...this crow is kinda tasteless. You know, this really is the darnedest thing. In my former reality, there was never any question that it was Billy Connolly (I mis-spelled his name earlier; double oops). All those countless times I saw HG in the *cinema*, never mind TV, video and latterly DVD, it *was* Billy Connolly. But today...
There can be only one explanation : the matrix has me.
My eyes and ears will have to disagree with IMDB, your DVD and your wife. Until I get home and watch my own DVD, I continue to claim that Tim the Enchanter was played by Billy Connelly. Come to think of it, isn't John Cleese actually in that scene, as Lanceleot?
Yes, I've done a quick google and found few references. I'll come back and eat crow tomorrow if I've had some kind of mental blackspot over this...
So next time there won't be this problem. That there was a problem this time is unfortunate, but like the lessons of history, this experience will make the victims Better. Stronger. Faster than before.
Not always. Sometimes the experience leaves the victim Dead. Extinct. Irrelevant. (cf : Dinosaurs)
it'd be inconsequential to me to put up 10c to send each message
Good for you. I run a few mailing lists, some of which have thousands of members. A 10c charge is most certainly *not* inconsequential. Up with that I would not put.
Besides which, I must have missed the part where it was explained how spammers would be forced to play along with the system. Another system that only keeps the honest people honest. File under bee one en.
[Ballmer] adds that they'll be supporting it in the US only as they don't want to involve the company in debates in countries with different cultures and value systems.
What about countries whose culture and value systems don't give any consideration to "intellectual" "property"? Will MS refrain from involvement in that debate too?
How many double opt-in e-mail lists have been blocked...
Do you mean "confirmed opt-in"? If so, you should say so. "Double opt-in" is a meaningless phrase, beloved by spammers. I have every confidence that you're not a spammer, but if you speak in the spammers' language, people will get the wrong idea about your lists.
I've got e-commerce clients that, unable to communicate gracefully with AOL users, would run into trouble with a third or more of their customers. This is not trivial, it's blacklist BS
Is MAPS forcing you to use their lists? No. So what's your problem?
Your ludicrous claims about the "rights" of web authors have been adequately shot to pieces in the other responses, but no-one else has yet pointed out that:
downloading music on a p2p system is a violation of copyright law. You have no social right to listen to that music.
But you claim to live in Calgary. A city in a country where sharing music on a non-commercial basis is explicitly *not* a copyright violation. Not only do I have a "social right" (whatever that is) to listen to that music, I have an actual *real* *legal* right to do this, with a judgement from the courts to back it up. The quid pro quo is that I pay levies on recordable media (and for the record, I'm annoyed that I have to pay *anything* to enjoy this right).
You must have known this (or you're even more ignorant than it appears), so it's hard to believe that your post was anything other than a deliberate troll.
what would it take to get aohell.com to ask lameproducts.com who shopping.yahoo.com is, and why would aohell.com even trust some unrelated site in the first place so that it could be tricked into asking?
The client *doesn't* ask the lameproducts.com DNS server about shopping.yahoo.com, it asks about something in the lameproducts.com domain (typically, prompted by an image embedded in an HTML email). The lameproducts.com DNS server sends back the answer about the request for the system in the lameproducts.com domain, but it *also* tacks on some more information about other domains for which it is not authoritative. A sensible client would simply ignore this additional information since (a) it never asked for it and (b) the information is outside the responding DNS's bailiwick. Unfortunately, there's a number of DNS caches out there that do not take a sensible approach.
The unanswered question is, where does the poisoning originate?
From a DNS servers under the control of the perpetrators. In some cases, they are "merely" spammers, pimping products via webpages. The much more serious and sinister use is for phishing-type attacks - there's no need to create a domain-name or URL to try and fool the unwary if you can control where the genuine name/URL resolves to.
I think the GP's point is that SPAM in all-capitals is a registered trademark of Hormel Inc. The flood of garbage interfering with communication is spam (or Spam if it's starting a sentence).
