or perhaps my friendly Pet 2000 or my Commodore 64! Those were the days - when you could actually know *everything* about a computer. Ahh, I loved having a BASIC interpreter as the OS/"shell".
Oh, and an additional note. If Elcomsoft had only used Russian e-commerce servers and had no real US presence, then the US courts wouldn't have had any say whatsoever. Reminds me of how France tried to force Yahoo to stop selling Nazi antiques, even though Yahoo's operations were based in the US in all respects. Now THAT was a bullshit case if I ever heard one. It's stupid to think that any country should have the right to claim legal jurisdiction over what takes place wholly in another country. If Elcomsoft had done the smart thing and used offshore servers, they would be in the clear, and any US claim to jurisdiction would be as specious as France's legal attack on Yahoo. But they didn't, so now they have to deal with the US courts. Of course, I'm not sure what the US can do except force them to close down all US-based operations and possibly convict/fine them in absentia.
I believe the US courts have the right to hear the case, based on the amount and nature of the US activity of Elcomsoft. That's pretty clear and straightforward. I also believe that Russia and perhaps other countries would also have the right to take legal action as well, if any of their laws were broken.
It's pretty simple. Elcomsoft's e-commerce was taking place in the US, using US servers and US companies to do the transactions. Should the US not have jurisdiction over operations taking place in the US just because the company in question is headquartered in another country? What if Enron or the like moved their headquarters to Bermuda - should they then not be liable in the US for ripping off people in their US operations? There are countless cases where foreign companies with operations in the US have been taken to court in the US, so this is nothing new. Who would want it any other way, aside from those who would benefit from skirting the US legal system?
This is all aside from the legitimacy of the case itself. I think the DMCA is a steaming pile of bits and needs to be obliterated, and that the case against Elcomsoft is garbage. To determine the truth of that belief, the case has to be heard in the first place. And it needs to be heard in the country where the alleged lawbreaking actually transpired.
And BTW, if this is an April Fool's joke, I don't care; no need for the clue stick. Either way, I needed to spout. I hate "Enterprise", but I really, really want it to be good.
I was a Wesley-basher from day one, and never felt a single pang of guilt. I wanted Wesley to die, die, die and die again, painfully. And when he did die by being transfixed with a spear in one episode, I was ecstatic until he was resurrected at the end. That character was a symbol of all that was wrong with TNG (and all subsequent spinoffs), and I naively hoped that his death would signify a shift in thinking in the Star Trek camp towards pablum-removal. That was not to be.
After reading Wil's comments in his recent/. interview, I felt for him. He's a genuinely nice guy, very intelligent, and perhaps even a good actor. It's not his fault that all Star Treks after the original series suck the big one. It's the fault of the show's producers. And I'll never forgive them for it.
Don't take this wrong, Wil, but although you seem to be a standup guy, I don't want to see you on Enterprise. The show sucks, just being more of the same. They had an opportunity to make a great show, an original show, one with grit and suspense and all the stuff that makes great sci-fi. For some reason, I felt there was actually a chance that they might pull it off. I should have known better. After three seemingly endless, monotonous, rehashed spinoff series, you'd think they would have figured out what they did wrong. Silly me.
As soon as I see Wesley Crusher's face on the screen, I'll know it's truly all over. If they have to resort to bringing back our "favorite" characters to keep the series afloat, then that's the signal that things never will actually change, and that we'll be in for another seven or so years of the same old Love Boat, non-action, non-suspense, non-story, non-plot, formulaic faux sci-fi that we've become well-acquainted with.
And if we see Q on the series, it'll be time to get daddy's.38 out of the dresser drawer and have a lead sandwich.
By permitting the
copy-protected "CD"s to be sold to those under 18, Universal is effectively agreeing to follow the contract with them. Of course, the
under 18s aren't legally bound by the contract,
The first joe who tries to fight the RIAA on this one better be rich or have powerful backing, because the one with the most money tends to win in disputes like this. Legalities are less important than how much money you've got to pay your lawyers. Also, in situations of civil liability, the parents of the minors *can* be held responsible for the behavior of their children.
So if little Johnny likes to copy music, the RIAA can definitely go after Mom and Dad for compensation.
Stop buying music from the labels who use copy protection. Only buy from the ones who don't. Buy from independent artists. Buy used CDs, which make no money for the labels. And what he stopped short of saying (probably to avoid incurring the wrath of the RIAA lawyers), make copies of your friends' CDs and MP3s. The only way the labels will get the message is if copy protection significantly hurts sales.
The only good reason to buy CDs from these guys would be if you planned on returning copy protected CDs after buying them. It will hurt them right where it counts if you buy a CD from a company that has a no-questions-asked return policy, and make it your policy to immediately return every CD you buy that has copy protection. It hurts them in a big way, because returns cannot be restocked and must be sent back to the distributor. It costs the distributor more than the profit they would have made from the CD to process a return.
