- Bush Sr. puking on the Japanese Prime Minister - Bush and the Bracholi - Carter's peaunut farmer/ brewer brother - That dress, wearing guy (Roosevelt?) - Quayle and the spelling, or bumping the panic alarm (so the secret service freaks out) - etc.
It's part of what makes this country great, being able to make fun of one's leaders.
First off, these @Stake guys say right in their little auto-scripted reports, IIS is a security risk. RIGHT IN THE REPORT.
Secondly, after speaking with a couple clients of theirs, I came to the conclusion they were more interested in scaring their clients into paying more than knowing anything about what they were doing.
I don't doubt there is a smart guy or two in there somewhere cooking up the new ideas, but they sure as hell didn't apply any of those smarts into dealing with their uneducated customers. They choose to scare them instead.
You must be a spammer. You really really want to be able to bug people
with commercials at their expense. Free speech is about political,
artistic and personal speech, it's about the US government not being allowed to
tell you how you can use speech for political, artistic or personal reasons.
Phone calls pushing time-share scams are none of those things. Telemarketing
companies are not people, companies have many more restrictions about what they can say, they have many restrictions about what they MUST say. The ingredients list on food items is there because its a law about what speech corporations must use. The number of ounces contained is there because its a law about corporate speech, if they lie on the box they are comitting a crime. As long as it is not an individual calling trying to sell those things, rather it is a person acting on the behalf of a business, it is not a 'free speech' issue.
Free speech only applies to what the government can tell individuals to say. That is a well estabilished fact.
Likewise, the right to free speech ends when the speaker attempts to force
others to listen. Anyone seeing a 'soapbox preacher' on the street has the perfect
right to walk on by and not listen. In addition, the 'soapbox
preacher' has no right to force people to pay for his speech, yell in a
screened in window with his speech, etc.
Any of those trash that work for telemarketers are completely free to walk the
streets and say anything they like or try to sell siding, well except make threats, say 'heil Hitler' (in Germany), yell 'fire' in a theater, lie to a police officer or judge, hmmm. wait.... so there ARE limits to free
speech. Cool, not only do corporations not have it, there are clear, well
established laws and practices that have exclusions to what is considered 'free speech'.
Get over it. The free speech argument won't work. You should make an attempt to figure
that out. You won't look so stupid once you do.
So if your house was on fire, I couldn't call you to wake you up and save
your life because I lack your express permission?
Correct. You are not obligated to do anything in that example. Since I have
gotten so used to ignoring the phone which I paid for and set up to keep from
getting interrupted by some company to fucking stupid to realize apartment
dwellers don't need siding, I probably will just unplug it and to back to
sleep. Call the Fire Department instead.
If we were carpooling and I needed directions on the way, I couldn't call you
to find out where you live so that we could both get to work on time because I
lack your express permission?
You have implied permission in that case. The telemarketers have specific
denial of permission. There is a big difference there.
I'm afraid you've got it backwards my friend.
My friends don't defend telemarketers, so you are not.
There is implicit permission inherent in having a phone, or a front door, or a
mailbox, or an email address, for people to communicate with you of their own
accord. You can reject these things by expressly rejecting that permission, but
until you act to do so, it's there.
Interesting argument. There is implicit permission that your mom's
twat is for me to shove my dick into, that is after all, it's sole biological
purpose. If she's lucky I am in the same time zone and won't do it before
she's had a pee in the morning.
Your argument is not valid per reductio ad absurdum. It's her twat, she
has a right to do with it what she wants, including have an exclusive access
list for it. Even though someone could gain easy access to it by putting a.357 in her face, does not mean they should or that they would be in any way
within their rights to do so. Your argument is equally weak if you were to
say you should be allowed to call the Putin/Bush red hotline phone to sell cheap
vodka. That phone has a specific purpose that does not include YOU.
This is not dissimilar to the concept that while it is unlawful to batter
someone (meaning roughly to make any unwanted physical contact) it's perfectly
fine to jostle people as a consequence of being in a crowded place, because
there are situations where the rules change according to what's typical in
society.
Correct. And in this case calling someone is who helpfully put their
name and phone number on a list for the specific purpose of not being called by
a commercial organization is not 'jostling' it's
'battery'. (You shoulda left that point out, it weakens your argument).
