You might not believe it but that's a major reason. I don't know about you but arguments like "You get what you pay for", "There's no such thing as a free lunch" and "It's free if you consider your own time [setting up the system] worthless" tend to be rather convincing.
Only a fool thinks price and value are the same.
-- Antonio Machado
You're stupid. The idea is to only accept mail from.mail TLDs because they have been verified.
Ooh, nice riposte there. Where'd you learn that, kindergarden? How about this: I'M NOT GOING TO WASTE MONEY ON ANOTHER FUCKING DOMAIN NAME JUST BECUSE A BUNCH OF ASSHOLES (SPAMMERS) SEE FIT TO ABUSE THE NETWORK. Furthermore, this stupid plan wouldn't work anyways.
Although I remember a rollable, waterproof keyboard from a while back, I couldn't find the link to their website (that last link is to mine). The above results, however, were from a quick google of "washable keyboard". Geez, you'd think you people had never heard of Google.
Am I the only one who had a computer science ethics course in college? I know there are some other (a href="http://www.nmt.edu">'Techies here who are also CS, and they can tell you that in this required course, we heard about not only the Therac-25 incident, but other ones as well.
This course is interesting in that it was a bit like the "civics" course in Heinlein's "Starship Troopers"; you don't get a grade for it (it's pass/fail), and it's required, but it's mostly discussion and reading.
Newsgroups. There are groups dedicated to recipe trading (rec.food.recipes), and on EVERY group the regulars will occasionally post their favorite recipe for something, especially if they just hacked together some good food. Just do a Google Groups search for whatever you want...it's there.
There was a slashdot comment a while back to this effect which actually gave explicit instructions. I saved it (a find is running as I type). Ah, there it is, "Googling for Recipes":
Any time you want a recipe for anything, here's how to find it.
1. Go to Google Groups [google.com]. (Or you can go to the main Google site and click on Groups, which gets you to the same place.) 2. Click on Advanced Groups Search. 3. For newsgroup, fill in rec.food.recipes. 4. Fill in your other search criteria. In this case, I put in the exact phrase hot and sour soup 5. Click the button 6. There will be more recipes than you actually want to try, so you'll have to go through the results [google.com] and pick out the ones that sound most apetising.
This has worked quite well for me, and I apologize as I did not keep the slashdot headers to identify the original author. If it's you're reading this, please speak up.
Re:I don't get it
on
Gates on Spam
·
· Score: 2, Informative
2. lookup domain of sender. If does not resolve, discard.
There is already a patch for this (at least for qmail). The others wouldn't be too tricky.
Attention Bill Gates
on
Gates on Spam
·
· Score: 4, Funny
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses (X) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected (X) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money (X) It is defenseless against brute force attacks (X) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it (X) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it (X) Requires too much cooperation from spammers (X) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once (X) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it (X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email (X) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses (X) Asshats ( ) Jurisdictional problems (X) Unpopularity of weird new taxes (X) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money (X) Huge existing software investment in SMTP (X) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack (X) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email (X) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes (X) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches (X) Extreme profitability of spam (X) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians (X) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers (X) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks (X) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually (X) Sending email should be free (X) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? (X) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses (X) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I don't want the government reading my email ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. (X) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. (X) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
I'm getting some forged emails lately, badly forged at that, which look like they're coming from my ISP, "warning viruses being sent from your account", "warning immenent suspension", etc. They have a pif file atteched (which I never open) and have been coming from.lt or.gr servers (my ISP would not likely be using these.) Looks to me like another brand of worm on the rounds and there's a morbid sense of humor behind it.
Yeah, I've gotten those too. The really funny thing? I *own* the domain name and the mail server, and I have complete control over the accounts/email addresses. So when I see a "WARNING: YOU WERE CAUGHT SENDING VIRUSES, YOUR ACCOUNT WILL BE TURNED OFF" coming from administrator@mydomain.org, I think to myself "I don't remember sending that. In fact, I don't remember even/making/ that email address. Who do these fuckwits think they're fooling?" and promptly send it off to spamcop.
The reason they get to decide is because of the DMCA, an act passed by our representatives in government. People that we elected. Is this situation a problem? Yes. Who's fault is it? Ours.
Wrong, at least in my case. I didn't vote for the fuckers, and it sure as hell wasn't my money that lobbied to have them vote in favor of DRM.
Besides, in this case, this has nothing to do with government. This is a corporation responding to "market forces" (those forces being media corporations that will buy this technology). The proper response is to boycott. Don't use DRM and you kill two birds with one stone: boycotting the company and not allowing yourself to be restricted.