You can do this quite easily with Amazon. When you buy a CD and it turns out to be copy protected, you can return it as "defective", because it truly is. You can do this with good conscience, and it won't cost you a dime in the end, except for your time spent putting it back in the box and leaving it for the mailman.
I only listened to the SGI anthem, and found I couldn't hate it. I'm known for mocking stupid music (it's a good/bad habit of mine), but I couldn't seem to do it this time. The song is so lame that it mocks itself, no need for me to help it along. There is no doubt in my mind that they intended it to be stupid. At least, that's what I *want* to believe. Nobody could be as lame as to write a song like that with any seriousness. For their sake, I hope that's the case.
Repost of my message from previous spam story, sorry for repetition, but I think it might help people to see it: (no karma whoring, I'm already at max:)
It's easy to stop spammers, but you need to have the ability to create an arbitrary number
of email addresses. If you manage your own domain, or at least have the
ability to create and destroy email addresses in your domain, you can
virtually eliminate spam.
Here's my recipe. I have no worries explaining this in public, because
there's nothing the spammers can do to get around it. For every Internet
service you use, every mailing list you subscribe to, every online retailer
you buy from, you create a unique email address (for example, my PayPal
email address is "paypal@mydomain.com"). In essence, you have a different
"email channel" for every source which might potentially be used to send
you email. As soon as you receive a single spam on any email address,
you delete it. You'll never get spam for that address again, and if you really want you can create a new one for whatever site it was used for (e.g. if you get spammed on "paypal@mydomain.com" you can create a
"paypal2@mydomain.com" and change your email address with PayPal; or you
can just stop using PayPal). Simple so far.
Where it gets trickier is your more "permanent" email addresses, but the
problem is solvable. I have a main email address I've used for 10 years,
and of course spammers have gotten a hold of that address many times over. I
don't want to destroy that address, since all my friends and colleagues know
it and expect it to exist. Notifying them all each time I cancelled it would
become quite burdensome for all of us. To deal with this, I have created a
tool which is executed by procmail that checks each incoming message to my
permanent address to ensure that the sender is valid. I have a fairly small
list of known valid senders which are allowed to send me email, and those
go right through to my mailbox. Not only does the tool check the sender,
but it optionally checks the "Received" header in the mail to ensure it's
coming from the expected mail server (in case a spammer tries to pose as
someone on my OK list - paranoid, true, but I like paranoia).
This solves all problems except one - how do people I don't expect to send
mail to me actually reach me? My tool also has a "disallow" list of mail
servers, and any mail originating from one of those servers will be tossed
in the trash. Mail from an unexpected sender whose server is not in the
disallow list will get a response from my procmail tool with a special
subject line in it. They are instructed to reply, and my mail tool will
then accept their message on a one-time basis after scanning the subject
line for the secret magic key. If I like the person, I'll add them to my
"allowed" list so they never have to go through the two-step process again.
What if a spammer figures out my scheme and makes a spam tool that
auto-replies, you ask? For that to work, he would have had to use a real
return address, which they never do. But if he did, I would then know who
he was and be able to block further mail and pursue him, if desired. So
far that's never happened. Even if it started to happen frequently, I have
plans for an upgrade to my tool which would randomly vary the required method
of reply in a way that was impossible to perform programmatically. No need for this so far.
I realize that most of this can be done with procmail alone, but there
are some aspects of it that are ugly or impossible to do with just
procmail. It's integrated with sendmail to a small extent, as well, which
requires a separate tool as well (future extensions for other mailers
should be fairly easy).
Maybe when this is all finished I'll make it publically available. Would
anyone out there find it useful? (Or has it already been done, and am I wasting my time?)
It's easy, but you need to have the ability to create an arbitrary number of email addresses. If you manage your own domain, or at least have the ability to create and destroy email addresses in your domain, you can virtually eliminate spam.
Here's my recipe. I have no worries explaining this in public, because there's nothing the spammers can do to get around it. For every Internet service you use, every mailing list you subscribe to, every online retailer you buy from, you create a unique email address (for example, my PayPal email address is "paypal@mydomain.com"). In essence, you have a different "email channel" for every source which might potentially be used to send you email. As soon as you receive a single spam on any email address, you delete it. You'll never get spam for that address again, and if you really want you can create a new one for whatever site it was used for (e.g. if you get spammed on "paypal@mydomain.com" you can create a "paypal2@mydomain.com" and change your email address with PayPal; or you can just stop using PayPal). Simple so far.
Where it gets trickier is your more "permanent" email addresses, but the problem is solvable. I have a main email address I've used for 10 years, and of course spammers have gotten a hold of that address many times over. I don't want to destroy that address, since all my friends and colleagues know it and expect it to exist. Notifying them all each time I cancelled it would become quite burdensome for all of us. To deal with this, I have created a tool which is executed by procmail that checks each incoming message to my permanent address to ensure that the sender is valid. I have a fairly small list of known valid senders which are allowed to send me email, and those go right through to my mailbox. Not only does the tool check the sender, but it optionally checks the "Received" header in the mail to ensure it's coming from the expected mail server (in case a spammer tries to pose as someone on my OK list - paranoid, true, but I like paranoia).
