Seriously, how many people really get legitimate e-mail from the major spam havens like China, Korea and Brazil? Until these ISPs start filtering port 25 traffic from their broadband customers, I don't see much of a reason to accept any smtp traffic from their wholesale IP space.
I've been excited to see Spore, but at this point, it's been so long coming, I'm really concerned that this game is not going to live up to its hype. The early phases look interesting for about 45 seconds, then it seems to be heavily repetitive and boring for extended periods of time. The game shifts across genres, which might seem interesting at first, but could also turn off a lot of people who may enjoy games like Pac Man and Tetris and then suddenly realize they're playing Warcraft or Unreal.
I am suspecting Spore is too ambitious for its own good. It will probably sell well, but it could turn into a huge flop by trying to be too much. This game should have come out this holiday season.
I tried Second Life again recently expecting to see a lot of improvement since the last time there was some hooplah about it and I was disappointed. This time around, it was pretty much the same thing.
In the very early days of the Internet there was a project that looks strikingly similar to Second Life - I think it was around 1998 or so and the concept and look and feel was the same. Anyone remember the name? They got a little venture funding and the site never took off - it suffered from the same "Ok, I'm here, now what?" issues that SL seems to have.
no. audio is audio, whether it's a single instrument or more.... maybe mathmatically, some instruments can compress better than a wider frequency spectrum of audio, but it's not worth mentioning.
An mp3 is just another audio format. It's not a step in a process. An audio file can be represented as a single track, or a multitude of tracks, and then is stored in a particular format, which may or may not be compressed or lossy.
Anyone distributing tracks in mp3 format isn't releasing top-quality material. If you really want the real deal, you distribute non-lossy formats like.wav or shn.
Petey, if you're really serious, release "In Your Eyes" raw tracks. Then we'll talk. Don't dump your crap into the marketplace and expect the best talent to do your bidding for free.
With all due respect, this is a gratuitious attempt to take advantage of free labor to generate revenue for publishing he owns. As well as an attempt to encourage others to remake that crappy song into something that resembles good music. Nice try.
Ok, if there's a new dot-com bubble coming up... I have a few domain names that are quintessential brands... like NERD.COM and FOLK.COM - hey... I have been trying to do something with these domains for a decade and after the hurricane hit my city, it's been a mess just trying to stay afloat.... if there is a new bubble, let's get something going. I'm putting these and some other primo domains up for auction at the Traffic East convention this month via Moniker and Sedo....
Sorry about the gratuitious post, but hey... this is what "dot com" is all about.. a good domain name. Aren't you tired of the stupid eBLAHITZ.com or myCRAP.com domain names? You'd think these cheapasses had no alternative but to DIGG up some stupid, misspelled domain name, but they don't... I am not alone.. there are good domain names available for groups that will front the money - the kind of money they'd put into even a modest ad campaign.. so where is this dot-com bubble? The first sign of it should be an interest in premium domain names that are up for sale... *knock* *knock*
Relay blacklisting is based around a list of known IP addresses that the SMTP server refuses to accept mail from, so if a spammer (usually a zombie PC) connects to port 25, the IP address is checked against the blacklist, if the IP is blacklisted (i.e. it's Verizon, Comcast or Qwest broadband space -- a common RBL IP block because those asshats don't police their zombie PCs) the server will instantly HANG UP on the connection. This takes a few milliseconds and virtually no bandwidth. More than 90% of most SMTP connections are dropped by systems that use RBL.
Compare this with content-based filtering where the SMTP server sits there and wastes precious bandwidth, cpu power and other resources churning through the spam garbage data, saving it, analyizing it, etc., only to find out it's junk e-mail and then either deleting or quarantining it. The amount of resources consumed by content-based filter systems is EXPONENTIALLY GREATER than relay blacklist filters.
