I was talking with someone a few months back about people who register theirname.com and out of curiosity looked up mine. Before I knew it, I was looking at probably the same abortion pictures you were. Weird stuff. It's a frameset with the bigger frame opening up a page at abortionismurder.com.
Hmm... I'm sure I could sue for the domain pretty successfully... Nah, I'm not nearly that narcissistic.
Google has refused to address this issue. They do not respond to inquiries about why they need a cookie that expires in 2038
Perhaps because they don't require a cookie to use their serivce? The only Google cookie I have is the one that identifies my searching preferences (English pages only, 20 results per page), and I accepted that voluntarily. I used their site for years without it and was never told I needed a cookie for anything until I customized my prefs.
You don't like their cookie, don't accept it. It's your choice, and this choice won't affect the ability to use their site.
I know the Apple store in Newport Beach, CA, was showing it at 6:00am this morning (presumably live, given the ungodly hour). Employees were invited in to watch it. I don't know if it was open to the public or if they're replaying it throughout the day.
Troll? Hardly. I suggest you look up the meaning of the term. You'll see that my post was in no way a troll.
You made a fairly unbelievable[1] claim and when I asked for evidence (the burden of proof being on you, the one making the claim) you are either unwilling or unable to provide it. So yes, I think you are likely mistaken. And you call me a troll. *yawn*
[1] Unbelievable because it's unlikely that Earthlink has open relays and have somehow evaded being listed on the MAPS RSS and similar blacklists.
Correction: KSPC is 88.7. Reception may be kinda dodgy in the Los Angeles area, but as you move east it will clear up. It's a college station in Claremont, about 30 - 40 miles east of LA.
Please post the fully qualified name or IP address of a single open mail relay on Earthlink's mail network. Please also include complete headers of an e-mail you've relayed through that server from somewhere off-network.
An interesting aside, according to "Weaving the Web" by Tim Berners-Lee (which I'm currently in the middle of reading), the U in URL originally stood for Universal.
Re:Eight (Re:Six) simple steps to win the lawsuit
on
RIAA to Sue You Now
·
· Score: 1
Where 7. is possibly "Sue the RIAA for harassment".
If my girlfriend is sharing mp3s using LimeWire on her computer, am I going to get sued because the cable service is in my name? How are they going to know it was her and not me?
They won't know and they don't care. Ultimately, you're responsible for what happens with your internet account, be it the dial-up account you gave someone the password to or the cable modem you let someone else use. Just like someone who leaves their WAP open to the public is going to find their account terminated if someone spams through it (and quite rightly, I might add), you can be sued by the RIAA if your cable modem is used to swap.mp3s without permission (setting aside the moral argument of whether or not they should be suing you for it).
Are you going to try to pass the buck onto your girlfriend if you get sued?
And odds are, you aren't recycling that junk mail are you?
From the original post:
... the sound of it hit the recycling bin.
I recycle all my junk mail too. I've got a recycle can right next to my trash can for it (and other recyclables, of course). It beats just trashing it.
1) Reject anything coming from a site whose URL contains the strings "fuck" or "suck". There are many ways to evade that, like thinking of a non-obscene synonym, but most people with enough imagination have real work to do... (This might be a good thing to add to any business web site setup, BTW.)
A better solution would be to only accept certain approved host headers at the server.
I currently use mod_rewrite to redirect any name but "www.example.net" (where example is the domain in question) to www.example.net:
RewriteEngine on
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www\.example\.net [NC]
RewriteRule ^/(.*) http://www.example.net/$1 [L,R]
This catches "example.net" (no "www"), the server's IP address, and any other alias the server answers to (mail, ftp, whatever).Modify this a little to redirect these to the correct name and redirect anything else to an error page. This is for Apache; I assume you can do something similar with other web servers.
As another poster pointed out, doing this in the server config eliminates the need to add code to all your pages.
Forgive me for stating the obvious, but you're seeing TV commercials and/. banner ads in exchange for the content you are not paying for (ie, the TV program, the/. stories and comments). There is a world of difference between these examples and spam e-mail.
