> This is the problem the AtHome folks are
> running into -- they spent all that money on
> caching servers for web content and everyone
> unconfigures (is that a word?) the proxies
> immediately.
@HOME should've used policy routing to transparently redirect the HTTP traffic to the proxies anyway... Speaking as someone who works in a large european ISP it's what we do now with modem/ISDN dial-up users and it's what we're planning on "inflicting";-) on the ADSL users that we should be getting soon(ish).
> So what if I use this for dynamic content? In that case, caching doesn't matter anyway.
Speeching as a cache admin for a large(ish) ISP, most dynamic content isn't *that* dynamic. Even if the page has user specific entries on it, the images are probably cachable - think slashdot, I (probably) have my preferences on what slashboxs I get set as different from yours, however the icons for story sections can (and should) be cached as those won't be dynamic.
As for the 404 error for footfetish.com, well if you haven't paid then you're not going to get access - so permission denied is kind of appropriate...
I caught the automatic portion of this as well, however I can't help thinking there will be something of a performance hit to achieve this - unless it's only run as a scheduled task.
Mind you I also liked the way they're trumpeting IPv6 - I mean it's not like any other OSs have already is it???;-)
Oh great, another communism / open source comparison!
Of course, all of those in the real seats of power (read Linux kernel hackers) are aware of the secret death/labour camps where the undesirables get sent.
I heard a rumour that Alan Cox is really in personal charge of the (so-called) Linux Usability Project - ie: the Linux secret police who go round shooting NT users in the kneecaps.
However due to Mr Torvald's complete domination of the media, such stories are never published...
Assuming that cookies get modified over time depending on where you go, wouldn't it be slightly better to have a group of x people.
They start by all using the cookie from person 1, then after a set period of time (1 week - 1 month say) they all start using the copy that person 2 has, then person 3... and so on. This way, even if the cookie value changes they'll be denied tracking information!
It sounds like he's in the UK, where he's paying by the second for his bandwidth (assuming it's either analog modem or ISDN), personally I'd say that makes it his - and if he doesn't want traffic from a certain site using it up, then that's his choice.
As for paying with bandwidth - why should *I* pay for the dubious honour of receiving advertising, if you want to send me advertising then I want paying for it. As soon as doubleclick start offering money to offset the money I'd have to spend downloading their adverts, I'll start considering downloading them...
> This is quite obviously a horrendous invasion of privacy on the part of doubleclick, > and a boycott (of sorts) should begin immediately.
A possible suggestion for those of us in the UK, which I'd like some input on:
www.freeserve.net (and probably other UK sites as well), get there adverts from ad.uk.doubleclick.net - from it's name and where it traceroutes to (pipex.net) it's based in the UK.
Is there anyway that we can use the data protection act (think that's the right one) and demand a copy of all the information they have on us. If enough of us do this, it's going to be rather time consuming for them...
Also, if you're a Freeserve subscriber then it might be worth writing an email/letter of complaint to Freeserve suggesting that you're very unhappy about their use of doubleclick and that you're considering switching to another ISP. (Freeserve may not get any money off you directly, but they don't have whine when call minutes are down!)
> Actually now that Janet is being replaced with the much faster Super-Janet
IIRC, they're up to Super-JANET 3 now...
Least ways, back in 1997 when I had a job interview with Warwick University they had a Super-JANET 2 connection and where looking towards getting Super-JANET 3. (But then there where something of the 4(?) backbone usenet news hosts for JANET!).
(All of that is subject to being filtered through my exceedingly bad memory!)
Interesting idea, however they can't "infect" us merely by porting IE to Linux. Conversely, we can't "infect" them unless they are foolish.
If MS did release "MS Linux - All Singing, All Dancing and Whiter Whites" then I think they would come under a great deal of scrutiny which would (hopefully) prevent them from subverting the GPL.
Assuming they can't subvert the GPL, then if they wish to keep their code secret the only way they go is port their own set of libraries (and only link to LGPL libraries) and maybe produce a binary-only kernel module(*) or two. I imagine their stuff would only work on their own distribution if at all possible, though even that might prove difficult as a lot of people would try and reverse engineer it if they tried...
* - this could/would become an issue the next time the kernel team changed the interface and everyone's MS Office installs stopped working!
I was thinking of something similar myself, however my version was just going to delete any non-specified cookies.
-> basically I was going for denial of information, however your idea ("give them lots of information, but make it useless") seems even better.
My programming ain't too hot at the moment, but if you want some help (and to help my programming) then feel free to email me at slashdot@europe.com (Yeah, throw-away free email acount -> when/if you get in touch I'll give you my real one!)
If you mean something similar to the cipherpunks one, then yeah I agree. I suppose the following would be best?
Username = slashdot Password = slashdot
... unless of course, there's some registration sites out there that actually require vaguely sensible passwords -> in which case "sdnfnstm" would maybe be a better choice!
Impossible to achieve, no parliment can bind the actions of its successors. True a bill, or a set of bills could be passed giving the appearance of a constituion however any later government (assuming a big enough majority) could just pass another bill repealing it!
> A Bill of Rights &
Could be a good idea, however it could still be easily overturned...
