How many movies can you remember from the 90s that had people going to their high school reunion, terrified of seeing their tormentors, and their tormentor jock/cheerleader classmates worked in dead end jobs and their cheerleader wives got fat and miserable.
Well duh! Think about it - what was the sterotypical nerd? A member of the Audio-Visual Club. Who makes movies? people who were in the Audio-Visual Club.
You think these people would make movies where the jocks win out? No, they're using movies to express their dreams and fantasies. Of course the nerds in these movies will be the hero - because the nerds are representative of the people who are making the films.
Some of us are - what differentiates nerds and geeks is that geeks have social skills.
For an example of the difference, watch Wargames - specifically the part where Matthew Broderick goes to the computer lab to get help from Jim and Malvin. Jim was a geek, Malvin was a nerd.
when I read it much of the information that was there was shaky at best
I read the article this morning at 8AM (eastern) - when I did, the information was not shaky at all. There was very clear, concise information as to why the fact that being able to connect to FTP was an indication that there was no bandwidth saturation.
Maybe now someone has posted a little bit better info and looked into it in a little more depth
If you looked at it earlier, then perhaps you're vindicated (I can't say, because I don't know what was posted before I looked at it.) But if it was after I read the article, then you need to brush up on either your reading comprehension, or your technical knowledge.
If you have read the article, and still believe this, then it is you that suffers from a lack of technical knowledge.
it is total and absolute speculation at this point
No, it most certainly is not.
It is a logical conclusion, drawn from deductive reasoning.
From the evidence (machines on the same network, accessible through the same router and switch, are unaffected), we can deduct that at least some of SCO's claims (such as the bandwidth usage) are false.
This does not preclude the possiblity of a synflood attack, however the fact that a synflood would be prevented by a properly configured network means that SCO is either lying, or incompetant.
Can you provide some links? All I've been able to find is the program from Macromedia, and some shareware text animators - and none of it is either Free (as in GNU) nor free (as in it costs money.)
First of all: what you envision is nothing new. It's called a 'spamtrap'.
The most important thing is that it relies on security through obscurity - as soon as the spamtrap addresses become known, they're useless (and can actually be used to fsck you up.) If you think this won't happen, I urge you to read the article - this spam machine isn't stupid, and will find your spamtrap addresses faster than you think.
Every time the blackhole server accepts a connection on port 25, the blackhole server immediately drops the connection (so no wasted bandwidth) and updates DNS with the originator's IP address.
Pretty simple - anyone who knows the spamtrap address(es) can now DOS your legitimate mail server by sending mail to your spamtrap. (I realize you noted this, but included only Yahoo and Hotmail.)
Spammers get your spamtrap address, they have infected machines on many different ISPs, so they send mail to your spamtrap using those ISPs' (again) legitimate mail server.
Congratulations, you have just stopped receiving email from every ISP on the planet.
Perhaps instead of bitching, and wanting other people to "get their act together", perhaps you could enlighten us all as to how your replacement for SMTP is coming along?
Perhaps you could explain how it gets around the actual problem, which is that there exist people who want something for nothing, and don't care who they steal from?
And once you've explained that, I'd be delighted to hear how your new protocol continues to be easy to use, doesn't discriminate against developing nations (by charging money for use), and provides protection against any one party taking it hostage (by not relying on a central authority.)
Come on, you obviously know so much more than the IETF, why don't you enlighten us all?
I think he means that the constitution doesn't deal with the specifics of copyright - as in, it does grant Congress the power to create copyright laws, but it doesn't go into what is allowed or disallowed in those laws (except that the rights they grant must be for a limited time.)
through all my trials of mail on Linux, Outlook has just worked:-( It's bloody annoying, but there you go.
Outlook isn't quite as bad as Mozilla, but it's still got it's share of issues - not the least of which is wonky POP3 support. I get at least one call a week from users who get the same mail over and over due to Outlook (a mail from the server causes the POP3 collector to crash, and Outlook doesn't delete the mail as it retreives it - it waits until everything is downloaded.. so if you have 300 emails waiting, and the process gets interrupted at #299, the next time you fire up Outlook, you'll have to re-download all of the mail you've already received.)
KMail has personally given me the least amount of grief.. 1.2 had issues for me with PGP support, but recent version are great.
The only forks I've seen in major projects have been when a new version has been released but the old version has continued to have occasional maintenance patches released.
Depends what you mean by "major" (are you talking popularity, or size?)