So I like the general concept of a do-not-call list because it provides a
vehicle for such a rejection, though of course such rejections could be made
otherwise without it.
I don't think your mom would like to have to reject every loser with a prick
either. What fucking part about 'go away unless asked' do you
not understand? Some people chose to have the big 'go away to
all' sign out front. What's the problem with that?
But nevertheless, you'd still have to take that affirmative step to rebut what
we assume your position is when you haven't made it clear.
You do not seem to have any position at all. You forgot to use the
words 'paradigm' and 'obtuse' in your post though. You should
have used preview!
On the other hand, regulations as to the appropriate time of calls are
acceptable, provided that they aren't so restrictive that they essentially
prevent calls from being successfully made. We can to a degree channel speech,
but we can't use those channels to kill it.
Oh. Nice of you to deign to allow the rest of the humans on the planet
a little sovereignty. No one really cares if you sign up for the list or
not, you can do whatever you like. However, some people want a permanent fuck
off sign on their doors to ward off salesmen, and they want the same
thing for their phone. It seems to me that for once Congress is trying to
do that. Yay for them.
Submit supoenas to the local telephone company/cable company to get logs to establish connectivity on both ends, one being the ISP port the IP was assigned to, and the other matching up with the account users home or work address snail mail address.
Cripes, it's trivially easy (all you need is time and an free local calling) to guess that someone's friggin email address at a local ISP is their username of their account as well. Think many of those users have hard to guess passwords? Wanna bet a lot of ISPs are using standard defaults or all numbers or something? Or maybe some jerk that works at the ISP is taking home user account info on the sly? The simplest explination for this woman with the Mac supposedly running Kazaa is that she wasn't, but someone with her account credentials was.
Sooner or later some rich kid's dad is going to make em do step 3a, and all this lawsuit BS will go away.
Maybe that would be a good use for those HAM radio guys... have them broadcast (and repeat) via packet radio the blacklist (digitally signed) once a day.
Just hook an antenna and receiever up to servers at various points.
What the spammers gonna do? dDOS the airwaves? Right. FCC will probably not like that type of activity and would send law enforcement against a trackable antenna.
Not only that, having HAM fight the spam is sorta poetic justice.
Chlorine content in my area averages between 4 and 8 ppm.
At a previous job, I used to help regulate the water in a closed-farming facility, and we had to jack it up to 12 - 20 ppm for normal water and something well above that for certain washing tasks. (Imagine a tap that smells like a pool all the time.)
We didnt drink the washing water, but the animals and staff consumed the 12 -20 ppm water... the animals did their entire lives. We raised some very healthy animals, including rats with near - record breaking longevity.
My point is, some animals and possibly people can tolerate a lot of chlorine, more than is usually put in water mains to control bacteria.
I'd like to point out something that is quite often missing in discussions of greenhouse gasses...
The one with the most impact by a good margin is water vapor . That's right folks, water.
In my opinion, anybody that doesnt mention that fact is trying to spin the argument one way or another and is not doing good science. (Not driected at the parent post, just at these types of discussions in general.)
Domain on email is looked up on the TLD, if the root server responds with an IP from SiteFinder BIND substitutes NXDOMAIN for (non-existent domain), the user then gets the correct type of error. If the root server repsonds with an NS delegation, BIND takes that delegation of the authoritative server and does an MX lookup for the domain, finding out the hostname where to send mail.
The MX record hostname goes through the same process. So the new versions of BIND will fix that too.
ISC.org has come out with a couple new versions of BIND (on several platforms) that makes the Verisign thing irrelevant.
Essentially, here's how it works;
Rather than simply accepting any response from any root DNS server, the new version of bind only accepts an NS record (that states the authoritative DNS server) rather than an A Record (which maps a hostname or domain to an IP address). So the root servers can only do what they are supposed to do; tell your local DNS servers where to find the authoritative servers. Even if they are configured to do something differently, BIND responds by forwarding an NXDOMAIN back to the querying client. Esentially, if an IP address comes back from the server, the response from the browser then becomes "DNS Error".
This has several advantages:
- it doesnt matter what ICANN does or what Verisign does, responses to DNS queries happen as they should.
- the patch fixes ALL of the TLDs, so it doesnt matter what the.RU or.CX or whatever registrars do.
- it can be done on the ISP level. Though I have no proof, I think there are BIG ISPs out there that have done this already (Earthlink has been mentioned).