> An elected Upper House
Why? What possible purpose could this serve, other than giving Tony Blair two places to have a really large majority??? If one house of commons wasn't enough to stop a bad bill passing, why would two help???
Frankly I think it would be good if the houses passed the bill, but the Queen refused to sign it. (Thus preventing it from becoming law.)
PS: Anyone else notice that Tony Blair's acceptance speak at the last election was the same as Hitlers? "We are one nation, one people, one leader" "Ein Riech, Ein Volk, Ein Fuhrer!"
I know this is off-topic, but I couldn't resist butting in...
True, it does talk about a "well-regulated militia"...
> A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
However it does also say "the right of the people... shall not be infringed", *not* "the right of the well-regulated militia... shall not be infringed"
> I'm not familiar with Exim, but aren't there more efficient solutions?
Probably not... a certain (v) large UK ISP I know quite a lot about uses exim on it's email system because it's more secure than sendmail (but then, what isn't?) and more efficient than qmail (see below).
qmail starts up a seperate process for every email it delivers, whereas exim starts a seperate process for each batch of email it delivers. On a lightly loaded system, the point it probably moot - however on systems like what we are discussing, it's quite probably not!
But what about that small shop at the bottom of the road called "Kodak Local Shop(TM)"... why do they have to be satisfied with something other than kodak.com???
Frankly I think the best option would be to get rid of all the TLDs that aren't country designations. I'll be generous and allow internic to retain a.net address and maybe a few similar ones. Then force companies to only register in their home countries... (and for preference it would be good if the individual country registrars enforced some kind of logical scheme -> if you want a.ac.uk address you'd better be an academic site!).
Unfortunately this is never going to happen -> too much fiddling about required (not to mention all the lusers who'd get confused!), but still I can always dream...
Slashdot Mirror
> Akamai is awesome ...
... but it ain't "optimal"! ;-)
/Proceedings/S4/S4-1.pdf
Yeah, well maybe
http://www.terena.nl/conf/wcw
> This is the problem the AtHome folks are
... Speaking as someone who works in a large european ISP it's what we do now with modem/ISDN dial-up users and it's what we're planning on "inflicting" ;-) on the ADSL users that we should be getting soon(ish).
> running into -- they spent all that money on
> caching servers for web content and everyone
> unconfigures (is that a word?) the proxies
> immediately.
@HOME should've used policy routing to transparently redirect the HTTP traffic to the proxies anyway
True, however I'm sure MI6 might like to know ...
Strange I thought we went to war because Germany invaded Poland (a country well known for being a colony state of the UK!) ...
Maybe so, but why should you also in that case be prohibited from *talking* about trucks???
Perhaps it's just me, but is anyone else finding that terraserver.com isn't accepting connections ATM???
Conspiracy theorists of the world unite! You have nothing to lose except your psuedonyms!
Closest thing I can think of off hand would be Stand - however they're more about gaining sane crypto and e-commerce legislation.
...
The worrything thing is that I live in the UK and work for one of the *big* ISPs and I can't think of anything
> ... sue the inventors of the internet ...
But does Al Gore have enough money for all those court cases???
> So what if I use this for dynamic content? In that case, caching doesn't matter anyway.
...
Speeching as a cache admin for a large(ish) ISP, most dynamic content isn't *that* dynamic. Even if the page has user specific entries on it, the images are probably cachable - think slashdot, I (probably) have my preferences on what slashboxs I get set as different from yours, however the icons for story sections can (and should) be cached as those won't be dynamic.
As for the 404 error for footfetish.com, well if you haven't paid then you're not going to get access - so permission denied is kind of appropriate
Personally I always thought it was interesting that Tony Blair's acceptance speech was the same as Hitlers ... you know:
..." ..."
..."
TB "We are one nation, one people, one leader
AH "Ein reich, ein volk, ein fuhrer
Besides which, Franklin(?) had it right - "those who would give up freedom for security deserve neither
I caught the automatic portion of this as well, however I can't help thinking there will be something of a performance hit to achieve this - unless it's only run as a scheduled task.
;-)
Mind you I also liked the way they're trumpeting IPv6 - I mean it's not like any other OSs have already is it???
Oh great, another communism / open source comparison!
...
Of course, all of those in the real seats of power (read Linux kernel hackers) are aware of the secret death/labour camps where the undesirables get sent.
I heard a rumour that Alan Cox is really in personal charge of the (so-called) Linux Usability Project - ie: the Linux secret police who go round shooting NT users in the kneecaps.
However due to Mr Torvald's complete domination of the media, such stories are never published
EXCUSE ME!!!! WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE! Doh!
Assuming that cookies get modified over time depending on where you go, wouldn't it be slightly better to have a group of x people.
... and so on. This way, even if the cookie value changes they'll be denied tracking information!
They start by all using the cookie from person 1, then after a set period of time (1 week - 1 month say) they all start using the copy that person 2 has, then person 3
> This is not "your bandwidth".
...
It sounds like he's in the UK, where he's paying by the second for his bandwidth (assuming it's either analog modem or ISDN), personally I'd say that makes it his - and if he doesn't want traffic from a certain site using it up, then that's his choice.
