Do you realy want the government telling you what you can and can't put in an email?
Nobody is telling anyone what they can or can't put in an email.
This bill will make it a FEDERAL OFFENSE punishable by _years_ in federal POUND ME IN THE ASS prison for registering domain names with fake contact information of they originate UCE.
Two questions: First, what color is the sky in your world, and second, can you put that in English? ("of they originate" doesn't parse.)
Has anyone here ever heard of a joe-job?
I'm sure everyone has. Of what relevance is it?
all I have to do is make sure I find your domains with bogus WHOIS data (how many people use 111 Main St?) and spoof the from address.
OK, what does that do again?
Now the FBI comes and takes YOU away.
For what?
The law makes it illegal to send 'unsolicited commercial email'. Now, if I didn't send it (as you said - you are the one who sent it), what will they lock me up for, and what does having bogus WHOIS information have to do with it?
I think you need to put down the crack pipe, dude.
The 1st amendment is a big problem when you try to stop other kinds of spam.
Why? The first amendment says that you're allowed to say whatever you want.
It does NOT say that you are allowed to force people to listen to you, nor does it say that you are allowed to use other people's resources to say what you want.
There is no free speech issue when it comes to spam.
Ahh - so if someone was paying her to share the files, then it would be OK, right?
Those downloading music are much less likely to buy what they've downloaded.
Based on what? Since you provided no evidence to back up that claim, should I conclude that you have none?
All the data I've seen says are wrong. Take a look at CD sales during Napster's heyday - you'll see that as Napster's popularity rose, so did CD sales, right up to when Napster was shut down - at which point the sales dropped too.
Properly implemented, a law would be a good thing, but this misses on several counts..
First - it defines spam incorrectly.
Spam is unsolicited bulk email. This uses the term 'unsolicited commercial electronic mail message' - whether an email is commercial or not is irrelevant as to whether it is spam. Although the majority of spam is commercial in nature, not all of it is, just as not all unsolicited commercial email is spam (as evidenced by their need to include an exemption for copyright infringement notices.)
Second, the fact that it's opt-out, means that it legalizes spam - it's a pro-spam bill, not an anti-spam bill.
I haven't finished reading it, but if it overrides state legislation, then it's the worst possible outcome.
When you consider that the Fedora name was also already trademarked by the university, you can see why they have a strong point.
Actually, if you check the wayback machine (as Alan Cox pointed out), you'll find that they didn't 'trademark' the name (by putting the 'tm' after it) until after Redhat did.
So, it appears that you should perhaps not ask for 'whatever it is they're smoking', because it could clash with whatever it is that you're smoking.
there's nothing that prevents Microsoft from integrating OpenSource solutions into their software
Yes there is - it's called Copyright law.
Now, if MS really is violating it (as you are implying) then they're in for a world of hurt if they're found out. Do you honestly think that a company the size of Microsoft has no disgruntled employees?
And even if you persist in this belief (for which neither of us has any proof, in any way,) Linus would still have more power, as he is able to take advantage of the openness, whereas Gates wouldn't be. (MS would have to modify the code to work with their products, meaning more work, with slower turn-around time.)
if your software incorporates any code which is GPLed, your software must also be released under a GPL-compatible license.
You make it sound like the GPL will jump up and attack your software..
The key point is this: You are not obligated to release your code under the GPL, because you are not obligated to use existing GPL code in your project. If you decide you want to use some software in your code, and that software is covered under the GPL, you can always go to the author and ask for a different license. If the original author says no, then you can either use the GPL, or write everything yourself. There is nothing "viral" about it.
SCO's argument, as I understand it, is that US copyright law states that you cannot lose control of your work by accident.
No, that was their argument a few months ago. Since then, they've said that the GPL is illegal and unconstitutional, but provided no reasoning behind such wild claims.
SCO are suing IBM for GPLing code SCO claim is theirs, but SCO have also distributed Linux
Again wrong. SCO is suing IBM for contract violation. Not for GPL'ing SCO's code.
SCO has stated publically that IBM did not put the alleged infringing code in Linux.
So they say: we did not knowingly GPL our IP, so, under US copyright law, it cannot be subject to the GPL, which requires us to relinquish rights we have not agreed to relinquish. Since US copyright law disagrees with the GPL, the GPL violates the law.