I don't want to be too redundant, but I'd like to add a dissenting opinion about MWave. I posted a comment about them previously and thought it would be more appropriate here.
Anecdotal, yes. It's just my $.02. While they're definitely cheap, they aren't that much cheaper and avoiding the hassles is worth the few extra dollars to me.
Under 'Active Scripting', select disable. While it's possibly confusing that they call it "active scripting" instead of JavaScript (probably because IE supports client-side VBScript too... *twitch*), the option is in the same place it's always been.
With the exeption of a classical station I occasionally listen to, I haven't listened to commercial radio in years. College stations excepted, but then, they don't have the problems Clear Channel and any other "popular" music format stations have.
And then there is a really damn good reason for doing this. Putting their information on that header also correctly indicates the source of the posting, so it is a valuable tool for tracing a culprit of USENET spam, a task for which I would gladly grant the ISP's the use of that silly header.
No, the Organization: line simply cannot be trusted as an accurate indication of where a post came from. Sure, RR users will say "Roadrunner" there, but it's trivial for me to change my Organization: line to Roadrunner before posting through my Supernews account. Anyone trusting that header will then report my (theoretical) abuse to RR instead of the actual service it originated from.
NNTP-Posting-Host:, Message-ID:, and X-Complaints-To: headers already exist for this purpose. Organization: headers would only be useful if every newsserver, without exception, forces them this way.
Anything in Microsoft's NT line (NT4, 2000, XP) absolutely does not give every user root (or in Windows-ese, "System") level access. Even the Administrator account doesn't have complete system access.
Slashdot Mirror
Mee too </aol>
I was talking with someone a few months back about people who register theirname.com and out of curiosity looked up mine. Before I knew it, I was looking at probably the same abortion pictures you were. Weird stuff. It's a frameset with the bigger frame opening up a page at abortionismurder.com.
Hmm... I'm sure I could sue for the domain pretty successfully... Nah, I'm not nearly that narcissistic.
Google has refused to address this issue. They do not respond to inquiries about why they need a cookie that expires in 2038
Perhaps because they don't require a cookie to use their serivce? The only Google cookie I have is the one that identifies my searching preferences (English pages only, 20 results per page), and I accepted that voluntarily. I used their site for years without it and was never told I needed a cookie for anything until I customized my prefs.
You don't like their cookie, don't accept it. It's your choice, and this choice won't affect the ability to use their site.
See .sig :)
I know the Apple store in Newport Beach, CA, was showing it at 6:00am this morning (presumably live, given the ungodly hour). Employees were invited in to watch it. I don't know if it was open to the public or if they're replaying it throughout the day.
Troll? Hardly. I suggest you look up the meaning of the term. You'll see that my post was in no way a troll.
You made a fairly unbelievable[1] claim and when I asked for evidence (the burden of proof being on you, the one making the claim) you are either unwilling or unable to provide it. So yes, I think you are likely mistaken. And you call me a troll. *yawn*
[1] Unbelievable because it's unlikely that Earthlink has open relays and have somehow evaded being listed on the MAPS RSS and similar blacklists.
Correction: KSPC is 88.7. Reception may be kinda dodgy in the Los Angeles area, but as you move east it will clear up. It's a college station in Claremont, about 30 - 40 miles east of LA.
Please post the fully qualified name or IP address of a single open mail relay on Earthlink's mail network. Please also include complete headers of an e-mail you've relayed through that server from somewhere off-network.
I highly doubt you have anything to back this up.
An interesting aside, according to "Weaving the Web" by Tim Berners-Lee (which I'm currently in the middle of reading), the U in URL originally stood for Universal.
Where 7. is possibly "Sue the RIAA for harassment".
If my girlfriend is sharing mp3s using LimeWire on her computer, am I going to get sued because the cable service is in my name? How are they going to know it was her and not me?