This solves all problems except one - how do people I don't expect to send mail to me actually reach me? My tool also has a "disallow" list of mail servers, and any mail originating from one of those servers will be tossed in the trash. Mail from an unexpected sender whose server is not in the disallow list will get a response from my procmail tool with a special subject line in it. They are instructed to reply, and my mail tool will then accept their message on a one-time basis after scanning the subject line for the secret magic key. If I like the person, I'll add them to my "allowed" list so they never have to go through the two-step process again.
What if a spammer figures out my scheme and makes a spam tool that auto-replies, you ask? For that to work, he would have had to use a real return address, which they never do. But if he did, I would then know who he was and be able to block further mail and pursue him, if desired. So far that's never happened. Even if it started to happen frequently, I have plans for an upgrade to my tool which would randomly vary the required method of reply in a way that was impossible to perform programmatically. No need for this so far.
I realize that most of this can be done with procmail alone, but there are some aspects of it that are ugly or impossible to do with just procmail. It's integrated with sendmail to a small extent, as well, which requires a separate tool as well (future extensions for other mailers should be fairly easy).
Maybe when this is all finished I'll make it publically available. Would anyone out there find it useful?
Tried it out
on
SedSokoban
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
This is totally cool. Very creative. Reminds me of the Towers of Hanoi vi script I've seen floating around. Also the maze generator/solver in vi script. The vi scripts are cool because they use parts of the screen to store variables.:)
This sort of thing falls under the area of noncompete clauses, I believe. Should have noted in my previous message that noncompetes are largely unenforcible in many if not most US states. The theory is that your employer is not allowed to restrict your livelihood by keeping you from applying your expertise to make a living. If you designed widgets for company A, then went to company B to also design widgets, they can't stop you. The only time company A can put the screws to you is if you try to make use of trade secrets or patents owned by them while you're working for company B. The main point is, employee contracts cannot be used to restrict your right to apply your work skills freely, but intellectual property laws can. Of course, those generally apply to anybody, regardless of employment history.
Disclaimer: IANAL, but preceding message based on my lawyer's opinion.
company owns the rights to code written
during working hours and in direct
furtherance of any tasks assigned by
the company
No company, if they actually pay attention, would accept such an alteration. Nor is it fair to the company, I believe. To make it fair and reasonable, "and in direct furtherance" should be changed to "or in direct furtherance". Else, any work you do for your company which is technically "off hours" but is spent on a company task would be yours. Also, any non-company work you do while you're supposed to be working would be yours (i.e. if you do some personal hacking while on the job). Not sure that's fair either, though that's more defensible than the former issue.
This is a crucial issue, however. I fully agree that clauses like this should be in employee contracts. There's no reason a company should own anything you create that's not job related. If you design widgets for a living, but design wingnuts for fun after hours, there's no reason they should own your wingnuts unless such designs are also something you might reasonably be expected to make for your job. I've been down this road and did the right thing, much like the article here describes, and I'm a very happy camper for it.
Fair enough, I'm not an astronomer or physicist, so I'll grant that it *could* have been an asteroid. I'm quoting the dude who did the simulations (on some science show, forget which) who stated that his research indicates a comet. Perhaps he's wrong, but his explanation sure seemed far better than any of the others presented.
I would guess that an exploding asteroid wouldn't vaporize as cleanly as a comet either, which lends credence to the comet theory. In any case, I think it's pretty clear that whatever it was exploded over the earth and didn't impact, due to the blast pattern.
Can someone please explain why I should want to go to a movie theater with a bunch of bozos banging away on laptops? It's hard enough to find a theater without people jabbering away, crinkling munchie bags, and walking around. Why would I want to go to a theater with all of this, plus with the lovely addition of keyboard whacking and glowing screens?
I guess I just don't get the point of going to watch a movie and then not even paying attention to it.
An impact by an asteroid of similar size to the Tunguska asteroid is not possible. Siberia was not hit by an asteroid in 1908 - it wasn't even "hit" technically. The destruction was caused by a comet.
Hunters have looked for the remains of the asteroid that hit Siberia for years, but have found nothing, and for a very good reason. Simulations have shown that the blast pattern on the Siberian landscape could only have been caused by an object moving moving at a particular angle and exploding at elevation over the ground.
Asteroids do not explode like that, but a comet would quite possibly. Made mostly of frozen liquid, the heat of atmospheric entry could cause a comet to explode as it rapidly vaporized. This would leave little or no large remains as an asteroid would, would probably not cause a crater, and would throw up less debris than an asteroid. All of this seems consistent with the Tunguska event.
