Just supplying a fake file with no music seems like it would never work, simply because there are a lot more file sharers than there are people trying to stop them, and people are really quite likely to isten to at least the first few seconds to check that their downloaded file was the one they thought it was.
The Cuckoo Egg seems to have worked out a solution to this. I'm quite impressed with the idea. Still not sure it's going to prevent me from downloading music, but I feel it's certainly worth a try. (Yes, I download music. I also realise it's not justifiable, and therefore any reasonable attempts to stop me are perfectly acceptable.)
Xerox PARC did not have a complete system. You couldn't even draw into an obscured window. They had some concepts of basic GUI stuff but Apple took the concepts, and actually made them into a workable GUI.
Apples designs were based on a quick look at what Xerox had. Microsoft copied the whole thing - look and feel, data structures, everything!
It seems a little arbitrary to include the X extensions, but not the Windows extensions (and apple assuming there are some). There are a number of OpenGL programmers who use Windows after all. And it's not like 10 or so extra functions would have made the book a lot thicker.
Really though, the main addition a typical programmer would benefit from is a list of some of the more common extensions. Even if they're terse, and give only the briefest of descriptions, it would be nice to know what extensions might exist.
I would think there is at least some communication between the different divisions of Sony.
I wouldn't. Large organisations are typically pretty much separate companies. The only parts they share are the sharehlders, who aren't really too interest in exact the product portfolio.
Come on! A stone circle built in NZ isn't going to work properly. Stonehenge on its own is just a pile of rocks. You need a properly aligned networks of temples and natural features to generate the correct psychic energy flows.
Would you be able to refuse to testify in a civil case on the grounds that doing so may incriminate you? After all, there are criminal charges associated with copyright infringement.
It would be interesting if this defence would work.
Indeed. This is not my complaint. My complaint is with people who tell the innocent victims that it's up to them to sort out the problem rather than the people who are blocking them.
While I disagree with their arguments, I accept that sometimes blocklist administrators feel it is neccesary to block an entire class B. Of course, when that happens, it will inevitably block some legitimate addresses.
I'm just curious as to what measures are taken to limit the damage when such a response is deemed neccesary?
Because "Spam friendly ISPs" absoutely love SPAM, and the extra cost of bandwidth caused by it, and dealing with all the extra complaints. In fact, they love it so much that even though a minority of their customers are spammers, they're willing to inconvenience the majority just to let the loveley spam get through.
Come off it! It's a conspiracy theory based purely on speculation and paranoia. Unless you have actual evidence to suggest that, I'll put the anti-spam zealots with all the other nutcases.
It should not need to take an block of all IP addresses of an ISP to get them to do their jobs properly.
Is that the intention? You guys really need to make up your mind whether these lists are there to block spam or punish ISPs. It makes these arguments get very confusing.
So you're saying spammers should get many free runs of spam from within ISPs that support them (say tens of thousands from this particular one, since it's a class B)? Why should they get that?
They shouldn't. Why should someone change ISP because you have a poor quality spam blocking solution? Wouldn't it be easier for everyone involved to simply whitelist those who don't spam?
Why should the ISP be allowed to profit from spam?
Lots of other people profit from spam. For example, the people who sell computers to the spammers. Should they be blocked from supplying computers? Are you going to block them?
I noticed you still haven't answered my original question. What is the class B being affected?.
I don't know. It isn't my IP being blocked. Clearly though, Spamhaus lists entire class B blocks, otherwise you wouldn't need to look. Also, I find it hard to believe that every address in that block is assigned to a spammer.
Any email that has been specifically requested by a customer, for example, an email responding to a specific request, or with login information for a website that the user has asked for.
"Listed in Spamhaus" can be considered "not legitimate"
Only by spamhaus and its lackeys.
Have another mechanism that works without consuming excessive amounts of network or hardware resources, especially given that spammers frequently move?
No. Just keep the list accurate. Only include IP addresses of actual spammers. If someone who does not spam is blocked, then the list is a bad list, and you need a better mechanism.
You are a idiot. They SAY they will block larger blocks of unresponsive ISPs. And they follow through on that. How is doing what you say you will hypocritical.
Because it reduces functionality of the internet. By design!
Remember, Spamhaus does not block the email. People subscribe to their service as they describe it and use it to block email on systems they control. If you tell me I have to accept email from folks on a machine I control, forget it.
Do you have paying customers? If so, and they did not explicitely ask you to block non-spam email, then you are abusing their trust.
If your providers provider is really so innocent, tell us their name. The flat fact is you are a lying jerk who KNOWS that your "providers provider" is guilty as hell.
The customer's customer of my provider's provider is none of my concern, and none of your concern. Your fight is with the spammer. If you drag me into it, then don't expect me to be sympathetic to your cause. I'm not going to block all of your provider's customers just to punish you because you use spamhaus.
