The governmet legislation won't set standards. (Though if, as I propose, it makes a criminal standard it would.)
It makes possible to sue the maker in CIVIL court. The only "standard" is the reasonable man test. Bsically, right now, it's nearly impossible to sue software makers for bugs/defects. The proposed changes, as I read it, make it possible to take the SW maker to court to sue for negligence or making a defective product.
The same kind of laws should apply to software that apply to many other goods, though we might need some modifications.
This is what's so BAD about UCITA. It eliminates all of the "goods" style protections for software, and makes the sale a contract.
Software sales need to be moved four steps back to a sale of goods style sale. That will add back in protections and such that are available when you buy goods.
If we sold lawnmowers like software, you could buy a lawnmower, and it doesn't even run - or even wasn't capable of cutting grass in the basic design. Want your money back? NO! You pushed the lawnmower, so you can't have your money back. Sheesh - software can meet nearly all the terms of a "Goods" sale, and classifiying them as "Non-Goods" is just a great way for the manufacturer to avoid taking responsibility for what they produced!
Laws that make a vendor produce a secure and safe product should apply to software too.
Ford and GM shouldn't be allowed to produce cars that kill people, simply because they couldn't be bothered to make them safer - like exploding gas tanks - ok, so that's not such a great example... (grin)
But really, but the responsibility where it lies. If I put a system out on the net, and don't take some steps to make it secure, I should be liable for damages it causes when it's compromised. Same for SW companies. If you produce a product that doesn't meet the "reasonable" man test for care in producing the product, the maker should be liable for negligence.
I might go even further though, and add some criminal penalties too.
Software can be more reliable and bug-free and secure. (Go read the "Software Conspiaracy") Sure it will cost more, but what do you think all the virus outbreaks costs business and individuals. It's just a hidden tax. MS (and others) are just shifting the burden of producing software that works to the users. It's cheaper for MS to produce the software, but lots more expensive for the user to use them.
Finally, the legal system _IS_ part of the free market. The threat and actual loss of damages to a plaintiff balance the system of the market. It's not just buyers and sellers - and a wild wolly mess...
It just bugs me when "free market" proponents want to proclaim that the courts are unneccessary in the free market - bull! They are important and the market will not function correctly without them!
I quote...
Most of the spam I get now, is from companies that are using "contractors" to spam, or spam from offshore (i.e. China) ISP's. The advertised product is from the US often, but the advertisee is not. Therefore, shutting down the "spammer" isn't going to do anything.
Now I don't know how to practically impliment this, as there are some pitfalls, but with some decent legislation, we could make it possible to target the beneficiary of the spam. That makes it possible to attack the real reason for the spam - where we can use our laws etc to attack it.
Sure, there will be spam that also has you send you money to China/Afganistan etc, but that will make the spam much less profitable, as most people won't do so. Lastly, most people will use credit cards, and I assume that most SPAM scams are frauds too, so the chargebacks will be hell for the spam beneficiary.
Anyway, it just seems that we can't just attack the spammer, we really need to attack the beneficiary. Then the spammers will go away, as they can't find anyone to demand their services
As you can see, I propose we target the beneficiary of the spam - not the spammer. To do any significant commerce here in the US, you'll have to have a financial nexus here too. Thus, we don't have to attack a foreign country based entity (at least in many cases) because the beneficiary will have assets and bank accounts here in the US. Tada! US based spam beneficiary, US based suit, and US retrieval of judgement. No foreign powers, no cross border legal judgements etc. Now, in cases where people are financally based outside the US this will be harder. But it's much harder to convince others to do business with a NON US business, and that would only be really viable via credit cards. It's lots easier to get chargebacks for fraud and abuse when the abuse is coming from an offshore account.
Getting the fabulous US congress and the President for and by "Big Business" to actually do this may be hard, but it doesn't have to be cross border.
Anyway - my post was clear in it's attack. The legislation here in the US may not be easy, but then again, we might just see something similar.
You don't state that the client does the work CLEARLY in your origional post.
Next, even if it is the client, the scheme is even less likely to get implimented in enough places to get critical mass. This is simply because the number of people that would have to DL and install and configure the system would be so great. Lastly, it's hard enough to use public key stuff through Verisign or Thawte etc, for email. You expect grandma to figure out how to use this system too?
I've hashed all this before, so I'll stop here. What surprises me, is that you seem incapable of admitting that the task is VERY DAUNTING! Technically possible and feasibly/reality based possible are two different things.
As long as we're wishing, I'l like a pony - to paraphrase Suzy in Cavlin and Hobbes (The comic strip)
GigE is way over-hyped except for Servers. I don't want users on my networks even thinking about consuming GigE!
If you need to throw U-SCSI+RAID in any Mac that is pulling or pushing data through a net that isn't a server, your're smoking dope... I can't think of a use for GigE except for data centers - possibly a render farm or something...
Anyway - I was wrong...I just don't follow Mac's much, in terms of hardware specs.
I don't even think the newest PB and PM come with GB, not like they could use it anyhow...the IDE drives couldn't even think of spinning that consistantly.
I want a boat that is an airplane and digs post holes too...
That's what you're saying about the IPod...There's no device out there that does all things - the best devices do a _FEW_ things really well, and leave the other stuff to other crappier devices.