Wrong. It's not the GPL that's illegal in this case, it the fact that the alleged infringing code was put there by someone. If I have a contract with you that says I can use your copyrighted material, but not disclose it to anyone, and I distribute that material, the contract is not illegal, my actions are. It's a pretty big difference.
Darl is lying every time he makes a public utterance.
I was thinking about this.. Darl is supposed to be a religious man - are there any mormons out there who can talk to his Bishop about his public conduct?
We have proof that he's lying (not to mention attempting to steal the work of thousands of other people), and bringing bad press for the church - perhaps if we could get him ex-communicated, he'd finally get the idea that what he's doing is wrong.
he is an idiot who doesn't understand "different tools for different tasks"
So a guy I work with was bitching about his Geo Metro the other day - he was complaining (for the umpteenth time) that it takes too long to drive the 300 miles to work each day.
So I say to him (again for the umpteenth time) "Dude, you work across the street from an airstrip, and your driveway is large enough to function as a landing field - get a plane."
So the next day, he tells me that he decided to take my advice and try a plane - a small single-prop Cessna.. then he says that it sucked! It was slower than his Metro!
"How can that be?" I asked.
"Well, every time I got the damn thing over 40, the wheels came off the ground!" he says.
"So? It's a plane, not a car - that's what's supposed to happen." I said.
"That sucks!" He says, "I don't know how to fly a plane! I'm sticking with my Metro - it's faster than that Cessna!"
Then I tell him that the Metro is only faster if you don't know how to fly a plane.
And then he went and muttered something about "different tools for different tasks" - completely missing the point that he's ignoring the correct tool because he's unwilling to learn how to use it.
There's a moral in there - I'll let you figure out how it's applicable to this conversation.
Doesn't your knee hurt when you jerk it like that?
Re-read the post, NOWHERE did he say "P2P".
He said filesharing.
There is a big difference.
But to address your post: P2P apps may not be an advertising service, but they do offer a way to expand listening horizons - find a song on Kazaa (for example), then right-click on it, and you can then see what other music this person likes. You might then find something you've never heard of, and try it.
I know a few people who do this (I've done it myself.)
Just for the same reason why my brand new Linux box has a "nobody" account.
I somehow doubt that. Unless you're suggesting that Exchange runs over NFS? (Last time I checked, it required expensive third-party software to turn Windows into an NFS server.)
The 'nobody' account in Unix exists as an NFS user mapping, the NFS server maps unpriveliged UIDs to the 'nobody' account.
Having an user with no privileges whatsoever (at least in theory) is a very handy convenience.
While this is true, because people who don't understand what it's there for (and use it to run daemons), the 'nobody' account tends to have too many priveleges - compared to user accounts which would have been created specifically for the purpose.
This is exactly the line of thinking that prevents projects like this from implementation all accross the country. Just because "it's more than we need" right now does not mean it won't be down the road.
Exactly - and the most annoying thing about this is that when it does become necessary, it will cost more to implement (as anyone in Boston could tell you.)
There is no Moore's law for public works projects - the longer you wait, the more it's gonna cost you.
We're not "hijacking" anything - the mail ends up going exactly where it's supposed to be going.
What does it matter if the mail is relayed through SMTP server A or SMTP server B? As long as it reaches it's destination, there is no problem.
It is much better to block outgoing traffic on TCP port 25 so that users know it is blocked
If you read the responses here, you'll find that most people disagree with you - ISPs shouldn't be blocking legitimate outbound traffic. Blocking outbound SMTP in an attempt to stop spam is wrong, because it targets everybody, instead of just the spammers.
can find a different solution, such as relaying mail through your server.
This poses a problem with "road warriors" - people who have a laptop they take home from work. It's a pain in the ass for them to have to change their SMTP settings. Most people don't even know what an SMTP server is - all they'll see is "you're blocking my legitimate mail."
Transparent proxies are quite common - many large ISPs do it with HTTP.. transparently proxying SMTP is an elegant solution to the problem of 'whack-a-mole' spamming.
why do e-mail programs not just connect directly to the servers they are trying to send mail to?
Because the receiving mail server may not be up, or the link may be slow.
If you're sending a large attachment, for example, it makes more sense to send it to your local mailserver (to which you have a fast, stable connection), and let it deal with timeouts or whatever..
Would you want to keep your mail program open for hours or days when you didn't have to?
