They send out spam. They can't hide where it came from, because otherwise the system can't tell they're an authorised sender. So almost immediately there are complaints, and less than 24 hours later they're removed from the database for violation of service.
Let's say they're really determined and have an unlimited supply of stolen ID's. They put up another $1000 and are able to spam for another 24 hours before they get shut down.. and so on..
They're not paying $1000 a year. They're paying $365000 a year, or more likely $1000 to spam for one day before getting blacklisted.
It's -trivially- easy to block port 25 and force all your customers to use the isp's SMTP servers. This makes it much easier to identify spammers, and stops many email viruses from spreading.
A lot of ISP's already do this and a lot of ISP's block incoming mail from 'dialup/DHCP' IP pools, so even if you have your own SMTP server it's still a good idea to use your ISP's server as a smarthost.
Aussies pay probably the highest rates in the developed world for traffic already. Sucks to be them:)
New Zealand is slightly better, but for decent ADSL (full speed, not 128K) we pay 15c-18c per meg.
It really pisses me off when I read stories on/. about the poor, deprived cable modem users who aren't allowed to do >1G per day on kaaza any more. My 128K adsl has a 12G per month cap and most months I don't even reach half that, even after downloading a few ISO's, the occasional movie, and a healthy amount of pr0n.
I use a brooktree card, and in the past I've used the parallel port to switch between 6 different cameras on a single composite input, managing one scan every ten seconds on my P200.
However, there are many different cards based on the bt878 chipset which support two or more inputs and if I was mad enough to do it all again I would probably use two or three such cards in a dedicated (and slightly faster, perhaps 400MHz) camera server, and scan them using motion That should give me up to 9 cameras scanned at two or three frames per second.
The more people know how screwed up software patents are, the better chance there will be that something will actually be done to stop the stupidity.
You wish. They'll drag this through court for a while to attract lots of media attention, then they'll pay up the miniscule, trivial fraction of their $40-billion cashpile Eolas is asking for.
When it comes to OSS browsers; there's no $40-billion pile of cash and only a limited amount of pro-bono legal support, so we're screwed.
That looks like a pretty good investment, right up there with SCO's 'pay us to make trouble for Linux' UnixWare licences.
Apart from the occasional typo, I've never had a problem with mail not getting delivered. However I have had problems with it getting spam-filtered. One time it was because of a 'parody' version of the stupid disclaimer that PHB's seem to like putting on all their mail, which just happened to use a few too many of the wrong kind of keywords. Another time I was suggesting some software changes, and provided URL's for the appropriate RFC's.. My mail eventually got noticed, but it sat in the 'spam' folder for a week or two first.
2). Take iMac into tech support, so they can "extract" the cd that is now jammed in your computer.
OK, I admit that it's been a LOOOOONG time since I've used any kind of Mac, but surely they still have the little 'manual eject' hole that I've seen on every apple drive since the Lisa..
{checks Google}
OMFG!! They've actually removed the manual eject hole on the iMac drives! How fscking retarded was that?!! So yes.. if you ever insert any kind of damaged or corrupted disk of ANY kind and it causes the machine to crash, it's going to cause the machine to crash again every time you restart it, there's no other way to eject the disk, and you'll need to get your machine serviced. Pure genius!
Get yourself a bible. Make lots of notes; I've found http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ to be an excellent resource. Keep it near the door for religious callers, work through it point by point asking them to justify their answers, until they want to leave, then try and persuade them to stay just a little longer.
I haven't needed to use mine for several years, they just don't seem to stop here any more.
Many ISP's in New Zealand are already running a patched DNS that ignores VeriSlime. My current ISP is one of them... or not. I just checked, and I'm still getting Sitefinder when I look for domains like "hgjfdksgh.com"
There's a patch for djbdns and bind9 that ignores Verisign, and there's been a lot of talk about it on the NANOG and NZNOG mailing lists. I don't know how many ISP's have actually applied it, because responsible sysadmins don't go making radical changes to critical services without carefully considering all the potential consequences.
You mean like how Mozilla -used to- do a google search for me if the domain didn't exist?
That's something I specifically wanted, and configured Mozilla to do. Google is rather good at guessing what I wanted when I mistype stuff.
And it's a feature that VeriSlime have now broken for me. Sitefinder is almost completely useless at guessing my typos, and the only way to get the old behaviour back is patching DNS to return NXDOMAIN like it used to.
Many ISP's in New Zealand are already running a patched DNS that ignores VeriSlime. My current ISP is one of them, but I still keep seeing sitefinder in places like the ODP editor.
