This whole article sounds like complete and utter bullshit.
First, the writer said he logged into BA's site, using only the supposed victim's frequent flyer number. But if you go to http://www.britishairways.com/travel/home/public/e n_gb and look on the right side of the screen, you'll see you need a password along with your ID to access the site. So either 1) the person had no password (doubtful, most sites won't permit a blank password), or 2) he's lying. I'll go with #2 and assume he's lying. Since he's lying about how he got the information, it can be safely assume he made up everything else in the article.
As for the rest of the article, it might be accurate, but somehow I doubt that. The whole thing just utterly fails to pass the smell-o-scope test, pegging right between 'horse manure' and 'grade A Kentucky bullshit'.
Specter is one of the last old school republicans in congress...I can remember when I thought he was a jackass rather than one of the only rational senators.
I can't decide if that says something about you, Specter, or the ratio of jackasses to rational Senators...
But besides that, maybe an ISP should by default block all but a few outbound ports unless the user requests them specifically (either via a web interface @ the ISP or by phone)?
Two problems with that:
1) While blocking access to port 25 outside of the ISP's network is one thing, you can't block port 80 or 443 (or some others) without seriously disrupting your customers' experience. So you have to let some traffic out. And there's nothing saying a zombie can't be programmed to connect on either of those ports even if it doesn't use HTTP.
2) The real problem is incoming connections. The zombie master has to tell the zombies to do something (sure, they can be set to send spam automatically, but that means every time you have to change the text of your spam to jibe with your active campaigns and affiliate programs you have to own those zombies all over again). And you can't cut off all incoming ports over 1024, because those are used as the client port in an active TCP connection, and there's no real way of knowing which port will be used in a given instance. You can implement stateful filtering, and only allow connections to those ports that have a corresponding connection to an approved port (25,80,443, and probably 21,22, and 23) but that is 1) expensive, and 2) trivial to circumvent (you just have the zombies wake up once a week or once a day, initiate a connection, and download the latest content for their spam).
Blocking zombies at the ISP level is, effectively, never going to happen.
I've had phishing emails that were for the right bank: and even had the right address in it (except for the fact taht I moved from the address 2 years ago...)
Sounds like they ran a credit check on you. All that information is collected by credit reporting agencies (believe it or not, how long you've had an account with one bank, and the average deposits, goes into your credit score...at least, that's my banker told me when I opened my account with her). And I know addresses are kept in credit checks, since the last time I checked mine (last summer) it had addresses going back to 1998. Handy, since around the same time I had to submit all those addresses for my background check when I got my Series 7 and 65.
Long story short: don't ever give out your SSN to anyone unless you're getting money/credit from them. And minimize how many people you do business with in that regards.
Wanna know the easiest way to get a list of current addresses and SSNs?* Send out a mailing to 100,000 people in a given city, offering a car loan or something (which of course you have no intention of actually giving them). Statistically, at least 1000 of them will send you their full name, address, SSN, bank account information, even mother's maiden name. And yes, people are that stupid.
*I don't know if anyone's ever done this, and if it happens after this I specifically disclaim any responsibility for it.
A spirit of bipartisanship bridges the right and left in harmonious accord!
I always get a kick when people complain about gridlock in Congress. Things like this remind me why gridlock is a good thing. The more they argue with each other, the fewer of our freedoms they can trample.
Unfortunately, I don't have the time to look into the growth rates of the respective countries. But with the US having a 26% lead on productivity, it'll be some time before Europe is able to compete in any meaningful way. I'd also be interested in how many new businesses (net) each locale creates each year. My gut says the US creates more, but I have no idea how many more.
Yeah, except that Europeans tend to be more productive per hour than Americans.
Really? According to the CIA World Fact Book, the US has a GDP of $12,410,000,000,000, compared to Europe's $12,180,000,000,000 (all figures in US dollars). Contrast that with Europe's population of 456,953,258 against the US's 298,444,215. That gives the us a per capital product of $41,582.31 against Europe's $26,654.81. So far it looks like the US is more productive.