- no routing, blocking or other stuff that could cause problems in the future is involved
- Joe Grandpa Internet User never needs to know, and doesnt notice anything different when the fix happens
I do not know about MS DNS Server, or other non-BIND DNS servers, but I am sure there will be patches or upgrades from your publisher.
If you run servers, go to ISC.org and read up about the upgrades. If you dont, check your publisher's web site. If you dont run DNS call or email your ISP and ask them to upgrade their BIND at their earliest conveneince.
Though I think it would be better if RFCs were binding, or if they were followed voluntarily... there is more than one way to get the right thing done.
Yes an error will occur. However the error has useful information content. For example, an error on the domain in the return address on email can be an indicator the email is spam.
If you've ever helped somebody with computer stuff, you'll know that the first thing you need to ask for is complete and exact error message wording.
Imagine a world where all computers simply put out "error, but here is a nice picture" any time something went wrong. Troubleshooting would be nearly impossible in that world....
There was a theorem proved a while back that any given string of arbitrarily long data could be found in Pi.
deCSS is in there.
You could simply encode by using a big CPU to calculate the values, and get the next mp3 you wanted by a simple hash of "start here in Pi" and "end here in Pi". All you need to know is Pi and the start and end. No download required. No copyright on it either, as it's just as valid for you to store "12" on your hard drive as it is a portion of Pi.
How are they going to regulate a naturally occuring (yet irrational number)? Classify it?
"No officer, I wasn't pirating! I was doing math!"
... at which point any Trademarked name (pick one, the mouse, the soda, the car, etc.) will resolve to an authoritative server run by Verisign, which sends the user to a web site not affiliated with the Trademark owner...
Litigation ensues!
Of course you are right, but the first step has to be taken anyway...
"The fees tacked onto blank cassette tapes and CD-Rs is disgusting. Doing so to hard drives and pretty much anything else "for the artists" is just as evil."
Well, it wouldn't be if that meant people could share, burn and copy music with impunity.
That Mac web site iTunes seems to do pretty well. It would be pretty straight forward to make something for PC. Heck, my wife bought $100 worth of songs off it in one weekend. That's way more than she would have in the same period if it were CDs.
If it's available for a decent price, people would love to use it. Its the ass-raping paying $23 for a CD worth $5 that is the problem. (Probably applies to CDs too, if I could burn and buy CDs at the store for $1 a song, I would... or if CDs were cheaper I might start buying them again.)
Play some ELO or other music with lots of high end sound.
Close your eyes.
Have a friend (or two works better) hold a cat on one side of your head at various distances. (The friend should move around on the other side to avoid you hearing the person moving.)
I bet you can tell where the cat is. They absorb a LOT of high frequency sound.
Actually, for those of us who are partially dyslexic (sp) in the way I am your sentence is only a little bit harder to read than normal ones.
Note however that I can buffer load more than a single word at once, phrases or whole sentences can be read at a time. Re-arranging word order on those would probably not work to well.
Your sentence simply requires me to focus on each word singly, otherwise, no problem. (Just like reading upside down, each word has to be flipped individually then read. Upside down reading is a good trick if you really really need to understand something that is a crushing bore. Good skill for other reasons too.)
[Seriously, I can read strings of numbers, do long division on them in my head, but cannot for the life of me read them back in order once I have them in memory. I think it's because they are not in order in memory. It reallys sucks when trying to read IP addresses to someone configuring a firewall over the phone...]
It's not o.k. to do the same wrong onto people which those people have done onto you.
Why not? It says so in the bible? Guess what, it's an invalid concept from an invalid religion you are quoting there. I have no such qualms, I am allowed under my religion to destroy that which opposes me. Neato huh?
Just because they annoy you, you can't harass them.
Yes we can! Watch!
If it's illegal then leave the revenge to the goverment.
Ha! Like that concept ever worked correctly.
I mean otherwise it would be like shooting people who break into your home etc.
You must be Euro-trash or something. In many parts of the United States (including my whole state) one has only to have "feared for one's life" and it's quite legal (and even encouraged by the local authorities) to respond to an intruder with lethal force.
It would be a lot better if Outlook were not vulnerable, and those people who had vulerable versions patched them.