They won't know and they don't care. Ultimately, you're responsible for what happens with your internet account, be it the dial-up account you gave someone the password to or the cable modem you let someone else use. Just like someone who leaves their WAP open to the public is going to find their account terminated if someone spams through it (and quite rightly, I might add), you can be sued by the RIAA if your cable modem is used to swap .mp3s without permission (setting aside the moral argument of whether or not they should be suing you for it).
Are you going to try to pass the buck onto your girlfriend if you get sued?
No need. Will Smith already hax0red it with a Powerbook.
And odds are, you aren't recycling that junk mail are you?
From the original post:
I recycle all my junk mail too. I've got a recycle can right next to my trash can for it (and other recyclables, of course). It beats just trashing it.
1) Reject anything coming from a site whose URL contains the strings "fuck" or "suck". There are many ways to evade that, like thinking of a non-obscene synonym, but most people with enough imagination have real work to do... (This might be a good thing to add to any business web site setup, BTW.)
A better solution would be to only accept certain approved host headers at the server.
I currently use mod_rewrite to redirect any name but "www.example.net" (where example is the domain in question) to www.example.net:
This catches "example.net" (no "www"), the server's IP address, and any other alias the server answers to (mail, ftp, whatever).Modify this a little to redirect these to the correct name and redirect anything else to an error page. This is for Apache; I assume you can do something similar with other web servers.
As another poster pointed out, doing this in the server config eliminates the need to add code to all your pages.
Forgive me for stating the obvious, but you're seeing TV commercials and /. banner ads in exchange for the content you are not paying for (ie, the TV program, the /. stories and comments). There is a world of difference between these examples and spam e-mail.
I don't want to be too redundant, but I'd like to add a dissenting opinion about MWave. I posted a comment about them previously and thought it would be more appropriate here.
Anecdotal, yes. It's just my $.02. While they're definitely cheap, they aren't that much cheaper and avoiding the hassles is worth the few extra dollars to me.
From the article:
The comment about VCRs was from Charles Van Horn, president of the International Recording Media Association, not from a Circuit City representative.
MSIE used to have the ability to turn off javascript. Why was this feature removed?
What are you talking about?
Tools | Internet Options | Security (tab) | Custom Level (button)
Under 'Active Scripting', select disable. While it's possibly confusing that they call it "active scripting" instead of JavaScript (probably because IE supports client-side VBScript too... *twitch*), the option is in the same place it's always been.
Should I take "Alpha" to be the warning that it sounds like it is, or would it be safe to try it out now?
To quote from www.php.net:
This is an alpha version. It should not be used in production or even semi-production web sites.
I would take their word for it :)
But that's ok because someone doing this is going to be targetting IE users, not Mozilla. There is no comparable option in IE.
That's why I have a 10 disc CD changer in my car.
With the exeption of a classical station I occasionally listen to, I haven't listened to commercial radio in years. College stations excepted, but then, they don't have the problems Clear Channel and any other "popular" music format stations have.
I dunno, is she cute? ;)
Not to mention X Day, 5 July 1998. Luckily, the world has failed to end every year since then as well. Praise "Bob".
And then there is a really damn good reason for doing this. Putting their information on that header also correctly indicates the source of the posting, so it is a valuable tool for tracing a culprit of USENET spam, a task for which I would gladly grant the ISP's the use of that silly header.
No, the Organization: line simply cannot be trusted as an accurate indication of where a post came from. Sure, RR users will say "Roadrunner" there, but it's trivial for me to change my Organization: line to Roadrunner before posting through my Supernews account. Anyone trusting that header will then report my (theoretical) abuse to RR instead of the actual service it originated from.
NNTP-Posting-Host:, Message-ID:, and X-Complaints-To: headers already exist for this purpose. Organization: headers would only be useful if every newsserver, without exception, forces them this way.
Insightful? More like just plain wrong.
Anything in Microsoft's NT line (NT4, 2000, XP) absolutely does not give every user root (or in Windows-ese, "System") level access. Even the Administrator account doesn't have complete system access.
I don't remember exactly how I found out about that. I probably read it in a comment here, actually.