Let's look closer. The European Union has a labor force of 218,500,000, compared to the US's 149,300,000. Leaving out the unemployment rates for each group (9.4% vs. 5.1%), we're left with 197,961,000 workers in Europe compared to 141,685,700 in the US. We'll leave that for a moment.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workweek, which sites a spreadsheet from OECD, workers in the US work an average of 1777 hours per year. Taking the average of the EU member states (the spreadsheet only lists individual countries), we get 1576.33 hours per year.
So, the US has a total of 251,775,488,900 work-hours per year, giving an average of $49.29 gross product per work hour. Europe has 312,051,863,130 work-hours per year, giving an average of $39.03 per work hour.
Why am I the only one who can't stand this? Do you guys actually like it?
First off, it's called cinema verite, and is an established method for invoking realism into a movie or TV show. Steven Bracho used it on NYPD Blue, some shots on Law & Order use it, and Steven Spielberg made extensive use of it in Saving Private Ryan. So it's not "reality TV", per se.
Second, I like it. It makes it feel almost like a documentary at times. It also is a useful way to focus on a given character or situation, and allows the filmmaker to tell the viewers "this is important!", without completely giving everything away.
The end result is, it takes a significant amount of processing power to send a (first) email, which should be acceptable to someone sending a legitimate message but will significantly slow down the performance of a spambot.
And the end result would be...spammers using 250,000 zombies to send a given spam instead of 150,000. No noticable change in volume of spam.
1. set the initial price at some high price that noone wants to pay. Googol [wikipedia.org] or Googolplex [wikipedia.org] seems obvious choices.
2. Decrease price regularly until all available tickets are sold.
You could always use a reverse Dutch auction, that would be interesting to watch. Have 1000 tickets in a given category (like 'orchestra seating'), start the price at $1000, and let people enter how much they're willing to pay. Give it a set time limit, like 24 hours, at which point the top 1000 bidders all pay the lowest bid price. It works for tulips, cattle, and certain dot-coms, why not concerts?
If the fans all did this, they wouldn't need the label. They'd be able to afford their own advertising, production, et cetera, and start their own label.
At a dollar a CD, I fail to see how they could afford the production and distribution costs that get spent putting that CD on the shelves and getting people interested in buying it. Even if you cut out all the middle-men, there's no way the cost per CD is going to be lower than five or six bucks. So they're still losing money!
You're upset that you've spent years honing a craft and you now view yourself as an expert in the field. You're unable to earn a real income from this craft, because you don't want to play by the rules set up by others (fair enough, no one says you have to). You think it's unjust/unfair that others who have spent years (in Madonna's case, decades) building up a loyal following of fans by following the very rules you refuse to, to earn millions of dollars doing what they do.
Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and label this one: "sour grapes".
Or as though a million venture capitalists lit a firecracker, held it in their hand, blew off their hand, smarted for a little bit, and lit a firecracker and held it in their other hand...
You're making the assumption that venture capitalists make money when their investments mature. Not so, that's the goal of their clients. VCs make almost all their money from managing other people's money, and when you're spending OPM any idea is a good idea.
Pros:...legislation will prevent cars from being used for travel less than ten miles...
How is that a pro? Besides, you'd think that with high speed cars going everywhere, the option of riding a bike on those same roads would be out of the question. Unless the bikes are under computer control, too, in which case, what's the point?
In reality, it seems to me that once gas prices rise to only another $2-3 per gallon (due to demand outstripping supply), the motivation will be there for some serious change anyway.
Just as a bit of anecdotal evidence: as of this morning, I'm taking the train to work. I figure I'll save about $200 per month doing so (assuming $2.80/gallon of gas, which seems to be the norm around these parts). Once I'm used to it, I may even get rid of my car altogether, and save another $500 per month from no car payment or insurance.
So what am I going to do with that money, you ask? Buy oil futures call options, of course. Then I'll be happy when gas prices rocket up!
Set it to run every minute, and you'll always know what the IP address of your remote site is. On the receiving end, you could use procmail and/or a perl script to enter the IP address in a db.
It's the simplest solutions that work best, I think.