Note however, SoBig.F is not an Outlook exploit. It is a "stupid user" exploit that requires the user to click on the attachment. Mozilla Mail, Eudora and all others are just as vulnerable. (Windows operating system is the only common denominator.)
Once installed on the machine, SoBig uses its own SMTP engine to send mail. True it uses messages from the contacts, but also from cached web page files and text files on the hard drive.
The article submitter incorrectly implied that SoBig.F is an Outlook-only problem. It is not.
A "comming soon" web page has an important role to play in the process of a new site/domain. It tells visitors that may go there that a site may be appearing at some point, and to the uninformed layman, that the domain has been purchased by somebody. (Many internet users do not know what a registrar is, nor that they would be a necessary part of the domain name system.)
An error message (which is the alternative) is an indication the domain does not exist, or is not functioning. Those are distinctly different responses from a "comming soon" sign.
Furthermore, ALL of the registrars I have ever dealt with have some sort of "comming soon" page used until the hostnames could be set up properly for the actual web sites.
Register.com is no different than anybody else on that respect. (NSI's is actually sort of nice, using "coming soon" in several different languages.)
What Register.com did wrong (if anything) was to use that space for advertising of third parties, pop-ups and other BS. The pop up messages alone might be enough to inhibit someone from returning to the new domain later to see the real site. (Note, the lawsuit does not mention that, nor have I seen those, parent and other posters mentioned pop ups.)
The class action lawsuit does not specify anything about advertisements (see section "III"), only that the "coming soon" page was not disclosed and that it caused damage to the plainif class. Any theoretical damage to the planiffs would be from the advertising that might damage the repuation or marketing of the organization that just purchased the domain, NOT from the fact a "coming soon" web page was put there.
Well, I call bullshit on this lawsuit. I didnt get any fine print with my car saying that hey, if you put gas in the tank it is BURNED and you cant store it there for later use in a lawnmower. I got no notice that the twinkies I ate yesterday might get shit out in liquid form or in solid form. Any moron that thought about the process for 3 seconds would have come to the logical conclusion that a "coming soon" or "parking" page would be present for at least the amount of time it takes for the registration to take place and all the root servers to get the location of the long-term DNS servers.
In general, a company anybody does business with (or anybody else or thing someone might sue) is NOT responsible for common sense information. My medicine bottles need not say "do not fire from potato gun at high velocity or injury or death may result" because it is common sense. My new kitchen knives do not say "do not swallow, even on an empty stomach" on them either. Admittedly, common sense is a a pretty low denominator nowdays, however this lawsuit goes WAY too far.
The planiff is a moron. The lawyers are, well just lawyers I guess.
The "opt out" of the class is something I have never seen before. The usual is to make cruddy TV or newspaper ads to try to get the class members (suckers) to sign up to fill up the lawyers pockets. When did "opt out" become into legit usage for this purpose? I bet those lawyers probably file bogus lawsuits for spammers too.
Hmm. If he is too stupid to make the connection [his behavior] = [his children at risk] then he deserves anything he gets. He probably also lets them suck on lead paint chips, does not use safety seats in his car and lets them drink vodka outside the neighborhood porn shop.
"THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!! "
Fuck that, some of them grow up to assholes and criminals. His most certainly will.
"The worm searches the local hard drive for files with the extensions TXT, HTML, EML, HTM, WAB and DBX. The files are used to extract a list of recipient email addresses that will be used by the worm to send infected emails."
(From Sophos.com)
So if someone who visited a page that you had posted in and had the HTML from Slashdot in their cache you could get the emails. Nobody need to have sent you spam or have that email on a list for you to get those messages, only that someone visited a page with your email in it that was retained in a browser cache. (After all, the spammers were not using much, or you would not have seen an increase in messages above the noise.)
This is a good arguement for keeping the caches in WinTel boxes cleared out, fewer targets.
(I think Slashdot has an option to not display your email address, turning that off may help prevent such messages in the future.)
Slashdot Mirror
That should not be a 404, it should come back with:
"NXBATTERY"
I really am suprised that the author did not know any better.
Oh come on now. Seriously, remember these:
- Bush Sr. puking on the Japanese Prime Minister
- Bush and the Bracholi
- Carter's peaunut farmer/ brewer brother
- That dress, wearing guy (Roosevelt?)
- Quayle and the spelling, or bumping the panic alarm (so the secret service freaks out)
- etc.