I'm no expert by any means, but if an asteroid of the same size as the Siberian comet hit the earth, my guess is that it would be much more destructive and have more worldwide effect.
How can someone so smart simultaneously be so stupid? This guy needs to acquire some maturity, discretion and common sense. He also needs to acquire an attorney much like the one he fired. The definition of someone who acts as his own attorney is "convict".
I probably have as much disdain for our legal system as Mr. Heckenkamp, but to win the game you have to play by the rules. Of course, if you're guilty, it's that much harder to win even if you do play by the rules.
"If you don't like it, don't use it. If you want to do something, make it up."
The flaws you speak of are flaws with dungeon masters, not with the game.
Didn't I already say that's what I did, make up my own rules? I just wish I didn't have to. That's what's rather irksome, that I have to. I've got
200 pages of rules I've created to make up for the lack. I actually published a book on it, long ago, mostly for local consumption. Now I don't have the time for that, so some good cookie-cutter rules would be nice.:)
You ever thought about giving priority linkage to the subscribers (say, release the links to submitted-but-not-yet-approved
sites so that they can get there before the slashdotting)?
Howzabout slashdot caches the page for subscribers, kinda like google? That would solve the problem nicely.
I agree with Gary when he says that original D&D is pretty good. I think the weakest parts of the game are the lame magic system, and the lack of a good unarmed combat system.
It's unacceptable that magic users should have to re-memorize a spell after it's cast. Just about every other fantasy RPG has fixed this oversight, yet even the latest D&D rules still have this glaring lameness. Every decent spellcasting system uses mana or some similar concept.
And unarmed combat? There practically is no concept of this. There are some token afterthought combat tables, but they suck. How hard can it be to come up with some decent rules for punching/kicking, pushing people aside, knocking people over, or employing various holds?
Also, determining surprise/initiative in combat,
and the list goes on. There certainly are a lot of lame rules in D&D, now that I think about it.
I love my D&D, but these fundamental flaws are unacceptable. I love it enough to have made up my own rules in these areas rather than abandon it for another game. I am still enamored of it - it's the first RPG I ever played and it dominated much of my life at various times. The soul of D&D is pure and true in a way that I don't think I'll ever see in another RPG.
I've posted numerous times here about Gilmore's open relay. Each time I think it will be the last time this silly topic arises, and each time I'm wrong. Here I am posting again.
Many others here have reiterated the things I've been saying all along, that there's no excuse for his open relay and that there are numerous solutions he could easily employ to stop spammers from using his mail server, so I won't belabor those points.
There is one point that still needs to be made, though. Despite his past record as champion of the Internet oppressed, John Gilmore is a danger to the rights of anyone who gets in his way, be they oppressed or oppressor. He is *filthy* rich from his days at Sun (and perhaps other things), and is apparently willing to throw his weight around with no regard for legal costs if he feels like making some sort of point. The problem is, he's a cantankerous, arrogant person with often strange views on right and wrong. There is a seeming randomness to the causes he takes on these days, and in cases like this, where the entity he opposes is clearly in the right, he does nothing but hurt the Internet community at large. Not only is his relay a spam engine, causing immediate but somewhat localized harm, his fight with Verio threatens to undermine an ISPs ability to enforce reasonable acceptable use policies. This latter point has broad implications for the entire Internet.
I see him as a sort of "legal terrorist". His cause is on the side of a very small faction (spammers, lazy admins, and himself - though he might also fall into one of the preceding categories), he has an undue amount of firepower (vast quantities of money to pay lawyers) and has a fanatic will to use that firepower. He is known for taking on causes, sometimes without due research, simply because it offends his often skewed viewpoint. And with the EFF behind him, with its history of legal success against the toughest of opponents, most people quail when confronted with his opposition. Spammers generally do not have the werewithal or the reputation to stand against an ISP who shuts them down. Gilmore has indirectly taken on their cause, and because of the size of his guns, might actually help them in ways they could never help themselves.
I have had dealings with Mr. Gilmore in the past, and feel obliged to say that, in my opinion, he was arrogant, uninformed and misguided. He is the quintessential kneejerk activist. He has done good things for Internet freedom, but his obtuse actions in recent history seem to say that it's time for this horse to be put out to pasture. Mr. Gilmore, I think it's time to pack your bags and move to a beach in Bermuda and enjoy your piles of money. Or perhaps feelings of guilt at being uncommonly rich are what drives you to do these things?
Unfortunately, stupid people do fall for it. If you send out a million spams, you are absolutely guaranteed to get some responses. Spam is very very cheap to send, so costs are almost nil. But if you get a 0.01% response to said spammage, that's 100 customers for almost no cost. If your spam is crafty, you can probably get much better than a 0.01% response rate.
This is what makes spam worthwhile for spammers to send out, and why it will never end of its own accord.
Slashdot Mirror
or perhaps my friendly Pet 2000 or my Commodore 64! Those were the days - when you could actually know *everything* about a computer. Ahh, I loved having a BASIC interpreter as the OS/"shell".
