In working for a couple of _very_ large-scale list providers (opt-in good guys only) I've had to deal repeatedly with AOL's and Yahoo's spam cops. Yeah, I can trace email better than they can - and set more effective policies for combatting spam. (Duh, let's block mail from ISPs who send to more than twelve non-existant addresses a day) And as far as I'm concerned that dosen't make me anything special. I daresay you can't swing a cat around slashdot without hitting a good half dozen spam fighters who leave the AOL mail admins in the dust.
Acc'd to my pal previously of the PTO, a trademark cannot directly indicate a process in the manufacture of the item the trademark references, nor can it refer directly to what the referenced item does as a matter of course. His example was someone tring to trademark "Ice Vodka". They turned that down because the vodka was made with a cold process. So how can a windowing operating system receive the trademark Windows?
Havoc says "When you add drag and drop to an application you have a list of types that you support dragging or dropping, such as "text/plain". Applications simply don't agree on what these types are. So we need a registry of types documenting the type name and the format of the data transferred under that name."
Isn't this what the IANA media types registry is for? (http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/index.html) Why reinvent that particular wheel? Most every system has a file 'mime.types' describing some portion of the IANA media types registry.
Good point, but/. displays perfectly in Opera on the Zaurus. This joker's retooled design (as well as his own page) renders for crap in the same browser. I get half a viewable page. I'd like to be able to read more than the LHS of an article with my cheerios in the mornings.
>However, what if I am running a mission critical >service on port 80 that doesn't speak HTTP
Then you're screwed all over. You shouldn't run anything but the registered wks over port 80 - HTTP. You never know when a proxy will be in your way. For more detail see RFC 2616.
Cute similie, bit it's _wrong_. I've been an admin at two ISPs, and both blocked port 25 to all mailservers except their own. If one wanted to run one's own smtp server one was required to get explicit permission which included open relay testing. If one wanted to mail out through an alien mailserver a similar process was required. From talking over email issues with other ISP admins I learned that this is (or at least used to be) very common. Here's why
ISPs hold one another responsible for their networks. If I am hosting an open relay, connect proxy, etc. I'm going to be held accountable. I may be blocked one way or another, my ip range may be listed on someones site as hostile or exploitable, or I may get shunned in some other entirely novel manner. I'll almost certainly have to deal with annoyed phone calls and emails from other admins demanding I fix the problem.
This kind of peer pressure is really the only way we have to keep one another playing nice, and for the most part it seems to work. Most folks would be amazed at the amount of spam, viruses, and trojans which are stopped by this ersatz reputation network. Even complete wingnut vigilantes like wossname@monkeys.com occasionally are a blessing (albeit in deep disguise).
So if we can stomp on bad behaviour by blocking port 25 we'll do it. If users can't deal with a simple protocol for approving the use of other mailservers or testing out mailservers on the users' networks they can find another ISP. Most seem to understand and cooperate gladly. Those who don't can find another ISP.
Aren't there any software developers that work at the patent office???
I knew a PTO lawyer. Acc'd to him the only folks who look over patents are lawyers. The legal profession is one of two I know of as being anything like as time and energy consuming as software development (the other is medicine)((IMHO)). So, no, I expect there are very few geeks of both law and compsci who are the least bit competent in both pursuits, much less wandering the halls of government
First- I've read repeated comments here and elsewhere asserting that Gnutella clients are hell on bandwidth. Mine (which has been running, excepting upgrades, constantly for over three years) uses less than one kilobit/sec of bandwidth for searching and protocol overhead. I've tried other networks and have not seen any of them do as well.
Second- I've never had a searching problem. Once my client gets a good position in the network I never fail to get around 25 responses/sec from usually all save one of my directly connected peers. Anything I've spent any time at all searching for I've found and been able to aquire so long as I have the patience to wait 1-6 hours for it dependant on file size.
Third- decentralized networks _are_ useful to outsmart "dimwitted judges", but vastly more important are the advantages of redundant storage and independence from the vagaries of centralized index servers. See the freaking definition of the "Internet" for more.
Fourth- I share and download open content, most specifically episodes of MST3K, whose most excellent copyright owners have encouraged their fans to share their content since p2p networks were pure s/f. Someone is going to have the rank temerity to charge me, not only for my bandwidth, but also for the right to share content which I paid for years ago when I subscribed to Comedy Central, whose copyright owners have given blanket permission to reproduce? As my esteemed parent post noted, it is copyright violation which is illegal, not filesharing. I find it hard to credit that the EFF would confuse the issue as their compulsory licensing proposal seems to have done. Their section heading "Making P2P Legal" is very bad spin for a group which proposes to be defenders of digital freedom.
>"People can rant and rave on the Internet all they want, but when they
>cross the line of calling people to action to violently overthrow the
>Constitution of the United States, they have a problem," said
>McLaughlin.
Yeah, who are we to revolt against King George's 'legally constituted authority'. We should have just kept our fat colonial mouths shut back in 1776.
If nothing else, you don't have to pay out the arse for a copy of the "approved" development package. Being a cheap little bugger, that clinches it for me.
