I missed ABC's Nightline, but I saw the same thing on one of the science shows on PBS over a year ago. It's very interesting stuff. But a lot of things, like multiple strokes, is old news... 20 years old for me. I can actually see the multiple stroke activity visually and have known about it for years.
I'm not sure why they are calling it a mystery about some of the causes and actions. Perhaps the academics haven't pinned down irrefutable proof, and that's fine. But the probable sources and causes are fairly well known. They may be theories, but they are good ones.
Spamming is simply a method of communication used by people with small minds to extract money from other people with small minds. The problem with spamming is that the flack hits the rest of us.
I just got attempted mail delivery from Monsterhut on August 29. It was blocked because I already subscribe to a number of spam blocking zones. More info is available about why Monsterhut is blocked here.
As long as we can block spammers, we don't have to take it out on the ISPs. It's when the spam gets mixed up with legitimate mail (such as from an open relay where otherwise good mail comes from, or via a regular mail server relayed by their customers) that we need to complain directly to the hosting ISP.
Another approach is to complain to any businesses that appear to be customers of Monsterhut, such as Hertz, even if that company wasn't involved in spamming. Tell them (the customers) that because Monsterhut is spamming, any legitimate email promotions they might send out won't get through because everyone has Monsterhut blocked off.
The original site appears to be up and operating fine, so I took my mirror back down. The link now redirects to the original site. 90 unique IPs accessed the mirror site, so unless the original site was way wimpy, the mirror didn't help divert/. effect load, although it probably did let 90 more people see the site without having to wait.
Why did we let them in in the first place? They thought they were gonna get rich and make billions of dollars from the web doing stuff like extracting personal and private information and forcing us to buy stuff from insecure and badly administered web sites. We knew this was not what the internet was about, and we (most of us) knew there wasn't that much money to be made on it. So why did we let them do it? Is it because we wanted to "stick it to the man" without him realizing until it was too late?
Why do we keep trying to make it easier for people of lower IQ to use computers, especially when it just makes computers less useful? Just look at all those "Dummies" books that popped up (must be a lot of dummies out there).
The sad part of "commercialization" is that it is necessary to attract the masses in order for the commercialization to be a success (in their goal of getting rich). I don't mind the commercialized aspect of it but I really hate the dumbing down it brings with it. Is there any possible hope of separating the two? Is there any way to commercially do anything on the internet strictly for smart people, and make at least a decent living at it, besides being an ISP (as if that even does it).
It's called free hosting. They still get the credit via the full path, including domain name, in the URL. And it will be taken down as soon as the/. effect subsides.
Another mirror is here, at least for a while. You can also get the tarball [1058816 bytes gzipped to 893547 bytes] here if you want to jumpstart your own mirror.
So when do we get to see a complete round up of all journaling filesystems (I noticed ext3 was missing), including comparisons of features (including implementation features) and benchmarks on a variety of hardware configurations (SCSI, IDE, USB, RAID)?
The very fact you might need a new API would be one major reason why metadata is a bad idea. While the concept of having metadata is not in itself bad, implementations of it that require special access are. For example, if I have a filesystem with metadata that uses special API system calls, how will I be able to backup and restore that filesystem with the metadata using ordinary tools like tar?
A simple way to have metadata is to define another file. Just append ".meta" to a filename, or replace its extension with "meta". You can now read and write as much metdata as you want to have. Then any filesystem backup or transfer tool can do the job.
That's right, it's a feature. The space is inserted in the displayed text, but not in the href= attribute of the HTML <a> tag. The space is inserted to prevent long "words" that can't be wrapped by all browsers from messing up the site format.
The bootloader is not the issue. The issue is having more than one OS on the machine. And the partitions.
First of all, who needs more than one OS? The answer is that some people do, and those reasons are generally for people who have the skills (or are learning) to install two or more systems on the same machine, and understand (or are learning) the issues they have to decide, like partitions.
The majority of the computer using population does not need two operating systems on one machine. They just need applications that run. If we can offer them all the applications they need which run on Linux or BSD, then we can certainly suggest they run Linux or BSD instead of Windows. Then they don't need Windows. And if we make that suggestion before they buy Windows, we've saved them that money. And they can get a PC without Windows.
Aside from the obvious market lock-in, there is another reason Microsoft would not want to have Windows co-exist with another OS. That reason is support. Who supports the software on a system when each can impact the other, not only during the installation, but also during regular operation? Support costs do go up, and the finger pointing ends up making everyone mad and no one happy. The only time dual OS systems work out is if you take responsibility for it yourself.
