This is exactly why I think that SoBig is the perfect spamming mechanism. AFAICT, it essentially gets around nearly every non-content-based spam filter (ie Bayesian and SpamAssassin et al).
Sobig.F is dead easy to filter with Spamassassin - it generates a uniquely malformed date header.
And one of the reasons it, or it's netblock, as most of the RBLs don't seem particularly fine grained, is often that users on their own connections are running mail servers.
That's one theory, yes.
In my case, my DSL provider's mail server was blacklisted because it ran as an open relay. Meanwhile I could happily deliver mail to most people from my own DSL IP address. This was Verizon BTW. They've since changed their mail server arrangement around a bit. But I still deliver my own mail - I want to be able to look in the logs and see whether it went through and if not, why not.
I have thought about using raster images, my current software used for web content similar to what will go into the book creates raster images which I convert to PNG, this works well because the images are fairly simple diagrams with few colors and compress very well.
If your book is for on-screen consumption only, or the images are photographic in nature, raster images may be acceptable.
Otherwise - if they're diagrams or charts or whatever - they'll look embarassingly pathetic and entirely unprofessional when printed out, unless you store them at 300dpi or above, in which case the files will be gigantic.
You really need to use vector drawing software (or programmatic processes) to generate EPS files, which can then be folded into your production process.
I mean, on the face of things this whole deal is just so totally and completely wrong. It's ludicrous. So, what is SCO really up to?
It's really simple, as others have pointed out. It's a transparent stock-manipulation strategy. The executives find themselves at the helm of a go-nowhere company, so they brainstormed a scheme that would get them a lot of press and drive up the stock in the short term. A quick check on yahoo finance shows that the execs have been methodically selling it ever since this thing started, netting hundreds of thousands of dollars. When it all blows up, they'll wipe their hands and start counting their money.
The only surprise is that the SEC isn't paying any attention (or if they are, they're being subtle about it).
There are three sets of victims here:
The open-source community.
People fooled into buying SCO stock while the executives are busy selling it.
SCO customers who are misreading this as an attempt by SCO to stay in the market. Some of these naive customers are re-investing in the SCO platform, dooming their business to a shock when SCO vanishes in a puff of smoke.
Take a stand, go short on 20 shares of SCOX, and put $200 into your pocket today. The downward pressure you create thwarts the efforts of SCO management to inflate the price through non-news press releases.
I wonder if it might be a good idea to try to organize something around this. What's the transaction cost for a $50 investment?
The more people do it, the greater the chance of a positive return. And if it works, it will have been a good way to throw some funds back to the open source world, something probably a lot of us are overdue in. The fact that Doing The Right Thing also offers a significant opportunity to make a little money makes it a double win.
Currently there are 277000 shorts outstanding. At 5 shares apiece, we could double that with a small fraction of current Linux users. I'd guess that the required 50000 people will read this article on Slashdot today - let alone other people reachable through other outreach efforts.
Any takers for setting up a site, doing some logos, spreading the word, etc.? A button to toss on our personal pages, links on the site to online brokerages, and some FAQs about the risks involved would probably cover it.
Frankly, I don't see how the human eye could even detect the enhanced quality of an 8-megapixel picture, unless it was very heavily blown up after it was taken.
The ability to crop liberally and still have decent resolution gives you a tremendous amount of creative freedom after the fact.
I'll also be interested to see if Wi-Fi networks effect piracy at all
Apropos misuse of "effect"... Until recently I allowed all comers to use my Wifi connection (albeit at reduced bandwidth, about 128K shared between all strangers) for anything except connections to port 25. I'm adjacent to a nice outdoor public space with comfy seating so I figured it would be the neighborly thing to do.
I noticed that a few people were on there non-stop around the clock (including when said public area was observably deserted), using every bit of bandwidth they could squeeze through. Turned out to be Kazaa traffic. Scared me a little bit with all the RIAA subpoenas flying around, so now I've restricted them to ports 22, 80, and 443. Usage has dropped to a couple people per day.
Whatever the cause of the outage is; its quite obvious that America Needs More Power(TM). The ANMP movement will soon come to aplace near you in a form of a person running for some election.
Mod +0.9, a little paranoid but fundamentally insightful.
He connects it to his docking station in the office effectively bringing the problem behind the firewall.
That's one reason why desktop computers inside the office should be segmented into groups as small as practical. Put them in little subnets and don't route between them. Printers and servers should be on separate subnets that do get routed. This way people can only contaminate their own little workgroup; everything else moves through centralized servers where you do aggressive virus scanning. There's no reason in an office environment for one desktop to talk directly with another.
This wouldn't stop a worm that messed with the subnet mask but I'm not aware of any that do.