The IPod is a great looking device, and from all accounts, is a great size and has a wonderful UI. Just leave it at that - don't try to claim it's a great posthole digger too...You just damage the product and your credibility.
FWIW, I think the IPod _is_ too expensive, and I'm not willing to shell out the $$$ just yet. But the use as a portable drive/boot off it/install the latest OSX build etc claims of the Mac'ies just makes me think they're smoking something they aren't sharing.
Just say, hey it's a GREAT device, and I love it. The UI is beautiful, and I feel it's worth every penny. Then shut-up. You just look stupid trying to pump it up even more.
PS. How many Mac'ies have actually booted from the IPod, or transferred files from one machine to another? More than once? For more than novelty purposes - or to say "you done it?" I can't imagine it's very many? But then again, I could be wrong - I'd just like to hear someone actually tell me they did...
Your post doesn't specify with _ANY_ degree of certainty who generates the "cypher"...
Is is the EMail client - Outlook, Eudora, Pine etc? Is it SMTP?
If the former, you have an even harder task getting critical mass for a useable product. SMTP is MUCH easier, cause there's fewer pieces of software to modify and impliment. Thus a significant calc time will kill you. As I see it, either way, you're "dammed if you do (server) and dammed if you don't (client)"
Sure, it has it fine points, but it doesn't have a prayer of getting implimented. Thus NO practicality.
Now, you may argue that my political/law approach will never get enacted, and possibly you're right, but that's another story.
Thus, go read your own posts, rather than what you thought you wrote. Then think about the practical approach to implimenting these.
Lastly, you think you'll get MS to impliment any of these items in your favorite server and client programs? Good luck. Open software is your best friend for implimenting the stuff you propose. OSF style stuff may have it's drawbacks, but it would be a open project that will push for better software in these areas from the closed behemoths.
I'm sure that ISP's who process LOTS of mail (hundreds of thousands or millions of mails) a day would be glad for the 5-10 second delay for each mail...
That's a huge computational cost, and doesn't have a prayer of making it...
My soltution attacks the profitability - a market solution if you wish - it might not be the only solution, but it could work to make SPAM unprofitable, and thus once unprofitable, kill it.
Tomstdenis - if you want to not see it, use spamassassin - works great -
Oh, I forgot, you're a MS Bigot, so it will probably be a real bugger to get this to run properly on NT - what an advantage huh - unless MS provides it/thought of it, you can't get it...
I virtually NEVER have to see mail from spammers using spam assassin. (I do get a few false positives...)
The point is not to prevent me from seeing spam, but from having to pay to get spam. I _DO_ pay for bandwidth - I'm not a flat rate for bandwidth user, so I do care what I have to pay for...
Lastly, the only way to really make a dent in spamming is the following, which I have already mentioned here before...
===== Quote ====
Most of the spam I get now, is from companies that are using "contractors" to spam, or spam from offshore (i.e. China) ISP's. The advertised product is from the US often, but the advertisee is not. Therefore, shutting down the "spammer" isn't going to do anything.
Now I don't know how to practically impliment this, as there are some pitfalls, but with some decent legislation, we could make it possible to target the beneficiary of the spam. That makes it possible to attack the real reason for the spam - where we can use our laws etc to attack it.
Sure, there will be spam that also has you send you money to China/Afganistan etc, but that will make the spam much less profitable, as most people won't do so. Lastly, most people will use credit cards, and I assume that most SPAM scams are frauds too, so the chargebacks will be hell for the spam beneficiary.
Anyway, it just seems that we can't just attack the spammer, we really need to attack the beneficiary. Then the spammers will go away, as they can't find anyone to demand their services.
=======
Until we make it too costly to benefit from SPAM, we won't solve the problem. The costs must outweigh the revenue.
Finally, as per your proposal. Are you planning to rewrite and distribute and impliment all the patches to sendmail, qmail etc for the SMTP dameons? Not to mention all the other SMTP RFT servers out there? That's a massive task, and one that isn't likely to get done any time soon. A better approach is to attack this with the law.
I shouldn't have to put up a taller fence to prevent you from littering in my yard. That's the approach here. It may work, but it smells.
I have clients I would love to get DSL, or faster DSL pipes (read businesses) There isn't the cost benefit to go to frame ($500/mo+), but a $200/ month connection will suffice.
In these cases, Verizon and Qwest (also known as US Worst) almost uniformly refuse to help get DSL. Right now, (as in today) I am working on getting a DSL line setup for internet access and VPN to a main office for one of my clients. The remote office is less than 6000 feet from the CO, and the main is probably half that. The telco tells me that the remote can only get 384/128, and the maximum I can get for the main office is 384/384! I have asked about getting a new pots line with bridge-tap removal, but everyone claims that this can't be done. (It can, as I can order an alarm circut, and they are obligated to remove the taps and coils) But since Verizon and Qwest both basically design the tarrifs, they put in restrictions that prevent them from doing much that they don't want to.
Basically, the telco's want you to use frame at exorbatant costs - they'll just put a HDSL box at both ends anyway, and "emulate" frame, but they will charge you big time. They then do everything possible to prevent you from getting what you need. They control the physical lines, and don't you forget it!
I don't know what requirements there are for CLEC's, when there are some, but I still bet that the telco provisions the worst lines for them. In my particular case, there is no CLEC to go to anyway. So I _FIGHT_ and _FIGHT_ to get the telco do to what they need to do, and that's a pain.