Hell, that brings up another point. The ODP editor interface has various tools for checking that sites still exist, so that editors don't have to go through the tedious task of checking them all periodically. Guess how SiteSquatter affects those tools?
Could a bot be written that would be able to harvest these email messages? YES. But would it be worth the spammer's time to code it? NO, so it probably won't happen.
You wish.
Just like the mailing list archives that cloak everyone's address "foo AT bar DOT baz". They don't get harvested quite as frequently by the regular web-crawing bots but they DO still get harvested, because someone notices that they can get a few hundred email addresses from that archive with a fairly small amount of programming.
As soon as any reasonable number of people start using the same scheme (and particularly if it's a mailto: designed to still be machine-readable) someone will take the time to harvest that kind of obfuscated address. It's just a matter of the cost/benefit ratio being high enough to make it worthwile.
The data is also encrypted and files are identified only by an MD5 hash, so none of the nodes even know what the other nodes are transferring through them, or what files they have other than the ones they specifically requested.
Yes, it is -much- slower and less efficient than regular P2P. It's also much more anonymous.
We measured the frequency (of PULSES) with a frequency counter. From there the period is 1/f
We measured the distance light travelled during one period directly, with a ruler.
We didn't give a flying fuck what the frequency of the light itself was. From memory it was a fairly standard red ultrabright LED, but it really didn't matter. We weren't measuring the wavelength of the light itself, since we didn't have a ruler marked out in nanometers..
Yeah, I forgot to mention that; we measured the frequency of the driving signal using a frequency counter.
Read the experiment again.. we measured the wavelength of the PULSES of light, not the light itself (Visible light has a very short wavelength, you can't measure it directly with a ruler)
The frequency of the light itself is irrelevent. The frequency we were pulsing it at was low enough to be read electronically using a frequency counter.
He's quite correct. If you want to measure the speed of light properly you really should establish for yourself the frequency of radiation you're using, or whatever other varables arise in the calculation. If you're prepared to accept 2.4GHz off the back of the oven, how is that any better than accepting 299,792,458 m/s directly from whatever source of reference you prefer?
We measured the speed of light by flashing an LED very rapidly (several MHz). The driving signal and the output from a photodiode were fed through equal-length coaxial feedlines into the X and Y inputs of an oscilloscope.
The photodiode was moved away from the light source one full wavelength, at which point the image on the screen became a straight diagonal line again.
I've also seen it done by bouncing a laser off a rapidly rotating octagonal mirror, across a room and back to the same mirror, but that one's a lot harder to set up correctly.
Of course, there'd be no reason to believe that just because the system claims your vote was counted in such a way, that it actually was. Never trust computers, they were programmed by those capable of lying and deceit.
So you provide a list of the 'hash' and corresponding vote for people to check off. It has to be correct, because otherwise people are going to complain, and it has to have approximately the right number of voters.
Since the entire list is publically available, anyone who wants can add up all the votes and check that it matches the 'official' result.
And since the entire list is publically available, anyone who's being threatened needs only look up the list, find someone who voted the 'right' way, and present that hash as their own.
Voters only need to be able to prove for themselves that their own vote was recorded and counted correctly. They don't need to be able to prove this to anyone else. 'x' tampered votes results in 'x' angry voters.
Perhaps I'm just naieve, but the way I see it; If I vote and I know for myself that my vote was counted, then I'll accept the result. I've always thought that most people felt this way, but perhaps I'm wrong. If most voters feel that they 'must win at all costs' then I don't think the voting problem can ever be solved.
My variant was to give each voter a pre-generated 'hash' in a sealed envelope. They vote; they keep a copy of the hash and how they voted. If under duress (or to collect a payout), they look up the published results later and pick a 'correct' hash. Nobody else can prove that it isn't their vote.
The point of the excercise is that each individual voter knows their vote was counted correctly; they don't necessarily need to be able to prove it to anyone else. Any significant amount of vote tamering will result in an equally significant number of angry voters and general unrest.
Slashdot Mirror
Well DUH!
They pay $1000, and get added to the DNS
They send out spam. They can't hide where it came from, because otherwise the system can't tell they're an authorised sender. So almost immediately there are complaints, and less than 24 hours later they're removed from the database for violation of service.
Let's say they're really determined and have an unlimited supply of stolen ID's. They put up another $1000 and are able to spam for another 24 hours before they get shut down.. and so on..
They're not paying $1000 a year. They're paying $365000 a year, or more likely $1000 to spam for one day before getting blacklisted.
It's -trivially- easy to block port 25 and force all your customers to use the isp's SMTP servers. This makes it much easier to identify spammers, and stops many email viruses from spreading.