Personally though I'm kindof split.. I love the open source movement, but at the same time I hope it wouldn't harm the ability for tech people to make a living any more than it's already being hurt by outsourcing overseas and such.
It's enhanced my ability to make a living. Free software puts advanced technical solutions within the reach of a far greater range of institutions. Instead of paying for software AND support, they only have to pay for support, which means they're more likely to go ahead with the project.
In the short run, this seems like a zero-sum equation. In the long term, however, as they discover the productivity gains that come from better use of technology, they continue to direct their spending towards improving their computer operations.
And international law specifically states that when you increase your territorial waters you cannot gain any "land" claimed by other countries.
And international law also provides no basis to think that Sealand is any more of a "country" (i.e., independent state) than the Hutt River Province, the Spratly Islands, or the People's Republic of My Ass.
Does the 1982 UN convention superceed the 1958 ruling?
Yup. From Article 311:
1. This Convention shall prevail, as between States Parties, over the Geneva Conventions on the Law of the Sea of 29 April 1958.
It's worth bearing in mind that these multilateral treaties have primary force among signatory nations. Not being recognized as a sovereign state, Sealand would never have been invited to sign. However they take on a normative force globally once participation becomes sufficiently widespread.
I can't declare an oil rig an independant nation now. I could 21 years ago.
No you couldn't. Back then, you'd have to contend with 1958's "Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone," which says substantively the same thing. Territorial sea accrues to mainland and islands, and islands are described in that document as "naturally formed".
These are long-standing principles, and their purpose is quite clear (as I described in my previous message). Allowing artificial structures to form the basis of territorial claims at sea would make it possible to arbitrarily violate the principles of freedom of the high seas. Ever played Othello?
You may think that, but that's not the case. It could only be considered a ship if it was in some way moveable. It's no more a ship than is a load of rock towed out to a sand bar and dumped. It's a fixed emplacement that was built outside territorial limits and abandoned.
I suggest you read the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Part V, Article 60, Paragraph 8:
"Artificial islands, installations and structures do not possess the status of islands. They have no territorial sea of their own, and their presence does not affect the delimitation of the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone or the continental shelf."
Sealand has no territory. It therefore can make no claims to territorial waters. Therefore the UK's 12-mile claim is not overlapping with any valid claims. Therefore Sealand is within UK territorial waters and has been for decades.
Sealand has exactly two things on its side, one useless and one which has been to its advantage so far:
The collective wishful thinking of a lot of science fiction readers.
The inertia of a UK government that has not found it worth the hassle to go after some guys on a concrete pylon in the North Sea, especially when those guys are too wimpy to host anything more controversial than can easily be found in dozens of other countries, including the UK itself.
My statement about International Law is about the fact that you CANNOT CLAIM NEW TERRITORY via extension of your International Waters.
The convention explicitly states that off-shore installations and artificial islands cannot form the basis of territorial claims (which should be fairly obvious, otherwise any country could effectively landlock another country by building a sovereign blockade around that country's coastline). Therefore they are not claiming new territory as there is no territory in dispute. Only water which happens to have some stuff in it.
It means he didn't have jurisdiction in the case.
No, and this is very important: It means he decided that he didn't have jurisdiction for the case. Whether or not he actually had it remains to be determined by a process that has the legal competency to make that decision.
Let's say I receive a speeding ticket in New York, and I go to court to fight it. I tell the judge that I am the King of Russia and as such enjoy sovereign immunity, and he believes me, and dismisses the case. That doesn't make me the King of Russia, and it doesn't cause Russia to become a monarchy. It doesn't mean that the United States has recognized me as the King of Russia. All it means is that I don't have to pay the ticket.
And international law specifically states that when you increase your territorial waters you cannot gain any "land" claimed by other countries.
And international law also provides no basis to think that Sealand is any more of a "country" (i.e., independent state) than the Hutt River Province, the Spratly Islands, or the People's Republic of My Ass.
Re:Could I Get a Bunch of My Red-Neck Cousins....
on
HavenCo In Trouble?
·
· Score: 1
Sealand was founded by a WWII vet.
Ooh, scary. Don't know where on earth I could find my own equal but opposite vet, given their tremendous scarcity. Oh yeah, I do. For $50 a day I can hire a Vietnam vet at the shelter to paint my house. For another $50 perhaps he'd help me launch an attack against two lunatics on an oil platform.
You wouldn't be the first one to try though. Years ago, some guys from Geramny came over and took over the island, and held his son hostage. Prince ? then rented a helicopter, got some guns and took the island back by force. He held the Germans captive until Germany sent diplomats to negotiate for their release.
This just shows that you need to have enough backup cash to rent two helicopters.
And the characterization about Germany sending diplomats is absurd. They sent a junior consul (the person who does prison visits and tours museums) to remind the German nationals that they were subject to UK law and Germany wasn't going to be able to help them if they insisted on getting into firefights while in the UK.
