In light mode, the text of each article in the main page just extends horizontally as far as it goes all on one line. I have to use the horizontal scroll bar just to read it. The bug here is that the <NOBR> tag for the menu row is not properly closed. The slash is missing in the closing </NOBR> tag.
BTW, a <NOBR> tag is a bad idea for that menu for light mode, as it will cause horizontal scrolling for itself.
Set them down in front of a computer/terminal/whatever. Say "the password is..." and tell them the password. See if they instinctively type "root" for the userid.
Set the candidate down in a chair right next to an excellent set of documentation material, like a UNIX command reference. Put the book on the desk if you have to. Turn it so it is facing them. Then ask them about one of the most obscure options on some command. Be careful not to phrase it like you are asking if they know the answer. Phrase it more like "How would you find out what the option to.... is?". Tempt them to pick up the book and look.
Not even the book authors memorize everything. Sysadmins may well learn a lot on the job, but there will always be something that happens to be what they don't use all that often, if ever at all. The good sysadmins will know how to look it up and won't be afraid to do so. You probably don't want to hire a Prima Donna anyway.
The above should also apply to programmers, although the questions will differ.
You better write that question down. I don't think there's an easy way to pronounce "f#&*". And if they don't know what "f#&*" means, you don't want to hire them.
More of the patents that never should have been issued are issued to companies that in some cases attempt to patent every iteration of some piece of garbage their research department came up with.
If the patent couldn't be issued at all, then if someone else started producing the product, there'd be competition. As long as the patent system exists as it does, of course lawyers working for patent holders must proceed to protect the property. So focus your efforts on fixing the system.
You are correct. That practice also existed. In part they could succeed because the prices of CDs were around double that of vinyl, while production costs were lower. The first couple of years, "demand" was so high it outpaced production capacity and the record companies could therefore charge more on the basis of supply/demand, and got richer doing so. So yeah, that happened. Had there been a compulsory reproduction law in place, there would have been more incentive for independents to build their own production plants, and the supply would have been higher. This shows even clearer that the record companies, because they have a monopoly on the production, can manipulate supply. And one reason they hate online delivery (not just free sharing) is because it would destroy their capability to do that manipulation.
If you choose to publish, you are making your relationship with the public. Anyone in between is irrelevant. If you publish a book, I can buy some somewhere and stand on the street in just a trenchcoat swaying in the breeze and sell them, or even give them away. But you get paid per copy so quit your whining. If it's popular, you get rich.
If you want to choose to NOT have a relationship with the public, then don't publish at all.
A shopping mall in the Fort Worth Texas area wanted to expand. So they took many people's homes to do it and paid they what their tax assessment value was. Home owners somewhat further out were now inundated with traffic, but at least they got to sell at market rates to businesses doing the normal purchase offering with incentives. However the lousy living conditions if they stayed probably would have screwed them over.
They could demand through discovery process a full auditing of your software usage. But that would be a process wherein they have filed a lawsuit already, and it would be under court supervision.
Without such authority, you should be able to just tell them to go away. But you better make sure you are clean, because that might just tempt them to file the lawsuit.
Before the CD, music was distributed on platters of (supposedly) vinyl consisting of a spiral groove of two orthogonal analog waveforms. This was the medium for most of the 1900s. The effect of the music monopoly on this medium was that only one manufacturing company, usually owned by record company itself, made the medium. Due to this monopoly, there was no incentive to produce good quality records as that did cost a few cents more per unit. The end results was bad quality, with some major record companies like RCA producing total shit (I bought several, and every one of them was horrible quality).
I believe one reason the CD rose in popularity so fast was that the quality was so much better, not just because of the vinyl hiss, but also because of all the clicks and pops from the garbage embedded in the vinyl. The CD wasn't totally immune from this damage, but it could correct a lot of it, and quietly skip a lot more, and you never noticed it.
Also, in the early days of the CD, record companies hadn't yet learned how to cut corners and reduce costs without completely destroying the product. Now days they are learning. The quality of CDs is going down and down as the record companies are trying to push the edge of what consumers will accept.
