The lightsaber combat in eps 4, 5 and 6 especially seem a little lacklustre compared with the excitement of the big fight in episode 1. And the whole look of the series just jars a little when you have part 4 made 20 years before part 1 and really looking 20 years older even with the lick of paint for the special edition.
Add to that the fact that Lucas clearly changed his mind a few times about where the story was going, with Leia suddenly becoming Luke's sister (and I'm not even convinced that Obi wan's lie about Darth Vader killing Luke's father was originally meant to be a lie), it would make some sort of sense.
And then the guy can stop fiddling with the original trilogy, and "tell the story he originally wanted to tell".
Considering the NANAE group responds to criticisms about SPEWS, and the spews site suggests using that group to communicate, and given the hysterical loyalty to the SPEWS, I suspect some of the regulars there are responsible. It's not that much of a logical leap.
Since they insist that you deal with spam in their way, and don't consider there might be any extenuating circumstances, I consider them control freaks.
"Innocent" users affected by such blocks aren't actually "innocent" at all to them since they are keeping the "spam-supporting" provider in business;
Curious though. Telewest aren't making money from the spammers. The article explicitely states that the PCs are infected with trojans. The spammers aren't giving a penny to Telewest. Yet SPEWS still lists them.
But really it's that BT has a glitch in its processes that mean that if you move to a home that has had broadband before, it may be difficult to get them to switch it over to you.
I can see how it's irritating, but as nightmare stories go, I've seen a lot worse.
Entry 5 in the FAQ deals with network address ranges that haven't actually sent out spam (yet).
They are listed because they have been set up by known spammers and spam support operations, most with a demonstrable repeated history of spamming or spamming services. They are also listed if they host websites advertised in spam, as this too falls under spamming services - these listings normally occur if the owners of that network address range do not remove the offenders.
It's not clear though. "Spam support operations" is not defiend, but does not mean to me an ISP that host a few spammers as well as others. Perhaps somethign like, "We also list IP addresses advertisied in spam, and netblocks of ISPs that host spammers. Sicne we list entire netblocks, this will also include IP addresses on non spammers that subscribe to the same service as a spammer".
21 and 22 deal with the difference between level 1 and level 2 and talks a bit about listing whole netblocks.
Still vague. "Spam support organsiastion" is not defined anywhere. How about "Level 2 contains IP ranges of all ISPS that host spam sources including their non-spamming customers"?
They need to spell it out for idiots like me that don't understand the jargon.
SPEWS just covers way too much. Everything but SPEWS would probably make a good whitelist, but you need better heuristics than that if you're just trying to block. With a few other lists and some sort of intelligent scoring mechanism it works quite nicely.
I just find that many people who use SPEWS delight in the collatoral damage. If use it to punish spammers, or spam hosters, then they need to realise they are doing this with very little support from the community they're trying to protect.
Neither SPEWS nor "the admins who run it" "make all sorts of excuses and justifications" when challenged.
How do you know? Do you happen to know who runs it? I find it hard to believe the guys on news.admin.net-abuse.email are not totally responsible for it. This is purely specualtive though.
Their accountability comes from the fact that they follow their posted criteria for listing an IP. If you like their criteria, you're free to use it. If you don't then don't use it.
Their "posted criteria" are hard to find. Their justifications for these criteria are even harder to find. Whoever designed their website reeally needs to learn to use whitespace.
There are a large number of lax providers that cleaned up solely to get out of SPEWS. So I would say that they have had an impact on spam.
Yet this has not reduced spam. They mildly inconvenience spammers, and even then only affect the small scale ones.
If it was remotely effective, spam would be falling. Not rising.
It's a useless service that is in no way forthcoming about its purpose, and has no accountability.
The admins who run it are jumped up petty control freaks who think the internet should be run according to their whims, and they seem totally unable to decide whether it's there to stop spam, or punish spam hosters.
When challenged, they make all sorts of excuses and justifications without any ability to back their aguments up. They have made no impact on spam at all, and their service reduces the functionality of the internet more than SPAM does.
The SPEWS list is worthless as anything other than an indicator of potential spam. Any admin who takes blocks all of SPEWS doesn't deserve his job.
Different opinions seem to suggest different scope. There is the fact that they're going to be sharing data across databases, but that's not too much of a problem either.