You must be a snot nosed third grader with the IQ of an ant.
Because people he wants to communicate with are being idiots and using a crappy blocking list, or using a crappy ISP themselves who are overzealous in their blocking?
This is why everyone hates the anti-spam zealots so much
Not really. Friends is about... well, friends,and Coupleing is about coupling. Yes, the format has obvious similarities, but the the characters are different, the type of humour is different, the relationships are all different.
There was a made-in-the-US version of "Red Dwarf"? Did not know that.
They tried twice. Two pilots. Actually, according to one of the writers the second pilot was great until the studios got their hands on it.
Here are two extremely successful UK to US sitcom adaptations:
I was not aware of those. I stand corrected. Perhaps it's just a recent thing that they've been oversanitising them, or something.
It's not too easy since the remakes were so unmemorable, it's easy to forget them. Examples that spring to mind:
UK->US: Coupling, Red Dwarf, Dad's Army (as the Rear Guard).
US->UK: That 70's show (as Days like these). They also tried a version of The Golden Girls, but I never liked the orignial.
It seems to be only sitcoms that are a guaranteed failure. Quiz shows seem to work very well, so do lots of other formats. Junkyard Wars seems very popular, for example. Yet they keep trying sitcoms.
But since this is one of my pet whinges; You know, it works both ways. British TV stations often try to copy US comedy shows with the same degree of success. When will they learn? IT DOESN'T WORK!
They can go for more generic terms, such as "applications that do not substantially affect the primary purpose of the software" or something like that. Or possibly just include all applications provided by a third party, or all applications intended primarily for advertising.
So? They'll subpoeana your password. If you've "lost" it, you'll have to convince the jury that you genuinely have, and there's a good probability that the RIAA have made a mistake in fingering you.
This is not a criminal trial. The burden of proof is a lot lower.
Slashdot Mirror
That's something I can see working.
Just supplying a fake file with no music seems like it would never work, simply because there are a lot more file sharers than there are people trying to stop them, and people are really quite likely to isten to at least the first few seconds to check that their downloaded file was the one they thought it was.
The Cuckoo Egg seems to have worked out a solution to this. I'm quite impressed with the idea. Still not sure it's going to prevent me from downloading music, but I feel it's certainly worth a try. (Yes, I download music. I also realise it's not justifiable, and therefore any reasonable attempts to stop me are perfectly acceptable.)
Xerox PARC did not have a complete system. You couldn't even draw into an obscured window. They had some concepts of basic GUI stuff but Apple took the concepts, and actually made them into a workable GUI.
Apples designs were based on a quick look at what Xerox had. Microsoft copied the whole thing - look and feel, data structures, everything!
I'm sorry, which intellectual property claims were those?
Well, there are a lot of "claims". It remains to be seen if they're particularly valuable though.
I see. That sounds disappointing reasonable.
It seems a little arbitrary to include the X extensions, but not the Windows extensions (and apple assuming there are some). There are a number of OpenGL programmers who use Windows after all. And it's not like 10 or so extra functions would have made the book a lot thicker.
Really though, the main addition a typical programmer would benefit from is a list of some of the more common extensions. Even if they're terse, and give only the briefest of descriptions, it would be nice to know what extensions might exist.
I would think there is at least some communication between the different divisions of Sony.
I wouldn't. Large organisations are typically pretty much separate companies. The only parts they share are the sharehlders, who aren't really too interest in exact the product portfolio.
Are there 7 emergency services?
Police, Fire, Ambulance, Coastguard, Mountain rescue, Cave rescue. Who am I missing?
Come on! A stone circle built in NZ isn't going to work properly. Stonehenge on its own is just a pile of rocks. You need a properly aligned networks of temples and natural features to generate the correct psychic energy flows.
Would you be able to refuse to testify in a civil case on the grounds that doing so may incriminate you? After all, there are criminal charges associated with copyright infringement.
It would be interesting if this defence would work.
And I say it's genocide! Times a million!
Indeed. This is not my complaint. My complaint is with people who tell the innocent victims that it's up to them to sort out the problem rather than the people who are blocking them.
While I disagree with their arguments, I accept that sometimes blocklist administrators feel it is neccesary to block an entire class B. Of course, when that happens, it will inevitably block some legitimate addresses.
I'm just curious as to what measures are taken to limit the damage when such a response is deemed neccesary?
Thta's because I don't know what ISP it is.
What provision doe s Spamhaus have for making exceptions to non-spamming IPs withing a blocked class B?