The USA declared independence and is therefore independant of the British legal system. The same goes for Ireland too. do you think the 1801 Union Act still applies there because it predates their constitution?:P
Really? Then how come British common law is the foundation for Roe v. Wade?
The opinion of the Court, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, states that "the restrictive criminal abortion laws in effect in a majority of States today are of relatively recent vintage" with criminalization of abortion mostly occurring from law enacted in the latter half of the 19th century. Section VI of the opinion was devoted to an analysis of historical attitudes, including those of the Persian Empire, ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, the Hippocratic Oath, common law, English statutory law, American law, the American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association [2], and the American Bar Association."
Now, that said, I never said it was a certainty that the old law would apply in the US, only that a clever lawyer (maybe I should have said "Philadelphia lawyer" to make the point clearer) could make that argument.
Excuse me I'm foreign - do they still sell ammo? I was under the impression after seeing 'Bowling for Columbine' that they were not going to do that anymore..
And that's what you get for believing a Michael Moore movie!
Slashdot Mirror
This whole article sounds like complete and utter bullshit.
e n_gb and look on the right side of the screen, you'll see you need a password along with your ID to access the site. So either 1) the person had no password (doubtful, most sites won't permit a blank password), or 2) he's lying. I'll go with #2 and assume he's lying. Since he's lying about how he got the information, it can be safely assume he made up everything else in the article.
First, the writer said he logged into BA's site, using only the supposed victim's frequent flyer number. But if you go to http://www.britishairways.com/travel/home/public/
As for the rest of the article, it might be accurate, but somehow I doubt that. The whole thing just utterly fails to pass the smell-o-scope test, pegging right between 'horse manure' and 'grade A Kentucky bullshit'.
Adds and banners don't work. Period.
Google made over $11 billion last year, selling ads. Just because one lonely slashdot dork doesn't see ads, doesn't mean they don't work.
Specter is one of the last old school republicans in congress...I can remember when I thought he was a jackass rather than one of the only rational senators.
I can't decide if that says something about you, Specter, or the ratio of jackasses to rational Senators...
But besides that, maybe an ISP should by default block all but a few outbound ports unless the user requests them specifically (either via a web interface @ the ISP or by phone)?
Two problems with that:
1) While blocking access to port 25 outside of the ISP's network is one thing, you can't block port 80 or 443 (or some others) without seriously disrupting your customers' experience. So you have to let some traffic out. And there's nothing saying a zombie can't be programmed to connect on either of those ports even if it doesn't use HTTP.
2) The real problem is incoming connections. The zombie master has to tell the zombies to do something (sure, they can be set to send spam automatically, but that means every time you have to change the text of your spam to jibe with your active campaigns and affiliate programs you have to own those zombies all over again). And you can't cut off all incoming ports over 1024, because those are used as the client port in an active TCP connection, and there's no real way of knowing which port will be used in a given instance. You can implement stateful filtering, and only allow connections to those ports that have a corresponding connection to an approved port (25,80,443, and probably 21,22, and 23) but that is 1) expensive, and 2) trivial to circumvent (you just have the zombies wake up once a week or once a day, initiate a connection, and download the latest content for their spam).
Blocking zombies at the ISP level is, effectively, never going to happen.
I've had phishing emails that were for the right bank: and even had the right address in it (except for the fact taht I moved from the address 2 years ago...)
Sounds like they ran a credit check on you. All that information is collected by credit reporting agencies (believe it or not, how long you've had an account with one bank, and the average deposits, goes into your credit score...at least, that's my banker told me when I opened my account with her). And I know addresses are kept in credit checks, since the last time I checked mine (last summer) it had addresses going back to 1998. Handy, since around the same time I had to submit all those addresses for my background check when I got my Series 7 and 65.
Long story short: don't ever give out your SSN to anyone unless you're getting money/credit from them. And minimize how many people you do business with in that regards.
Wanna know the easiest way to get a list of current addresses and SSNs?* Send out a mailing to 100,000 people in a given city, offering a car loan or something (which of course you have no intention of actually giving them). Statistically, at least 1000 of them will send you their full name, address, SSN, bank account information, even mother's maiden name. And yes, people are that stupid.
