It seems that he's fallen for the statement made by many slashdotters and other P2P apologists that the spread of MP3s doesn't hurt music sales.
Hmm, and what about his paid advertising. That didn't seem to increase his sales either.
And how, exactly does Janis Ian fit into your generalizations? Is she a "P2P apologist"? (She's surely not a/.'er, perhaps you could point out how she's a "P2P apologist"?)
It just isn't true. And it goes against common sense logic
Yes, it really is true. It fits in perfectly with common sense logic - the problem with "common sense" is that not too many people have it (including you, apparently.)
Here's some "common sense logic" for you:
if nobody knows about you, how can they be expected to buy your stuff?
I duno what planet your from, and I doubt you've read the RFC's regarding SMTP on Earth.
And again you're wrong. I have written an SMTP server, working from RFCs.
the above statements clearly shows your ignorance in the SPAM issue
No, they show that you have a closed mind.
SMTP can be abused because it is flawed despite what you desire, or perceive, to be true
Then please list the relevant flawed sections. Since you know so much more than me about the RFCs, you should have no problem.
The whole world knows you're a fool, but when you open your mouth, you remove all doubt.
Spoken like a true fool.
I noticed that you didn't come up with a response to my challenge: DESCRIBE A PROTOCOL THAT WOULD BE IMMUNE FROM SPAM, AND WOULD STILL WORK ON TODAY'S INTERNET.
Why do you think that the architects want to add extra headers to the standard,
I somehow doubt that adding extra headers will fix the spam problem, but seeing as you know so much, why don't you enlighten me as to how this could be so. Maybe adding a "X-this-is-not-spam:" would do the trick? Just like the "evil" bit in IP packets, right?
Spam costs ISPs lots of money; I expect most would reconfigure their servers to help stop it.
It's not a matter of "reconfiguring their servers" - it's a matter of PERFORMANCE.
The whole reason that it's done this way is because one machine would not be capable of handling it.
The whole point of my scheme is to prevent people using a mail address other than what they are actually posting on; if you want to use your work email address, make it a Reply-To:, and have the From: field contain the address you are really posting from.
"Your" scheme has been proposed by many, many people, some with more knowledge of SMTP than you apparently have.
When I use my work email address from home, I am using the email address I'm "really posting" from.
I always take the time to metnion that spam exists because SMTP is intrinsicly flawed to allow it.
And you're wrong.
Spam exists because the sociopaths that do it don't think they're doing anything wrong.
Spam is a social problem. It doesn't matter if SMTP is "intrinsically flawed" (which it isn't) or not - any system you can think of can be abused. Come up with a better solution, and I bet that I can come up with a way to spam through it in under 5 minutes. And if I can, you can bet that spammers can too.
Checks that the message-id for the email recieved is one sent from that username (the server would have to keep a list of all message-ids sent from it in the last month or so)
This would break nearly every major ISP's SMTP setup.
Any large-ish ISP (over 200 subscribers or so) will use different servers for inbound and outbound mail.
Not to mention that it would completely screw anyone who uses email addresses that don't correspond to their ISP. (ie. I send mail from home, using my work email address - how is my work mail server supposed to know what the SMTP ID is of a mail it will never see?)
If SCO didn't explicitely choose to include the code in Linux (it really is stolen, as they claim), then SCO also didn't explicitely choose to license the code under the GPL. And if that's the case, then the GPL doesn't apply to their code
Define "explicitely" (sp).
The fact is SCO KNOWINGLY DISTRIBUTED ANY CODE IN QUESTION AS PART OF A GPL'ED PRODUCT.
For a given piece of GPL'ed code, if you don't agree to the GPL, then you're not allowed to distribute the code. Since SCO knowingly distributed the code, and they knew it contained "their" code, then they must have agreed to the GPL.
Why couldn't Xander's dream have included the tongue-ring, Kennedy, Willow, AND Dawn?
"Sometimes I think about two women doing a spell, then I do a spell by myself."
Re:If you don't read anything else, read this...
on
OSI vs SCO
·
· Score: 1
By that logic, if someone decides to mirror a Linux distro on their servers as a public service, not knowing that it contains code that has been stolen from them, they lose all redress.
No, it doesn't. Here's a better way of putting it:
if someone decides to mirror a linux distro on their servers as a public service, not knowing that it contains code that has been stolen from them, then they find out about it, and continue distributing it, then they lose all redress.
First, if it was a patent violation, someone at SCO would have said so - so far, all they've alleged is copyright (Darl McBride - "we have found instances where the code was copied verbatim") and some nebulous "IP" infringement (which amounts to "look and feel".)
Second, even if this did turn out to be about patents, SCO still has no legal leg to stand on, as Section 7 of the GPL clearly covers this.