What does worry me is the suggestion that you will not be allowed to open a bank account or board a plane without federally approved ID. If this is true, then its further reaching than just driving licence standardisation.
Yers... Both of the linked article complain non-too specific rants about how much they dislike O'Gara. Still sounds like they're bitching in public about private matters.
I've seen this sort of thing before, and it still sounds like a cat fight to me. People disagree then they find justifications to do so. PJ can look after herself. If the editor really wants to make a moral stand, he should leave and then justofoy his oosition. If he doesn't do that then it looks like he's manoeuvering for more influence.
If the article said what you've just said, then I might have decided to read further.
As it happened, all I read was an article about an undefined spat between an editor against a publisher and journalist. Over the treatment of another journalist. Neither of the linked articles go into any detail about the threats.
As an aside, I really hate this Google fear that people have. If the information is out there, it's out there. The harm done by increasing its Google score is not going to do a lot of harm. And besides, we should not adjust our behaviour because of the nature of how Google works.
Saying that eating kidneys is disgusting is a matter of personal opinion. I merely point out that some people find eating meat disgusting. The other poster claimed that kidneys were disgusting because it sounded unpleasant. I merely point out that a steak can be made to sound unpleasant as well.
Yes. It strikes me as odd that someone would criticise another as a bad journalist, and then offer no evidence to back up his claim. Makes it seem like more of a petty disagreement than an actual criticism of journalistic integrity or ability.
Why is it that common people always use the word hack in a negative sense? If you mean to say that she lacks ability, why not just say inept, unprofessional, clueless or some similar word?
It's been a popular term amongst journalists for quite a while now to refer to a talentless writer.
From an outdated discussion. Onestat.com puts the figure at closer to 55%. So do most independent rating systems. God only knows where wired got their figures from.
In that case, Google gained their dominance of the search engine market through murder and racketeering. It's got as much validity as the argument that MS achieved their monopoly through illegal means.
Yes.. because Wired is well known for its accuracy and precision. What is the source for that figure and how is it calculated? Number of people who use it? Number of searches? Total gross income from the search sector?
Slashdot Mirror
The lightsaber combat in eps 4, 5 and 6 especially seem a little lacklustre compared with the excitement of the big fight in episode 1. And the whole look of the series just jars a little when you have part 4 made 20 years before part 1 and really looking 20 years older even with the lick of paint for the special edition.
Add to that the fact that Lucas clearly changed his mind a few times about where the story was going, with Leia suddenly becoming Luke's sister (and I'm not even convinced that Obi wan's lie about Darth Vader killing Luke's father was originally meant to be a lie), it would make some sort of sense.
And then the guy can stop fiddling with the original trilogy, and "tell the story he originally wanted to tell".
Considering the NANAE group responds to criticisms about SPEWS, and the spews site suggests using that group to communicate, and given the hysterical loyalty to the SPEWS, I suspect some of the regulars there are responsible. It's not that much of a logical leap.
Since they insist that you deal with spam in their way, and don't consider there might be any extenuating circumstances, I consider them control freaks.
"Innocent" users affected by such blocks aren't actually "innocent" at all to them since they are keeping the "spam-supporting" provider in business;
Curious though. Telewest aren't making money from the spammers. The article explicitely states that the PCs are infected with trojans. The spammers aren't giving a penny to Telewest. Yet SPEWS still lists them.
Stop opening other peoples mail. Return to sender with "No longer at this address" on it.
But really it's that BT has a glitch in its processes that mean that if you move to a home that has had broadband before, it may be difficult to get them to switch it over to you.
I can see how it's irritating, but as nightmare stories go, I've seen a lot worse.
21 and 22 deal with the difference between level 1 and level 2 and talks a bit about listing whole netblocks.
Still vague. "Spam support organsiastion" is not defined anywhere. How about "Level 2 contains IP ranges of all ISPS that host spam sources including their non-spamming customers"?
They need to spell it out for idiots like me that don't understand the jargon.
Yet this wasn't listed in the criteria that were "quite clear".
Okay. Where does it say this in the FAQ?
So, is that a yes? The FAQ isn't all that clear about it.
Who says they care about SPEWS? If I worked fro an ISP, I'd simply care that many of my users are infected with trojans.