Sure, I'd love it if more people knew they had a choice. But I'd never recommend to ordinary people to have a dual-OS system. It seems to be hard enough for lots of geeks to set up a multi-partition Linux system (preferring instead to have one swap partition and everything else on one big filesystem partition). And we would expect non-geeks to understand how to manage disk space between two co-resident operating systems? I think not. If someone not ready to do partitions wants to try Linux on a Windows machine, they should be using UMSDOS and LOADLIN.
How come IBM doesn't at least try to use Postfix? I mean, Postfix is an IBM-funded thing, and was developed to be the, quote, "IBM Secure Mailer"...
Probably because it is so damned hard to even get access to a S/390 or zSeries virtual machine account to do anything serious with. I'd love to port, test, and package my stuff on more platforms, including mainframe, but an account that is limited to 3 months doesn't work for ongoing projects that never end. And one of my projects needs 2 with dual shared DASD. And those guys at IBM never responded to any of my email. So as much as I'd love to work on the mainframe, I'll just stick with Intel, Sparc, and maybe soon PPC.
And Postfix is my favorite, too, after having administered Sendmail for 8 years and Qmail for 1 year. I wouldn't go back. It's quite close in many respects to how I would make an MTA.
No, no, no.
If you want to go the "Windows [microsoft.com] is buggy" way, well, at least, try to be informative where the alternatives are concerned.
For those who wish to try another OS, the three big ones, not counting Windows, are BSD [bsd.org] (four powerful, secure, and robuts variations), Linux [linux.org] (more distributions than you can shake a CAT 5 at), and Solaris [sun.com] (The premiere commercial *Nix). All four have their good points, and all four are certainly worth checking before you decide on one.
See? I mean, if Windows is still so widely used, there is a reason, you know...:)
"Faced with mounting competition from the electric power industry, which has recently launched ultra-high speed internet access via power lines, in a joint news conference, representatives of 4 RBOCs, and 3 cable TV facilities providers, have announced a new program to provide alternative electric power to consumers using their existing installed wiring. 4 major power generating companies, including one specializing in environmentally clean generating capacity, have also announced partnerships with the 7 new power competitors to jump-start the new alternatives, who currently have no power generating facilities of their own. The first customers should be signed up sometime in the next few months."
If the MPAA only presented to Time-Warner the IP address, then it was TW that had the responsibility to correctly identify the customer involved. They would have had to verify from their ARP logs that no one but the customer was using that IP address at that time. DHCP logs would not be good enough, since hijacking IP addresses bypasses DHCP. This is assuming they are using DHCP technology. If they are using something else, and that something else has a flaw (most protocols do) with respect to hijacking, then they would have to have some kind of proof that it was his machine, as opposed to someone else who had hijacked the IP address.
In fact, it is not even necessary to hijack the IP via ARP. By using UDP and forged source addresses, someone could operate a server that takes requests on its own IP, but sends answers back on another (we're not talking RFC compliant here). Even ARP wouldn't know about that. Sure, it would take special software in the client end to recognize the wierd response, but designing such a protocol wouldn't really be any harder than any other P2P. In fact I would guess that future (if not even some present) P2P protocols in the works will further hide their origins by the following technique.
Requests to a particular server would be shuffled around P2P nodes until the right one found it, not by IP address, but by certificate included inside, or some other encrypted message. Then responses from that server could be forged with a different IP address, and/or bounced off one or more other servers (with the real destination being encrypted) for 1 or 2 hops, before finally converging on the destination in what appears to be a smurf attack.
Don't think it can't happen. In fact, I would be a bit surprised if it is not already happening. There are some very clever protocol designers out there.
ISPs could filter against these, but it would be very much a cat and mouse chase game. Encapsulation would be used to hide things in other protocols like HTTPS which are virtually impossible to selectively filter (either you block port 443 or you don't).
Playing by the same rules, I hereby accuse the suits at Time-Warner Cable of being ignorant about the technology and assuming that just because copyrighted material might be coming from some IP address, this does not rule out that the IP address can be hijacked easily (in fact, it is easier when you are away). While the DHCP server might not assign that address to a request via DHCP from other than the correct NIC address, the ARP query in the router will record whatever NIC answers first. The people who are in authority at Time-Warner Cable apparently are ignorant of this and ignorant of the fact that an IP address does not identify an exact machine. They are therefore guilty until they can prove they are innocent. And I doubt they can do that.
There is no "machine at (insert IP)". To uniquely identify the machine, you must have the NIC MAC address. To get that, the ISP must be notified while the transfer is taking place, or be able to reproduce the transfer (for example a web server still offering the copyrighted file). The IP alone does not accurately identify an exact machine or customer.
They cut off the ability to read mail. They cut off all access. They also mistakenly assumed that no one else could have made use of the IP address. If their network is DHCP based, it's trivial to steal an IP address, especially when someone is away. It's the corporate suits at TW and other places that are the ignorant ones. Are you trying to join them?