I work for a major cable ISP here and we are also having problems with spamming trojens. To solve it we do not want to block the customer's out going smtp completly
I work for a small ISP. We worked around this problem a little differently..
Instead of blocking outbound SMTP, we opted to transparently proxy outbound SMTP sessions to our mail server.
The mail server does connection-rate throttling, and if the load on the server exceeds 'normal', the on-duty admin gets paged, so he can check the mail queue to see where the problem is - if it's a spam run, we shut off the ability for that customer to send SMTP, and purge the spam from the queue.
This has worked exceedingly well for us - the one time someone's machine has been used for spam (in the past 3 years), we were able to shut it off with only 2 spams making it out of our system.
I don't know how well it would scale for you, but it should be do-able.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it obvious (or known) that the code that SCO has distributed contains everything that, say, a RHAT distribution contains?
Yes. The kernel source 2.4.13) was identical.
I think someone forgot their meds today.
Do you realy want the government telling you what you can and can't put in an email?
Nobody is telling anyone what they can or can't put in an email.
This bill will make it a FEDERAL OFFENSE punishable by _years_ in federal POUND ME IN THE ASS prison for registering domain names with fake contact information of they originate UCE.
Two questions: First, what color is the sky in your world, and second, can you put that in English? ("of they originate" doesn't parse.)
Has anyone here ever heard of a joe-job?
I'm sure everyone has. Of what relevance is it?
all I have to do is make sure I find your domains with bogus WHOIS data (how many people use 111 Main St?) and spoof the from address.
OK, what does that do again?
Now the FBI comes and takes YOU away.
For what?
The law makes it illegal to send 'unsolicited commercial email'. Now, if I didn't send it (as you said - you are the one who sent it), what will they lock me up for, and what does having bogus WHOIS information have to do with it?
I think you need to put down the crack pipe, dude.
The 1st amendment is a big problem when you try to stop other kinds of spam.
Why? The first amendment says that you're allowed to say whatever you want.
It does NOT say that you are allowed to force people to listen to you, nor does it say that you are allowed to use other people's resources to say what you want.
There is no free speech issue when it comes to spam.
The Federal government is a government of limited powers, and they can only pass legislation when it falls under one of those powers.
Spam is theft of service. Theft that can add up to large sums of money (although a small amount taken from a large number of people.)
They would still be within their bounds even without the commerce clause.
It's not the same thing and you know it.
No, I don't know it.
Some radio stations get paid to do this.
Ahh - so if someone was paying her to share the files, then it would be OK, right?
Those downloading music are much less likely to buy what they've downloaded.
Based on what? Since you provided no evidence to back up that claim, should I conclude that you have none?
All the data I've seen says are wrong. Take a look at CD sales during Napster's heyday - you'll see that as Napster's popularity rose, so did CD sales, right up to when Napster was shut down - at which point the sales dropped too.
some state court says that's unconstitutional and lets spammers spam?
Why would a state say it's unconstitutional?
Where in the constitution does it say that you're allowed to send people things that they don't want, at their expense?
This has been a long time coming
Judging by the text of the bill, not long enough.
Properly implemented, a law would be a good thing, but this misses on several counts..
First - it defines spam incorrectly.
Spam is unsolicited bulk email. This uses the term 'unsolicited commercial electronic mail message' - whether an email is commercial or not is irrelevant as to whether it is spam. Although the majority of spam is commercial in nature, not all of it is, just as not all unsolicited commercial email is spam (as evidenced by their need to include an exemption for copyright infringement notices.)
Second, the fact that it's opt-out, means that it legalizes spam - it's a pro-spam bill, not an anti-spam bill.
I haven't finished reading it, but if it overrides state legislation, then it's the worst possible outcome.
When you consider that the Fedora name was also already trademarked by the university, you can see why they have a strong point.
Actually, if you check the wayback machine (as Alan Cox pointed out), you'll find that they didn't 'trademark' the name (by putting the 'tm' after it) until after Redhat did.
So, it appears that you should perhaps not ask for 'whatever it is they're smoking', because it could clash with whatever it is that you're smoking.
Yes, I remembered that off the top of my head. So sue me.
But what was the name of the bosses who were played by Anthony Caruso and Vic Taybeck?
Bela Oxmix and (Hugo?) Krako.
And yes, I knew that off the top of my head (except Taybeck's character - I can't for the life of me remember his first name..)
there's nothing that prevents Microsoft from integrating OpenSource solutions into their software
Yes there is - it's called Copyright law.