Slashdot Mirror
Duh, let's block mail from ISPs who send to more than twelve non-existant addresses a day
please imagine the above in the voice of yer typical dimwitted Yahoo postmaster. I never could write dialog.In working for a couple of _very_ large-scale list providers (opt-in good guys only) I've had to deal repeatedly with AOL's and Yahoo's spam cops. Yeah, I can trace email better than they can - and set more effective policies for combatting spam. (Duh, let's block mail from ISPs who send to more than twelve non-existant addresses a day) And as far as I'm concerned that dosen't make me anything special. I daresay you can't swing a cat around slashdot without hitting a good half dozen spam fighters who leave the AOL mail admins in the dust.
Acc'd to my pal previously of the PTO, a trademark cannot directly indicate a process in the manufacture of the item the trademark references, nor can it refer directly to what the referenced item does as a matter of course. His example was someone tring to trademark "Ice Vodka". They turned that down because the vodka was made with a cold process. So how can a windowing operating system receive the trademark Windows?
Havoc says "When you add drag and drop to an application you have a list of types that you support dragging or dropping, such as "text/plain". Applications simply don't agree on what these types are. So we need a registry of types documenting the type name and the format of the data transferred under that name."
x .html) Why reinvent that particular wheel? Most every system has a file 'mime.types' describing some portion of the IANA media types registry.
Isn't this what the IANA media types registry is for? (http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/inde
Good point, but /. displays perfectly in Opera on the Zaurus. This joker's retooled design (as well as his own page) renders for crap in the same browser. I get half a viewable page. I'd like to be able to read more than the LHS of an article with my cheerios in the mornings.
>However, what if I am running a mission critical >service on port 80 that doesn't speak HTTP
Then you're screwed all over. You shouldn't run anything but the registered wks over port 80 - HTTP. You never know when a proxy will be in your way. For more detail see RFC 2616.
Cute similie, bit it's _wrong_. I've been an admin at two ISPs, and both blocked port 25 to all mailservers except their own. If one wanted to run one's own smtp server one was required to get explicit permission which included open relay testing. If one wanted to mail out through an alien mailserver a similar process was required. From talking over email issues with other ISP admins I learned that this is (or at least used to be) very common. Here's why
ISPs hold one another responsible for their networks. If I am hosting an open relay, connect proxy, etc. I'm going to be held accountable. I may be blocked one way or another, my ip range may be listed on someones site as hostile or exploitable, or I may get shunned in some other entirely novel manner. I'll almost certainly have to deal with annoyed phone calls and emails from other admins demanding I fix the problem.
This kind of peer pressure is really the only way we have to keep one another playing nice, and for the most part it seems to work. Most folks would be amazed at the amount of spam, viruses, and trojans which are stopped by this ersatz reputation network. Even complete wingnut vigilantes like wossname@monkeys.com occasionally are a blessing (albeit in deep disguise).
So if we can stomp on bad behaviour by blocking port 25 we'll do it. If users can't deal with a simple protocol for approving the use of other mailservers or testing out mailservers on the users' networks they can find another ISP. Most seem to understand and cooperate gladly. Those who don't can find another ISP.
I knew a PTO lawyer. Acc'd to him the only folks who look over patents are lawyers. The legal profession is one of two I know of as being anything like as time and energy consuming as software development (the other is medicine)((IMHO)). So, no, I expect there are very few geeks of both law and compsci who are the least bit competent in both pursuits, much less wandering the halls of government
First- I've read repeated comments here and elsewhere asserting that Gnutella clients are hell on bandwidth. Mine (which has been running, excepting upgrades, constantly for over three years) uses less than one kilobit/sec of bandwidth for searching and protocol overhead. I've tried other networks and have not seen any of them do as well.
Second- I've never had a searching problem. Once my client gets a good position in the network I never fail to get around 25 responses/sec from usually all save one of my directly connected peers. Anything I've spent any time at all searching for I've found and been able to aquire so long as I have the patience to wait 1-6 hours for it dependant on file size.
Third- decentralized networks _are_ useful to outsmart "dimwitted judges", but vastly more important are the advantages of redundant storage and independence from the vagaries of centralized index servers. See the freaking definition of the "Internet" for more.
Fourth- I share and download open content, most specifically episodes of MST3K, whose most excellent copyright owners have encouraged their fans to share their content since p2p networks were pure s/f. Someone is going to have the rank temerity to charge me, not only for my bandwidth, but also for the right to share content which I paid for years ago when I subscribed to Comedy Central, whose copyright owners have given blanket permission to reproduce? As my esteemed parent post noted, it is copyright violation which is illegal, not filesharing. I find it hard to credit that the EFF would confuse the issue as their compulsory licensing proposal seems to have done. Their section heading "Making P2P Legal" is very bad spin for a group which proposes to be defenders of digital freedom.
>"People can rant and rave on the Internet all they want, but when they
>cross the line of calling people to action to violently overthrow the
>Constitution of the United States, they have a problem," said
>McLaughlin.
Yeah, who are we to revolt against King George's 'legally constituted authority'. We should have just kept our fat colonial mouths shut back in 1776.
If nothing else, you don't have to pay out the arse for a copy of the "approved" development package. Being a cheap little bugger, that clinches it for me.