As for paying with bandwidth - why should *I* pay for the dubious honour of receiving advertising, if you want to send me advertising then I want paying for it. As soon as doubleclick start offering money to offset the money I'd have to spend downloading their adverts, I'll start considering downloading them
> This is quite obviously a horrendous invasion of privacy on the part of doubleclick,
...
> and a boycott (of sorts) should begin immediately.
A possible suggestion for those of us in the UK, which I'd like some input on:
www.freeserve.net (and probably other UK sites as well), get there adverts from ad.uk.doubleclick.net - from it's name and where it traceroutes to (pipex.net) it's based in the UK.
Is there anyway that we can use the data protection act (think that's the right one) and demand a copy of all the information they have on us. If enough of us do this, it's going to be rather time consuming for them
Also, if you're a Freeserve subscriber then it might be worth writing an email/letter of complaint to Freeserve suggesting that you're very unhappy about their use of doubleclick and that you're considering switching to another ISP. (Freeserve may not get any money off you directly, but they don't have whine when call minutes are down!)
Someone moderate this guy up ...
What he's suggesting isn't perfect, but it's pretty damn close!
> Actually now that Janet is being replaced with the much faster Super-Janet
...
IIRC, they're up to Super-JANET 3 now
Least ways, back in 1997 when I had a job interview with Warwick University they had a Super-JANET 2 connection and where looking towards getting Super-JANET 3. (But then there where something of the 4(?) backbone usenet news hosts for JANET!).
(All of that is subject to being filtered through my exceedingly bad memory!)
Interesting idea, however they can't "infect" us merely by porting IE to Linux. Conversely, we can't "infect" them unless they are foolish.
...
If MS did release "MS Linux - All Singing, All Dancing and Whiter Whites" then I think they would come under a great deal of scrutiny which would (hopefully) prevent them from subverting the GPL.
Assuming they can't subvert the GPL, then if they wish to keep their code secret the only way they go is port their own set of libraries (and only link to LGPL libraries) and maybe produce a binary-only kernel module(*) or two. I imagine their stuff would only work on their own distribution if at all possible, though even that might prove difficult as a lot of people would try and reverse engineer it if they tried
* - this could/would become an issue the next time the kernel team changed the interface and everyone's MS Office installs stopped working!
> Yeah, and then watch them prosecute you on some other trumped-up, bulls**t charge to save face.
...
The one that springs to mind is "wasting police time"
This sounds like a good idea to me ...
I was thinking of something similar myself, however my version was just going to delete any non-specified cookies.
-> basically I was going for denial of information, however your idea ("give them lots of information, but make it useless") seems even better.
My programming ain't too hot at the moment, but if you want some help (and to help my programming) then feel free to email me at slashdot@europe.com
(Yeah, throw-away free email acount -> when/if you get in touch I'll give you my real one!)
If you mean something similar to the cipherpunks one, then yeah I agree. I suppose the following would be best?
Username = slashdot
Password = slashdot
... unless of course, there's some registration sites out there that actually require vaguely sensible passwords -> in which case "sdnfnstm" would maybe be a better choice!
> A written constitution,
...
Impossible to achieve, no parliment can bind the actions of its successors. True a bill, or a set of bills could be passed giving the appearance of a constituion however any later government (assuming a big enough majority) could just pass another bill repealing it!
> A Bill of Rights &
Could be a good idea, however it could still be easily overturned
> An elected Upper House
Why? What possible purpose could this serve, other than giving Tony Blair two places to have a really large majority??? If one house of commons wasn't enough to stop a bad bill passing, why would two help???
Frankly I think it would be good if the houses passed the bill, but the Queen refused to sign it. (Thus preventing it from becoming law.)
PS: Anyone else notice that Tony Blair's acceptance speak at the last election was the same as Hitlers? "We are one nation, one people, one leader" "Ein Riech, Ein Volk, Ein Fuhrer!"
I know this is off-topic, but I couldn't resist butting in ...
...
... shall not be infringed", *not* "the right of the well-regulated militia ... shall not be infringed"
True, it does talk about a "well-regulated militia"
> A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
However it does also say "the right of the people
> I'm not familiar with Exim, but aren't there more efficient solutions?
... a certain (v) large UK ISP I know quite a lot about uses exim on it's email system because it's more secure than sendmail (but then, what isn't?) and more efficient than qmail (see below).
Probably not
qmail starts up a seperate process for every email it delivers, whereas exim starts a seperate process for each batch of email it delivers. On a lightly loaded system, the point it probably moot - however on systems like what we are discussing, it's quite probably not!
But what about that small shop at the bottom of the road called "Kodak Local Shop(TM)" ... why do they have to be satisfied with something other than kodak.com???
.net address and maybe a few similar ones. Then force companies to only register in their home countries ... (and for preference it would be good if the individual country registrars enforced some kind of logical scheme -> if you want a .ac.uk address you'd better be an academic site!).
...
Frankly I think the best option would be to get rid of all the TLDs that aren't country designations. I'll be generous and allow internic to retain a
Unfortunately this is never going to happen -> too much fiddling about required (not to mention all the lusers who'd get confused!), but still I can always dream