It's not an unreasonable price considering what a quality business-class satellite connection goes for and that they need to generate their own power, maintain the platform, fend off the Bobbies, make a profit, etc.
So what? I could run a hosting facility on the moon and you could easily show how a price of $20,000,000 per month was entirely reasonable given my costs.
Fact is that they've failed to find an intersection of supply and demand price that results in much business getting done. Either they need to find a way to run it more cheaply or they need to take on more controversial clients.
Actually when Sealand was "founded", UK Territorial waters only extended 3 miles. You cannot claim territory by extending your Territorial Waters under International Law.
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, drafted in 1982 and put into force by a quorum of signatories in 1994, grants all nations the right to extend their territorial miles from 3 to 12. This was merely an ex post facto formalization of the reality that by 1967 over 80% of the world's nations had already done so. Hence your statement about "International Law" = bunk.
Since the UK courts have ruled that they have no jurisdiction in Sealand it would seem that Sealand was and is a country.
My understanding of UK law is not perfect but as far as I know a pre-trial finding of no jurisdiction has no precedent value and therefore means absolutely nothing except that one judge didn't take one case.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure about that? Seems pretty high. The latency inserted by my Netgear ME102 is about 2ms.
Sobig.F is dead easy to filter with Spamassassin - it generates a uniquely malformed date header.
Of course they'll fix that next time around.
Probably because he's not a complete nincompoop and knows how to read Received: headers.
That's one theory, yes.
In my case, my DSL provider's mail server was blacklisted because it ran as an open relay. Meanwhile I could happily deliver mail to most people from my own DSL IP address. This was Verizon BTW. They've since changed their mail server arrangement around a bit. But I still deliver my own mail - I want to be able to look in the logs and see whether it went through and if not, why not.
If your book is for on-screen consumption only, or the images are photographic in nature, raster images may be acceptable.
Otherwise - if they're diagrams or charts or whatever - they'll look embarassingly pathetic and entirely unprofessional when printed out, unless you store them at 300dpi or above, in which case the files will be gigantic.
You really need to use vector drawing software (or programmatic processes) to generate EPS files, which can then be folded into your production process.
It's really simple, as others have pointed out. It's a transparent stock-manipulation strategy. The executives find themselves at the helm of a go-nowhere company, so they brainstormed a scheme that would get them a lot of press and drive up the stock in the short term. A quick check on yahoo finance shows that the execs have been methodically selling it ever since this thing started, netting hundreds of thousands of dollars. When it all blows up, they'll wipe their hands and start counting their money.
The only surprise is that the SEC isn't paying any attention (or if they are, they're being subtle about it).
There are three sets of victims here:
The open-source community.
People fooled into buying SCO stock while the executives are busy selling it.
SCO customers who are misreading this as an attempt by SCO to stay in the market. Some of these naive customers are re-investing in the SCO platform, dooming their business to a shock when SCO vanishes in a puff of smoke.
I wonder if it might be a good idea to try to organize something around this. What's the transaction cost for a $50 investment?
The more people do it, the greater the chance of a positive return. And if it works, it will have been a good way to throw some funds back to the open source world, something probably a lot of us are overdue in. The fact that Doing The Right Thing also offers a significant opportunity to make a little money makes it a double win.
Currently there are 277000 shorts outstanding. At 5 shares apiece, we could double that with a small fraction of current Linux users. I'd guess that the required 50000 people will read this article on Slashdot today - let alone other people reachable through other outreach efforts.
Any takers for setting up a site, doing some logos, spreading the word, etc.? A button to toss on our personal pages, links on the site to online brokerages, and some FAQs about the risks involved would probably cover it.
The ability to crop liberally and still have decent resolution gives you a tremendous amount of creative freedom after the fact.
Apropos misuse of "effect"... Until recently I allowed all comers to use my Wifi connection (albeit at reduced bandwidth, about 128K shared between all strangers) for anything except connections to port 25. I'm adjacent to a nice outdoor public space with comfy seating so I figured it would be the neighborly thing to do.
I noticed that a few people were on there non-stop around the clock (including when said public area was observably deserted), using every bit of bandwidth they could squeeze through. Turned out to be Kazaa traffic. Scared me a little bit with all the RIAA subpoenas flying around, so now I've restricted them to ports 22, 80, and 443. Usage has dropped to a couple people per day.
Yup. I'd say they did okay for a few months' fudding. Significant sales since June:
Reginald Broughton, SVP: $853,200.
Jeff Hunsaker, VP: $300,000.
Robert Bench, CFO: $153,300.
Michael Wilson, SVP: $136,920.
Michael Olson, VP: $86,000.
Oh, you mean like when I have a 1M44 floppy disk or a 2GB5 data file? Fascinating.