It's part of what makes this country great, being able to make fun of one's leaders.
I find this whole thing really funny.
First off, these @Stake guys say right in their little auto-scripted reports, IIS is a security risk. RIGHT IN THE REPORT.
Secondly, after speaking with a couple clients of theirs, I came to the conclusion they were more interested in scaring their clients into paying more than knowing anything about what they were doing.
I don't doubt there is a smart guy or two in there somewhere cooking up the new ideas, but they sure as hell didn't apply any of those smarts into dealing with their uneducated customers. They choose to scare them instead.
You must be a spammer. You really really want to be able to bug people with commercials at their expense. Free speech is about political, artistic and personal speech, it's about the US government not being allowed to tell you how you can use speech for political, artistic or personal reasons.
Phone calls pushing time-share scams are none of those things. Telemarketing companies are not people, companies have many more restrictions about what they can say, they have many restrictions about what they MUST say. The ingredients list on food items is there because its a law about what speech corporations must use. The number of ounces contained is there because its a law about corporate speech, if they lie on the box they are comitting a crime. As long as it is not an individual calling trying to sell those things, rather it is a person acting on the behalf of a business, it is not a 'free speech' issue.
Free speech only applies to what the government can tell individuals to say. That is a well estabilished fact.
Likewise, the right to free speech ends when the speaker attempts to force others to listen. Anyone seeing a 'soapbox preacher' on the street has the perfect right to walk on by and not listen. In addition, the 'soapbox preacher' has no right to force people to pay for his speech, yell in a screened in window with his speech, etc.
Any of those trash that work for telemarketers are completely free to walk the streets and say anything they like or try to sell siding, well except make threats, say 'heil Hitler' (in Germany), yell 'fire' in a theater, lie to a police officer or judge, hmmm. wait.... so there ARE limits to free speech. Cool, not only do corporations not have it, there are clear, well established laws and practices that have exclusions to what is considered 'free speech'.
Get over it. The free speech argument won't work. You should make an attempt to figure that out. You won't look so stupid once you do.
So if your house was on fire, I couldn't call you to wake you up and save your life because I lack your express permission?
.357 in her face, does not mean they should or that they would be in any way
within their rights to do so. Your argument is equally weak if you were to
say you should be allowed to call the Putin/Bush red hotline phone to sell cheap
vodka. That phone has a specific purpose that does not include YOU.
Correct. You are not obligated to do anything in that example. Since I have gotten so used to ignoring the phone which I paid for and set up to keep from getting interrupted by some company to fucking stupid to realize apartment dwellers don't need siding, I probably will just unplug it and to back to sleep. Call the Fire Department instead.
If we were carpooling and I needed directions on the way, I couldn't call you to find out where you live so that we could both get to work on time because I lack your express permission?
You have implied permission in that case. The telemarketers have specific denial of permission. There is a big difference there.
I'm afraid you've got it backwards my friend.
My friends don't defend telemarketers, so you are not.
There is implicit permission inherent in having a phone, or a front door, or a mailbox, or an email address, for people to communicate with you of their own accord. You can reject these things by expressly rejecting that permission, but until you act to do so, it's there.
Interesting argument. There is implicit permission that your mom's twat is for me to shove my dick into, that is after all, it's sole biological purpose. If she's lucky I am in the same time zone and won't do it before she's had a pee in the morning.
Your argument is not valid per reductio ad absurdum. It's her twat, she has a right to do with it what she wants, including have an exclusive access list for it. Even though someone could gain easy access to it by putting a
This is not dissimilar to the concept that while it is unlawful to batter someone (meaning roughly to make any unwanted physical contact) it's perfectly fine to jostle people as a consequence of being in a crowded place, because there are situations where the rules change according to what's typical in society.
Correct. And in this case calling someone is who helpfully put their name and phone number on a list for the specific purpose of not being called by a commercial organization is not 'jostling' it's 'battery'. (You shoulda left that point out, it weakens your argument).
So I like the general concept of a do-not-call list because it provides a vehicle for such a rejection, though of course such rejections could be made otherwise without it.
I don't think your mom would like to have to reject every loser with a prick either. What fucking part about 'go away unless asked' do you not understand? Some people chose to have the big 'go away to all' sign out front. What's the problem with that?