Here's a solution. For any connection that is less than 25,000 feet from the CO, the telco must provide a DSL pipe of at least 256/256. If they claim it can't be done, they have to provide a frame pipe for the equivalent costs ($50/month). Then the telco will get off of it's butt, and actually deliver. Until it costs the telco not to deliver, rather than pays (ie frame makes us more money than DSL) they don't do jack!
When the companies that service us think they can do anything with the data collected by them,
and when people such as yourself think that said company shouldn't be compelled by legislation,
when these companies fail to treat others ethically, then I want to run for the hills...
Society is teetering on the brink when people can say that legislation isn't needed to compel ethical treatment of others when it isn't the result of self regulation.
And it pisses me off so bad, that it's likely that I'll go buy the CD, rip it, even if I have to do it at 1x and then take the stinkin' thing back. Then post it on NNTP...or elsewhere...
That way, we can at least even out the fair use rights thing. For all the users that don't get to fully use their CD, there should be lots of people that get extra-ordinary rights...
I would agree with you in some regards - Linux isn't that easy to use...
But I have some additional news for you. (I'm a consultant that works with users on a regular basis - so I speak from exp here...) Users don't understand Windows much better. Most are perfectly glad to pay me fairly large sums of money to maintain their machines and networks. It's not that hard, at least to you and me, but _very_ daunting to them... So, unless you already understand hot it works, or have the desire and patience to learn, Widnows _AND_ Linux are both difficult. (Try explaining FDisk to a W9X user wanting to do a clean reinstall... Or CD-Drivers on a floppy disk, and edit the config.sys, make sure to copy format, fdisk, mscdex.exe and edit the autoexec.bat...) that sure isn't easy...
Now granted, it appears that Linux is a 9/10 in difficulty, and Windows is 6/10. Linus has a ways to go, but it isn't impossible.
The part I have a hard time with (in regards to Linux and it's apps), is profitability.
Systems that reward greed, seem to work best. (Microsoft not withstanding...) A Linux programmer can't really earn money for GNU code. Sure, one can bundle it with hardware and make money off hardware, or service and support. But if I don't have some hardware to bundle, or my product is simply too well done or too trivial to add support to? No money...
Open source is great, and free is great. But these items might just prevent the platform from gaining enough ground to really win - or at least gain enough critical mass to self sustain.
(I realize that I have strayed off topic here, but bear with me...)
I think we need to realize that some GNU projects are going to have to spawn multiple licenses to stay afloat. One will be a closed source paid license. Some of the work will also be released as GNU to enrich the pool. Possibly the core of Linux, the OS, can be supported by hardware manufacturers. (Realize that even then, you're paying for it somehow...) But other stuff like productivity apps etc, are probably going to have to make money to really make a go of it...
If I can prevent you from entering a market, by removing your resources, preventing your customers from using your product etc, then you're finished.
(Next, I'll bet you say that Standard Oil was good because they reduced prices too... )
What I can say, in addition to the Judge that has _already_ found MS guilty of abusing a monopoly position (we're waiting for the punishment/remedy), is that MS fails the morality test. MS (BillG) made many statements that proved they were abusing their position - even if it wasn't illegal - and that really sets the die for me.
They (MS) said, in essence, since I can't find an exact quote. "We get money from the OS, but if the browser is free, what happens to Netscape...we're going to cut off their air."
Doesn't that strike you as unfair, and harmful the the consumer in the end. Regardless of if it is legal or not, it is ruthless force and shoudn't be tolerated.
If you would like me to use such force over you personally, even if it _is_ legal, then I think you've lost your brains. But perhaps that's already happened.
If you want to pick at nits, sure you can do so, but MS's behavior leaves lots to be desired. That's obvious, and virtually everyone agrees. What we may disagree about is what the law can do about it, and how many bodies of consumers and competitors we will accept.
Perhaps you like lots of victims - I believe that we can compete honerably (sp) and one of us may win. We don't need to fight like cats, and abuse each other.
Well, the stupididy of this comment just strikes me wrong...
Why not just send cash through the mail then?
Paypal goes on a length about buyer and seller protection. Well, there is _*NO*_ protection offered by Paypal. If you pay by credit card, as a buyer, you can use the protections provided by federal credit law, but paypal won't do jack.
I bought some stuff by check acct draft (silly me! - but it was under $50) and the seller didn't ship for weeks. I complained. Their EBay account was terminated. I complained. I finally got a portion of what I had purchased. I comlained. EBay weeks later reply's that the seller provided proof of delivery, (Delivery of what!? ) thus, Paypal was denying my claim.
I directly emailed the cust svc rep back requesting followup, as I didn't get what the seller promised.
That was months ago, and I have _NEVER_ heard from paypal again.
YMMV, but paypal doesn't care, the buyer/seller protection is a sham. It's only slightly better than sending cash in the mail, and only when you use a credit card. At least sending cash or check, the fraud become a federal offense. One that the USPS doesn't take too lightly. You're more likely to get buyer protection from the USPS than paypal.
Sheesh - you don't eat fast food do you? Cause this is lots more likely to kill you...
Sure, there's lots of stuff that's going to kill you, but for most Americans, and other first world people, smoking, high fat diet, no exercise and stress are going to do you in lots faster than stuff like PVC. (even if there is a threat, which I'm not at all sure there is...)