This is why most ISPs mail services would literally choke if they turned off relay blacklisting as a means to stop spammers. There are literally millions of safe IP address lists that should not be sending mail that a smart postmaster will configure his server to completely ignore -- not even accept any mail content and waste bandwidth (*cough* Comcast, Brazil, most of China, Korea, etc. *cough*)
It works. It works very well. Without RBL, your mail server is in for a world of pain.
If you aren't using RBL, then you're just pissing away precious, expensive resources.
Spamhaus is correct in saying that 90% of SMTP traffic on the net is spam. Based on my analysis we're seeing somewhere around 93%. People do not realize how much spam is blocked by relay blacklisting that never even gets to content-based filter systems. Virtually all major ISPs, including AOL, are heavily using relay blacklisting.
If Spamhaus goes down though, ten more RBLs will pop up. It's necessary to stop spam. And they're right... most mail servers on the Internet are not capable of handling the sheer amount of traffic if they were not also hanging up on bogus SMTP connections before even receiving content information. You ever wonder why your e-mail is delayed? This is because your ISP is queing mail processing because they can't handle it all at once. Without relay blacklisting, e-mail would be even slower and likely interrupted. I'm not suggesting that Spamhaus is that important, but what they do in theory, is.
All I can say is, pray that IPv6 doesn't get adopted or it will be even worse.
The media is more moderate now than it has ever been.
The fact that you said that pretty much sums up the validity of your opinion. You now statistically share the same size demographic as people who think eating boogers will cure cancer.
Your source is not accurate. It's making wild ASSumptions.
Your theory that the Fairness Doctrine would embolden fringe elements has absolutely no ground to stand on when you look at the current climate without it. You claim every nutjob fringe element would be able to petition to get equal time... well, right now that's all we have are fringe nutjob elements.
The truth is, for 50+ years the Fairness Doctrine was in effect and it resulted in a MODERATE MEDIA. Once the Fairness Doctrine was abolished, that's when the advent of Fox news and all the radical pundits took over the airwaves without having anyone to answer to. With the F.D. in place, the stations took a less polarized stance because they didn't want to have to pander to the fringe elements.
Also, you completely ignore the other main aspect of the F.D., which is to force media to not suppress news that's of vital importance to their audience.
Stop trying to spin this into something it isn't. You are misinformed, ignorant and/or intentionally tring to mischaracterize what this is all about.
The Fairness Doctrine was some pretty totalitarian stuff. It basicly gave the government 100% control over all media
Dude, you have no freakin' idea what the f*ck you're talking about. That's the biggest bunch of ignorant drivel I've ever heard. You need to read up on this stuff and stop talking out of your ASS. The Fairness Doctrine was merely a set of guidelines for its entire lifetime, not even law, and it worked out find. You have no clue, no clue whatsoever about what you're talking about. Go buy a clue, a half a clue, maybe a picture of a half of a clue, and start there and maybe in a few years you won't sound like a total fucking moron.
The Daily Show is substantive because there's a lot of substance in current events not being outlined by the mainstream media.
The reason why The Daily Show is so popular is because it offers a more cynical, less corporate-controlled perspective on current events. Some may call that "liberal" but the whole notion of "liberal" was coined by conservatives as a way to marginalize any opposing viewpoint. The tired, "attack the messenger" rather than refute the message that has been elevated to an art form by the right wingers.
The reason for this mess is because of Ronald Reagan veto'ing the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. Reagan destroyed the balance that was mandated in network television and radio by doing away with FCC rules that:
a) Forced networks to report news of interest to their audience, and
b) Gave people a right to petition to have opposing viewpoints heard on these networks. If you're old enough, you may remember a time when editorial was contained to its own compartment in news, and there was always a message that said, "If you disagree you're invited to express your own opinion." Once Reagan destroyed the Fairness Doctrine, the broadcast networks were free to unleash a torrent of special interest-centric broadcasting that turned news into info-tainment and thinly-veiled corporate propaganda.
And that's what we have now. Thanks to Ronald Reagan. And that's why one of the best news programs in the entire nation is a parody comedy show that by its own admission, can't take itself seriously.