They are fools that think that wealth or women or strong drink or even drugs can buy the most in effort out of the soul of a man. These things offer pale pleasures compared to that which is greatest of them all, that task which demands from him more than his utmost strength, that absorbs him, bone and sinew and brain and hope and fear and dreams -- and still calls for more.
They are fools that think otherwise. No great effort was ever bought. No painting, no music, no poem, no cathedral in stone, no church, no state was ever raised into being for payment of any kind. No parthenon, no Thermopylae was ever built or fought for pay or glory; no Bukhara sacked, or China ground beneath Mongol heel, for loot or power alone. The payment for doing these things was itself the doing of them.
To wield onself -- to use oneself as a tool in one's own hand -- and so to make or break that which no one else can build or ruin -- THAT is the greatest pleasure known to man! To one who has felt the chisel in his hand and set free the angel prisoned in the marble block, or to one who has felt sword in hand and set homeless the soul that a moment before lived in the body of his mortal enemy -- to those both come alike the taste of that rare food spread only for demons or for gods."
-- Gordon R. Dickson, "Soldier Ask Not"
Warning: OS detection will be MUCH less reliable because we did not find at least 1 open and 1 closed TCP port Interesting ports on m1.search.vip.dcn.yahoo.com (216.109.117.133): (The 1656 ports scanned but not shown below are in state: filtered) PORT STATE SERVICE 80/tcp open http Device type: general purpose Running: Apple Mac OS X 10.1.X OS details: Apple Mac OS X 10.1.5
Hmm, do I detect the acrid scent of mac zealotry? Which version of nmap are you using? Or maybe you just fudged the results. Hey, look, I can do that too!
Warning: OS detection will be MUCH less reliable because we did not find at least 1 open and 1 closed TCP port Interesting ports on w1.rc.vip.scd.yahoo.com (66.218.71.198): (The 1553 ports scanned but not shown below are in state: filtered) Port State Service Owner 80/tcp open http Device type: general purpose Running: Debian GNU/Linux 3.1r5 OS details: Debian GNU/Linux 3.1r5 Dick length of admin: 16 meters
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses (x) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected (x) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks (x) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it (x) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it (x) Requires too much cooperation from spammers (x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once (x) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it (x) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses ( ) Asshats ( ) Jurisdictional problems (x) Unpopularity of weird new taxes (x) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money (x) Huge existing software investment in SMTP (x) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email (x) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches ( ) Extreme profitability of spam (x) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians (x) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Microsoft ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Yahoo (x) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks (x) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually (x) Sending email should be free (x) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I don't want the government reading my email ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(x) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. (x) This is a stupid idea, and you're stupid for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
Sorry to say, dude. But your site is rather crappy. Besides the bad visual "design" it took over a minute to load about 4k of text.
Where are you accessing from? True, I don't have a T1 line, but it shouldn't have been that slow.
I am willing to improve it, I just need more constructive and detailed feedback.
Okay, I justed tested, and it took eleven (11) seconds to load from off site. That's not too bad considering it's DSL.
The design is slashdot based (using squishdot), so I'm not sure what's bad about the visual design, but then, I've never been much of a visual designer.
Linus did not "endorse" DRM on Linux
on
Linux and DRM?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Linus Torvalds has already endorsed DRM on the Linux platform.
Linus did NOT "endorse" DRM on Linux; he merely said he wouldn't disallow it.
Geez, talk about RTFA. Now the posters don't even bother to do it.
It's free to me for one reason alone: Internet Advertising.
False. Just because you think that everyone is greedy doesn't make it true. There are some people who are willing to give away information without bogging it down with ads. For instance, I run my own webserver with lots of documentation available for browsing. I pay for it - all of it - out of my own pocket. I have no banner ads, no corporate sponsorship, no government funding. I keep it up because it's useful to me and I like to think I'm giving back to those on the Internet who have done so much for me.
Slashdot Mirror
Ooh, nice riposte there. Where'd you learn that, kindergarden? How about this: I'M NOT GOING TO WASTE MONEY ON ANOTHER FUCKING DOMAIN NAME JUST BECUSE A BUNCH OF ASSHOLES (SPAMMERS) SEE FIT TO ABUSE THE NETWORK. Furthermore, this stupid plan wouldn't work anyways.
A: Run Linux. Next question.
Not to mention the Linux version. Hmm, maybe now's the time to make a sympathetic version, like the sympathetic UNIX virus?