So, if you don't want to use PVC, be my guest, but it's lots more likely I'll die from my own bad habits long before then...
I do a fair bit of wiring for clients when the project is small - and I am trying to move my wifes station back upstairs - so I do have some expierence here...
From someone that has run one of those long drill bits right out through the sheetrock and numerous other damage while trying to run wiring different places - I have a suggestion.
A simple NMC (PVC) conduit run into a few rooms in strategic places whouldn't be too time consuming, and would make any drastic decisions moot. You could upgrade the Cat5 to 6 or 7, or fiber or whatever follows. Sure it's more work, but it maintains the ability to do more later.
If I build a new house, I will run 2 sets of conduits everywhere -1 for electrical, and one for data phone. Sure, it'll cost me time and money, but I'll be happy as a pig in a mud bog!
If you choose to not do this, the suggestions of others to put in coax everywhere too is a good one.
It uses several perl style filters, RBL _and_ Razor. See http://razor.sourceforge.net - sorry, I hate contructing links...
It's a but difficult to setup - at least for me...but I am going to do a easy howto doc for it next - one dedicated for inexpierenced (sp) users.
Plus SA gives you some easy ways to rank spam. I just filter into a "possible spam" ourlook folder based on a change on the subject line. Then I just review the messages. If I get too many false positives or too many spams getting by, I can change the rating system slightly, and get what I want.
I've just started using it, but so far, it seems pretty well tuned.
Just give it a look, it makes spam-blocking much easier.
Sure, thats some of the problems I am referring to...
I can't think of any great way to prevent that kind of abuse...but it's not terribly likely that someone will pay to "hurt" spam their competitor. That probably eliminates a bunch of the abuse potential.
Open relays abuse are another matter, but in practical terms, these are more and more rare. (I think, I am not factually sure of this...)
That leaves people spamming using their "own" account. That would make tracking the "real owner" of the spam a bit easier to find.
Lastly, one might take advantage of the SPAM offer, and thus prove that the spammer benefitted from the SPAM, and was accepting the spoils thereof. With this in hand, the spam beneficiary gets whacked. Yeah, I know it's still got some loopholes...
Lastly (really this time) lots of the spam I get is for spam lists, or other seedy small time scam type stuff. Making this market a bit less profitable will dry up the market a lot. That leaves the big guys, but they will probably clean up their act, because they have more important things to worry about.
Basically, it seems that virtually all spam beneficiaries have some tie to the US, or other 1st world country. DNS, Website, PO Box etc.
Also, the law wouldn't have to be criminal, that would just be a pain for everyone, just civil.
Most of the spam I get now, is from companies that are using "contractors" to spam, or spam from offshore (i.e. China) ISP's. The advertised product is from the US often, but the advertisee is not. Therefore, shutting down the "spammer" isn't going to do anything.
Now I don't know how to practically impliment this, as there are some pitfalls, but with some decent legislation, we could make it possible to target the beneficiary of the spam. That makes it possible to attack the real reason for the spam - where we can use our laws etc to attack it.
Sure, there will be spam that also has you send you money to China/Afganistan etc, but that will make the spam much less profitable, as most people won't do so. Lastly, most people will use credit cards, and I assume that most SPAM scams are frauds too, so the chargebacks will be hell for the spam beneficiary.
Anyway, it just seems that we can't just attack the spammer, we really need to attack the beneficiary. Then the spammers will go away, as they can't find anyone to demand their services.
This from the CDC...
=====
If someone comes in contact with smallpox, how long does it take to show symptoms?
The incubation period is about 12 days (range: 7 to 17 days) following exposure. Initial symptoms include high fever, fatigue, and head and back aches. A characteristic rash, most prominent on the face, arms, and legs, follows in 2-3 days. The rash starts with flat red lesions that evolve at the same rate. Lesions become pus-filled after a few days and then begin to crust early in the second week. Scabs develop and then separate and fall off after about 3-4 weeks.
---
How is smallpox spread?
In the majority of cases, smallpox is spread from one person to another by infected saliva droplets that expose a susceptible person having face-to-face contact with the ill person. People with smallpox are most infectious during the first week of illness, because that is when the largest amount of virus is present in saliva. However, some risk of transmission lasts until all scabs have fallen off.
Contaminated clothing or bed linen could also spread the virus. Special precautions need to be taken to ensure that all bedding and clothing of patients are cleaned appropriately with bleach and hot water. Disinfectants such as bleach and quaternary ammonia can be used for cleaning contaminated surfaces.
Now do you believe me? Sheesh - get reliable data from a scientific source, not a drama writer...
Notice that the initial high transmissible period is the first week of illness...not infection.
Slashdot Mirror
The governmet legislation won't set standards. (Though if, as I propose, it makes a criminal standard it would.)
It makes possible to sue the maker in CIVIL court. The only "standard" is the reasonable man test. Bsically, right now, it's nearly impossible to sue software makers for bugs/defects. The proposed changes, as I read it, make it possible to take the SW maker to court to sue for negligence or making a defective product.
The same kind of laws should apply to software that apply to many other goods, though we might need some modifications.
This is what's so BAD about UCITA. It eliminates all of the "goods" style protections for software, and makes the sale a contract.
Software sales need to be moved four steps back to a sale of goods style sale. That will add back in protections and such that are available when you buy goods.