Now, if MS really is violating it (as you are implying) then they're in for a world of hurt if they're found out. Do you honestly think that a company the size of Microsoft has no disgruntled employees?
And even if you persist in this belief (for which neither of us has any proof, in any way,) Linus would still have more power, as he is able to take advantage of the openness, whereas Gates wouldn't be. (MS would have to modify the code to work with their products, meaning more work, with slower turn-around time.)
Translation...
McBride: That's the great untold story no one even asks about.
And we're sure as hell not gonna bring it up, because it makes us look even more pitiful.
Customers continue to come to us.
And bitch because our crap doesn't work right.
We have laid out a growth map that will be significant for our customers.
Significant, because they'll have to switch to something else.
In the next year expect Legend
Of which you can see a preview by watching the horrible Tom Cruise flick we stole the name from.
Longer term, expect SVR 6, which will be 64-bit Unix on Intel.
Assuming we can steal the code from Linux without anyone noticing.
We're talking about a couple of billion dollars in upgrade opportunities.
And when I say 'upgrade', I mean 'extortion'.
The core business, we think that's bottomed out
Oh shit, did I really say that? Hmm.. better come up with something else..
there's upside now with new products coming
And when I say 'products', I mean 'lawsuits'
We haven't had a new product in our OpenServer base in years and years.
Oh shit, I didn't mean to say that either - I really have to stop myself..
The third bucket has to do with the IBM settlement.
Umm, I hope he doesn't realize that he asked besides the lawsuit..
if your software incorporates any code which is GPLed, your software must also be released under a GPL-compatible license.
You make it sound like the GPL will jump up and attack your software..
The key point is this: You are not obligated to release your code under the GPL, because you are not obligated to use existing GPL code in your project. If you decide you want to use some software in your code, and that software is covered under the GPL, you can always go to the author and ask for a different license. If the original author says no, then you can either use the GPL, or write everything yourself. There is nothing "viral" about it.
SCO's argument, as I understand it, is that US copyright law states that you cannot lose control of your work by accident.
No, that was their argument a few months ago. Since then, they've said that the GPL is illegal and unconstitutional, but provided no reasoning behind such wild claims.
SCO are suing IBM for GPLing code SCO claim is theirs, but SCO have also distributed Linux
Again wrong. SCO is suing IBM for contract violation. Not for GPL'ing SCO's code.
SCO has stated publically that IBM did not put the alleged infringing code in Linux.
So they say: we did not knowingly GPL our IP, so, under US copyright law, it cannot be subject to the GPL, which requires us to relinquish rights we have not agreed to relinquish. Since US copyright law disagrees with the GPL, the GPL violates the law.
Wrong. It's not the GPL that's illegal in this case, it the fact that the alleged infringing code was put there by someone. If I have a contract with you that says I can use your copyrighted material, but not disclose it to anyone, and I distribute that material, the contract is not illegal, my actions are. It's a pretty big difference.
But isn't he gonna cry that his opponents use his religion against him?
Well, if he's not actually doing anything wrong, then his church would just dismiss the arguments, wouldn't it?
If he wasn't lying, it wouldn't be possible to use his religion against him.
Darl is lying every time he makes a public utterance.
I was thinking about this.. Darl is supposed to be a religious man - are there any mormons out there who can talk to his Bishop about his public conduct?
We have proof that he's lying (not to mention attempting to steal the work of thousands of other people), and bringing bad press for the church - perhaps if we could get him ex-communicated, he'd finally get the idea that what he's doing is wrong.
they're paying him a salary to give them everything he produces.
Jesus H. Christ, I hope he doesn't have any kids while he's empolyed there!
Just because mySQL fails to implement many parts that standard SQL programmers consider important doesn't mean it's unreliable.
You're right. The fact that it will silently accept bad data, and change it to something else, means it's unreliable.
he is an idiot who doesn't understand "different tools for different tasks"
So a guy I work with was bitching about his Geo Metro the other day - he was complaining (for the umpteenth time) that it takes too long to drive the 300 miles to work each day.
So I say to him (again for the umpteenth time) "Dude, you work across the street from an airstrip, and your driveway is large enough to function as a landing field - get a plane."