The web server I use forked a few years ago - it's not as popular as Apache, but is just as much a "major" project (as far as lines of code.) I use it over Apache for a number of reasons (including speed, flexibility, and ease of development.)
The fork happened for a number of reasons, but the straw that broke the camel's back was a major release which broke backwards-compatability.
If the fork had not happened, I would have been stuck either with a dead project (no upgrades, not even bug fixes) or having to waste hundreds of hours re-learning the software and re-writing sites.
The fork gave me an upgrade path, as well as better support.
the feature which would auto bail-out of a losing position which was in place for client X was discovered and used by client Y, who wasn't even supposed to know about it.
Ahh, security through obscurity.
I hope that appropriate action is taken against whoever decided that was the best way to prevent the feature from being used by an unauthorized party.
Yes, I do, because there is no other explanation for SCO's actions.
If SCO had any proof at all, they would have disclosed it, because hiding it provides no benefit, and has many drawbacks - not the least of which is the fact that witholding it permanently destroys any chance they had at benefiting from their case. (ie. they might win, but they will get nothing from it.)
By witholding the alleged copyright infringements, they are declaring that the value of the alleged code is exactly $0 (under the Doctrine of Laches). So the absolute best case scenario is that they can now get is that they win on all counts, and all they get is the judge saying Linus (et al) has 90 days to remove the infringing code. (Which is what they would have got at the beginning, only without having to spend millions of dollars on a lawsuit.)
There is no way that any lawyer would miss this. The only explanation for SCO not disclosing the evidence is that they don't have any.
Why does everyone keep repeating this urban legend?
Well, I wasn't aware that I was everyone but maybe you keep hearing it because it's not (as you claim) an urban legend.
GWB is on record as saying that he didn't like the MS suit.
As soon as he gets into office, the DOJ (headed by his appointed crony, John Ashcroft) takes a 100% clear win, and flushes it down the toilet. They rescind their position, and 'settle' for a handful of magic beads from MS.
What other explanation is there for the winner of a fight to suddenly and completely throw in the towel, after the decision has survived the appeals process with no modification?
You're not worried about them being forced into a corner where they have to fight really really hard?
No, not even a little bit.
something sparked this case.
Yes, and that something was unadulterated greed from sociopathic idiots who didn't know what they were getting themselves into when they tried to bully a 900lb gorilla into buying them out.
As long as that something is there, then there is a chance (perhaps minimal) they can win.
No, there isn't. There is no proof, there is nothing but bluster and lies. It doesn't matter if the stupid sociopaths still exist, they have proven that they have no case. If they have no case, then the can't win.
First of all, the blank media levy is not 'compensating' artists - to this date, not one cent of the levy has been given to record labels, let alone artists. And if/when the money does get handed down to the music companies, what makes anyone think that they will actually pass it along to the artists? It's been awhile since I saw a record contract, but that's never been a line item - it's not a unit sale, so the artists won't see a dime.
Second of all, should this go into effect, why should music companies be compensated, when this affects everyone who makes/produces anything that could be traded? Will there be a separate levy for software companies? Book publishers? Movie studios? Or will these other industries be given part of the existing levy? (You can bet not - like the blank media levy, any law will probably specify music companies only.)
This is so fundamentally flawed it's unbelieveable.
Slashdot Mirror
How many movies can you remember from the 90s that had people going to their high school reunion, terrified of seeing their tormentors, and their tormentor jock/cheerleader classmates worked in dead end jobs and their cheerleader wives got fat and miserable.
Well duh! Think about it - what was the sterotypical nerd? A member of the Audio-Visual Club. Who makes movies? people who were in the Audio-Visual Club.
You think these people would make movies where the jocks win out? No, they're using movies to express their dreams and fantasies. Of course the nerds in these movies will be the hero - because the nerds are representative of the people who are making the films.
We're geeks, dammit!
Some of us are - what differentiates nerds and geeks is that geeks have social skills.
For an example of the difference, watch Wargames - specifically the part where Matthew Broderick goes to the computer lab to get help from Jim and Malvin. Jim was a geek, Malvin was a nerd.
You can click a wheel perfectly well
If this was true, there would be no mice with buttons - you'd have them with three scroll-wheels instead...
As a previous poster already said - imagine if your RMB was a scroll-wheel - how happy would you be with it?
The fact that mice come with buttons and wheels shows that they are not, in fact, the same.
when I read it much of the information that was there was shaky at best
I read the article this morning at 8AM (eastern) - when I did, the information was not shaky at all. There was very clear, concise information as to why the fact that being able to connect to FTP was an indication that there was no bandwidth saturation.