Whitespace! It's your friend.
I've always had the impression that people get listed if they host IP addresses that have emitted SPAM as well. Am I mistaken?
SPEWS just covers way too much. Everything but SPEWS would probably make a good whitelist, but you need better heuristics than that if you're just trying to block. With a few other lists and some sort of intelligent scoring mechanism it works quite nicely.
I just find that many people who use SPEWS delight in the collatoral damage. If use it to punish spammers, or spam hosters, then they need to realise they are doing this with very little support from the community they're trying to protect.
Neither SPEWS nor "the admins who run it" "make all sorts of excuses and justifications" when challenged.
How do you know? Do you happen to know who runs it? I find it hard to believe the guys on news.admin.net-abuse.email are not totally responsible for it. This is purely specualtive though.
Their accountability comes from the fact that they follow their posted criteria for listing an IP. If you like their criteria, you're free to use it. If you don't then don't use it.
Their "posted criteria" are hard to find. Their justifications for these criteria are even harder to find. Whoever designed their website reeally needs to learn to use whitespace.
There are a large number of lax providers that cleaned up solely to get out of SPEWS. So I would say that they have had an impact on spam.
Yet this has not reduced spam. They mildly inconvenience spammers, and even then only affect the small scale ones.
If it was remotely effective, spam would be falling. Not rising.
It's a useless service that is in no way forthcoming about its purpose, and has no accountability.
The admins who run it are jumped up petty control freaks who think the internet should be run according to their whims, and they seem totally unable to decide whether it's there to stop spam, or punish spam hosters.
When challenged, they make all sorts of excuses and justifications without any ability to back their aguments up. They have made no impact on spam at all, and their service reduces the functionality of the internet more than SPAM does.
The SPEWS list is worthless as anything other than an indicator of potential spam. Any admin who takes blocks all of SPEWS doesn't deserve his job.
Different opinions seem to suggest different scope. There is the fact that they're going to be sharing data across databases, but that's not too much of a problem either.
What does worry me is the suggestion that you will not be allowed to open a bank account or board a plane without federally approved ID. If this is true, then its further reaching than just driving licence standardisation.
Yers... Both of the linked article complain non-too specific rants about how much they dislike O'Gara. Still sounds like they're bitching in public about private matters.
I've seen this sort of thing before, and it still sounds like a cat fight to me. People disagree then they find justifications to do so. PJ can look after herself. If the editor really wants to make a moral stand, he should leave and then justofoy his oosition. If he doesn't do that then it looks like he's manoeuvering for more influence.
If the article said what you've just said, then I might have decided to read further.
As it happened, all I read was an article about an undefined spat between an editor against a publisher and journalist. Over the treatment of another journalist. Neither of the linked articles go into any detail about the threats.
As an aside, I really hate this Google fear that people have. If the information is out there, it's out there. The harm done by increasing its Google score is not going to do a lot of harm. And besides, we should not adjust our behaviour because of the nature of how Google works.
Personally, I'm quite fond of a nice rump steak.
Saying that eating kidneys is disgusting is a matter of personal opinion. I merely point out that some people find eating meat disgusting. The other poster claimed that kidneys were disgusting because it sounded unpleasant. I merely point out that a steak can be made to sound unpleasant as well.
Yes. It strikes me as odd that someone would criticise another as a bad journalist, and then offer no evidence to back up his claim. Makes it seem like more of a petty disagreement than an actual criticism of journalistic integrity or ability.
Why is it that common people always use the word hack in a negative sense? If you mean to say that she lacks ability, why not just say inept, unprofessional, clueless or some similar word?
It's been a popular term amongst journalists for quite a while now to refer to a talentless writer.
But I urged a boycott to be independent of a monopoly. Not as a form of punishment.
Steak is a piece of flesh from a murdered animal.
Talk about double standards.
From an outdated discussion. Onestat.com puts the figure at closer to 55%. So do most independent rating systems. God only knows where wired got their figures from.
In that case, Google gained their dominance of the search engine market through murder and racketeering. It's got as much validity as the argument that MS achieved their monopoly through illegal means.
Yes.. because Wired is well known for its accuracy and precision. What is the source for that figure and how is it calculated? Number of people who use it? Number of searches? Total gross income from the search sector?