show that MS harmed them through anti-competitive acts.
The real killer is that under monopoly law, they damages for a plaintiff that prevails are TREBLE DAMAGES That means if Be shows 500M in damages, the court will award 1.5B in compensatory damages
Ouch! This type of suit will hurt MS a bunch.