Mod +0.9, a little paranoid but fundamentally insightful.
Y2.003K.
That's one reason why desktop computers inside the office should be segmented into groups as small as practical. Put them in little subnets and don't route between them. Printers and servers should be on separate subnets that do get routed. This way people can only contaminate their own little workgroup; everything else moves through centralized servers where you do aggressive virus scanning. There's no reason in an office environment for one desktop to talk directly with another.
This wouldn't stop a worm that messed with the subnet mask but I'm not aware of any that do.
It's enhanced my ability to make a living. Free software puts advanced technical solutions within the reach of a far greater range of institutions. Instead of paying for software AND support, they only have to pay for support, which means they're more likely to go ahead with the project.
In the short run, this seems like a zero-sum equation. In the long term, however, as they discover the productivity gains that come from better use of technology, they continue to direct their spending towards improving their computer operations.
And international law also provides no basis to think that Sealand is any more of a "country" (i.e., independent state) than the Hutt River Province, the Spratly Islands, or the People's Republic of My Ass.
Yup. From Article 311:
It's worth bearing in mind that these multilateral treaties have primary force among signatory nations. Not being recognized as a sovereign state, Sealand would never have been invited to sign. However they take on a normative force globally once participation becomes sufficiently widespread.
No you couldn't. Back then, you'd have to contend with 1958's "Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone," which says substantively the same thing. Territorial sea accrues to mainland and islands, and islands are described in that document as "naturally formed".
These are long-standing principles, and their purpose is quite clear (as I described in my previous message). Allowing artificial structures to form the basis of territorial claims at sea would make it possible to arbitrarily violate the principles of freedom of the high seas. Ever played Othello?
I suggest you read the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Part V, Article 60, Paragraph 8:
Sealand has no territory. It therefore can make no claims to territorial waters. Therefore the UK's 12-mile claim is not overlapping with any valid claims. Therefore Sealand is within UK territorial waters and has been for decades.
Sealand has exactly two things on its side, one useless and one which has been to its advantage so far:
The collective wishful thinking of a lot of science fiction readers.
The inertia of a UK government that has not found it worth the hassle to go after some guys on a concrete pylon in the North Sea, especially when those guys are too wimpy to host anything more controversial than can easily be found in dozens of other countries, including the UK itself.
I'll let you figure out which is which.
The convention explicitly states that off-shore installations and artificial islands cannot form the basis of territorial claims (which should be fairly obvious, otherwise any country could effectively landlock another country by building a sovereign blockade around that country's coastline). Therefore they are not claiming new territory as there is no territory in dispute. Only water which happens to have some stuff in it.
No, and this is very important: It means he decided that he didn't have jurisdiction for the case. Whether or not he actually had it remains to be determined by a process that has the legal competency to make that decision.
Let's say I receive a speeding ticket in New York, and I go to court to fight it. I tell the judge that I am the King of Russia and as such enjoy sovereign immunity, and he believes me, and dismisses the case. That doesn't make me the King of Russia, and it doesn't cause Russia to become a monarchy. It doesn't mean that the United States has recognized me as the King of Russia. All it means is that I don't have to pay the ticket.
And international law also provides no basis to think that Sealand is any more of a "country" (i.e., independent state) than the Hutt River Province, the Spratly Islands, or the People's Republic of My Ass.
Ooh, scary. Don't know where on earth I could find my own equal but opposite vet, given their tremendous scarcity. Oh yeah, I do. For $50 a day I can hire a Vietnam vet at the shelter to paint my house. For another $50 perhaps he'd help me launch an attack against two lunatics on an oil platform.
This just shows that you need to have enough backup cash to rent two helicopters.
And the characterization about Germany sending diplomats is absurd. They sent a junior consul (the person who does prison visits and tours museums) to remind the German nationals that they were subject to UK law and Germany wasn't going to be able to help them if they insisted on getting into firefights while in the UK.
So what? I could run a hosting facility on the moon and you could easily show how a price of $20,000,000 per month was entirely reasonable given my costs.
Fact is that they've failed to find an intersection of supply and demand price that results in much business getting done. Either they need to find a way to run it more cheaply or they need to take on more controversial clients.
Did you even read the article? Lackey left after they turned down a multi-million-dollar offer from Taiwan's Mr Tan who wanted to host movies there.
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, drafted in 1982 and put into force by a quorum of signatories in 1994, grants all nations the right to extend their territorial miles from 3 to 12. This was merely an ex post facto formalization of the reality that by 1967 over 80% of the world's nations had already done so. Hence your statement about "International Law" = bunk.
My understanding of UK law is not perfect but as far as I know a pre-trial finding of no jurisdiction has no precedent value and therefore means absolutely nothing except that one judge didn't take one case.