*I don't know if anyone's ever done this, and if it happens after this I specifically disclaim any responsibility for it.
A spirit of bipartisanship bridges the right and left in harmonious accord!
I always get a kick when people complain about gridlock in Congress. Things like this remind me why gridlock is a good thing. The more they argue with each other, the fewer of our freedoms they can trample.
Unfortunately, I don't have the time to look into the growth rates of the respective countries. But with the US having a 26% lead on productivity, it'll be some time before Europe is able to compete in any meaningful way. I'd also be interested in how many new businesses (net) each locale creates each year. My gut says the US creates more, but I have no idea how many more.
Yeah, except that Europeans tend to be more productive per hour than Americans.
Really? According to the CIA World Fact Book, the US has a GDP of $12,410,000,000,000, compared to Europe's $12,180,000,000,000 (all figures in US dollars). Contrast that with Europe's population of 456,953,258 against the US's 298,444,215. That gives the us a per capital product of $41,582.31 against Europe's $26,654.81. So far it looks like the US is more productive.
Let's look closer. The European Union has a labor force of 218,500,000, compared to the US's 149,300,000. Leaving out the unemployment rates for each group (9.4% vs. 5.1%), we're left with 197,961,000 workers in Europe compared to 141,685,700 in the US. We'll leave that for a moment.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workweek, which sites a spreadsheet from OECD, workers in the US work an average of 1777 hours per year. Taking the average of the EU member states (the spreadsheet only lists individual countries), we get 1576.33 hours per year.
So, the US has a total of 251,775,488,900 work-hours per year, giving an average of $49.29 gross product per work hour. Europe has 312,051,863,130 work-hours per year, giving an average of $39.03 per work hour.
I'm sorry, who's more productive did you say?
Why am I the only one who can't stand this? Do you guys actually like it?
First off, it's called cinema verite, and is an established method for invoking realism into a movie or TV show. Steven Bracho used it on NYPD Blue, some shots on Law & Order use it, and Steven Spielberg made extensive use of it in Saving Private Ryan. So it's not "reality TV", per se.
Second, I like it. It makes it feel almost like a documentary at times. It also is a useful way to focus on a given character or situation, and allows the filmmaker to tell the viewers "this is important!", without completely giving everything away.
Starbuck will be getting involved with someone completely unexpected. She joked (or did she?) that it was Adama.
Wake me when Starbuck gets involved with a Number 6 or 8 (or a 3 for that matter, Lucy Lawless still looks good).
But knowing our "friends" at Redmond, they'd write it into the firewall to make sure you couldn't block it.
Oh, come on, Microsoft would never deliberately sabotage their own software to make sure users can't block access to MS servers, would they?
Oh, wait, I forgot.
"[Full-disclosure] Microsoft DNS resolver: deliberately sabotaged hosts-file lookup
From: Dave Korn
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 18:29:15 +0100
Hey, guess what I just found out: Microsoft have deliberately sabotaged
their DNS client's hosts table lookup functionality. "
The end result is, it takes a significant amount of processing power to send a (first) email, which should be acceptable to someone sending a legitimate message but will significantly slow down the performance of a spambot.
And the end result would be...spammers using 250,000 zombies to send a given spam instead of 150,000. No noticable change in volume of spam.
1. set the initial price at some high price that noone wants to pay. Googol [wikipedia.org] or Googolplex [wikipedia.org] seems obvious choices.
2. Decrease price regularly until all available tickets are sold.
You could always use a reverse Dutch auction, that would be interesting to watch. Have 1000 tickets in a given category (like 'orchestra seating'), start the price at $1000, and let people enter how much they're willing to pay. Give it a set time limit, like 24 hours, at which point the top 1000 bidders all pay the lowest bid price. It works for tulips, cattle, and certain dot-coms, why not concerts?
If the fans all did this, they wouldn't need the label. They'd be able to afford their own advertising, production, et cetera, and start their own label.