Hormel have always taken a very sensible approach to this issue, requesting only that people do not use the all capitals version, unless referring to the spicy ham product. Compare that to the way some other corporations think they can literally own words. I think we should give kudos to Hormel and respect their request.
The problem with this is that *you* don't own the data kept about you...When they lose the data, as far as they are concerned they have lost some of their business information
Which is why most developed countries have privacy legislation. "Ownership", in the context of personal information, is about the extent to which individuals can exert control over what happens to that data. Ownership doesn't (or shouldn't) reside with the business alone.
That the data is about you, and could be damaging to you is incosequential to them.
Which is why I support laws that make organisations take responsibility for the personal data in their custody. It's always puzzled me that the US, such a beacon of individual freedoms in most regards, is so weak in this area.
The farmer I mentioned went bankrupt because he had no way of identifying, or removing, the GM strain of crop from his field.
Note that there is a very simple way for Monsanto to identify whether (in this case) there are Roundup-Ready (in this case) crops present - they simply fly over and spray the field with roundup. If the crops die, then the farmer is innocent. If the crops don't die, then the farmer gets sued. Much like the medieval method for identifying witches.
GM crops have tremendous potential in regions such as Africa
Let's not fall for the myth that there is a world food shortage. Crisis, yes; shortage, no. There's actually plenty of food to feed everyone and more, the problem is in distribution and the international markets (note for example, that even at the height of the famine in 1984, Ethiopia was still a net agricultural exporter; 'course you can't feed your population on coffee beans). You're absolutely right that Western governments have rigged the market in favour of their own agribusinesses, but why would you think that the introduction of GM would do anything but make that situation worse? GM is all about locking in control of the food chain, from the field upwards.
It's bad enough that third world countries have to concentrate on growing cash crops for foreigners rather than food for their own people, in order to service their foreign debts. Now you expect them to be additionally burdened with the licence restrictions ("taxes" might be another word) associated with GM. How exactly does it benefit an African farmer if she now has to pay an annual licence fee in order to be allowed to plant the seed she saved from the crop she grew last year?
(Not that I disagree that the EU's agricultural policy is anything other than scandalous. The Common Agricultural Policy is an anachronism from the post-war period that should have been fixed thirty years ago. I would hardly call it "sentimental" ).
Take your point, but what about, for example, Phil Zimmerman? He gave us Pretty Good Privacy, and fought long and hard to ensure it was globally accessible. It's hard to know (for example) how many human rights workers lives have been saved by having access to secure communications, but for having the courage to fight for what he believed in, Phil Zimmerman is a hero.
Disclaimer : I was at a recent conference at which Zimmerman gave the keynote and he was, frankly, awful. It was as though someone had stolen his notes, which he hadn't previously read anyway; he winged it, kinda, sorta, for twenty of his allotted forty five minutes, then called for questions. The actual topic of the keynote was touched on precisely once, by a questioner. I suspect that he often *is* able to wing it in front of adoring geek audiences; it was embarassing that on this occasion he was so woefully unprepared. I didn't worship him before, and certainly don't now, but I still hold him as a hero.
You're being silly. I dare wager that I've expended considerably more effort in administering email systems than you have. But just to be clear : I *want* to solve the problem of Unsolicited Bulk Email. *Solve*, that is, not mitigate. And re-read my post. Would you conclude from it that I don't use such tactics on my own mail servers? Or indeed a range of other measures that sure, work quite effectively today, but likely won't work tomorrow?
Another example : some spamware chokes on multi-line 220 greetings - that's a handy tip that those in the know can take advantage of, but it's not a solution to the problem of Unsolicited Bulk Email. Ditto for secondary MXs that always respond with a 451. Indeed, the irony is that the more widespread such idiosyncracies become known, the less effective the tactics become. That's the nature of the current arms race, and half-baked solutions that don't actually solve the problem just lead us in circles. Hash cash is a half-baked idea. TMDA and challenge response are half-baked ideas. SPF is partially baked at best. SenderID inhabits an alternative reality. DomainKeys shows a glimmer of potential. Internet Mail 2000 is an example of something that I think actually attempts to *solve* the problem, but I won't deny that it's anything other than radical.