If there was competition in the media production phase of music production, with a compulsory licensing that allowed anyone to produce the medium and change whatever they wanted to consumers, and simply pay the publishing company that owns the rights to the recording (or the artists directly if they own it) the statutory or arbitrated fees, then the consumer would have a free market choice on who makes the CDs they buy.
In the day of vinyl (and even still today to some degree) a few companies were making reproductions of music on quality media. Usually the costs were very high, almost double. I soon found out that the original record company demanded a fee that was at least equal to, and in some cases more than, the retail cost of their own garbage. This would be a fee they would collect for not even producing the media at all. Compulsory and/or statutory licensing would have prevented this rip off.
There is precendent in statute now. This is already how the law works for certain kinds of reproductions (see The Harry Fox Agency and this licensing information page) and performances (see ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC), although it still does not work perfectly as reported in links found via Google.
Still, I think this would be a good step forward to have this kind of law in place not only for media reproduction, but also for digital online delivery.
Show me one that works on my mail server without overloading it. Mail comes in at a rate of about 20 per second. It will need to check it all. If you think the problem is solved at the client, you misunderstand the problem.
Paper spam has never been as significant a problem as electronic spam, because the sender pays most of the costs for paper spam whereas the receiver pays most of the costs for electronic spam. There is an economic throttle for the sender of paper spam. If we allow electronic spam to simply continue, it will scale up as most businesses would then perceive it to be legitimate. You'd end up having to delete thousands and tens of thousands per day. It would keep growing if there is the perception that it is legitimate and that it cost you nothing to delete.
Electronic spam does cost the receiver time and money. This includes the receiver's ISP. If you are on a dialup line (as most people still are because of the DSL debacle) the spam takes up more time on your mail downloads. As the problem grows it takes more time.
To sum it up, it might not appear to be that much of a problem for you at this moment, but if you scale it up to where it would be if no effort was made to stop it, you would not be able to handle the load. Some of us do understand the scaling issue. If every business in the world sent you ONE message PER YEAR, and somehow this were just evenly spread out in time, you would be deleting this crap every 2 to 3 seconds, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, all year long. The scale of the internet is simply not suited for spam.
If you really have to get back to work, what do you do? Do you send spam all day, or do you delete it? Or do you just not get much of it?
A network of authenticated mail servers could be very useful. But the effectiveness would be limited unless entry to the network requires agreement to terms to apply strong enforcement against spam, such as:
Limit each dynamic IP host to not more than 1 email message every 2 minutes.
Require dedicated network owners to agree to the same anti-spam agreement in writing to be allowed access to port 25 outbound or to access unthrottled mail servers.
Require legitimate bulk mailers to agree to certain terms such as using only opt-in lists even though the law otherwise permits them to use an opt-out list.
Must provide a contact address and/or telephone number for reporting abuse. Abuse reports from the general public must have a human response within 24 hours. Abuse reports from a member administrator/manager/engineer must have a human response within 2 hours.
Also, in countries like China, which are currently booming in regard to new businesses going online, there is a very common usage of pirated copies of older versions of Microsoft Exchange which did not have the capability to stop spam, or have it disabled by default. Not being licensed copies they don't get the latest patches. And they usually don't even have a sysadmin, or if they do, it's one who is incompetent or one who can't read English. Unfortunately, most of the help to close relays is primarily in English. This is bad as English is not really so universal as Yanks and Brits might like to think. Translations to all languages is needed.
Spammers cost money to those who get spammed. Pushing the cost back to spammers and the ISP who (perhaps through inept management) support them, is one way to stop them. Laws will not since this is an international thing.
That's old technology. Obviously it shows how inept you are. I've already had to deal with a spam attack on a server just this morning where even the rejected attempts (2-3 per second!) were slowing it down. Then even with an ipfilter they are still SYN pounding it. Your delete button doesn't solve the problem. You're years behind what's even going on. But maybe you can learn new stuff when you finally grow up to college age (if you can pass your exams).