But nevertheless, you'd still have to take that affirmative step to rebut what we assume your position is when you haven't made it clear.
You do not seem to have any position at all. You forgot to use the words 'paradigm' and 'obtuse' in your post though. You should have used preview!
On the other hand, regulations as to the appropriate time of calls are acceptable, provided that they aren't so restrictive that they essentially prevent calls from being successfully made. We can to a degree channel speech, but we can't use those channels to kill it.
Oh. Nice of you to deign to allow the rest of the humans on the planet a little sovereignty. No one really cares if you sign up for the list or not, you can do whatever you like. However, some people want a permanent fuck off sign on their doors to ward off salesmen, and they want the same thing for their phone. It seems to me that for once Congress is trying to do that. Yay for them.
That's the Horta with little trees clued to it's back.
Seriously, it looks nice an all, but pinball to me always has had a basic format, board, thingies to make the ball do stuff, flippers, hole in bottom.
That thing lacks the essential qualities of a pinball machine. It's closer to Pachinko in my opinion....
You forgot 3a:
Submit supoenas to the local telephone company/cable company to get logs to establish connectivity on both ends, one being the ISP port the IP was assigned to, and the other matching up with the account users home or work address snail mail address.
Cripes, it's trivially easy (all you need is time and an free local calling) to guess that someone's friggin email address at a local ISP is their username of their account as well. Think many of those users have hard to guess passwords? Wanna bet a lot of ISPs are using standard defaults or all numbers or something? Or maybe some jerk that works at the ISP is taking home user account info on the sly? The simplest explination for this woman with the Mac supposedly running Kazaa is that she wasn't, but someone with her account credentials was.
Sooner or later some rich kid's dad is going to make em do step 3a, and all this lawsuit BS will go away.
Maybe that would be a good use for those HAM radio guys... have them broadcast (and repeat) via packet radio the blacklist (digitally signed) once a day.
Just hook an antenna and receiever up to servers at various points.
What the spammers gonna do? dDOS the airwaves? Right. FCC will probably not like that type of activity and would send law enforcement against a trackable antenna.
Not only that, having HAM fight the spam is sorta poetic justice.
Chlorine content in my area averages between 4 and 8 ppm.
At a previous job, I used to help regulate the water in a closed-farming facility, and we had to jack it up to 12 - 20 ppm for normal water and something well above that for certain washing tasks. (Imagine a tap that smells like a pool all the time.)
We didnt drink the washing water, but the animals and staff consumed the 12 -20 ppm water... the animals did their entire lives. We raised some very healthy animals, including rats with near - record breaking longevity.
My point is, some animals and possibly people can tolerate a lot of chlorine, more than is usually put in water mains to control bacteria.
I'd like to point out something that is quite often missing in discussions of greenhouse gasses...
The one with the most impact by a good margin is water vapor . That's right folks, water.
In my opinion, anybody that doesnt mention that fact is trying to spin the argument one way or another and is not doing good science. (Not driected at the parent post, just at these types of discussions in general.)
Same thing, MX goes like this:
Domain on email is looked up on the TLD, if the root server responds with an IP from SiteFinder BIND substitutes NXDOMAIN for (non-existent domain), the user then gets the correct type of error. If the root server repsonds with an NS delegation, BIND takes that delegation of the authoritative server and does an MX lookup for the domain, finding out the hostname where to send mail.
The MX record hostname goes through the same process. So the new versions of BIND will fix that too.
ISC.org has come out with a couple new versions of BIND (on several platforms) that makes the Verisign thing irrelevant.
.RU or .CX or whatever registrars do.
Essentially, here's how it works;
Rather than simply accepting any response from any root DNS server, the new version of bind only accepts an NS record (that states the authoritative DNS server) rather than an A Record (which maps a hostname or domain to an IP address). So the root servers can only do what they are supposed to do; tell your local DNS servers where to find the authoritative servers. Even if they are configured to do something differently, BIND responds by forwarding an NXDOMAIN back to the querying client. Esentially, if an IP address comes back from the server, the response from the browser then becomes "DNS Error".
This has several advantages:
- it doesnt matter what ICANN does or what Verisign does, responses to DNS queries happen as they should.
- the patch fixes ALL of the TLDs, so it doesnt matter what the
- it can be done on the ISP level. Though I have no proof, I think there are BIG ISPs out there that have done this already (Earthlink has been mentioned).