So please, for everyone's sake, don't stop showering.
I don't remember if it was the LoC, BBC, PBS, or who (was some big archive, tho) who had this pile of old media that they had a hell of a time finding anything to read.
Perhaps you are thinking of the Domesday Project in the UK in the eighties, in which the BBC collaborated with schools to create a modern version of the original Domesday book created in the twenty years after 1066 (William the Conqueror wanted a full audit of what he had won). It was a huge project, and used laser discs to store the vast (for the time) amounts of data. The irony came less than twenty years later, when they were scrambling to find hardware that could still read the discs, so that it could be re-archived before the discs degraded. Meanwhile, the original Domesday Book, on paper, is still as legible as it was when it was created almost a thousand years ago.
There has been a big swing in the odds on offer in the last 12 hours, presumably on the basis of what looks set to be a large turnout, although the prices have fluctuated a little, presumably due to bets coming back onto Republicans as the price improved.
Yesterday : Bush 5/6 Kerry 11/8
Right now : Bush 2/1 Kerry 4/11 (and I have seen it at Bush 3/1 Kerry 1/3 at times in the last couple of hours)
Since I took out my bet when Kerry was 6/4, I am now in the happy position of being able to choose to lay off my bet. But I won't, because I feel even more strongly now than I did last week that Kerry is actually going to win. My prediction then was that Kerry would win, and by a bigger margin than you might expect, thanks to large numbers of new voters who have no previous voting record (upon which most analyses are heavily dependent). If Bush does win, please feel free to come back to this post and give me a good taunting.
Slashdot Mirror
I take small comfort in knowing that I am not the sole person on this planet to suffer this delusion
...this crow is kinda tasteless. You know, this really is the darnedest thing. In my former reality, there was never any question that it was Billy Connolly (I mis-spelled his name earlier; double oops). All those countless times I saw HG in the *cinema*, never mind TV, video and latterly DVD, it *was* Billy Connolly. But today...
There can be only one explanation : the matrix has me.
My eyes and ears will have to disagree with IMDB, your DVD and your wife. Until I get home and watch my own DVD, I continue to claim that Tim the Enchanter was played by Billy Connelly. Come to think of it, isn't John Cleese actually in that scene, as Lanceleot?
Yes, I've done a quick google and found few references. I'll come back and eat crow tomorrow if I've had some kind of mental blackspot over this...
Tim was played by John Cleese.
No, Tim was played by Scottish comedian Billy Connelly
So next time there won't be this problem. That there was a problem this time is unfortunate, but like the lessons of history, this experience will make the victims Better. Stronger. Faster than before.
Not always. Sometimes the experience leaves the victim Dead. Extinct. Irrelevant. (cf : Dinosaurs)
You probably don't like true double opt-in either, since it reduces your "reach".
"double opt-in" is a meaningless phrase beloved by spammers. I only ever use confirmed opt-in.So fuck off, troll.
it'd be inconsequential to me to put up 10c to send each message
Good for you. I run a few mailing lists, some of which have thousands of members. A 10c charge is most certainly *not* inconsequential. Up with that I would not put.
Besides which, I must have missed the part where it was explained how spammers would be forced to play along with the system. Another system that only keeps the honest people honest. File under bee one en.
[Ballmer] adds that they'll be supporting it in the US only as they don't want to involve the company in debates in countries with different cultures and value systems.
What about countries whose culture and value systems don't give any consideration to "intellectual" "property"? Will MS refrain from involvement in that debate too?
How many double opt-in e-mail lists have been blocked...
Do you mean "confirmed opt-in"? If so, you should say so. "Double opt-in" is a meaningless phrase, beloved by spammers. I have every confidence that you're not a spammer, but if you speak in the spammers' language, people will get the wrong idea about your lists.
I've got e-commerce clients that, unable to communicate gracefully with AOL users, would run into trouble with a third or more of their customers. This is not trivial, it's blacklist BS
Is MAPS forcing you to use their lists? No. So what's your problem?