Again, thank you Republicans. Great job. This shit is going to come back to bite you on the ass too... just you wait. The loss of the Fairness Doctrine hurts everybody. It's not a partisian issue. It's a freedom issue.
Next time, considering doing some research into the content of the message instead of attacking the messenger. This is the standard tactic of conservatives who can't argue the truth and have to create a distraction.
Keith Olbermann has an incredibly poignant video response on this issue. This is probably what motivated some conservative nutjob to send him a letter full of soap powder. Sometimes I wonder about people.
I am amused at stories like this because this is an example of corporate maneuvers coming back to bite them on the ass. Lots of small companies have been put out of business because software companies have given away products and services in an effort to get market share. Now, the open-source/freeware movement is doing the same thing to the corporations.
Considering it's probably virtually impossible to find any media or reference source upon which someone may not challenge its reliability, I've always wondered what the basis of the often ambiguous claims that are spewed around the net and other media on Wiki's supposed inaccuracies?
Personally, I think 99% of the claims are bullshit. You have political people out there who claim Wiki is bogus because the articles don't match up with their agenda. I think the majority of the claims probably have to do with subjective, delusional interpretations of that nature.
That notwithstanding, I've still never really found Wiki information to be significantly inaccurate. Maybe I am not looking in the right places, but even when an entry is defaced, it's pretty obvious and often it's quickly corrected. I still don't think there is any encyclopedic source anywhere that is as dynamic and comprehensive (and probably willing to be updated based on consensus discussion among a wide variety of participants).
So is this notion of Wiki being a questionable information source warranted? Or is this some ambiguous claim that seems to be passed on and on without much substance behind it?
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, how many people really get legitimate e-mail from the major spam havens like China, Korea and Brazil? Until these ISPs start filtering port 25 traffic from their broadband customers, I don't see much of a reason to accept any smtp traffic from their wholesale IP space.
I've been excited to see Spore, but at this point, it's been so long coming, I'm really concerned that this game is not going to live up to its hype. The early phases look interesting for about 45 seconds, then it seems to be heavily repetitive and boring for extended periods of time. The game shifts across genres, which might seem interesting at first, but could also turn off a lot of people who may enjoy games like Pac Man and Tetris and then suddenly realize they're playing Warcraft or Unreal.
I am suspecting Spore is too ambitious for its own good. It will probably sell well, but it could turn into a huge flop by trying to be too much. This game should have come out this holiday season.
Totally hilarious! I wish I had mod points..
I tried Second Life again recently expecting to see a lot of improvement since the last time there was some hooplah about it and I was disappointed. This time around, it was pretty much the same thing.
In the very early days of the Internet there was a project that looks strikingly similar to Second Life - I think it was around 1998 or so and the concept and look and feel was the same. Anyone remember the name? They got a little venture funding and the site never took off - it suffered from the same "Ok, I'm here, now what?" issues that SL seems to have.
lol... yea, flac too
no. audio is audio, whether it's a single instrument or more.... maybe mathmatically, some instruments can compress better than a wider frequency spectrum of audio, but it's not worth mentioning.
The song sucks. It's not a troll. It's an opinion. You can disagree. Unless you're Peter Gabriel, it's not a troll you fucking idiot.
An mp3 is just another audio format. It's not a step in a process. An audio file can be represented as a single track, or a multitude of tracks, and then is stored in a particular format, which may or may not be compressed or lossy.
.wav or shn.
Anyone distributing tracks in mp3 format isn't releasing top-quality material. If you really want the real deal, you distribute non-lossy formats like
Petey, if you're really serious, release "In Your Eyes" raw tracks. Then we'll talk. Don't dump your crap into the marketplace and expect the best talent to do your bidding for free.
With all due respect, this is a gratuitious attempt to take advantage of free labor to generate revenue for publishing he owns. As well as an attempt to encourage others to remake that crappy song into something that resembles good music. Nice try.