Because "Spam friendly ISPs" absoutely love SPAM, and the extra cost of bandwidth caused by it, and dealing with all the extra complaints. In fact, they love it so much that even though a minority of their customers are spammers, they're willing to inconvenience the majority just to let the loveley spam get through.
Come off it! It's a conspiracy theory based purely on speculation and paranoia. Unless you have actual evidence to suggest that, I'll put the anti-spam zealots with all the other nutcases.
It should not need to take an block of all IP addresses of an ISP to get them to do their jobs properly.
Is that the intention? You guys really need to make up your mind whether these lists are there to block spam or punish ISPs. It makes these arguments get very confusing.
So you're saying spammers should get many free runs of spam from within ISPs that support them (say tens of thousands from this particular one, since it's a class B)? Why should they get that? They shouldn't. Why should someone change ISP because you have a poor quality spam blocking solution? Wouldn't it be easier for everyone involved to simply whitelist those who don't spam?
Why should the ISP be allowed to profit from spam?
Lots of other people profit from spam. For example, the people who sell computers to the spammers. Should they be blocked from supplying computers? Are you going to block them?
I noticed you still haven't answered my original question. What is the class B being affected?.
I don't know. It isn't my IP being blocked. Clearly though, Spamhaus lists entire class B blocks, otherwise you wouldn't need to look. Also, I find it hard to believe that every address in that block is assigned to a spammer.
Define legitimate.
Any email that has been specifically requested by a customer, for example, an email responding to a specific request, or with login information for a website that the user has asked for.
"Listed in Spamhaus" can be considered "not legitimate"
Only by spamhaus and its lackeys.
Have another mechanism that works without consuming excessive amounts of network or hardware resources, especially given that spammers frequently move?
No. Just keep the list accurate. Only include IP addresses of actual spammers. If someone who does not spam is blocked, then the list is a bad list, and you need a better mechanism.
You are a idiot. They SAY they will block larger blocks of unresponsive ISPs. And they follow through on that. How is doing what you say you will hypocritical.
Because it reduces functionality of the internet. By design!
Remember, Spamhaus does not block the email. People subscribe to their service as they describe it and use it to block email on systems they control. If you tell me I have to accept email from folks on a machine I control, forget it.
Do you have paying customers? If so, and they did not explicitely ask you to block non-spam email, then you are abusing their trust.
If your providers provider is really so innocent, tell us their name. The flat fact is you are a lying jerk who KNOWS that your "providers provider" is guilty as hell.
The customer's customer of my provider's provider is none of my concern, and none of your concern. Your fight is with the spammer. If you drag me into it, then don't expect me to be sympathetic to your cause. I'm not going to block all of your provider's customers just to punish you because you use spamhaus.
You must be a snot nosed third grader with the IQ of an ant.
Insults are the last resort of the uneducated.
They're blocking people who aren't spammers.
That's overzealous. Anyone who deliberately blocks legitimate email is a hypocrite.
Why should he get a new ISP?
Because people he wants to communicate with are being idiots and using a crappy blocking list, or using a crappy ISP themselves who are overzealous in their blocking?
This is why everyone hates the anti-spam zealots so much
Don't forget that "Friends" US --> UK "Coupling".
Not really. Friends is about... well, friends,and Coupleing is about coupling. Yes, the format has obvious similarities, but the the characters are different, the type of humour is different, the relationships are all different.
There was a made-in-the-US version of "Red Dwarf"? Did not know that.
They tried twice. Two pilots. Actually, according to one of the writers the second pilot was great until the studios got their hands on it.
Here are two extremely successful UK to US sitcom adaptations:
I was not aware of those. I stand corrected. Perhaps it's just a recent thing that they've been oversanitising them, or something.
It's not too easy since the remakes were so unmemorable, it's easy to forget them. Examples that spring to mind:
UK->US: Coupling, Red Dwarf, Dad's Army (as the Rear Guard).
US->UK: That 70's show (as Days like these). They also tried a version of The Golden Girls, but I never liked the orignial.
It seems to be only sitcoms that are a guaranteed failure. Quiz shows seem to work very well, so do lots of other formats. Junkyard Wars seems very popular, for example. Yet they keep trying sitcoms.
Firstly, :)
But since this is one of my pet whinges; You know, it works both ways. British TV stations often try to copy US comedy shows with the same degree of success. When will they learn? IT DOESN'T WORK!
The wishes of the people does not come before the need to reduce the cost of running elections!
They can go for more generic terms, such as "applications that do not substantially affect the primary purpose of the software" or something like that. Or possibly just include all applications provided by a third party, or all applications intended primarily for advertising.
So? They'll subpoeana your password. If you've "lost" it, you'll have to convince the jury that you genuinely have, and there's a good probability that the RIAA have made a mistake in fingering you.
This is not a criminal trial. The burden of proof is a lot lower.