Oh, and an additional note. If Elcomsoft had only used Russian e-commerce servers and had no real US presence, then the US courts wouldn't have had any say whatsoever. Reminds me of how France tried to force Yahoo to stop selling Nazi antiques, even though Yahoo's operations were based in the US in all respects. Now THAT was a bullshit case if I ever heard one. It's stupid to think that any country should have the right to claim legal jurisdiction over what takes place wholly in another country. If Elcomsoft had done the smart thing and used offshore servers, they would be in the clear, and any US claim to jurisdiction would be as specious as France's legal attack on Yahoo. But they didn't, so now they have to deal with the US courts. Of course, I'm not sure what the US can do except force them to close down all US-based operations and possibly convict/fine them in absentia.
I believe the US courts have the right to hear the case, based on the amount and nature of the US activity of Elcomsoft. That's pretty clear and straightforward. I also believe that Russia and perhaps other countries would also have the right to take legal action as well, if any of their laws were broken.
It's pretty simple. Elcomsoft's e-commerce was taking place in the US, using US servers and US companies to do the transactions. Should the US not have jurisdiction over operations taking place in the US just because the company in question is headquartered in another country? What if Enron or the like moved their headquarters to Bermuda - should they then not be liable in the US for ripping off people in their US operations? There are countless cases where foreign companies with operations in the US have been taken to court in the US, so this is nothing new. Who would want it any other way, aside from those who would benefit from skirting the US legal system?
This is all aside from the legitimacy of the case itself. I think the DMCA is a steaming pile of bits and needs to be obliterated, and that the case against Elcomsoft is garbage. To determine the truth of that belief, the case has to be heard in the first place. And it needs to be heard in the country where the alleged lawbreaking actually transpired.
...the fake stories weren't too far from the usual sort of stuff you see here on a daily basis.
And BTW, if this is an April Fool's joke, I don't care; no need for the clue stick. Either way, I needed to spout. I hate "Enterprise", but I really, really want it to be good.
I was a Wesley-basher from day one, and never felt a single pang of guilt. I wanted Wesley to die, die, die and die again, painfully. And when he did die by being transfixed with a spear in one episode, I was ecstatic until he was resurrected at the end. That character was a symbol of all that was wrong with TNG (and all subsequent spinoffs), and I naively hoped that his death would signify a shift in thinking in the Star Trek camp towards pablum-removal. That was not to be.
/. interview, I felt for him. He's a genuinely nice guy, very intelligent, and perhaps even a good actor. It's not his fault that all Star Treks after the original series suck the big one. It's the fault of the show's producers. And I'll never forgive them for it.
.38 out of the dresser drawer and have a lead sandwich.
After reading Wil's comments in his recent
Don't take this wrong, Wil, but although you seem to be a standup guy, I don't want to see you on Enterprise. The show sucks, just being more of the same. They had an opportunity to make a great show, an original show, one with grit and suspense and all the stuff that makes great sci-fi. For some reason, I felt there was actually a chance that they might pull it off. I should have known better. After three seemingly endless, monotonous, rehashed spinoff series, you'd think they would have figured out what they did wrong. Silly me.
As soon as I see Wesley Crusher's face on the screen, I'll know it's truly all over. If they have to resort to bringing back our "favorite" characters to keep the series afloat, then that's the signal that things never will actually change, and that we'll be in for another seven or so years of the same old Love Boat, non-action, non-suspense, non-story, non-plot, formulaic faux sci-fi that we've become well-acquainted with.
And if we see Q on the series, it'll be time to get daddy's
By permitting the copy-protected "CD"s to be sold to those under 18, Universal is effectively agreeing to follow the contract with them. Of course, the under 18s aren't legally bound by the contract,
The first joe who tries to fight the RIAA on this one better be rich or have powerful backing, because the one with the most money tends to win in disputes like this. Legalities are less important than how much money you've got to pay your lawyers. Also, in situations of civil liability, the parents of the minors *can* be held responsible for the behavior of their children. So if little Johnny likes to copy music, the RIAA can definitely go after Mom and Dad for compensation.
Stop buying music from the labels who use copy protection. Only buy from the ones who don't. Buy from independent artists. Buy used CDs, which make no money for the labels. And what he stopped short of saying (probably to avoid incurring the wrath of the RIAA lawyers), make copies of your friends' CDs and MP3s. The only way the labels will get the message is if copy protection significantly hurts sales.
The only good reason to buy CDs from these guys would be if you planned on returning copy protected CDs after buying them. It will hurt them right where it counts if you buy a CD from a company that has a no-questions-asked return policy, and make it your policy to immediately return every CD you buy that has copy protection. It hurts them in a big way, because returns cannot be restocked and must be sent back to the distributor. It costs the distributor more than the profit they would have made from the CD to process a return.