Many spammers are already including the following tricks (I've seen them all):
Inserting your email address in the message body.
Inserting a sequence number or random hash.
Varying the message body content in many ways.
While not all spammers are doing this, yet, that some are indicates that newer spamware has this capability. Spammers are already aware of the increased bandwidths they have and taking advantage of that to personalize the messages in some way. For example the spam I get to help me enter my website (which I get many times for each of my domains) on search engines generally lists the name of my site in the message body. This is a technique that might have worked 3 years ago, but it is not as effective now, and looks like it will be ineffective within a few months of broad use.
Writing up such a document would be very time consuming. This is simply not worth it for one person. This issue isn't about getting you to listen to me. I could care less if you listen to me. The issue is about whether IPv6 will be scrapped. First ask yourself if there was indeed a way to do multi-homing right, without massive routing table, that would only work on a new addressing scheme and not IPv6, would the powers that be be willing to scrap the last 8 years of design work to have this feature? If you think the answer is yes, then go ask the various IPv6 working groups the same question. Is having multi-home light routing worth all that? I highly suspect that such a feature is "way down" in priority and would not justify scrapping all the work they have done in IPv6 and delaying the rollout for a few more years.
I'm not going to write up an RFC unless there is some reason to believe people will take it seriously. There is one reason to believe they won't, and that is because the solution means to scrap the whole design of IPv6 and start over (call it IPv7 maybe). The requirement "where every device could get a one-time fixed address and then you could plug that device into any network jack in the world and have it instantly work" is not achieveable with IPv6 (I can't exactly prove it because there are ways to sort of make it kind of work). It would require a new design to replace IPv6 and its way of doing fixed addressing.
You're still making some assumptions about this string of bits called the address. For one thing, you assume that the address has to remain constant throughout the travels. That's part of the flaw in the design. IPv6 spent too much time thinking about how to divvy up a constant address and didn't look at the big picture where the real requirements are the ability to configure a machine/network once, and be able to rapidly find the path to it wherever, and whenever, it moves. It's a convergence problem in time/space, and the addressing concept has to be a part of it. A constant (not static) addressing is just part of the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
In light mode, the text of each article in the main page just extends horizontally as far as it goes all on one line. I have to use the horizontal scroll bar just to read it. The bug here is that the <NOBR> tag for the menu row is not properly closed. The slash is missing in the closing </NOBR> tag.
BTW, a <NOBR> tag is a bad idea for that menu for light mode, as it will cause horizontal scrolling for itself.
You should:
s/Quietly/Quickly/so you will have:
QWEST = Quickly We Enrage Slashdot Trolls
Excellent arguments! Did you know the same situation also applies to the internet, too?
Set them down in front of a computer/terminal/whatever. Say "the password is ..." and tell them the password. See if they instinctively type "root" for the userid.
Set the candidate down in a chair right next to an excellent set of documentation material, like a UNIX command reference. Put the book on the desk if you have to. Turn it so it is facing them. Then ask them about one of the most obscure options on some command. Be careful not to phrase it like you are asking if they know the answer. Phrase it more like "How would you find out what the option to .... is?". Tempt them to pick up the book and look.
Not even the book authors memorize everything. Sysadmins may well learn a lot on the job, but there will always be something that happens to be what they don't use all that often, if ever at all. The good sysadmins will know how to look it up and won't be afraid to do so. You probably don't want to hire a Prima Donna anyway.
The above should also apply to programmers, although the questions will differ.
You better write that question down. I don't think there's an easy way to pronounce "f#&*". And if they don't know what "f#&*" means, you don't want to hire them.
More of the patents that never should have been issued are issued to companies that in some cases attempt to patent every iteration of some piece of garbage their research department came up with.
If the patent couldn't be issued at all, then if someone else started producing the product, there'd be competition. As long as the patent system exists as it does, of course lawyers working for patent holders must proceed to protect the property. So focus your efforts on fixing the system.
You better not be doing any encryption technology or else you'll be in violation of the DMCA by doing that reverse engineering.