At one time, this may have been a valid concern, but if you look closely, they're still distributing it
So they'd be pretty damn hard pressed to convince someone that they are immune from the GPL.
Every piece of "FUD" about the GPL will be proven--it IS a viral license, that can irrevocably infect your code without your express wishes.
No, it wouldn't. They are still distributing it, so by definition they are aware of the code. Nothing is being "taken" from them - they're giving it away themselves.
When I saw that scene, I laughed out loud - and I was the only one (my wife asked what was so funny - but she didn't get it when I explained it to her..)
The AmigaOS GUI sucked ass and prevented people from buying a technically cool machine.
No, it really didn't.
The AmigaOS GUI was one of the most fluid, easy to understand GUI's I've ever used - it encouraged multitasking, instead of (seemingly) being designed to prevent it (quick - load two Mac/Windows/X word processors, make them full-screen, send one to the back and try to continue using it. Trivial on the Amiga.)
Slashdot Mirror
Just what is SCO alleging anyways?
Is it patent, copyright, or trade secret infringement?
That depends; what day is it?
I never knew there was a whole test just on this one aspect of VPN tunneling technology .
:o)
Well, GRE did come from Cisco
knowing it's in Cleveland is a hell of a lot better than knowing that it could be anywhere.
What if it's on the end of a VPN?
"Cleveland" now means "anywhere".
it pings a server at Phoenix which can instruct the machine to wipe its hard drive, report its location or disable itself
Umm, so it's got a built-in GPS receiver too?
I'm curious as to exactly how it's supposed to know where it is.
"Computon" sounds like the name of a robot from a cheesy 1980s kids' TV series.
:o)
Or perhaps Calculon's retarded brother from the future-space-soap-opera "All My Circuits"
It seems that he's fallen for the statement made by many slashdotters and other P2P apologists that the spread of MP3s doesn't hurt music sales.
/.'er, perhaps you could point out how she's a "P2P apologist"?)
/. troll.
Hmm, and what about his paid advertising. That didn't seem to increase his sales either.
And how, exactly does Janis Ian fit into your generalizations? Is she a "P2P apologist"? (She's surely not a
It just isn't true. And it goes against common sense logic
Yes, it really is true. It fits in perfectly with common sense logic - the problem with "common sense" is that not too many people have it (including you, apparently.)
Here's some "common sense logic" for you:
if nobody knows about you, how can they be expected to buy your stuff?
Of course, you're just a
Nobody ever discloses any evidence before discovery. Ever.
are you sure about that?
Response: I have a Simpson's quote that might help you out, will that be enough?
Sure, let's hear it!
I duno what planet your from, and I doubt you've read the RFC's regarding SMTP on Earth.
And again you're wrong. I have written an SMTP server, working from RFCs.
the above statements clearly shows your ignorance in the SPAM issue
No, they show that you have a closed mind.
SMTP can be abused because it is flawed despite what you desire, or perceive, to be true
Then please list the relevant flawed sections. Since you know so much more than me about the RFCs, you should have no problem.
The whole world knows you're a fool, but when you open your mouth, you remove all doubt.
Spoken like a true fool.
I noticed that you didn't come up with a response to my challenge: DESCRIBE A PROTOCOL THAT WOULD BE IMMUNE FROM SPAM, AND WOULD STILL WORK ON TODAY'S INTERNET.
Why do you think that the architects want to add extra headers to the standard,
I somehow doubt that adding extra headers will fix the spam problem, but seeing as you know so much, why don't you enlighten me as to how this could be so. Maybe adding a "X-this-is-not-spam:" would do the trick? Just like the "evil" bit in IP packets, right?
Spam costs ISPs lots of money; I expect most would reconfigure their servers to help stop it.
It's not a matter of "reconfiguring their servers" - it's a matter of PERFORMANCE.
The whole reason that it's done this way is because one machine would not be capable of handling it.
The whole point of my scheme is to prevent people using a mail address other than what they are actually posting on; if you want to use your work email address, make it a Reply-To:, and have the From: field contain the address you are really posting from.
"Your" scheme has been proposed by many, many people, some with more knowledge of SMTP than you apparently have.
When I use my work email address from home, I am using the email address I'm "really posting" from.
I always take the time to metnion that spam exists because SMTP is intrinsicly flawed to allow it.
And you're wrong.
Spam exists because the sociopaths that do it don't think they're doing anything wrong.
Spam is a social problem. It doesn't matter if SMTP is "intrinsically flawed" (which it isn't) or not - any system you can think of can be abused. Come up with a better solution, and I bet that I can come up with a way to spam through it in under 5 minutes. And if I can, you can bet that spammers can too.