Slashdot Mirror
I missed ABC's Nightline, but I saw the same thing on one of the science shows on PBS over a year ago. It's very interesting stuff. But a lot of things, like multiple strokes, is old news ... 20 years old for me. I can actually see the multiple stroke activity visually and have known about it for years.
I'm not sure why they are calling it a mystery about some of the causes and actions. Perhaps the academics haven't pinned down irrefutable proof, and that's fine. But the probable sources and causes are fairly well known. They may be theories, but they are good ones.
Spamming is simply a method of communication used by people with small minds to extract money from other people with small minds. The problem with spamming is that the flack hits the rest of us.
I just got attempted mail delivery from Monsterhut on August 29. It was blocked because I already subscribe to a number of spam blocking zones. More info is available about why Monsterhut is blocked here.
As long as we can block spammers, we don't have to take it out on the ISPs. It's when the spam gets mixed up with legitimate mail (such as from an open relay where otherwise good mail comes from, or via a regular mail server relayed by their customers) that we need to complain directly to the hosting ISP.
Another approach is to complain to any businesses that appear to be customers of Monsterhut, such as Hertz, even if that company wasn't involved in spamming. Tell them (the customers) that because Monsterhut is spamming, any legitimate email promotions they might send out won't get through because everyone has Monsterhut blocked off.
Monsterhut Inc (NETBLK-PAET-RO-MONSTER-1)
1 Columbo Drive
Niagara Falls, NY 14305
US
Netname: PAET-RO-MONSTER-1
Netblock: 64.80.216.0 - 64.80.221.255
Coordinator:
Pelow, Todd (TP521-ARIN) tpelow@monsterhut.com
716-298-9797
The original site appears to be up and operating fine, so I took my mirror back down. The link now redirects to the original site. 90 unique IPs accessed the mirror site, so unless the original site was way wimpy, the mirror didn't help divert /. effect load, although it probably did let 90 more people see the site without having to wait.
Why did we let them in in the first place? They thought they were gonna get rich and make billions of dollars from the web doing stuff like extracting personal and private information and forcing us to buy stuff from insecure and badly administered web sites. We knew this was not what the internet was about, and we (most of us) knew there wasn't that much money to be made on it. So why did we let them do it? Is it because we wanted to "stick it to the man" without him realizing until it was too late?
Why do we keep trying to make it easier for people of lower IQ to use computers, especially when it just makes computers less useful? Just look at all those "Dummies" books that popped up (must be a lot of dummies out there).
The sad part of "commercialization" is that it is necessary to attract the masses in order for the commercialization to be a success (in their goal of getting rich). I don't mind the commercialized aspect of it but I really hate the dumbing down it brings with it. Is there any possible hope of separating the two? Is there any way to commercially do anything on the internet strictly for smart people, and make at least a decent living at it, besides being an ISP (as if that even does it).
And then there's the troll issue on Slashdot.
It's called free hosting. They still get the credit via the full path, including domain name, in the URL. And it will be taken down as soon as the /. effect subsides.
Another mirror is here, at least for a while. You can also get the tarball [1058816 bytes gzipped to 893547 bytes] here if you want to jumpstart your own mirror.
So when do we get to see a complete round up of all journaling filesystems (I noticed ext3 was missing), including comparisons of features (including implementation features) and benchmarks on a variety of hardware configurations (SCSI, IDE, USB, RAID)?
So what is your solution?
The very fact you might need a new API would be one major reason why metadata is a bad idea. While the concept of having metadata is not in itself bad, implementations of it that require special access are. For example, if I have a filesystem with metadata that uses special API system calls, how will I be able to backup and restore that filesystem with the metadata using ordinary tools like tar?
A simple way to have metadata is to define another file. Just append ".meta" to a filename, or replace its extension with "meta". You can now read and write as much metdata as you want to have. Then any filesystem backup or transfer tool can do the job.
That's right, it's a feature. The space is inserted in the displayed text, but not in the href= attribute of the HTML <a> tag. The space is inserted to prevent long "words" that can't be wrapped by all browsers from messing up the site format.
And yours is also wrong. Didn't you check it, either? That's what [Preview] is for. It works a lot better if you make it into a hyperlink.
The bootloader is not the issue. The issue is having more than one OS on the machine. And the partitions.
First of all, who needs more than one OS? The answer is that some people do, and those reasons are generally for people who have the skills (or are learning) to install two or more systems on the same machine, and understand (or are learning) the issues they have to decide, like partitions.
The majority of the computer using population does not need two operating systems on one machine. They just need applications that run. If we can offer them all the applications they need which run on Linux or BSD, then we can certainly suggest they run Linux or BSD instead of Windows. Then they don't need Windows. And if we make that suggestion before they buy Windows, we've saved them that money. And they can get a PC without Windows.