At a dollar a CD, I fail to see how they could afford the production and distribution costs that get spent putting that CD on the shelves and getting people interested in buying it. Even if you cut out all the middle-men, there's no way the cost per CD is going to be lower than five or six bucks. So they're still losing money!
So let me get this straight:
You're upset that you've spent years honing a craft and you now view yourself as an expert in the field.
You're unable to earn a real income from this craft, because you don't want to play by the rules set up by others (fair enough, no one says you have to).
You think it's unjust/unfair that others who have spent years (in Madonna's case, decades) building up a loyal following of fans by following the very rules you refuse to, to earn millions of dollars doing what they do.
Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and label this one: "sour grapes".
Why do I suddenly have Peter Griffin saying, "Well you are a festizio. See I can make up words too, sister" in my head?
Or as though a million venture capitalists lit a firecracker, held it in their hand, blew off their hand, smarted for a little bit, and lit a firecracker and held it in their other hand...
You're making the assumption that venture capitalists make money when their investments mature. Not so, that's the goal of their clients. VCs make almost all their money from managing other people's money, and when you're spending OPM any idea is a good idea.
Pros: ...legislation will prevent cars from being used for travel less than ten miles...
How is that a pro? Besides, you'd think that with high speed cars going everywhere, the option of riding a bike on those same roads would be out of the question. Unless the bikes are under computer control, too, in which case, what's the point?
In reality, it seems to me that once gas prices rise to only another $2-3 per gallon (due to demand outstripping supply), the motivation will be there for some serious change anyway.
Just as a bit of anecdotal evidence: as of this morning, I'm taking the train to work. I figure I'll save about $200 per month doing so (assuming $2.80/gallon of gas, which seems to be the norm around these parts). Once I'm used to it, I may even get rid of my car altogether, and save another $500 per month from no car payment or insurance.
So what am I going to do with that money, you ask? Buy oil futures call options, of course. Then I'll be happy when gas prices rocket up!
Personally, I use a script that gets invoked whenever a new PPPoE connection is established.
That is cleverer, I'll have to go that route next time something like this comes up.
I can just imagine now the peeps at geek squad that use format and reload as their way tp fix any problem the computer has.
Well, that's what Microsoft recommends!
Wouldn't it be easier to have this cron job?
/tmp/last_ip ]] && touch /tmp/last_ip /tmp/curr_ip /tmp/curr_ip /tmp/last_ip 2>&1 > /dev/null /tmp/curr_ip | mailx -s "$HOSTNAME current IP" reports@yourcompany.com /tmp/curr_ip /tmp/last_ip
#!/bin/bash
[[ ! -f
ifconfig eth0|grep inet |awk -F: '{print $2}'|awk '{print $1}' >
diff
[[ $? -eq "1" ]] &&
cat
mv
Set it to run every minute, and you'll always know what the IP address of your remote site is. On the receiving end, you could use procmail and/or a perl script to enter the IP address in a db.
It's the simplest solutions that work best, I think.
The USA declared independence and is therefore independant of the British legal system. The same goes for Ireland too. do you think the 1801 Union Act still applies there because it predates their constitution? :P
Really? Then how come British common law is the foundation for Roe v. Wade?
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade:
"Abortion
The opinion of the Court, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, states that "the restrictive criminal abortion laws in effect in a majority of States today are of relatively recent vintage" with criminalization of abortion mostly occurring from law enacted in the latter half of the 19th century. Section VI of the opinion was devoted to an analysis of historical attitudes, including those of the Persian Empire, ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, the Hippocratic Oath, common law, English statutory law, American law, the American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association [2], and the American Bar Association."
Now, that said, I never said it was a certainty that the old law would apply in the US, only that a clever lawyer (maybe I should have said "Philadelphia lawyer" to make the point clearer) could make that argument.
[P]laying violent videogames can lead young men to believe it is acceptable to smoke marijuana and drink alcohol.
What the hell? Are they saying it isn't?? What else am I supposed to with my evenings?
Excuse me I'm foreign - do they still sell ammo? I was under the impression after seeing 'Bowling for Columbine' that they were not going to do that anymore..
_ id=4665576
And that's what you get for believing a Michael Moore movie!
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product