Law.com has some of the shittiest HTML I have ever seen anywhere on the web. Standards? They have no clue.
That's only one layer.
You are correct. That practice also existed. In part they could succeed because the prices of CDs were around double that of vinyl, while production costs were lower. The first couple of years, "demand" was so high it outpaced production capacity and the record companies could therefore charge more on the basis of supply/demand, and got richer doing so. So yeah, that happened. Had there been a compulsory reproduction law in place, there would have been more incentive for independents to build their own production plants, and the supply would have been higher. This shows even clearer that the record companies, because they have a monopoly on the production, can manipulate supply. And one reason they hate online delivery (not just free sharing) is because it would destroy their capability to do that manipulation.
If you choose to publish, you are making your relationship with the public. Anyone in between is irrelevant. If you publish a book, I can buy some somewhere and stand on the street in just a trenchcoat swaying in the breeze and sell them, or even give them away. But you get paid per copy so quit your whining. If it's popular, you get rich. If you want to choose to NOT have a relationship with the public, then don't publish at all.
A shopping mall in the Fort Worth Texas area wanted to expand. So they took many people's homes to do it and paid they what their tax assessment value was. Home owners somewhat further out were now inundated with traffic, but at least they got to sell at market rates to businesses doing the normal purchase offering with incentives. However the lousy living conditions if they stayed probably would have screwed them over.
They could demand through discovery process a full auditing of your software usage. But that would be a process wherein they have filed a lawsuit already, and it would be under court supervision.
Without such authority, you should be able to just tell them to go away. But you better make sure you are clean, because that might just tempt them to file the lawsuit.
Before the CD, music was distributed on platters of (supposedly) vinyl consisting of a spiral groove of two orthogonal analog waveforms. This was the medium for most of the 1900s. The effect of the music monopoly on this medium was that only one manufacturing company, usually owned by record company itself, made the medium. Due to this monopoly, there was no incentive to produce good quality records as that did cost a few cents more per unit. The end results was bad quality, with some major record companies like RCA producing total shit (I bought several, and every one of them was horrible quality).
I believe one reason the CD rose in popularity so fast was that the quality was so much better, not just because of the vinyl hiss, but also because of all the clicks and pops from the garbage embedded in the vinyl. The CD wasn't totally immune from this damage, but it could correct a lot of it, and quietly skip a lot more, and you never noticed it.
Also, in the early days of the CD, record companies hadn't yet learned how to cut corners and reduce costs without completely destroying the product. Now days they are learning. The quality of CDs is going down and down as the record companies are trying to push the edge of what consumers will accept.
If there was competition in the media production phase of music production, with a compulsory licensing that allowed anyone to produce the medium and change whatever they wanted to consumers, and simply pay the publishing company that owns the rights to the recording (or the artists directly if they own it) the statutory or arbitrated fees, then the consumer would have a free market choice on who makes the CDs they buy.
In the day of vinyl (and even still today to some degree) a few companies were making reproductions of music on quality media. Usually the costs were very high, almost double. I soon found out that the original record company demanded a fee that was at least equal to, and in some cases more than, the retail cost of their own garbage. This would be a fee they would collect for not even producing the media at all. Compulsory and/or statutory licensing would have prevented this rip off.
There is precendent in statute now. This is already how the law works for certain kinds of reproductions (see The Harry Fox Agency and this licensing information page) and performances (see ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC), although it still does not work perfectly as reported in links found via Google.
Still, I think this would be a good step forward to have this kind of law in place not only for media reproduction, but also for digital online delivery.
Show me one that works on my mail server without overloading it. Mail comes in at a rate of about 20 per second. It will need to check it all. If you think the problem is solved at the client, you misunderstand the problem.
Paper spam has never been as significant a problem as electronic spam, because the sender pays most of the costs for paper spam whereas the receiver pays most of the costs for electronic spam. There is an economic throttle for the sender of paper spam. If we allow electronic spam to simply continue, it will scale up as most businesses would then perceive it to be legitimate. You'd end up having to delete thousands and tens of thousands per day. It would keep growing if there is the perception that it is legitimate and that it cost you nothing to delete.