You can do this quite easily with Amazon. When you buy a CD and it turns out to be copy protected, you can return it as "defective", because it truly is. You can do this with good conscience, and it won't cost you a dime in the end, except for your time spent putting it back in the box and leaving it for the mailman.
Listen to the Ericsson theme song ("You Need Intelligence / We Can Get it / Network Intelligence / Come and See"), and you'll learn to hate again.
God help me. Why did you trick me into listening to that? Now I'm going to have that song running through my head all day. Make it stop!!!
I only listened to the SGI anthem, and found I couldn't hate it. I'm known for mocking stupid music (it's a good/bad habit of mine), but I couldn't seem to do it this time. The song is so lame that it mocks itself, no need for me to help it along. There is no doubt in my mind that they intended it to be stupid. At least, that's what I *want* to believe. Nobody could be as lame as to write a song like that with any seriousness. For their sake, I hope that's the case.
Repost of my message from previous spam story, sorry for repetition, but I think it might help people to see it: (no karma whoring, I'm already at max :)
It's easy to stop spammers, but you need to have the ability to create an arbitrary number of email addresses. If you manage your own domain, or at least have the ability to create and destroy email addresses in your domain, you can virtually eliminate spam.
Here's my recipe. I have no worries explaining this in public, because there's nothing the spammers can do to get around it. For every Internet service you use, every mailing list you subscribe to, every online retailer you buy from, you create a unique email address (for example, my PayPal email address is "paypal@mydomain.com"). In essence, you have a different "email channel" for every source which might potentially be used to send you email. As soon as you receive a single spam on any email address, you delete it. You'll never get spam for that address again, and if you really want you can create a new one for whatever site it was used for (e.g. if you get spammed on "paypal@mydomain.com" you can create a "paypal2@mydomain.com" and change your email address with PayPal; or you can just stop using PayPal). Simple so far.
Where it gets trickier is your more "permanent" email addresses, but the problem is solvable. I have a main email address I've used for 10 years, and of course spammers have gotten a hold of that address many times over. I don't want to destroy that address, since all my friends and colleagues know it and expect it to exist. Notifying them all each time I cancelled it would become quite burdensome for all of us. To deal with this, I have created a tool which is executed by procmail that checks each incoming message to my permanent address to ensure that the sender is valid. I have a fairly small list of known valid senders which are allowed to send me email, and those go right through to my mailbox. Not only does the tool check the sender, but it optionally checks the "Received" header in the mail to ensure it's coming from the expected mail server (in case a spammer tries to pose as someone on my OK list - paranoid, true, but I like paranoia).
This solves all problems except one - how do people I don't expect to send mail to me actually reach me? My tool also has a "disallow" list of mail servers, and any mail originating from one of those servers will be tossed in the trash. Mail from an unexpected sender whose server is not in the disallow list will get a response from my procmail tool with a special subject line in it. They are instructed to reply, and my mail tool will then accept their message on a one-time basis after scanning the subject line for the secret magic key. If I like the person, I'll add them to my "allowed" list so they never have to go through the two-step process again.
What if a spammer figures out my scheme and makes a spam tool that auto-replies, you ask? For that to work, he would have had to use a real return address, which they never do. But if he did, I would then know who he was and be able to block further mail and pursue him, if desired. So far that's never happened. Even if it started to happen frequently, I have plans for an upgrade to my tool which would randomly vary the required method of reply in a way that was impossible to perform programmatically. No need for this so far.
I realize that most of this can be done with procmail alone, but there are some aspects of it that are ugly or impossible to do with just procmail. It's integrated with sendmail to a small extent, as well, which requires a separate tool as well (future extensions for other mailers should be fairly easy).
Maybe when this is all finished I'll make it publically available. Would anyone out there find it useful? (Or has it already been done, and am I wasting my time?)
It's easy, but you need to have the ability to create an arbitrary number of email addresses. If you manage your own domain, or at least have the ability to create and destroy email addresses in your domain, you can virtually eliminate spam.
Here's my recipe. I have no worries explaining this in public, because there's nothing the spammers can do to get around it. For every Internet service you use, every mailing list you subscribe to, every online retailer you buy from, you create a unique email address (for example, my PayPal email address is "paypal@mydomain.com"). In essence, you have a different "email channel" for every source which might potentially be used to send you email. As soon as you receive a single spam on any email address, you delete it. You'll never get spam for that address again, and if you really want you can create a new one for whatever site it was used for (e.g. if you get spammed on "paypal@mydomain.com" you can create a "paypal2@mydomain.com" and change your email address with PayPal; or you can just stop using PayPal). Simple so far.
Where it gets trickier is your more "permanent" email addresses, but the problem is solvable. I have a main email address I've used for 10 years, and of course spammers have gotten a hold of that address many times over. I don't want to destroy that address, since all my friends and colleagues know it and expect it to exist. Notifying them all each time I cancelled it would become quite burdensome for all of us. To deal with this, I have created a tool which is executed by procmail that checks each incoming message to my permanent address to ensure that the sender is valid. I have a fairly small list of known valid senders which are allowed to send me email, and those go right through to my mailbox. Not only does the tool check the sender, but it optionally checks the "Received" header in the mail to ensure it's coming from the expected mail server (in case a spammer tries to pose as someone on my OK list - paranoid, true, but I like paranoia).