If we sold lawnmowers like software, you could buy a lawnmower, and it doesn't even run - or even wasn't capable of cutting grass in the basic design. Want your money back? NO! You pushed the lawnmower, so you can't have your money back. Sheesh - software can meet nearly all the terms of a "Goods" sale, and classifiying them as "Non-Goods" is just a great way for the manufacturer to avoid taking responsibility for what they produced!
Laws that make a vendor produce a secure and safe product should apply to software too.
Ford and GM shouldn't be allowed to produce cars that kill people, simply because they couldn't be bothered to make them safer - like exploding gas tanks - ok, so that's not such a great example... (grin)
But really, but the responsibility where it lies. If I put a system out on the net, and don't take some steps to make it secure, I should be liable for damages it causes when it's compromised. Same for SW companies. If you produce a product that doesn't meet the "reasonable" man test for care in producing the product, the maker should be liable for negligence.
I might go even further though, and add some criminal penalties too.
Software can be more reliable and bug-free and secure. (Go read the "Software Conspiaracy") Sure it will cost more, but what do you think all the virus outbreaks costs business and individuals. It's just a hidden tax. MS (and others) are just shifting the burden of producing software that works to the users. It's cheaper for MS to produce the software, but lots more expensive for the user to use them.
Finally, the legal system _IS_ part of the free market. The threat and actual loss of damages to a plaintiff balance the system of the market. It's not just buyers and sellers - and a wild wolly mess...
It just bugs me when "free market" proponents want to proclaim that the courts are unneccessary in the free market - bull! They are important and the market will not function correctly without them!
Tom, go read the origional post...
I quote...
Most of the spam I get now, is from companies that are using "contractors" to spam, or spam from offshore (i.e. China) ISP's. The advertised product is from the US often, but the advertisee is not. Therefore, shutting down the "spammer" isn't going to do anything.
Now I don't know how to practically impliment this, as there are some pitfalls, but with some decent legislation, we could make it possible to target the beneficiary of the spam. That makes it possible to attack the real reason for the spam - where we can use our laws etc to attack it.
Sure, there will be spam that also has you send you money to China/Afganistan etc, but that will make the spam much less profitable, as most people won't do so. Lastly, most people will use credit cards, and I assume that most SPAM scams are frauds too, so the chargebacks will be hell for the spam beneficiary.
Anyway, it just seems that we can't just attack the spammer, we really need to attack the beneficiary. Then the spammers will go away, as they can't find anyone to demand their services
As you can see, I propose we target the beneficiary of the spam - not the spammer. To do any significant commerce here in the US, you'll have to have a financial nexus here too. Thus, we don't have to attack a foreign country based entity (at least in many cases) because the beneficiary will have assets and bank accounts here in the US. Tada! US based spam beneficiary, US based suit, and US retrieval of judgement. No foreign powers, no cross border legal judgements etc. Now, in cases where people are financally based outside the US this will be harder. But it's much harder to convince others to do business with a NON US business, and that would only be really viable via credit cards. It's lots easier to get chargebacks for fraud and abuse when the abuse is coming from an offshore account.
Getting the fabulous US congress and the President for and by "Big Business" to actually do this may be hard, but it doesn't have to be cross border.
Anyway - my post was clear in it's attack. The legislation here in the US may not be easy, but then again, we might just see something similar.
Cheers!
What eloquence -
Ah, whatever, fuck off.
You don't state that the client does the work CLEARLY in your origional post.
Next, even if it is the client, the scheme is even less likely to get implimented in enough places to get critical mass. This is simply because the number of people that would have to DL and install and configure the system would be so great. Lastly, it's hard enough to use public key stuff through Verisign or Thawte etc, for email. You expect grandma to figure out how to use this system too?
I've hashed all this before, so I'll stop here. What surprises me, is that you seem incapable of admitting that the task is VERY DAUNTING! Technically possible and feasibly/reality based possible are two different things.
As long as we're wishing, I'l like a pony - to paraphrase Suzy in Cavlin and Hobbes (The comic strip)
True, it peeves me too sometimes...
[But]
I didn't state it as a fact...I asked... [Grin]
Anyhow, I'll try a bit of 15 second google checking next time!
Thanks
I stand corrected - not that it matters.
GigE is way over-hyped except for Servers. I don't want users on my networks even thinking about consuming GigE!
If you need to throw U-SCSI+RAID in any Mac that is pulling or pushing data through a net that isn't a server, your're smoking dope... I can't think of a use for GigE except for data centers - possibly a render farm or something...
Anyway - I was wrong...I just don't follow Mac's much, in terms of hardware specs.
PowerMacs come with Gig Ethernet?
100BaseT possibly, but I don't think Gig...
I don't even think the newest PB and PM come with GB, not like they could use it anyhow...the IDE drives couldn't even think of spinning that consistantly.
Here's what chaps my hide....
I want a boat that is an airplane and digs post holes too...
That's what you're saying about the IPod...There's no device out there that does all things - the best devices do a _FEW_ things really well, and leave the other stuff to other crappier devices.
The IPod is a great looking device, and from all accounts, is a great size and has a wonderful UI. Just leave it at that - don't try to claim it's a great posthole digger too...You just damage the product and your credibility.
