You think you were forced to use PPPoE because your ISP was sharing some other companys lines? Verizon forces their customers to use PPPoE, too. Verizon (a new name for a merger of two megacorps, Bell Atlantic and Nynex) also owns an assload of these lines. So what was your point again?
Neutropia_1 wrote: > Look how fast email virus hoaxes poliferate, why > can't we do the same with this? LET YOUR VOICE BE > HEARD!
The problem here is that the same people who are aware of and against this DRM/DMCA/SSSCA crap are also vehemently against the idea of spamming, in all forms. I, personally, only dislike commercial spam or any kind of spam in which their was a conscious and intentional effort to thwart filtering, but many people here dont want any spamming. I also think it would be rather hypocritical to go about violating peoples privacy rights en masse scale to tell them about corporate America trying to... violate their rights on a massive scale.
But bugs in binaries come directly from bugs in the source code (obviously). If I gave you step-by-step, exact instructions on how to build a car, but left out the fact that you need to put brakes on it, would I be held liable if you get into an accident? If so, should one not also be held liable if they give you source code to compile yourself, but leave out some critical piece (like the n in strncpy), and that leads to some kind of software failure?
Re:Sorry but this has been going on for years alre
on
Google Juice
·
· Score: 1
Broadband users are logged on 24 hours a day. Dialup users are logged for the time they actually use the Internet (more or less). Did your statistics take this into account?
Mail clients (not just Outlook) have always had a sort of filesystem within a filesystem. The oldest Unix mail clients use a format called mbox which is just one big file with all the messages delimited by specifically-formatted lines.
Things like `grep` and `find` may be useful, but these are a brute-force method of finding content, akin to respidering the whole web each time someone does a search. As for storage method, youre right, though but I prefer UTF-8 and XML.:)
It does? Why? wget may behave like a spider, but `wget -r` is something that is usually used by a person to download a complete copy of a site they visited. Why should it, therefore, be restricted to behaving like a search engine archiver when its actually being used by a human?
One thing to keep in mind is that much email address harvesting it done from cheap dialup accounts over short periods. Harvester vendors want to sell software to dumb users who think they are collecting "free" lists to spam at. These spiders don't have the option of working slowly or jumping IPs and are easy pray for Robotcop.
Actually, they do have the option, they just need to be rewritten to take advantage of it. What we have here is an arms race; its only a matter of time before email siphoning bots have proxy-bouncing built into them.:\ Then well need to do something else to keep them away, which theys find a way through once again.
What about a bot set to change user-agents on the fly? Just collect the few most-popular UAs from other peoples website logs, and use each one at random. Add in a list of open proxies to bounce through and you have a nearly undetectable spider at work. I believe I can do this in about a dozen lines of Perl.
Maybe you could thwart this by seeing if there are traversal patterns coming from all over the place ("GET/a" from 1.2.3.4, "GET/a/a.html" from 6.7.8.9, "GET/b" from 45.56.56.67, and so on, but that seems like a lot of work and could again be defeated by some randomization.
Some large search engines have their spiders spread across multiple hosts. Google is one example. What would happen if crawler-01.nastybot.com grabs the robots.txt file, then crawler-02.nastybot.com violates it? I think with all the open proxies out there, spammers would easily adapt to this. Proxy through someone to grab robots.txt, and then through someone else to make use of the file. This would make IP tracking useless; you couldnt even match by subnet (like you could with *.nastybot.com), since the first request could be from 12.34.56.78 and the second from 31.3.3.7.
Re:A lot of use of the term 'preferred form' here
on
Abusing the GPL?
·
· Score: 1
I read at -1 its rather interesting to see what they do down there. Especially the few that like to follow me around.
Re:A lot of use of the term 'preferred form' here
on
Abusing the GPL?
·
· Score: 1
I think preferred form implies preferred, human-editable form, but the wording is vague and could expose a possible loophole. If it does just mean plain ASCII/ISO-8859 text, then assembly would actually be acceptible assembly can come in plain text files! If we take preferred form to mean preferred human-editable form, then something like:
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm, Sun made a new computer. Doesnt this entire article belong in that little 468x60 iframe at the top of the page?
That was a dumb analogy, and of course its done a lot whenever governments build a dam, theyre legislating how much water can flow in a river.
Hes probably American; they train us to be sheep over here.
This is SLASHDOT, what do you expect? INTELLIGENCE? Well, maybe if you read at -1...