This solves all problems except one - how do people I don't expect to send mail to me actually reach me? My tool also has a "disallow" list of mail servers, and any mail originating from one of those servers will be tossed in the trash. Mail from an unexpected sender whose server is not in the disallow list will get a response from my procmail tool with a special subject line in it. They are instructed to reply, and my mail tool will then accept their message on a one-time basis after scanning the subject line for the secret magic key. If I like the person, I'll add them to my "allowed" list so they never have to go through the two-step process again.
What if a spammer figures out my scheme and makes a spam tool that auto-replies, you ask? For that to work, he would have had to use a real return address, which they never do. But if he did, I would then know who he was and be able to block further mail and pursue him, if desired. So far that's never happened. Even if it started to happen frequently, I have plans for an upgrade to my tool which would randomly vary the required method of reply in a way that was impossible to perform programmatically. No need for this so far.
I realize that most of this can be done with procmail alone, but there are some aspects of it that are ugly or impossible to do with just procmail. It's integrated with sendmail to a small extent, as well, which requires a separate tool as well (future extensions for other mailers should be fairly easy).
Maybe when this is all finished I'll make it publically available. Would anyone out there find it useful?
This is totally cool. Very creative. Reminds me of the Towers of Hanoi vi script I've seen floating around. Also the maze generator/solver in vi script. The vi scripts are cool because they use parts of the screen to store variables. :)
This sort of thing falls under the area of noncompete clauses, I believe. Should have noted in my previous message that noncompetes are largely unenforcible in many if not most US states. The theory is that your employer is not allowed to restrict your livelihood by keeping you from applying your expertise to make a living. If you designed widgets for company A, then went to company B to also design widgets, they can't stop you. The only time company A can put the screws to you is if you try to make use of trade secrets or patents owned by them while you're working for company B. The main point is, employee contracts cannot be used to restrict your right to apply your work skills freely, but intellectual property laws can. Of course, those generally apply to anybody, regardless of employment history.
Disclaimer: IANAL, but preceding message based on my lawyer's opinion.
company owns the rights to code written during working hours and in direct furtherance of any tasks assigned by the company
No company, if they actually pay attention, would accept such an alteration. Nor is it fair to the company, I believe. To make it fair and reasonable, "and in direct furtherance" should be changed to "or in direct furtherance". Else, any work you do for your company which is technically "off hours" but is spent on a company task would be yours. Also, any non-company work you do while you're supposed to be working would be yours (i.e. if you do some personal hacking while on the job). Not sure that's fair either, though that's more defensible than the former issue.
This is a crucial issue, however. I fully agree that clauses like this should be in employee contracts. There's no reason a company should own anything you create that's not job related. If you design widgets for a living, but design wingnuts for fun after hours, there's no reason they should own your wingnuts unless such designs are also something you might reasonably be expected to make for your job. I've been down this road and did the right thing, much like the article here describes, and I'm a very happy camper for it.
This was a totally cool project. I depended on it. It stopped lots of spam. I will never use another Lotus product. Not that I ever did.
Fair enough, I'm not an astronomer or physicist, so I'll grant that it *could* have been an asteroid. I'm quoting the dude who did the simulations (on some science show, forget which) who stated that his research indicates a comet. Perhaps he's wrong, but his explanation sure seemed far better than any of the others presented.
I would guess that an exploding asteroid wouldn't vaporize as cleanly as a comet either, which lends credence to the comet theory. In any case, I think it's pretty clear that whatever it was exploded over the earth and didn't impact, due to the blast pattern.
Can someone please explain why I should want to go to a movie theater with a bunch of bozos banging away on laptops? It's hard enough to find a theater without people jabbering away, crinkling munchie bags, and walking around. Why would I want to go to a theater with all of this, plus with the lovely addition of keyboard whacking and glowing screens?
I guess I just don't get the point of going to watch a movie and then not even paying attention to it.
An impact by an asteroid of similar size to the Tunguska asteroid is not possible. Siberia was not hit by an asteroid in 1908 - it wasn't even "hit" technically. The destruction was caused by a comet.
Hunters have looked for the remains of the asteroid that hit Siberia for years, but have found nothing, and for a very good reason. Simulations have shown that the blast pattern on the Siberian landscape could only have been caused by an object moving moving at a particular angle and exploding at elevation over the ground.
Asteroids do not explode like that, but a comet would quite possibly. Made mostly of frozen liquid, the heat of atmospheric entry could cause a comet to explode as it rapidly vaporized. This would leave little or no large remains as an asteroid would, would probably not cause a crater, and would throw up less debris than an asteroid. All of this seems consistent with the Tunguska event.