FWIW, I think the IPod _is_ too expensive, and I'm not willing to shell out the $$$ just yet. But the use as a portable drive/boot off it/install the latest OSX build etc claims of the Mac'ies just makes me think they're smoking something they aren't sharing.
Just say, hey it's a GREAT device, and I love it. The UI is beautiful, and I feel it's worth every penny. Then shut-up. You just look stupid trying to pump it up even more.
PS. How many Mac'ies have actually booted from the IPod, or transferred files from one machine to another? More than once? For more than novelty purposes - or to say "you done it?" I can't imagine it's very many? But then again, I could be wrong - I'd just like to hear someone actually tell me they did...
This is getting old...
Your post doesn't specify with _ANY_ degree of certainty who generates the "cypher"...
Is is the EMail client - Outlook, Eudora, Pine etc? Is it SMTP?
If the former, you have an even harder task getting critical mass for a useable product. SMTP is MUCH easier, cause there's fewer pieces of software to modify and impliment. Thus a significant calc time will kill you. As I see it, either way, you're "dammed if you do (server) and dammed if you don't (client)"
Sure, it has it fine points, but it doesn't have a prayer of getting implimented. Thus NO practicality.
Now, you may argue that my political/law approach will never get enacted, and possibly you're right, but that's another story.
Thus, go read your own posts, rather than what you thought you wrote. Then think about the practical approach to implimenting these.
Lastly, you think you'll get MS to impliment any of these items in your favorite server and client programs? Good luck. Open software is your best friend for implimenting the stuff you propose. OSF style stuff may have it's drawbacks, but it would be a open project that will push for better software in these areas from the closed behemoths.
How's that for irony?
Cheers!
I'm sure that ISP's who process LOTS of mail (hundreds of thousands or millions of mails) a day would be glad for the 5-10 second delay for each mail...
That's a huge computational cost, and doesn't have a prayer of making it...
My soltution attacks the profitability - a market solution if you wish - it might not be the only solution, but it could work to make SPAM unprofitable, and thus once unprofitable, kill it.
Tomstdenis - if you want to not see it, use spamassassin - works great -
Oh, I forgot, you're a MS Bigot, so it will probably be a real bugger to get this to run properly on NT - what an advantage huh - unless MS provides it/thought of it, you can't get it...
I virtually NEVER have to see mail from spammers using spam assassin. (I do get a few false positives...)
The point is not to prevent me from seeing spam, but from having to pay to get spam. I _DO_ pay for bandwidth - I'm not a flat rate for bandwidth user, so I do care what I have to pay for...
Lastly, the only way to really make a dent in spamming is the following, which I have already mentioned here before...
===== Quote ====
Most of the spam I get now, is from companies that are using "contractors" to spam, or spam from offshore (i.e. China) ISP's. The advertised product is from the US often, but the advertisee is not. Therefore, shutting down the "spammer" isn't going to do anything.
Now I don't know how to practically impliment this, as there are some pitfalls, but with some decent legislation, we could make it possible to target the beneficiary of the spam. That makes it possible to attack the real reason for the spam - where we can use our laws etc to attack it.
Sure, there will be spam that also has you send you money to China/Afganistan etc, but that will make the spam much less profitable, as most people won't do so. Lastly, most people will use credit cards, and I assume that most SPAM scams are frauds too, so the chargebacks will be hell for the spam beneficiary.
Anyway, it just seems that we can't just attack the spammer, we really need to attack the beneficiary. Then the spammers will go away, as they can't find anyone to demand their services.
=======
Until we make it too costly to benefit from SPAM, we won't solve the problem. The costs must outweigh the revenue.
Finally, as per your proposal. Are you planning to rewrite and distribute and impliment all the patches to sendmail, qmail etc for the SMTP dameons? Not to mention all the other SMTP RFT servers out there? That's a massive task, and one that isn't likely to get done any time soon. A better approach is to attack this with the law.
I shouldn't have to put up a taller fence to prevent you from littering in my yard. That's the approach here. It may work, but it smells.
I have clients I would love to get DSL, or faster DSL pipes (read businesses) There isn't the cost benefit to go to frame ($500/mo+), but a $200/ month connection will suffice.
In these cases, Verizon and Qwest (also known as US Worst) almost uniformly refuse to help get DSL. Right now, (as in today) I am working on getting a DSL line setup for internet access and VPN to a main office for one of my clients. The remote office is less than 6000 feet from the CO, and the main is probably half that. The telco tells me that the remote can only get 384/128, and the maximum I can get for the main office is 384/384! I have asked about getting a new pots line with bridge-tap removal, but everyone claims that this can't be done. (It can, as I can order an alarm circut, and they are obligated to remove the taps and coils) But since Verizon and Qwest both basically design the tarrifs, they put in restrictions that prevent them from doing much that they don't want to.
Basically, the telco's want you to use frame at exorbatant costs - they'll just put a HDSL box at both ends anyway, and "emulate" frame, but they will charge you big time. They then do everything possible to prevent you from getting what you need. They control the physical lines, and don't you forget it!
I don't know what requirements there are for CLEC's, when there are some, but I still bet that the telco provisions the worst lines for them. In my particular case, there is no CLEC to go to anyway. So I _FIGHT_ and _FIGHT_ to get the telco do to what they need to do, and that's a pain.