Your ludicrous claims about the "rights" of web authors have been adequately shot to pieces in the other responses, but no-one else has yet pointed out that:
downloading music on a p2p system is a violation of copyright law. You have no social right to listen to that music.
But you claim to live in Calgary. A city in a country where sharing music on a non-commercial basis is explicitly *not* a copyright violation. Not only do I have a "social right" (whatever that is) to listen to that music, I have an actual *real* *legal* right to do this, with a judgement from the courts to back it up. The quid pro quo is that I pay levies on recordable media (and for the record, I'm annoyed that I have to pay *anything* to enjoy this right).
You must have known this (or you're even more ignorant than it appears), so it's hard to believe that your post was anything other than a deliberate troll.
what would it take to get aohell.com to ask lameproducts.com who shopping.yahoo.com is, and why would aohell.com even trust some unrelated site in the first place so that it could be tricked into asking?
The client *doesn't* ask the lameproducts.com DNS server about shopping.yahoo.com, it asks about something in the lameproducts.com domain (typically, prompted by an image embedded in an HTML email). The lameproducts.com DNS server sends back the answer about the request for the system in the lameproducts.com domain, but it *also* tacks on some more information about other domains for which it is not authoritative. A sensible client would simply ignore this additional information since (a) it never asked for it and (b) the information is outside the responding DNS's bailiwick. Unfortunately, there's a number of DNS caches out there that do not take a sensible approach.
The unanswered question is, where does the poisoning originate?
From a DNS servers under the control of the perpetrators. In some cases, they are "merely" spammers, pimping products via webpages. The much more serious and sinister use is for phishing-type attacks - there's no need to create a domain-name or URL to try and fool the unwary if you can control where the genuine name/URL resolves to.
I think the GP's point is that SPAM in all-capitals is a registered trademark of Hormel Inc. The flood of garbage interfering with communication is spam (or Spam if it's starting a sentence).
Hormel have always taken a very sensible approach to this issue, requesting only that people do not use the all capitals version, unless referring to the spicy ham product. Compare that to the way some other corporations think they can literally own words. I think we should give kudos to Hormel and respect their request.
35.6% seems a pretty poor record for uptime to me.
The problem with this is that *you* don't own the data kept about you...When they lose the data, as far as they are concerned they have lost some of their business information
Which is why most developed countries have privacy legislation. "Ownership", in the context of personal information, is about the extent to which individuals can exert control over what happens to that data. Ownership doesn't (or shouldn't) reside with the business alone.
That the data is about you, and could be damaging to you is incosequential to them.
Which is why I support laws that make organisations take responsibility for the personal data in their custody. It's always puzzled me that the US, such a beacon of individual freedoms in most regards, is so weak in this area.
The farmer I mentioned went bankrupt because he had no way of identifying, or removing, the GM strain of crop from his field.
Note that there is a very simple way for Monsanto to identify whether (in this case) there are Roundup-Ready (in this case) crops present - they simply fly over and spray the field with roundup. If the crops die, then the farmer is innocent. If the crops don't die, then the farmer gets sued. Much like the medieval method for identifying witches.
GM crops have tremendous potential in regions such as Africa
Let's not fall for the myth that there is a world food shortage. Crisis, yes; shortage, no. There's actually plenty of food to feed everyone and more, the problem is in distribution and the international markets (note for example, that even at the height of the famine in 1984, Ethiopia was still a net agricultural exporter; 'course you can't feed your population on coffee beans). You're absolutely right that Western governments have rigged the market in favour of their own agribusinesses, but why would you think that the introduction of GM would do anything but make that situation worse? GM is all about locking in control of the food chain, from the field upwards.
It's bad enough that third world countries have to concentrate on growing cash crops for foreigners rather than food for their own people, in order to service their foreign debts. Now you expect them to be additionally burdened with the licence restrictions ("taxes" might be another word) associated with GM. How exactly does it benefit an African farmer if she now has to pay an annual licence fee in order to be allowed to plant the seed she saved from the crop she grew last year?