- no routing, blocking or other stuff that could cause problems in the future is involved
- Joe Grandpa Internet User never needs to know, and doesnt notice anything different when the fix happens
I do not know about MS DNS Server, or other non-BIND DNS servers, but I am sure there will be patches or upgrades from your publisher.
If you run servers, go to ISC.org and read up about the upgrades. If you dont, check your publisher's web site. If you dont run DNS call or email your ISP and ask them to upgrade their BIND at their earliest conveneince.
Though I think it would be better if RFCs were binding, or if they were followed voluntarily... there is more than one way to get the right thing done.
Yes an error will occur. However the error has useful information content. For example, an error on the domain in the return address on email can be an indicator the email is spam.
If you've ever helped somebody with computer stuff, you'll know that the first thing you need to ask for is complete and exact error message wording.
Imagine a world where all computers simply put out "error, but here is a nice picture" any time something went wrong. Troubleshooting would be nearly impossible in that world....
There was a theorem proved a while back that any given string of arbitrarily long data could be found in Pi.
deCSS is in there.
You could simply encode by using a big CPU to calculate the values, and get the next mp3 you wanted by a simple hash of "start here in Pi" and "end here in Pi". All you need to know is Pi and the start and end. No download required. No copyright on it either, as it's just as valid for you to store "12" on your hard drive as it is a portion of Pi.
How are they going to regulate a naturally occuring (yet irrational number)? Classify it?
"No officer, I wasn't pirating! I was doing math!"
... at which point any Trademarked name (pick one, the mouse, the soda, the car, etc.) will resolve to an authoritative server run by Verisign, which sends the user to a web site not affiliated with the Trademark owner...
Litigation ensues!
Of course you are right, but the first step has to be taken anyway...
"The fees tacked onto blank cassette tapes and CD-Rs is disgusting. Doing so to hard drives and pretty much anything else "for the artists" is just as evil."
Well, it wouldn't be if that meant people could share, burn and copy music with impunity.
That Mac web site iTunes seems to do pretty well. It would be pretty straight forward to make something for PC. Heck, my wife bought $100 worth of songs off it in one weekend. That's way more than she would have in the same period if it were CDs.
If it's available for a decent price, people would love to use it. Its the ass-raping paying $23 for a CD worth $5 that is the problem. (Probably applies to CDs too, if I could burn and buy CDs at the store for $1 a song, I would... or if CDs were cheaper I might start buying them again.)
I tried it on first read of this article without WWW. It worked (going to the Verisign page).
I think it is not fully implemented yet, as some times it works and some times it does not.
Try this;
Play some ELO or other music with lots of high end sound.
Close your eyes.
Have a friend (or two works better) hold a cat on one side of your head at various distances. (The friend should move around on the other side to avoid you hearing the person moving.)
I bet you can tell where the cat is. They absorb a LOT of high frequency sound.
Actually, for those of us who are partially dyslexic (sp) in the way I am your sentence is only a little bit harder to read than normal ones.
Note however that I can buffer load more than a single word at once, phrases or whole sentences can be read at a time. Re-arranging word order on those would probably not work to well.
Your sentence simply requires me to focus on each word singly, otherwise, no problem. (Just like reading upside down, each word has to be flipped individually then read. Upside down reading is a good trick if you really really need to understand something that is a crushing bore. Good skill for other reasons too.)
[Seriously, I can read strings of numbers, do long division on them in my head, but cannot for the life of me read them back in order once I have them in memory. I think it's because they are not in order in memory. It reallys sucks when trying to read IP addresses to someone configuring a firewall over the phone...]
It's not o.k. to do the same wrong onto people which those people have done onto you.
Why not? It says so in the bible? Guess what, it's an invalid concept from an invalid religion you are quoting there. I have no such qualms, I am allowed under my religion to destroy that which opposes me. Neato huh?
Just because they annoy you, you can't harass them.
Yes we can! Watch!
If it's illegal then leave the revenge to the goverment.
Ha! Like that concept ever worked correctly.
I mean otherwise it would be like shooting people who break into your home etc.
You must be Euro-trash or something. In many parts of the United States (including my whole state) one has only to have "feared for one's life" and it's quite legal (and even encouraged by the local authorities) to respond to an intruder with lethal force.