Checks that the message-id for the email recieved is one sent from that username (the server would have to keep a list of all message-ids sent from it in the last month or so)
This would break nearly every major ISP's SMTP setup.
Any large-ish ISP (over 200 subscribers or so) will use different servers for inbound and outbound mail.
Not to mention that it would completely screw anyone who uses email addresses that don't correspond to their ISP. (ie. I send mail from home, using my work email address - how is my work mail server supposed to know what the SMTP ID is of a mail it will never see?)
It's not the volts that kills you .. It's the amps.
OK, so how many amps?
(I can't believe nobody here gets this.. it's from the movie "Running Scared")
In such a situation, they are right about the fact that the GPL doesn't apply.
Yes, but only until they distribute the code.
If they had stopped distributing their Linux distro as soon as they found "their" code in the kernel, they might have a leg to stand on.
They knowingly distributed "their" code as part of a GPL'ed product. Therefore, the GPL *does* apply.
If SCO didn't explicitely choose to include the code in Linux (it really is stolen, as they claim), then SCO also didn't explicitely choose to license the code under the GPL. And if that's the case, then the GPL doesn't apply to their code
Define "explicitely" (sp).
The fact is SCO KNOWINGLY DISTRIBUTED ANY CODE IN QUESTION AS PART OF A GPL'ED PRODUCT.
For a given piece of GPL'ed code, if you don't agree to the GPL, then you're not allowed to distribute the code. Since SCO knowingly distributed the code, and they knew it contained "their" code, then they must have agreed to the GPL.
Why couldn't Xander's dream have included the tongue-ring, Kennedy, Willow, AND Dawn?
"Sometimes I think about two women doing a spell, then I do a spell by myself."
By that logic, if someone decides to mirror a Linux distro on their servers as a public service, not knowing that it contains code that has been stolen from them, they lose all redress.
No, it doesn't. Here's a better way of putting it:
if someone decides to mirror a linux distro on their servers as a public service, not knowing that it contains code that has been stolen from them, then they find out about it, and continue distributing it , then they lose all redress.
if it is a patent violation
First, if it was a patent violation, someone at SCO would have said so - so far, all they've alleged is copyright (Darl McBride - "we have found instances where the code was copied verbatim") and some nebulous "IP" infringement (which amounts to "look and feel".)
Second, even if this did turn out to be about patents, SCO still has no legal leg to stand on, as Section 7 of the GPL clearly covers this.
"we didn't distribute it; we had no knowledge."
At one time, this may have been a valid concern, but if you look closely, they're still distributing it
So they'd be pretty damn hard pressed to convince someone that they are immune from the GPL.
Every piece of "FUD" about the GPL will be proven--it IS a viral license, that can irrevocably infect your code without your express wishes.
No, it wouldn't. They are still distributing it, so by definition they are aware of the code. Nothing is being "taken" from them - they're giving it away themselves.
I can't. No one can.
:o)
That was pretty much my point.
As smaller businesses note that automated e-mail is being rejected, they will have to contact the ISPs to get on the whitelist.
Or: the customer gets pissed off at the ISP for blocking their email confirmations.
Or: the company doing the emailing sues the ISP for interfering with their business... hmm, maybe you covered that with this:
Businesses will not want it to be difficult to communicate with customers and will actively try to get the ISPs to whitelist them.
That's a legitimate concern, but one which can be addressed by ISPs creating whitelists of trusted businesses.
Think so?
Quick - list all of the businesses that all earthlink subscribers will do business with this year. Don't miss any.
You can't be alone in the matrix. Every operator is watching it ... they could never get any real alone time. Too much big brother!
:o)
Demonstratably false - "Mr. Reagan" (Cypher) didn't seem to have a problem.
I think the real reason is that Neo doesn't want to have to clean the splooge off the inside of his trousers afterwards
When I saw that scene, I laughed out loud - and I was the only one (my wife asked what was so funny - but she didn't get it when I explained it to her..)
The AmigaOS GUI sucked ass and prevented people from buying a technically cool machine.
No, it really didn't.
The AmigaOS GUI was one of the most fluid, easy to understand GUI's I've ever used - it encouraged multitasking, instead of (seemingly) being designed to prevent it (quick - load two Mac/Windows/X word processors, make them full-screen, send one to the back and try to continue using it. Trivial on the Amiga.)
It's one of the things I miss most about it.
the Intel Binary Compatibility Standard, developed by SCO, though open, had its implementation copied verbatim by IBM into the Linux kernel
What?!?!?!
I remember the IBCS module being available in Slackware since 1996 - IBM didn't start getting involved in Linux development until (IIRC) late 1998..
How did IBM copy their code "verbatim" if it appeared two years before IBM started working with Linux?