I'm no expert by any means, but if an asteroid of the same size as the Siberian comet hit the earth, my guess is that it would be much more destructive and have more worldwide effect.
How can someone so smart simultaneously be so stupid? This guy needs to acquire some maturity, discretion and common sense. He also needs to acquire an attorney much like the one he fired. The definition of someone who acts as his own attorney is "convict".
I probably have as much disdain for our legal system as Mr. Heckenkamp, but to win the game you have to play by the rules. Of course, if you're guilty, it's that much harder to win even if you do play by the rules.
"If you don't like it, don't use it. If you want to do something, make it up."
:)
The flaws you speak of are flaws with dungeon masters, not with the game.
Didn't I already say that's what I did, make up my own rules? I just wish I didn't have to. That's what's rather irksome, that I have to. I've got 200 pages of rules I've created to make up for the lack. I actually published a book on it, long ago, mostly for local consumption. Now I don't have the time for that, so some good cookie-cutter rules would be nice.
You ever thought about giving priority linkage to the subscribers (say, release the links to submitted-but-not-yet-approved sites so that they can get there before the slashdotting)?
Howzabout slashdot caches the page for subscribers, kinda like google? That would solve the problem nicely.
I agree with Gary when he says that original D&D is pretty good. I think the weakest parts of the game are the lame magic system, and the lack of a good unarmed combat system.
It's unacceptable that magic users should have to re-memorize a spell after it's cast. Just about every other fantasy RPG has fixed this oversight, yet even the latest D&D rules still have this glaring lameness. Every decent spellcasting system uses mana or some similar concept.
And unarmed combat? There practically is no concept of this. There are some token afterthought combat tables, but they suck. How hard can it be to come up with some decent rules for punching/kicking, pushing people aside, knocking people over, or employing various holds?
Also, determining surprise/initiative in combat, and the list goes on. There certainly are a lot of lame rules in D&D, now that I think about it.
I love my D&D, but these fundamental flaws are unacceptable. I love it enough to have made up my own rules in these areas rather than abandon it for another game. I am still enamored of it - it's the first RPG I ever played and it dominated much of my life at various times. The soul of D&D is pure and true in a way that I don't think I'll ever see in another RPG.
I've posted numerous times here about Gilmore's open relay. Each time I think it will be the last time this silly topic arises, and each time I'm wrong. Here I am posting again.
Many others here have reiterated the things I've been saying all along, that there's no excuse for his open relay and that there are numerous solutions he could easily employ to stop spammers from using his mail server, so I won't belabor those points.
There is one point that still needs to be made, though. Despite his past record as champion of the Internet oppressed, John Gilmore is a danger to the rights of anyone who gets in his way, be they oppressed or oppressor. He is *filthy* rich from his days at Sun (and perhaps other things), and is apparently willing to throw his weight around with no regard for legal costs if he feels like making some sort of point. The problem is, he's a cantankerous, arrogant person with often strange views on right and wrong. There is a seeming randomness to the causes he takes on these days, and in cases like this, where the entity he opposes is clearly in the right, he does nothing but hurt the Internet community at large. Not only is his relay a spam engine, causing immediate but somewhat localized harm, his fight with Verio threatens to undermine an ISPs ability to enforce reasonable acceptable use policies. This latter point has broad implications for the entire Internet.
I see him as a sort of "legal terrorist". His cause is on the side of a very small faction (spammers, lazy admins, and himself - though he might also fall into one of the preceding categories), he has an undue amount of firepower (vast quantities of money to pay lawyers) and has a fanatic will to use that firepower. He is known for taking on causes, sometimes without due research, simply because it offends his often skewed viewpoint. And with the EFF behind him, with its history of legal success against the toughest of opponents, most people quail when confronted with his opposition. Spammers generally do not have the werewithal or the reputation to stand against an ISP who shuts them down. Gilmore has indirectly taken on their cause, and because of the size of his guns, might actually help them in ways they could never help themselves.
I have had dealings with Mr. Gilmore in the past, and feel obliged to say that, in my opinion, he was arrogant, uninformed and misguided. He is the quintessential kneejerk activist. He has done good things for Internet freedom, but his obtuse actions in recent history seem to say that it's time for this horse to be put out to pasture. Mr. Gilmore, I think it's time to pack your bags and move to a beach in Bermuda and enjoy your piles of money. Or perhaps feelings of guilt at being uncommonly rich are what drives you to do these things?
You mean people actually buy some of that crap?
Unfortunately, stupid people do fall for it. If you send out a million spams, you are absolutely guaranteed to get some responses. Spam is very very cheap to send, so costs are almost nil. But if you get a 0.01% response to said spammage, that's 100 customers for almost no cost. If your spam is crafty, you can probably get much better than a 0.01% response rate.
This is what makes spam worthwhile for spammers to send out, and why it will never end of its own accord.