Through mid-1985, I'd have to agree. Beyond that, BYTE suffered the same fate as Creative Computing, getting watered down to be more general as both were used to fulfill remaining subscriptions of more narrowly-focused magazines like Compute! Gazette and the like as they failed. I was unfortunate enough to buy a 2-year BYTE subscription in early '85, so I saw its decline first-hand.
I am just wondering... What would happen to classcal music if they started to use Auto-tune.
I'd expect it would sound pretty horrid. The classical instruments have a much looser model of the individual notes' exact frequencies. This is essential to harmonic construction, which is all about ratios. I once read a very good article about this where the author went through a series of calculations for a C chord that produced four different frequencies for the E note above the root C.
Symphonic players have the ability to "bend toward consonance". Auto-tuning these notes to their absolute frequency would introduce a dissonance that would sound at least different, and at worst awful.
I also find it hard to believe that the spammers have not figured this out. It's not like they are stupid. They try very hard to deliver their payloads. It would be trivial to update their software to retry messages that receive those codes.
Actually, some have. I started greylisting about a year ago, initially with a 1200 second interval. It cut the amount of spam actually delivered to the filters by 90%. Experimentally, I cut the delay period to 60 seconds and the numbers stayed steady, implying that none of the bots were retrying.
Last week, I saw a big run that obviously implemented retry. The logs said they retried at 15 minutes. I went to a 20-minute window and saw multiple retries. Then I changed the retry message to remove the "greylist" term (keeping the "Try again in x seconds") and the throughput is back down to a few percent of attempts, even as I cranked the delay back down to 120 seconds.
I did report the waves to the ISC handlers lists, and one of them confirmed that at least two botnets are confirmed greylist-aware.
That being said, I have had problems with a couple of legitimate vendors whose mail servers apparently don't understand a 451 status. I had to move them to using my Gmail address.
Viacom played a little dirty. The Time-Warner phone number in that screenshot (which was also shown on a crawl across all the Viacom channels the evening of the 31st) is the RoadRunner trouble reporting number. Nice of Viacom to dump on the RR help desk, who arguably didn't have any part of this fight.
Isn't that just semantics? It's preventative through the threat of punishment.
In a sense, yes, it's semantics. But there's that whole 'Something Must Be Done' crowd out there, and to them, The Law Is The Protection. Meanwhile, for those predisposed to such things, the preventative is that threat of punishment, modulo the chances of getting caught, and modulo the chance of a successful prosecution. With those two reducing factors in play, it almost guarantees attempts to break this law will occur, and some fraction of those attempts will succeed in spite of the threat of punishment. Ergo, The Law doesn't prevent anything. But you sure hear a lot of people speak as though it did.
No, the idea is that the legal system protects people from other people who do illegal things, like attacking them physically, stealing their possessions, and threatening to do either of those things.
-1: Part of the problem.
The legal system protects nothing. It provides a structure for redress and punishment, but a law cannot prevent an act by a human being. It is only words. The system of law enforcement might be preventative, but it's primarily reactive.
Sometimes I think that maybe if my domain didn't look like it was a catch-all and had instead bounced those first e-mails addressed to users like a1aaa1azzzz1zaaaaa, catchthismail, and thisisjusttestmessageatall at my domain maybe it would have been less of a target for forgery and spam today.
Don't count on it. I religiously bounced non-account mail for the first 3 years of my current domain. It's made 0% difference. I do roughly track the non-account names. Many are simply random gibberish, and those items frequently turn out to be reflector spam (intended to bounce off me to their "true" destination).
The part I still don't understand is why I see spam sent to root and admin (two addresses that one would thing are predisposed to dislike spam).
since apparently Sony/BMG said they were still in the process of calculating said damage
IIRC, Sony's witness said they hadn't calculated actual damages at all. IANAJ, but if I were, I would have told Sony, et al to go home and come back when they were prepared.
I don't remember him specifically saying that a network card does not have an IP address, but I think I do remember him attributing IPs to computers. I do not consider this to be a mistake because there's no reason why we can't consider a single NIC to be part of a personal computer. Really, why make a distinction between the two unless there's more than one NIC on a single host? It does not affect the equation as far as NAT and other relevant aspects.
(note: I read the whole transcript)
You missed the part(s) where he continued to state that the public IP address identifies one, and only one, computer. Even after admitting the existence of NAT, he kept returning to this assumption.
What possible interest do you think the music industry has in determining what kind of music you listen to? As long as you're buying it from them, why would they care?
Possibly because the "music industry" has degenerated into the worst possible widget manufacturing scenario? As long as I'm "buying it from them", I'm buying what they make and sell (which is not necessarily what I like, but what's available from the machine [for varying values of 'I', of course]).
I argue that the choices in what will be promoted as popular are influenced by what the companies are tooled to produce more than by artistic merit. And while 'more of the same' has certainly been around for a long time (vis. the upthread mention of the British Invasion), the industry has grown more skilled in producing (as opposed to discovering) acts of a specific genre. It's not a conspiracy, but the natural result of efficient manufacturing processes.