A lot of ISP's already do this and a lot of ISP's block incoming mail from 'dialup/DHCP' IP pools, so even if you have your own SMTP server it's still a good idea to use your ISP's server as a smarthost.
Aussies pay probably the highest rates in the developed world for traffic already. Sucks to be them :)
/. about the poor, deprived cable modem users who aren't allowed to do >1G per day on kaaza any more. My 128K adsl has a 12G per month cap and most months I don't even reach half that, even after downloading a few ISO's, the occasional movie, and a healthy amount of pr0n.
New Zealand is slightly better, but for decent ADSL (full speed, not 128K) we pay 15c-18c per meg.
It really pisses me off when I read stories on
You think a firewall would have helped?
I use a brooktree card, and in the past I've used the parallel port to switch between 6 different cameras on a single composite input, managing one scan every ten seconds on my P200.
However, there are many different cards based on the bt878 chipset which support two or more inputs and if I was mad enough to do it all again I would probably use two or three such cards in a dedicated (and slightly faster, perhaps 400MHz) camera server, and scan them using motion That should give me up to 9 cameras scanned at two or three frames per second.
easier fix (and I have seen this used..) add a 'wav' file with the same information.
Most blind users I know are using Windows/JAWS, and have no trouble playing a wav file.
.. does Z-80 code count?
The more people know how screwed up software patents are, the better chance there will be that something will actually be done to stop the stupidity.
You wish. They'll drag this through court for a while to attract lots of media attention, then they'll pay up the miniscule, trivial fraction of their $40-billion cashpile Eolas is asking for.
When it comes to OSS browsers; there's no $40-billion pile of cash and only a limited amount of pro-bono legal support, so we're screwed.
That looks like a pretty good investment, right up there with SCO's 'pay us to make trouble for Linux' UnixWare licences.
Apart from the occasional typo, I've never had a problem with mail not getting delivered. However I have had problems with it getting spam-filtered. One time it was because of a 'parody' version of the stupid disclaimer that PHB's seem to like putting on all their mail, which just happened to use a few too many of the wrong kind of keywords. Another time I was suggesting some software changes, and provided URL's for the appropriate RFC's.. My mail eventually got noticed, but it sat in the 'spam' folder for a week or two first.
Shiffman? You have to be kidding.
Perhaps Stratton Sclavos, although he'll be quickly forgotten now that Sitesquatter is gone.
Bill Gates and Darl McBride, certainly. And any of the ROKSO spammers (which quite likely includes whoever's behind SoBig)
Personally my top five most hated would list Darl McBride first, second and fifth, with Bill Gates filling the remaining two places.
2). Take iMac into tech support, so they can "extract" the cd that is now jammed in your computer.
OK, I admit that it's been a LOOOOONG time since I've used any kind of Mac, but surely they still have the little 'manual eject' hole that I've seen on every apple drive since the Lisa..
{checks Google}
OMFG!! They've actually removed the manual eject hole on the iMac drives! How fscking retarded was that?!! So yes.. if you ever insert any kind of damaged or corrupted disk of ANY kind and it causes the machine to crash, it's going to cause the machine to crash again every time you restart it, there's no other way to eject the disk, and you'll need to get your machine serviced. Pure genius!
Get yourself a bible. Make lots of notes; I've found http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
to be an excellent resource. Keep it near the door for religious callers, work through it point by point asking them to justify their answers, until they want to leave, then try and persuade them to stay just a little longer.
I haven't needed to use mine for several years, they just don't seem to stop here any more.
Many ISP's in New Zealand are already running a patched DNS that ignores VeriSlime. My current ISP is one of them. .. or not. I just checked, and I'm still getting Sitefinder when I look for domains like "hgjfdksgh.com"
There's a patch for djbdns and bind9 that ignores Verisign, and there's been a lot of talk about it on the NANOG and NZNOG mailing lists. I don't know how many ISP's have actually applied it, because responsible sysadmins don't go making radical changes to critical services without carefully considering all the potential consequences.
You mean like how Mozilla -used to- do a google search for me if the domain didn't exist?
That's something I specifically wanted, and configured Mozilla to do. Google is rather good at guessing what I wanted when I mistype stuff.
And it's a feature that VeriSlime have now broken for me. Sitefinder is almost completely useless at guessing my typos, and the only way to get the old behaviour back is patching DNS to return NXDOMAIN like it used to.
Many ISP's in New Zealand are already running a patched DNS that ignores VeriSlime. My current ISP is one of them, but I still keep seeing sitefinder in places like the ODP editor.