Here's a solution. For any connection that is less than 25,000 feet from the CO, the telco must provide a DSL pipe of at least 256/256. If they claim it can't be done, they have to provide a frame pipe for the equivalent costs ($50/month). Then the telco will get off of it's butt, and actually deliver. Until it costs the telco not to deliver, rather than pays (ie frame makes us more money than DSL) they don't do jack!
I suppose that you routinely protect pimps and drug dealers and pedophile porno makers - they create jobs don't they?
Sheesh, jobs killing Jews, or jobs killing Americans for profit aren't jobs worth having, and we should certainly vigourously protest such!
When the companies that service us think they can do anything with the data collected by them,
and when people such as yourself think that said company shouldn't be compelled by legislation,
when these companies fail to treat others ethically, then I want to run for the hills...
Society is teetering on the brink when people can say that legislation isn't needed to compel ethical treatment of others when it isn't the result of self regulation.
This is _SO_ stupid.
And it pisses me off so bad, that it's likely that I'll go buy the CD, rip it, even if I have to do it at 1x and then take the stinkin' thing back. Then post it on NNTP...or elsewhere...
That way, we can at least even out the fair use rights thing. For all the users that don't get to fully use their CD, there should be lots of people that get extra-ordinary rights...
You say...
========
Thirdly, as you said, even if some programmers with less than noble intentions did manage to get employed at Microsoft
========
That would include Steve Ballmer and Bill?
(I know, I suspect Ballmer couldn't code to save his life, but that never stopped MS before...)
I would agree with you in some regards - Linux isn't that easy to use...
But I have some additional news for you. (I'm a consultant that works with users on a regular basis - so I speak from exp here...) Users don't understand Windows much better. Most are perfectly glad to pay me fairly large sums of money to maintain their machines and networks. It's not that hard, at least to you and me, but _very_ daunting to them... So, unless you already understand hot it works, or have the desire and patience to learn, Widnows _AND_ Linux are both difficult. (Try explaining FDisk to a W9X user wanting to do a clean reinstall... Or CD-Drivers on a floppy disk, and edit the config.sys, make sure to copy format, fdisk, mscdex.exe and edit the autoexec.bat...) that sure isn't easy...
Now granted, it appears that Linux is a 9/10 in difficulty, and Windows is 6/10. Linus has a ways to go, but it isn't impossible.
The part I have a hard time with (in regards to Linux and it's apps), is profitability.
Systems that reward greed, seem to work best. (Microsoft not withstanding...) A Linux programmer can't really earn money for GNU code. Sure, one can bundle it with hardware and make money off hardware, or service and support. But if I don't have some hardware to bundle, or my product is simply too well done or too trivial to add support to? No money...
Open source is great, and free is great. But these items might just prevent the platform from gaining enough ground to really win - or at least gain enough critical mass to self sustain.
(I realize that I have strayed off topic here, but bear with me...)
I think we need to realize that some GNU projects are going to have to spawn multiple licenses to stay afloat. One will be a closed source paid license. Some of the work will also be released as GNU to enrich the pool. Possibly the core of Linux, the OS, can be supported by hardware manufacturers. (Realize that even then, you're paying for it somehow...) But other stuff like productivity apps etc, are probably going to have to make money to really make a go of it...
Anyhow, just some thoughts...
Well, what a stupid troll...
Forcing from a market is _NOT_ a requirement.
If I can prevent you from entering a market, by removing your resources, preventing your customers from using your product etc, then you're finished.
(Next, I'll bet you say that Standard Oil was good because they reduced prices too... )
What I can say, in addition to the Judge that has _already_ found MS guilty of abusing a monopoly position (we're waiting for the punishment/remedy), is that MS fails the morality test. MS (BillG) made many statements that proved they were abusing their position - even if it wasn't illegal - and that really sets the die for me.
They (MS) said, in essence, since I can't find an exact quote. "We get money from the OS, but if the browser is free, what happens to Netscape...we're going to cut off their air."
Doesn't that strike you as unfair, and harmful the the consumer in the end. Regardless of if it is legal or not, it is ruthless force and shoudn't be tolerated.
If you would like me to use such force over you personally, even if it _is_ legal, then I think you've lost your brains. But perhaps that's already happened.
If you want to pick at nits, sure you can do so, but MS's behavior leaves lots to be desired. That's obvious, and virtually everyone agrees. What we may disagree about is what the law can do about it, and how many bodies of consumers and competitors we will accept.
Perhaps you like lots of victims - I believe that we can compete honerably (sp) and one of us may win. We don't need to fight like cats, and abuse each other.
Cheers...
Well, the stupididy of this comment just strikes me wrong...
Why not just send cash through the mail then?
Paypal goes on a length about buyer and seller protection. Well, there is _*NO*_ protection offered by Paypal. If you pay by credit card, as a buyer, you can use the protections provided by federal credit law, but paypal won't do jack.
I bought some stuff by check acct draft (silly me! - but it was under $50) and the seller didn't ship for weeks. I complained. Their EBay account was terminated. I complained. I finally got a portion of what I had purchased. I comlained. EBay weeks later reply's that the seller provided proof of delivery, (Delivery of what!? ) thus, Paypal was denying my claim.
I directly emailed the cust svc rep back requesting followup, as I didn't get what the seller promised.
That was months ago, and I have _NEVER_ heard from paypal again.