Maybe now someone has posted a little bit better info and looked into it in a little more depth
If you looked at it earlier, then perhaps you're vindicated (I can't say, because I don't know what was posted before I looked at it.) But if it was after I read the article, then you need to brush up on either your reading comprehension, or your technical knowledge.
It's possible to have 127 classless subnets within a class C netblock
/24.. something like this:
.1's GW is .254 .2's GW is .253 .3's GW is .252
He's not talking about subnets - he's talking about 254 individual addresses on a
Host
host
host
(etc..)
Each of these hosts has a netmask of 255.255.255.0 for that subnet.
lack of technical knowledge.
If you have read the article, and still believe this, then it is you that suffers from a lack of technical knowledge.
it is total and absolute speculation at this point
No, it most certainly is not.
It is a logical conclusion, drawn from deductive reasoning.
From the evidence (machines on the same network, accessible through the same router and switch, are unaffected), we can deduct that at least some of SCO's claims (such as the bandwidth usage) are false.
This does not preclude the possiblity of a synflood attack, however the fact that a synflood would be prevented by a properly configured network means that SCO is either lying, or incompetant.
Flash has Free tools
Can you provide some links? All I've been able to find is the program from Macromedia, and some shareware text animators - and none of it is either Free (as in GNU) nor free (as in it costs money.)
What are the Free animation tools for Flash?
Here's an idea, tell me why it won't work.
OK, but remember, you did ask.
First of all: what you envision is nothing new. It's called a 'spamtrap'.
The most important thing is that it relies on security through obscurity - as soon as the spamtrap addresses become known, they're useless (and can actually be used to fsck you up.) If you think this won't happen, I urge you to read the article - this spam machine isn't stupid, and will find your spamtrap addresses faster than you think.
Every time the blackhole server accepts a connection on port 25, the blackhole server immediately drops the connection (so no wasted bandwidth) and updates DNS with the originator's IP address.
Pretty simple - anyone who knows the spamtrap address(es) can now DOS your legitimate mail server by sending mail to your spamtrap. (I realize you noted this, but included only Yahoo and Hotmail.)
Spammers get your spamtrap address, they have infected machines on many different ISPs, so they send mail to your spamtrap using those ISPs' (again) legitimate mail server.
Congratulations, you have just stopped receiving email from every ISP on the planet.
*sigh*
Perhaps instead of bitching, and wanting other people to "get their act together", perhaps you could enlighten us all as to how your replacement for SMTP is coming along?
Perhaps you could explain how it gets around the actual problem, which is that there exist people who want something for nothing, and don't care who they steal from?
And once you've explained that, I'd be delighted to hear how your new protocol continues to be easy to use, doesn't discriminate against developing nations (by charging money for use), and provides protection against any one party taking it hostage (by not relying on a central authority.)
Come on, you obviously know so much more than the IETF, why don't you enlighten us all?
you have to wonder why their legal team continues this pursuit with them.
Simple: "A fool and his money are some party!"
I think he means that the constitution doesn't deal with the specifics of copyright - as in, it does grant Congress the power to create copyright laws, but it doesn't go into what is allowed or disallowed in those laws (except that the rights they grant must be for a limited time.)
I've had trouble with Mozilla's mail as well.
:-( It's bloody annoying, but there you go.
through all my trials of mail on Linux, Outlook has just worked
Outlook isn't quite as bad as Mozilla, but it's still got it's share of issues - not the least of which is wonky POP3 support. I get at least one call a week from users who get the same mail over and over due to Outlook (a mail from the server causes the POP3 collector to crash, and Outlook doesn't delete the mail as it retreives it - it waits until everything is downloaded.. so if you have 300 emails waiting, and the process gets interrupted at #299, the next time you fire up Outlook, you'll have to re-download all of the mail you've already received.)
KMail has personally given me the least amount of grief.. 1.2 had issues for me with PGP support, but recent version are great.
The only forks I've seen in major projects have been when a new version has been released but the old version has continued to have occasional maintenance patches released.
Depends what you mean by "major" (are you talking popularity, or size?)
The web server I use forked a few years ago - it's not as popular as Apache, but is just as much a "major" project (as far as lines of code.) I use it over Apache for a number of reasons (including speed, flexibility, and ease of development.)
The fork happened for a number of reasons, but the straw that broke the camel's back was a major release which broke backwards-compatability.