Hell, that brings up another point. The ODP editor interface has various tools for checking that sites still exist, so that editors don't have to go through the tedious task of checking them all periodically. Guess how SiteSquatter affects those tools?
Could a bot be written that would be able to harvest these email messages? YES. But would it be worth the spammer's time to code it? NO, so it probably won't happen.
You wish.
Just like the mailing list archives that cloak everyone's address "foo AT bar DOT baz". They don't get harvested quite as frequently by the regular web-crawing bots but they DO still get harvested, because someone notices that they can get a few hundred email addresses from that archive with a fairly small amount of programming.
As soon as any reasonable number of people start using the same scheme (and particularly if it's a mailto: designed to still be machine-readable) someone will take the time to harvest that kind of obfuscated address. It's just a matter of the cost/benefit ratio being high enough to make it worthwile.
Yes there is. Freenet.
The data is also encrypted and files are identified only by an MD5 hash, so none of the nodes even know what the other nodes are transferring through them, or what files they have other than the ones they specifically requested.
Yes, it is -much- slower and less efficient than regular P2P. It's also much more anonymous.
We measured the frequency (of PULSES) with a frequency counter. From there the period is 1/f
We measured the distance light travelled during one period directly, with a ruler.
We didn't give a flying fuck what the frequency of the light itself was. From memory it was a fairly standard red ultrabright LED, but it really didn't matter. We weren't measuring the wavelength of the light itself, since we didn't have a ruler marked out in nanometers..
Yeah, I forgot to mention that; we measured the frequency of the driving signal using a frequency counter.
Read the experiment again.. we measured the wavelength of the PULSES of light, not the light itself (Visible light has a very short wavelength, you can't measure it directly with a ruler)
The frequency of the light itself is irrelevent.
The frequency we were pulsing it at was low enough to be read electronically using a frequency counter.
He's quite correct. If you want to measure the speed of light properly you really should establish for yourself the frequency of radiation you're using, or whatever other varables arise in the calculation. If you're prepared to accept 2.4GHz off the back of the oven, how is that any better than accepting
299,792,458 m/s directly from whatever source of reference you prefer?
We measured the speed of light by flashing an LED very rapidly (several MHz). The driving signal and the output from a photodiode were fed through equal-length coaxial feedlines into the X and Y inputs of an oscilloscope.
The photodiode was moved away from the light source one full wavelength, at which point the image on the screen became a straight diagonal line again.
I've also seen it done by bouncing a laser off a rapidly rotating octagonal mirror, across a room and back to the same mirror, but that one's a lot harder to set up correctly.
Segway Error 404:
Battery Not Found.
segwayfinder.verisign.com:
We didn't find "yoursegwaybattery.com"
There is no battery at this address.
Of course, there'd be no reason to believe that just because the system claims your vote was counted in such a way, that it actually was. Never trust computers, they were programmed by those capable of lying and deceit.
So you provide a list of the 'hash' and corresponding vote for people to check off. It has to be correct, because otherwise people are going to complain, and it has to have approximately the right number of voters.
Since the entire list is publically available, anyone who wants can add up all the votes and check that it matches the 'official' result.
And since the entire list is publically available, anyone who's being threatened needs only look up the list, find someone who voted the 'right' way, and present that hash as their own.
Voters only need to be able to prove for themselves that their own vote was recorded and counted correctly. They don't need to be able to prove this to anyone else. 'x' tampered votes results in 'x' angry voters.
Perhaps I'm just naieve, but the way I see it; If I vote and I know for myself that my vote was counted, then I'll accept the result. I've always thought that most people felt this way, but perhaps I'm wrong. If most voters feel that they 'must win at all costs' then I don't think the voting problem can ever be solved.
My variant was to give each voter a pre-generated 'hash' in a sealed envelope. They vote; they keep a copy of the hash and how they voted. If under duress (or to collect a payout), they look up the published results later and pick a 'correct' hash. Nobody else can prove that it isn't their vote.
The point of the excercise is that each individual voter knows their vote was counted correctly; they don't necessarily need to be able to prove it to anyone else. Any significant amount of vote tamering will result in an equally significant number of angry voters and general unrest.
How about server stability?
take a quick look at Netcraft's longest-uptimes page and see what OS is most prominent on that page.
Here's a summary for you.
BSD/OS and FreeBSD: 50
GNU/Linux (all distros): 0
All other *NIX's combined: 0
Windows (98, XP, 2k and 2k3): 0
Mac OS and OS/X: 0
I'd have drawn a pie chart, but I think you know what a circle looks like already..
I did say 'full rate'.
:-)
Here's some 'no shit' numbers direct from telecom's site (blatently whoring for another +5 Informative..