YMMV, but paypal doesn't care, the buyer/seller protection is a sham. It's only slightly better than sending cash in the mail, and only when you use a credit card. At least sending cash or check, the fraud become a federal offense. One that the USPS doesn't take too lightly. You're more likely to get buyer protection from the USPS than paypal.
Yup, PAYPAL SUCKS!
Sheesh - you don't eat fast food do you? Cause this is lots more likely to kill you...
Sure, there's lots of stuff that's going to kill you, but for most Americans, and other first world people, smoking, high fat diet, no exercise and stress are going to do you in lots faster than stuff like PVC. (even if there is a threat, which I'm not at all sure there is...)
So, if you don't want to use PVC, be my guest, but it's lots more likely I'll die from my own bad habits long before then...
I do a fair bit of wiring for clients when the project is small - and I am trying to move my wifes station back upstairs - so I do have some expierence here...
From someone that has run one of those long drill bits right out through the sheetrock and numerous other damage while trying to run wiring different places - I have a suggestion.
A simple NMC (PVC) conduit run into a few rooms in strategic places whouldn't be too time consuming, and would make any drastic decisions moot. You could upgrade the Cat5 to 6 or 7, or fiber or whatever follows. Sure it's more work, but it maintains the ability to do more later.
If I build a new house, I will run 2 sets of conduits everywhere -1 for electrical, and one for data phone. Sure, it'll cost me time and money, but I'll be happy as a pig in a mud bog!
If you choose to not do this, the suggestions of others to put in coax everywhere too is a good one.
Jim, go look at spamassassin...
It uses several perl style filters, RBL _and_ Razor. See http://razor.sourceforge.net - sorry, I hate contructing links...
It's a but difficult to setup - at least for me...but I am going to do a easy howto doc for it next - one dedicated for inexpierenced (sp) users.
Plus SA gives you some easy ways to rank spam. I just filter into a "possible spam" ourlook folder based on a change on the subject line. Then I just review the messages. If I get too many false positives or too many spams getting by, I can change the rating system slightly, and get what I want.
I've just started using it, but so far, it seems pretty well tuned.
Just give it a look, it makes spam-blocking much easier.
Sure, thats some of the problems I am referring to...
I can't think of any great way to prevent that kind of abuse...but it's not terribly likely that someone will pay to "hurt" spam their competitor. That probably eliminates a bunch of the abuse potential.
Open relays abuse are another matter, but in practical terms, these are more and more rare. (I think, I am not factually sure of this...)
That leaves people spamming using their "own" account. That would make tracking the "real owner" of the spam a bit easier to find.
Lastly, one might take advantage of the SPAM offer, and thus prove that the spammer benefitted from the SPAM, and was accepting the spoils thereof. With this in hand, the spam beneficiary gets whacked. Yeah, I know it's still got some loopholes...
Lastly (really this time) lots of the spam I get is for spam lists, or other seedy small time scam type stuff. Making this market a bit less profitable will dry up the market a lot. That leaves the big guys, but they will probably clean up their act, because they have more important things to worry about.
Basically, it seems that virtually all spam beneficiaries have some tie to the US, or other 1st world country. DNS, Website, PO Box etc.
Also, the law wouldn't have to be criminal, that would just be a pain for everyone, just civil.
Just some additional thoughts...
Most of the spam I get now, is from companies that are using "contractors" to spam, or spam from offshore (i.e. China) ISP's. The advertised product is from the US often, but the advertisee is not. Therefore, shutting down the "spammer" isn't going to do anything.
Now I don't know how to practically impliment this, as there are some pitfalls, but with some decent legislation, we could make it possible to target the beneficiary of the spam. That makes it possible to attack the real reason for the spam - where we can use our laws etc to attack it.
Sure, there will be spam that also has you send you money to China/Afganistan etc, but that will make the spam much less profitable, as most people won't do so. Lastly, most people will use credit cards, and I assume that most SPAM scams are frauds too, so the chargebacks will be hell for the spam beneficiary.
Anyway, it just seems that we can't just attack the spammer, we really need to attack the beneficiary. Then the spammers will go away, as they can't find anyone to demand their services.
Sure, I'm crazy, but what the heck!
Just some more follow up -
This from the CDC...
=====
If someone comes in contact with smallpox, how long does it take to show symptoms?
The incubation period is about 12 days (range: 7 to 17 days) following exposure. Initial symptoms include high fever, fatigue, and head and back aches. A characteristic rash, most prominent on the face, arms, and legs, follows in 2-3 days. The rash starts with flat red lesions that evolve at the same rate. Lesions become pus-filled after a few days and then begin to crust early in the second week. Scabs develop and then separate and fall off after about 3-4 weeks.
---
How is smallpox spread?
In the majority of cases, smallpox is spread from one person to another by infected saliva droplets that expose a susceptible person having face-to-face contact with the ill person. People with smallpox are most infectious during the first week of illness, because that is when the largest amount of virus is present in saliva. However, some risk of transmission lasts until all scabs have fallen off.
Contaminated clothing or bed linen could also spread the virus. Special precautions need to be taken to ensure that all bedding and clothing of patients are cleaned appropriately with bleach and hot water. Disinfectants such as bleach and quaternary ammonia can be used for cleaning contaminated surfaces.
Now do you believe me? Sheesh - get reliable data from a scientific source, not a drama writer...
Notice that the initial high transmissible period is the first week of illness...not infection.