Ok, if there's a new dot-com bubble coming up... I have a few domain names that are quintessential brands... like NERD.COM and FOLK.COM - hey... I have been trying to do something with these domains for a decade and after the hurricane hit my city, it's been a mess just trying to stay afloat.... if there is a new bubble, let's get something going. I'm putting these and some other primo domains up for auction at the Traffic East convention this month via Moniker and Sedo....
Sorry about the gratuitious post, but hey... this is what "dot com" is all about.. a good domain name. Aren't you tired of the stupid eBLAHITZ.com or myCRAP.com domain names? You'd think these cheapasses had no alternative but to DIGG up some stupid, misspelled domain name, but they don't... I am not alone.. there are good domain names available for groups that will front the money - the kind of money they'd put into even a modest ad campaign.. so where is this dot-com bubble? The first sign of it should be an interest in premium domain names that are up for sale... *knock* *knock*
Relay blacklisting is based around a list of known IP addresses that the SMTP server refuses to accept mail from, so if a spammer (usually a zombie PC) connects to port 25, the IP address is checked against the blacklist, if the IP is blacklisted (i.e. it's Verizon, Comcast or Qwest broadband space -- a common RBL IP block because those asshats don't police their zombie PCs) the server will instantly HANG UP on the connection. This takes a few milliseconds and virtually no bandwidth. More than 90% of most SMTP connections are dropped by systems that use RBL.
Compare this with content-based filtering where the SMTP server sits there and wastes precious bandwidth, cpu power and other resources churning through the spam garbage data, saving it, analyizing it, etc., only to find out it's junk e-mail and then either deleting or quarantining it. The amount of resources consumed by content-based filter systems is EXPONENTIALLY GREATER than relay blacklist filters.
This is why most ISPs mail services would literally choke if they turned off relay blacklisting as a means to stop spammers. There are literally millions of safe IP address lists that should not be sending mail that a smart postmaster will configure his server to completely ignore -- not even accept any mail content and waste bandwidth (*cough* Comcast, Brazil, most of China, Korea, etc. *cough*)
It works. It works very well. Without RBL, your mail server is in for a world of pain.
If you aren't using RBL, then you're just pissing away precious, expensive resources.
Spamhaus is correct in saying that 90% of SMTP traffic on the net is spam. Based on my analysis we're seeing somewhere around 93%. People do not realize how much spam is blocked by relay blacklisting that never even gets to content-based filter systems. Virtually all major ISPs, including AOL, are heavily using relay blacklisting.
If Spamhaus goes down though, ten more RBLs will pop up. It's necessary to stop spam. And they're right... most mail servers on the Internet are not capable of handling the sheer amount of traffic if they were not also hanging up on bogus SMTP connections before even receiving content information. You ever wonder why your e-mail is delayed? This is because your ISP is queing mail processing because they can't handle it all at once. Without relay blacklisting, e-mail would be even slower and likely interrupted. I'm not suggesting that Spamhaus is that important, but what they do in theory, is.
All I can say is, pray that IPv6 doesn't get adopted or it will be even worse.
The media is more moderate now than it has ever been.
The fact that you said that pretty much sums up the validity of your opinion. You now statistically share the same size demographic as people who think eating boogers will cure cancer.
Enough already.
Your source is not accurate. It's making wild ASSumptions.
Your theory that the Fairness Doctrine would embolden fringe elements has absolutely no ground to stand on when you look at the current climate without it. You claim every nutjob fringe element would be able to petition to get equal time... well, right now that's all we have are fringe nutjob elements.
The truth is, for 50+ years the Fairness Doctrine was in effect and it resulted in a MODERATE MEDIA. Once the Fairness Doctrine was abolished, that's when the advent of Fox news and all the radical pundits took over the airwaves without having anyone to answer to. With the F.D. in place, the stations took a less polarized stance because they didn't want to have to pander to the fringe elements.
Also, you completely ignore the other main aspect of the F.D., which is to force media to not suppress news that's of vital importance to their audience.