So the next day, he tells me that he decided to take my advice and try a plane - a small single-prop Cessna.. then he says that it sucked! It was slower than his Metro!
"How can that be?" I asked.
"Well, every time I got the damn thing over 40, the wheels came off the ground!" he says.
"So? It's a plane, not a car - that's what's supposed to happen." I said.
"That sucks!" He says, "I don't know how to fly a plane! I'm sticking with my Metro - it's faster than that Cessna!"
Then I tell him that the Metro is only faster if you don't know how to fly a plane.
And then he went and muttered something about "different tools for different tasks" - completely missing the point that he's ignoring the correct tool because he's unwilling to learn how to use it.
There's a moral in there - I'll let you figure out how it's applicable to this conversation.
Doesn't your knee hurt when you jerk it like that?
Re-read the post, NOWHERE did he say "P2P".
He said filesharing.
There is a big difference.
But to address your post: P2P apps may not be an advertising service, but they do offer a way to expand listening horizons - find a song on Kazaa (for example), then right-click on it, and you can then see what other music this person likes. You might then find something you've never heard of, and try it.
I know a few people who do this (I've done it myself.)
Just for the same reason why my brand new Linux box has a "nobody" account.
I somehow doubt that. Unless you're suggesting that Exchange runs over NFS? (Last time I checked, it required expensive third-party software to turn Windows into an NFS server.)
The 'nobody' account in Unix exists as an NFS user mapping, the NFS server maps unpriveliged UIDs to the 'nobody' account.
Having an user with no privileges whatsoever (at least in theory) is a very handy convenience.
While this is true, because people who don't understand what it's there for (and use it to run daemons), the 'nobody' account tends to have too many priveleges - compared to user accounts which would have been created specifically for the purpose.
If it's gpl'd where do we get the source code? I would like to download it.
Right here
This is exactly the line of thinking that prevents projects like this from implementation all accross the country. Just because "it's more than we need" right now does not mean it won't be down the road.
Exactly - and the most annoying thing about this is that when it does become necessary, it will cost more to implement (as anyone in Boston could tell you.)
There is no Moore's law for public works projects - the longer you wait, the more it's gonna cost you.
That is a HORRIBLE solution.
Care to explain why?
I would not use an ISP that hijacked my traffic.
We're not "hijacking" anything - the mail ends up going exactly where it's supposed to be going.
What does it matter if the mail is relayed through SMTP server A or SMTP server B? As long as it reaches it's destination, there is no problem.
It is much better to block outgoing traffic on TCP port 25 so that users know it is blocked
If you read the responses here, you'll find that most people disagree with you - ISPs shouldn't be blocking legitimate outbound traffic. Blocking outbound SMTP in an attempt to stop spam is wrong, because it targets everybody, instead of just the spammers.
can find a different solution, such as relaying mail through your server.
This poses a problem with "road warriors" - people who have a laptop they take home from work. It's a pain in the ass for them to have to change their SMTP settings. Most people don't even know what an SMTP server is - all they'll see is "you're blocking my legitimate mail."
Transparent proxies are quite common - many large ISPs do it with HTTP.. transparently proxying SMTP is an elegant solution to the problem of 'whack-a-mole' spamming.
why do e-mail programs not just connect directly to the servers they are trying to send mail to?
Because the receiving mail server may not be up, or the link may be slow.
If you're sending a large attachment, for example, it makes more sense to send it to your local mailserver (to which you have a fast, stable connection), and let it deal with timeouts or whatever..
Would you want to keep your mail program open for hours or days when you didn't have to?
I work for a major cable ISP here and we are also having problems with spamming trojens. To solve it we do not want to block the customer's out going smtp completly
I work for a small ISP. We worked around this problem a little differently..
Instead of blocking outbound SMTP, we opted to transparently proxy outbound SMTP sessions to our mail server.
The mail server does connection-rate throttling, and if the load on the server exceeds 'normal', the on-duty admin gets paged, so he can check the mail queue to see where the problem is - if it's a spam run, we shut off the ability for that customer to send SMTP, and purge the spam from the queue.
This has worked exceedingly well for us - the one time someone's machine has been used for spam (in the past 3 years), we were able to shut it off with only 2 spams making it out of our system.
I don't know how well it would scale for you, but it should be do-able.
The ISP's don't own enough of the problem to make a difference to it
As ISPs (by definition) own 100% of the problem, how can they not own enough of it?