Electronic spam does cost the receiver time and money. This includes the receiver's ISP. If you are on a dialup line (as most people still are because of the DSL debacle) the spam takes up more time on your mail downloads. As the problem grows it takes more time.
To sum it up, it might not appear to be that much of a problem for you at this moment, but if you scale it up to where it would be if no effort was made to stop it, you would not be able to handle the load. Some of us do understand the scaling issue. If every business in the world sent you ONE message PER YEAR, and somehow this were just evenly spread out in time, you would be deleting this crap every 2 to 3 seconds, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, all year long. The scale of the internet is simply not suited for spam.
If you really have to get back to work, what do you do? Do you send spam all day, or do you delete it? Or do you just not get much of it?
A network of authenticated mail servers could be very useful. But the effectiveness would be limited unless entry to the network requires agreement to terms to apply strong enforcement against spam, such as:
Also, in countries like China, which are currently booming in regard to new businesses going online, there is a very common usage of pirated copies of older versions of Microsoft Exchange which did not have the capability to stop spam, or have it disabled by default. Not being licensed copies they don't get the latest patches. And they usually don't even have a sysadmin, or if they do, it's one who is incompetent or one who can't read English. Unfortunately, most of the help to close relays is primarily in English. This is bad as English is not really so universal as Yanks and Brits might like to think. Translations to all languages is needed.
Spammers cost money to those who get spammed. Pushing the cost back to spammers and the ISP who (perhaps through inept management) support them, is one way to stop them. Laws will not since this is an international thing.
That's old technology. Obviously it shows how inept you are. I've already had to deal with a spam attack on a server just this morning where even the rejected attempts (2-3 per second!) were slowing it down. Then even with an ipfilter they are still SYN pounding it. Your delete button doesn't solve the problem. You're years behind what's even going on. But maybe you can learn new stuff when you finally grow up to college age (if you can pass your exams).
Many spammers are already including the following tricks (I've seen them all):
While not all spammers are doing this, yet, that some are indicates that newer spamware has this capability. Spammers are already aware of the increased bandwidths they have and taking advantage of that to personalize the messages in some way. For example the spam I get to help me enter my website (which I get many times for each of my domains) on search engines generally lists the name of my site in the message body. This is a technique that might have worked 3 years ago, but it is not as effective now, and looks like it will be ineffective within a few months of broad use.
Writing up such a document would be very time consuming. This is simply not worth it for one person. This issue isn't about getting you to listen to me. I could care less if you listen to me. The issue is about whether IPv6 will be scrapped. First ask yourself if there was indeed a way to do multi-homing right, without massive routing table, that would only work on a new addressing scheme and not IPv6, would the powers that be be willing to scrap the last 8 years of design work to have this feature? If you think the answer is yes, then go ask the various IPv6 working groups the same question. Is having multi-home light routing worth all that? I highly suspect that such a feature is "way down" in priority and would not justify scrapping all the work they have done in IPv6 and delaying the rollout for a few more years.
I'm not going to write up an RFC unless there is some reason to believe people will take it seriously. There is one reason to believe they won't, and that is because the solution means to scrap the whole design of IPv6 and start over (call it IPv7 maybe). The requirement "where every device could get a one-time fixed address and then you could plug that device into any network jack in the world and have it instantly work" is not achieveable with IPv6 (I can't exactly prove it because there are ways to sort of make it kind of work). It would require a new design to replace IPv6 and its way of doing fixed addressing.
You're still making some assumptions about this string of bits called the address. For one thing, you assume that the address has to remain constant throughout the travels. That's part of the flaw in the design. IPv6 spent too much time thinking about how to divvy up a constant address and didn't look at the big picture where the real requirements are the ability to configure a machine/network once, and be able to rapidly find the path to it wherever, and whenever, it moves. It's a convergence problem in time/space, and the addressing concept has to be a part of it. A constant (not static) addressing is just part of the problem.