Stop trying to spin this into something it isn't. You are misinformed, ignorant and/or intentionally tring to mischaracterize what this is all about.
WHat gives you the idea that the Daily Show isn't "corporate".
I said "corporate-centric". Do you understand what that means?
Reading comprehension. Look into it.
The Fairness Doctrine was some pretty totalitarian stuff. It basicly gave the government 100% control over all media
Dude, you have no freakin' idea what the f*ck you're talking about. That's the biggest bunch of ignorant drivel I've ever heard. You need to read up on this stuff and stop talking out of your ASS. The Fairness Doctrine was merely a set of guidelines for its entire lifetime, not even law, and it worked out find. You have no clue, no clue whatsoever about what you're talking about. Go buy a clue, a half a clue, maybe a picture of a half of a clue, and start there and maybe in a few years you won't sound like a total fucking moron.
The Daily Show is substantive because there's a lot of substance in current events not being outlined by the mainstream media.
The reason why The Daily Show is so popular is because it offers a more cynical, less corporate-controlled perspective on current events. Some may call that "liberal" but the whole notion of "liberal" was coined by conservatives as a way to marginalize any opposing viewpoint. The tired, "attack the messenger" rather than refute the message that has been elevated to an art form by the right wingers.
The reason for this mess is because of Ronald Reagan veto'ing the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. Reagan destroyed the balance that was mandated in network television and radio by doing away with FCC rules that:
a) Forced networks to report news of interest to their audience, and
b) Gave people a right to petition to have opposing viewpoints heard on these networks.
If you're old enough, you may remember a time when editorial was contained to its own compartment in news, and there was always a message that said, "If you disagree you're invited to express your own opinion." Once Reagan destroyed the Fairness Doctrine, the broadcast networks were free to unleash a torrent of special interest-centric broadcasting that turned news into info-tainment and thinly-veiled corporate propaganda.
And that's what we have now. Thanks to Ronald Reagan. And that's why one of the best news programs in the entire nation is a parody comedy show that by its own admission, can't take itself seriously.
Again, thank you Republicans. Great job. This shit is going to come back to bite you on the ass too... just you wait. The loss of the Fairness Doctrine hurts everybody. It's not a partisian issue. It's a freedom issue.
Next time, considering doing some research into the content of the message instead of attacking the messenger. This is the standard tactic of conservatives who can't argue the truth and have to create a distraction.
Keith Olbermann has an incredibly poignant video response on this issue. This is probably what motivated some conservative nutjob to send him a letter full of soap powder. Sometimes I wonder about people.
By all accounts based on this testimony there's one person we probably can't depend on helping "save the world."
Don't blame the hosting companies in this case, blame Cpanel
So in other words, the people at Cpanel held a gun to your head and forced you to install their software for your customers?
Thank about it. If you're spending much time enamoured with the content at Myspace, your standards aren't that high in the first place.
I am amused at stories like this because this is an example of corporate maneuvers coming back to bite them on the ass. Lots of small companies have been put out of business because software companies have given away products and services in an effort to get market share. Now, the open-source/freeware movement is doing the same thing to the corporations.
Considering it's probably virtually impossible to find any media or reference source upon which someone may not challenge its reliability, I've always wondered what the basis of the often ambiguous claims that are spewed around the net and other media on Wiki's supposed inaccuracies?
Personally, I think 99% of the claims are bullshit. You have political people out there who claim Wiki is bogus because the articles don't match up with their agenda. I think the majority of the claims probably have to do with subjective, delusional interpretations of that nature.
That notwithstanding, I've still never really found Wiki information to be significantly inaccurate. Maybe I am not looking in the right places, but even when an entry is defaced, it's pretty obvious and often it's quickly corrected. I still don't think there is any encyclopedic source anywhere that is as dynamic and comprehensive (and probably willing to be updated based on consensus discussion among a wide variety of participants).
So is this notion of Wiki being a questionable information source warranted? Or is this some ambiguous claim that seems to be passed on and on without much substance behind it?