You think you were forced to use PPPoE because your ISP was sharing some other companys lines? Verizon forces their customers to use PPPoE, too. Verizon (a new name for a merger of two megacorps, Bell Atlantic and Nynex) also owns an assload of these lines. So what was your point again?
Its day. Screw the eigenvalues, post a billion digits of ! I just did on Kuro5hin. :)
Neutropia_1 wrote:
> Look how fast email virus hoaxes poliferate, why
> can't we do the same with this? LET YOUR VOICE BE
> HEARD!
The problem here is that the same people who are aware of and against this DRM/DMCA/SSSCA crap are also vehemently against the idea of spamming, in all forms. I, personally, only dislike commercial spam or any kind of spam in which their was a conscious and intentional effort to thwart filtering, but many people here dont want any spamming. I also think it would be rather hypocritical to go about violating peoples privacy rights en masse scale to tell them about corporate America trying to... violate their rights on a massive scale.
% export http_proxy=proxy01.nsa.gov
But bugs in binaries come directly from bugs in the source code (obviously). If I gave you step-by-step, exact instructions on how to build a car, but left out the fact that you need to put brakes on it, would I be held liable if you get into an accident? If so, should one not also be held liable if they give you source code to compile yourself, but leave out some critical piece (like the n in strncpy), and that leads to some kind of software failure?
Spammers get clients, too.
Broadband users are logged on 24 hours a day. Dialup users are logged for the time they actually use the Internet (more or less). Did your statistics take this into account?
Mail clients (not just Outlook) have always had a sort of filesystem within a filesystem. The oldest Unix mail clients use a format called mbox which is just one big file with all the messages delimited by specifically-formatted lines.
Things like `grep` and `find` may be useful, but these are a brute-force method of finding content, akin to respidering the whole web each time someone does a search. As for storage method, youre right, though but I prefer UTF-8 and XML. :)
So what kind of DRM are they going to tie into the filesystem?
It does? Why? wget may behave like a spider, but `wget -r` is something that is usually used by a person to download a complete copy of a site they visited. Why should it, therefore, be restricted to behaving like a search engine archiver when its actually being used by a human?
One thing to keep in mind is that much email address harvesting it done from cheap dialup accounts over short periods. Harvester vendors want to sell software to dumb users who think they are collecting "free" lists to spam at. These spiders don't have the option of working slowly or jumping IPs and are easy pray for Robotcop.
:\ Then well need to do something else to keep them away, which theys find a way through once again.
Actually, they do have the option, they just need to be rewritten to take advantage of it. What we have here is an arms race; its only a matter of time before email siphoning bots have proxy-bouncing built into them.
What about a bot set to change user-agents on the fly? Just collect the few most-popular UAs from other peoples website logs, and use each one at random. Add in a list of open proxies to bounce through and you have a nearly undetectable spider at work. I believe I can do this in about a dozen lines of Perl.
/a" from 1.2.3.4, "GET /a/a.html" from 6.7.8.9, "GET /b" from 45.56.56.67, and so on, but that seems like a lot of work and could again be defeated by some randomization.
Maybe you could thwart this by seeing if there are traversal patterns coming from all over the place ("GET
Some large search engines have their spiders spread across multiple hosts. Google is one example. What would happen if crawler-01.nastybot.com grabs the robots.txt file, then crawler-02.nastybot.com violates it? I think with all the open proxies out there, spammers would easily adapt to this. Proxy through someone to grab robots.txt, and then through someone else to make use of the file. This would make IP tracking useless; you couldnt even match by subnet (like you could with *.nastybot.com), since the first request could be from 12.34.56.78 and the second from 31.3.3.7.
Solution?
Isnt it GNU/Hurd!?
Have you ever considered SHOVING YOURSELF UP YOUR OWN ASS? Please do. Thank you.
Hey, Slashdot! FUCK YOU, okay?
I read at -1 its rather interesting to see what they do down there. Especially the few that like to follow me around.
I think preferred form implies preferred, human-editable form, but the wording is vague and could expose a possible loophole. If it does just mean plain ASCII/ISO-8859 text, then assembly would actually be acceptible assembly can come in plain text files! If we take preferred form to mean preferred human-editable form, then something like:
... };
dshkg_238 *dfk_jgdwrtF_EWFJewkjgt_jkewD_SGJL( xzcbCBxcV_39 dwleg_hfew, wd4397_3_frwek *fhjgew_w32Flsd, dsk39fd__ewhjg *dijh_t[] ) {
(or however they are obfuscating) is no more usable than assembly.