Damn, and I thought I was just being subversive by having this in my pocket.
I think everyone should have an ACLU Pocket Card on Police Encounters. I'm tempted to make some more and start handing them out.
Any book that says "for power users" isn't.
They have:
http://www.inpace.com/flexi.html
http://www.iscdfw.com/onlinecatalog/Keyboards/key
http://www.2opinion.com/accessories/flexkey.htm
http://www.edgereview.com/ataglance.cfm?category=
http://www.chatability.co.uk/Washable%20Keyboard&
Although I remember a rollable, waterproof keyboard from a while back, I couldn't find the link to their website (that last link is to mine). The above results, however, were from a quick google of "washable keyboard". Geez, you'd think you people had never heard of Google.
(this also applies to Linux)
My rule of thumb: I'll support you for free if you use Linux. I'll tell you to call Apple if you use a Mac.
This course is interesting in that it was a bit like the "civics" course in Heinlein's "Starship Troopers"; you don't get a grade for it (it's pass/fail), and it's required, but it's mostly discussion and reading.
Ah, so I can sit and laugh evilly at all my red meat eating friends while I drink my tea?
(NB - I eat red meat occasionally too, but I'm an avid tea drinker. A pot is brewing as I type this.)
There was a slashdot comment a while back to this effect which actually gave explicit instructions. I saved it (a find is running as I type). Ah, there it is, "Googling for Recipes":
This has worked quite well for me, and I apologize as I did not keep the slashdot headers to identify the original author. If it's you're reading this, please speak up.
There is already a patch for this (at least for qmail). The others wouldn't be too tricky.
You advocate a
(X) technical ( ) legislative (X) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
(X) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
(X) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
(X) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
(X) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(X) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
(X) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
(X) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
(X) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
(X) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(X) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
(X) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
(X) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
(X) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
(X) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
(X) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
(X) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
(X) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
(X) Extreme profitability of spam
(X) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
(X) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
(X) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
(X) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
(X) Sending email should be free
(X) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
(X) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
(X) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
(X) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
(X) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!
Yeah, I've gotten those too. The really funny thing? I *own* the domain name and the mail server, and I have complete control over the accounts/email addresses. So when I see a "WARNING: YOU WERE CAUGHT SENDING VIRUSES, YOUR ACCOUNT WILL BE TURNED OFF" coming from administrator@mydomain.org, I think to myself "I don't remember sending that. In fact, I don't remember even
. . . did the karaoke scene from "I Still Know What you did Last Summer"?
Wrong, at least in my case. I didn't vote for the fuckers, and it sure as hell wasn't my money that lobbied to have them vote in favor of DRM.
Besides, in this case, this has nothing to do with government. This is a corporation responding to "market forces" (those forces being media corporations that will buy this technology). The proper response is to boycott. Don't use DRM and you kill two birds with one stone: boycotting the company and not allowing yourself to be restricted.
Hmm, do I detect the acrid scent of mac zealotry? Which version of nmap are you using? Or maybe you just fudged the results. Hey, look, I can do that too!
(Apologies to those who have seen this before.)
You advocate a
( ) technical (x) legislative (x) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
(x) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
(x) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
(x) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(x) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
(x) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
(x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
(x) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(x) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( ) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
(x) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
(x) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
(x) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
(x) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
(x) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
(x) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
(x) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Microsoft
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Yahoo
(x) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
(x) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
(x) Sending email should be free
(x) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(x) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
(x) This is a stupid idea, and you're stupid for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
I admit that X is the second worst windowing system in the world, but
all the others I've used are tied for first.
-- Paul Tomblin
Where are you accessing from? True, I don't have a T1 line, but it shouldn't have been that slow.
I am willing to improve it, I just need more constructive and detailed feedback.
Okay, I justed tested, and it took eleven (11) seconds to load from off site. That's not too bad considering it's DSL.
The design is slashdot based (using squishdot), so I'm not sure what's bad about the visual design, but then, I've never been much of a visual designer.
Linus did NOT "endorse" DRM on Linux; he merely said he wouldn't disallow it.
Geez, talk about RTFA. Now the posters don't even bother to do it.
False. Just because you think that everyone is greedy doesn't make it true. There are some people who are willing to give away information without bogging it down with ads. For instance, I run my own webserver with lots of documentation available for browsing. I pay for it - all of it - out of my own pocket. I have no banner ads, no corporate sponsorship, no government funding. I keep it up because it's useful to me and I like to think I'm giving back to those on the Internet who have done so much for me.