If the fork had not happened, I would have been stuck either with a dead project (no upgrades, not even bug fixes) or having to waste hundreds of hours re-learning the software and re-writing sites.
The fork gave me an upgrade path, as well as better support.
hash value is theorotically irreversible
OK, I'm not a mathematician, but I thought that a (proper) hash was provably irreversible, not just theoretically irreversible?
if you're in Canada, it's going to be fucking cold all year round!
Sure, if you consider 35 degrees Celsius "fucking cold" (at which point I have to ask, where the fsck are you from?)
In the winter, it does get cold here (occasional dips to -35c or colder) but summer is quite warm.
the feature which would auto bail-out of a losing position which was in place for client X was discovered and used by client Y, who wasn't even supposed to know about it.
Ahh, security through obscurity.
I hope that appropriate action is taken against whoever decided that was the best way to prevent the feature from being used by an unauthorized party.
you don't know that for a fact
Yes, I do, because there is no other explanation for SCO's actions.
If SCO had any proof at all, they would have disclosed it, because hiding it provides no benefit, and has many drawbacks - not the least of which is the fact that witholding it permanently destroys any chance they had at benefiting from their case. (ie. they might win, but they will get nothing from it.)
By witholding the alleged copyright infringements, they are declaring that the value of the alleged code is exactly $0 (under the Doctrine of Laches). So the absolute best case scenario is that they can now get is that they win on all counts, and all they get is the judge saying Linus (et al) has 90 days to remove the infringing code. (Which is what they would have got at the beginning, only without having to spend millions of dollars on a lawsuit.)
There is no way that any lawyer would miss this. The only explanation for SCO not disclosing the evidence is that they don't have any.
Why does everyone keep repeating this urban legend?
Well, I wasn't aware that I was everyone but maybe you keep hearing it because it's not (as you claim) an urban legend.
GWB is on record as saying that he didn't like the MS suit.
As soon as he gets into office, the DOJ (headed by his appointed crony, John Ashcroft) takes a 100% clear win, and flushes it down the toilet. They rescind their position, and 'settle' for a handful of magic beads from MS.
What other explanation is there for the winner of a fight to suddenly and completely throw in the towel, after the decision has survived the appeals process with no modification?
You're not worried about them being forced into a corner where they have to fight really really hard?
No, not even a little bit.
something sparked this case.
Yes, and that something was unadulterated greed from sociopathic idiots who didn't know what they were getting themselves into when they tried to bully a 900lb gorilla into buying them out.
As long as that something is there, then there is a chance (perhaps minimal) they can win.
No, there isn't. There is no proof, there is nothing but bluster and lies. It doesn't matter if the stupid sociopaths still exist, they have proven that they have no case. If they have no case, then the can't win.
Remember another case, in which a rigged demo was presented as "evidence" on behalf of Microsoft?
.
Yes.
Remember how Boies managed to antagonize the judge so much that the verdict was overturned, and Gates won
No. Never heard of that at all.
I do remember the DOJ vs. MS (which sounds like what you're referring to, but what you remember doesn't match what anyone else remembers.)
Boies never antagonized the judge. That was MS's attorney.
The verdict was never overturned. In fact, on appeal, all points of the verdict were upheld.
Gates never won the trial - when GWB got into office, he ordered the DOJ to back down (after Gates had lost.)
Q: How many surrealists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
A: A fish.
most Hollywood types are Mormons
:o)
You have too many 'm's in that word.
How did they reanimate the corpse of Lorne Greene for this new series?
:o)
Simple - when they started filming, he rolled over in his grave - they then just dug him up and put him in costume.
First of all, the blank media levy is not 'compensating' artists - to this date, not one cent of the levy has been given to record labels, let alone artists. And if/when the money does get handed down to the music companies, what makes anyone think that they will actually pass it along to the artists? It's been awhile since I saw a record contract, but that's never been a line item - it's not a unit sale, so the artists won't see a dime.
Second of all, should this go into effect, why should music companies be compensated, when this affects everyone who makes/produces anything that could be traded? Will there be a separate levy for software companies? Book publishers? Movie studios? Or will these other industries be given part of the existing levy? (You can bet not - like the blank media levy, any law will probably specify music companies only.)
This is so fundamentally flawed it's unbelieveable.
technically, he just had the wrong end of the guy.
:o)
After seeing his presentation to the UN about Iraq, I'm not entirely convinced you're right.