It would be a lot better if Outlook were not vulnerable, and those people who had vulerable versions patched them.
f .html
. html (Question 6)
Note however, SoBig.F is not an Outlook exploit. It is a "stupid user" exploit that requires the user to click on the attachment. Mozilla Mail, Eudora and all others are just as vulnerable. (Windows operating system is the only common denominator.)
Once installed on the machine, SoBig uses its own SMTP engine to send mail. True it uses messages from the contacts, but also from cached web page files and text files on the hard drive.
The article submitter incorrectly implied that SoBig.F is an Outlook-only problem. It is not.
http://www.sophos.com/virusinfo/analyses/w32sobig
and
http://www.sophos.com/support/disinfection/sobigf
A "comming soon" web page has an important role to play in the process of a new site/domain. It tells visitors that may go there that a site may be appearing at some point, and to the uninformed layman, that the domain has been purchased by somebody. (Many internet users do not know what a registrar is, nor that they would be a necessary part of the domain name system.)
An error message (which is the alternative) is an indication the domain does not exist, or is not functioning. Those are distinctly different responses from a "comming soon" sign.
Furthermore, ALL of the registrars I have ever dealt with have some sort of "comming soon" page used until the hostnames could be set up properly for the actual web sites.
Register.com is no different than anybody else on that respect. (NSI's is actually sort of nice, using "coming soon" in several different languages.)
What Register.com did wrong (if anything) was to use that space for advertising of third parties, pop-ups and other BS. The pop up messages alone might be enough to inhibit someone from returning to the new domain later to see the real site. (Note, the lawsuit does not mention that, nor have I seen those, parent and other posters mentioned pop ups.)
The class action lawsuit does not specify anything about advertisements (see section "III"), only that the "coming soon" page was not disclosed and that it caused damage to the plainif class. Any theoretical damage to the planiffs would be from the advertising that might damage the repuation or marketing of the organization that just purchased the domain, NOT from the fact a "coming soon" web page was put there.
Well, I call bullshit on this lawsuit. I didnt get any fine print with my car saying that hey, if you put gas in the tank it is BURNED and you cant store it there for later use in a lawnmower. I got no notice that the twinkies I ate yesterday might get shit out in liquid form or in solid form. Any moron that thought about the process for 3 seconds would have come to the logical conclusion that a "coming soon" or "parking" page would be present for at least the amount of time it takes for the registration to take place and all the root servers to get the location of the long-term DNS servers.
In general, a company anybody does business with (or anybody else or thing someone might sue) is NOT responsible for common sense information. My medicine bottles need not say "do not fire from potato gun at high velocity or injury or death may result" because it is common sense. My new kitchen knives do not say "do not swallow, even on an empty stomach" on them either. Admittedly, common sense is a a pretty low denominator nowdays, however this lawsuit goes WAY too far.
The planiff is a moron. The lawyers are, well just lawyers I guess.
The "opt out" of the class is something I have never seen before. The usual is to make cruddy TV or newspaper ads to try to get the class members (suckers) to sign up to fill up the lawyers pockets. When did "opt out" become into legit usage for this purpose? I bet those lawyers probably file bogus lawsuits for spammers too.
Yeah, then I could get a good workout running around in circles in my living room trying to get a good look at Jennifer Aniston's butt.
Hmm. If he is too stupid to make the connection [his behavior] = [his children at risk] then he deserves anything he gets. He probably also lets them suck on lead paint chips, does not use safety seats in his car and lets them drink vodka outside the neighborhood porn shop.
"THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!! "
Fuck that, some of them grow up to assholes and criminals. His most certainly will.
Part of the description of SoBig.F includes:
"The worm searches the local hard drive for files with the extensions TXT, HTML, EML, HTM, WAB and DBX. The files are used to extract a list of recipient email addresses that will be used by the worm to send infected emails."
(From Sophos.com)
So if someone who visited a page that you had posted in and had the HTML from Slashdot in their cache you could get the emails. Nobody need to have sent you spam or have that email on a list for you to get those messages, only that someone visited a page with your email in it that was retained in a browser cache. (After all, the spammers were not using much, or you would not have seen an increase in messages above the noise.)
This is a good arguement for keeping the caches in WinTel boxes cleared out, fewer targets.
(I think Slashdot has an option to not display your email address, turning that off may help prevent such messages in the future.)