Aside from the obvious market lock-in, there is another reason Microsoft would not want to have Windows co-exist with another OS. That reason is support. Who supports the software on a system when each can impact the other, not only during the installation, but also during regular operation? Support costs do go up, and the finger pointing ends up making everyone mad and no one happy. The only time dual OS systems work out is if you take responsibility for it yourself.
Sure, I'd love it if more people knew they had a choice. But I'd never recommend to ordinary people to have a dual-OS system. It seems to be hard enough for lots of geeks to set up a multi-partition Linux system (preferring instead to have one swap partition and everything else on one big filesystem partition). And we would expect non-geeks to understand how to manage disk space between two co-resident operating systems? I think not. If someone not ready to do partitions wants to try Linux on a Windows machine, they should be using UMSDOS and LOADLIN.
Probably because it is so damned hard to even get access to a S/390 or zSeries virtual machine account to do anything serious with. I'd love to port, test, and package my stuff on more platforms, including mainframe, but an account that is limited to 3 months doesn't work for ongoing projects that never end. And one of my projects needs 2 with dual shared DASD. And those guys at IBM never responded to any of my email. So as much as I'd love to work on the mainframe, I'll just stick with Intel, Sparc, and maybe soon PPC.
And Postfix is my favorite, too, after having administered Sendmail for 8 years and Qmail for 1 year. I wouldn't go back. It's quite close in many respects to how I would make an MTA.
No, no, no.
If you want to go the "Windows [microsoft.com] is buggy" way, well, at least, try to be informative where the alternatives are concerned.
For those who wish to try another OS, the three big ones, not counting Windows, are BSD [bsd.org] (four powerful, secure, and robuts variations), Linux [linux.org] (more distributions than you can shake a CAT 5 at), and Solaris [sun.com] (The premiere commercial *Nix). All four have their good points, and all four are certainly worth checking before you decide on one.
See? I mean, if Windows is still so widely used, there is a reason, you know... :)
DMCA, RIAA, MPAA, all 4 letter words ending in "A".
If the MPAA only presented to Time-Warner the IP address, then it was TW that had the responsibility to correctly identify the customer involved. They would have had to verify from their ARP logs that no one but the customer was using that IP address at that time. DHCP logs would not be good enough, since hijacking IP addresses bypasses DHCP. This is assuming they are using DHCP technology. If they are using something else, and that something else has a flaw (most protocols do) with respect to hijacking, then they would have to have some kind of proof that it was his machine, as opposed to someone else who had hijacked the IP address.
In fact, it is not even necessary to hijack the IP via ARP. By using UDP and forged source addresses, someone could operate a server that takes requests on its own IP, but sends answers back on another (we're not talking RFC compliant here). Even ARP wouldn't know about that. Sure, it would take special software in the client end to recognize the wierd response, but designing such a protocol wouldn't really be any harder than any other P2P. In fact I would guess that future (if not even some present) P2P protocols in the works will further hide their origins by the following technique.
Requests to a particular server would be shuffled around P2P nodes until the right one found it, not by IP address, but by certificate included inside, or some other encrypted message. Then responses from that server could be forged with a different IP address, and/or bounced off one or more other servers (with the real destination being encrypted) for 1 or 2 hops, before finally converging on the destination in what appears to be a smurf attack.
Don't think it can't happen. In fact, I would be a bit surprised if it is not already happening. There are some very clever protocol designers out there.
ISPs could filter against these, but it would be very much a cat and mouse chase game. Encapsulation would be used to hide things in other protocols like HTTPS which are virtually impossible to selectively filter (either you block port 443 or you don't).
Playing by the same rules, I hereby accuse the suits at Time-Warner Cable of being ignorant about the technology and assuming that just because copyrighted material might be coming from some IP address, this does not rule out that the IP address can be hijacked easily (in fact, it is easier when you are away). While the DHCP server might not assign that address to a request via DHCP from other than the correct NIC address, the ARP query in the router will record whatever NIC answers first. The people who are in authority at Time-Warner Cable apparently are ignorant of this and ignorant of the fact that an IP address does not identify an exact machine. They are therefore guilty until they can prove they are innocent. And I doubt they can do that.
There is no "machine at (insert IP)". To uniquely identify the machine, you must have the NIC MAC address. To get that, the ISP must be notified while the transfer is taking place, or be able to reproduce the transfer (for example a web server still offering the copyrighted file). The IP alone does not accurately identify an exact machine or customer.
They cut off the ability to read mail. They cut off all access. They also mistakenly assumed that no one else could have made use of the IP address. If their network is DHCP based, it's trivial to steal an IP address, especially when someone is away. It's the corporate suits at TW and other places that are the ignorant ones. Are you trying to join them?
That was my first thought. It would be more mobile that way.
You got that right!