(Not that I disagree that the EU's agricultural policy is anything other than scandalous. The Common Agricultural Policy is an anachronism from the post-war period that should have been fixed thirty years ago. I would hardly call it "sentimental" ).
Once you meet the requirements though, you absolutely must go get your CISSP
That's trying to put the cart before the horse. In order to become a CISSP, you need a mimumum three years full-time experience in security.
Take your point, but what about, for example, Phil Zimmerman? He gave us Pretty Good Privacy, and fought long and hard to ensure it was globally accessible. It's hard to know (for example) how many human rights workers lives have been saved by having access to secure communications, but for having the courage to fight for what he believed in, Phil Zimmerman is a hero.
Disclaimer : I was at a recent conference at which Zimmerman gave the keynote and he was, frankly, awful. It was as though someone had stolen his notes, which he hadn't previously read anyway; he winged it, kinda, sorta, for twenty of his allotted forty five minutes, then called for questions. The actual topic of the keynote was touched on precisely once, by a questioner. I suspect that he often *is* able to wing it in front of adoring geek audiences; it was embarassing that on this occasion he was so woefully unprepared. I didn't worship him before, and certainly don't now, but I still hold him as a hero.
You're being silly. I dare wager that I've expended considerably more effort in administering email systems than you have. But just to be clear : I *want* to solve the problem of Unsolicited Bulk Email. *Solve*, that is, not mitigate. And re-read my post. Would you conclude from it that I don't use such tactics on my own mail servers? Or indeed a range of other measures that sure, work quite effectively today, but likely won't work tomorrow?
Another example : some spamware chokes on multi-line 220 greetings - that's a handy tip that those in the know can take advantage of, but it's not a solution to the problem of Unsolicited Bulk Email. Ditto for secondary MXs that always respond with a 451. Indeed, the irony is that the more widespread such idiosyncracies become known, the less effective the tactics become. That's the nature of the current arms race, and half-baked solutions that don't actually solve the problem just lead us in circles. Hash cash is a half-baked idea. TMDA and challenge response are half-baked ideas. SPF is partially baked at best. SenderID inhabits an alternative reality. DomainKeys shows a glimmer of potential. Internet Mail 2000 is an example of something that I think actually attempts to *solve* the problem, but I won't deny that it's anything other than radical.
So please, for everyone's sake, don't stop showering.
Spammers never use RFC compatible SMTP servers
And spammer tactics remain static, so the same techniques that worked five hours or five years ago will continue to work indefinitely. Not.
I don't remember if it was the LoC, BBC, PBS, or who (was some big archive, tho) who had this pile of old media that they had a hell of a time finding anything to read.
Perhaps you are thinking of the Domesday Project in the UK in the eighties, in which the BBC collaborated with schools to create a modern version of the original Domesday book created in the twenty years after 1066 (William the Conqueror wanted a full audit of what he had won). It was a huge project, and used laser discs to store the vast (for the time) amounts of data. The irony came less than twenty years later, when they were scrambling to find hardware that could still read the discs, so that it could be re-archived before the discs degraded. Meanwhile, the original Domesday Book, on paper, is still as legible as it was when it was created almost a thousand years ago.
Take the layoff. Take the layoff. Take the layoff.
There has been a big swing in the odds on offer in the last 12 hours, presumably on the basis of what looks set to be a large turnout, although the prices have fluctuated a little, presumably due to bets coming back onto Republicans as the price improved.
Yesterday : Bush 5/6 Kerry 11/8
Right now : Bush 2/1 Kerry 4/11 (and I have seen it at Bush 3/1 Kerry 1/3 at times in the last couple of hours)
Since I took out my bet when Kerry was 6/4, I am now in the happy position of being able to choose to lay off my bet. But I won't, because I feel even more strongly now than I did last week that Kerry is actually going to win. My prediction then was that Kerry would win, and by a bigger margin than you might expect, thanks to large numbers of new voters who have no previous voting record (upon which most analyses are heavily dependent). If Bush does win, please feel free to come back to this post and give me a good taunting.