The one thing that everyone on Slashdot seems to misunderstand about the music industry is that they don't tell us what we want to hear, they react to changes in the general public's musical taste.
Are you claiming that the music industry makes no attempt to influence the popular taste (by, say, only presenting acts that are generally similar to established successful acts)?
In the case of getting a home loan without revealing credit history, that's asking another entity to take one hell of a financial risk on you without any knowledge of your financial reliability. That's rather unreasonable.
Ever heard of New Century? The whole subprime mortgage meltdown comes from the policy of making exactly those bad investments.
Unfortunately, not everyone agrees on that point. I even emailed David Weinberger regarding his statements, and he replied that he intentionally conflates the internet and web because "that's what the "mass market" has done." (inner quotes his)
How anonymous do you think you really are? Everything you do leaves traces. Posting on slashdot leaves your IP and your IP can always be traced back to your ISP.
Perhaps you're unfamiliar with IP address spoofing? Granted, egress filtering combats this, though edge routers must enforce it. Once past a common back-routing point, spoofed packets are beyond tracing.
What I want to know is this: Exactly how do they intend to enforce this? Who's going to keep track of how many readers a blogger gets?
Raw hit numbers from your webserver logs should do it. Of course, to keep the costs of administration down, there will be no budget for sorting out unique page views or component downloads like images.
Slashdot Mirror
Through mid-1985, I'd have to agree. Beyond that, BYTE suffered the same fate as Creative Computing, getting watered down to be more general as both were used to fulfill remaining subscriptions of more narrowly-focused magazines like Compute! Gazette and the like as they failed. I was unfortunate enough to buy a 2-year BYTE subscription in early '85, so I saw its decline first-hand.
Please use the correct link for xkcd. Some of us miss the alt text.
What about STDPRN? (sometimes pronounced STDPR0N)
I'd expect it would sound pretty horrid. The classical instruments have a much looser model of the individual notes' exact frequencies. This is essential to harmonic construction, which is all about ratios. I once read a very good article about this where the author went through a series of calculations for a C chord that produced four different frequencies for the E note above the root C.
Symphonic players have the ability to "bend toward consonance". Auto-tuning these notes to their absolute frequency would introduce a dissonance that would sound at least different, and at worst awful.
I suppose this can't be construed as libel, right? ;)
T-Mobile and Capital One. Logs showed no retries for either one. They just took 451 as a permanent failure.
Actually, some have. I started greylisting about a year ago, initially with a 1200 second interval. It cut the amount of spam actually delivered to the filters by 90%. Experimentally, I cut the delay period to 60 seconds and the numbers stayed steady, implying that none of the bots were retrying.
Last week, I saw a big run that obviously implemented retry. The logs said they retried at 15 minutes. I went to a 20-minute window and saw multiple retries. Then I changed the retry message to remove the "greylist" term (keeping the "Try again in x seconds") and the throughput is back down to a few percent of attempts, even as I cranked the delay back down to 120 seconds.
I did report the waves to the ISC handlers lists, and one of them confirmed that at least two botnets are confirmed greylist-aware.
That being said, I have had problems with a couple of legitimate vendors whose mail servers apparently don't understand a 451 status. I had to move them to using my Gmail address.
Viacom played a little dirty. The Time-Warner phone number in that screenshot (which was also shown on a crawl across all the Viacom channels the evening of the 31st) is the RoadRunner trouble reporting number. Nice of Viacom to dump on the RR help desk, who arguably didn't have any part of this fight.
In a sense, yes, it's semantics. But there's that whole 'Something Must Be Done' crowd out there, and to them, The Law Is The Protection. Meanwhile, for those predisposed to such things, the preventative is that threat of punishment, modulo the chances of getting caught, and modulo the chance of a successful prosecution. With those two reducing factors in play, it almost guarantees attempts to break this law will occur, and some fraction of those attempts will succeed in spite of the threat of punishment. Ergo, The Law doesn't prevent anything. But you sure hear a lot of people speak as though it did.
-1: Part of the problem.
The legal system protects nothing. It provides a structure for redress and punishment, but a law cannot prevent an act by a human being. It is only words. The system of law enforcement might be preventative, but it's primarily reactive.
The part I still don't understand is why I see spam sent to root and admin (two addresses that one would thing are predisposed to dislike spam).
You missed the part(s) where he continued to state that the public IP address identifies one, and only one, computer. Even after admitting the existence of NAT, he kept returning to this assumption.
I argue that the choices in what will be promoted as popular are influenced by what the companies are tooled to produce more than by artistic merit. And while 'more of the same' has certainly been around for a long time (vis. the upthread mention of the British Invasion), the industry has grown more skilled in producing (as opposed to discovering) acts of a specific genre. It's not a conspiracy, but the natural result of efficient manufacturing processes.
And I don't listen to it, actually.
Isn't that somewhat naive?