There's an easy way to get around the heat issue: redesign so the heat isn't generated in the first place.
I've seen lectures demonstrating solutions for many of the heat issues. At the University of Utah there are research projects (with a bunch of funding from Intel and IBM, where the results are being targetted at production) which tackle the issue of how to use fully asynchronous circuits within a standard CPU, and how to eliminate the refresh of the entire CPU on each clock cycle. Without getting into the specifics (they're all detailed on their web site), the result is a CPU which uses far less current for the same results, while at least doubling its speed due to the improved performance of the asynchronous algorithms. Anyway, heat will be far less an issue as Intel and others make more use of these techniques. And CPU's will be much more appropriate for portable computers, since the power requirement drops significantly.
Easy there firebreather, I made no claim that the GPL was wrong or spurious. My remark that the document (!= GPL) I had read might have been wrong or spurious was intended to prevent precisely the kind of knee-jerk flame that I got back.
Perhaps I should restate my question in historical terms. Wasn't the GPL written to address the need to make code publicly available without the risk that it would get eaten up and not be publicly available anyway? What is philosophically wrong with someone using open source code in conjunction with proprietary code, as long as they don't restrict what they got? As I (little old me) understand it, the idea of an open source copyright is to protect your freedom to distribute your code, not to prevent others from using it as they see fit, yesno? (Responses -= reflexive flames).
Music should be GPL. That way I can have the source to the music, change it, and recompile it as music-2.3.8 and let other people download and use the changes I have made. Then we can package it and call it Music 6.0, oh wait, never mind about the Music 6.0 thing, let's just call it music.:)
"...you are taking money your state would usually get from sales tax." Nonsense. The state collects sales tax because they have sales related costs (zoning, road maintenance, etc). The question is: What Internet sales related costs does the state have? Answering "well, we've always gotten this money therefore we are entitled to it" is not an answer. --- Put Hemos through English 101!
"The person who receives the bounce may not know what to do about a relay upstream from them, but if they report it to their ISP perhaps a call from another admin might get the problem fixed. "
Assuming that
The first ISP gives a crap
The first ISP can find the middle ISP
The middle ISP gives a crap/is competent
You have 3 weeks to spare waiting for all this to happen
"It has to work this way, or spammers could simply forge a non-relaying SMTP host at the beginning of the message and bypass the checks."
I don't understand what you are saying. --- Put Hemos through English 101!
The Golden Rule is: "Treat others as you would have them treat you". This says nothing about ignoring your own payoff. In fact, what it says is "When you want to increase your own payoff, increase the other guy's, too." "...Raymond's Comedy of the Commons, where a cooperative few can support a large number of non-cooperators." You should distinguish between coding non-cooperators (Microsoft, etc) and user non-cooperators (non-programming Linux users, etc). The first can be excluded by such simple means as the GPL (see www.az.com/~drysdam/GPL-as-strategy.html). The second group is not a tragedy since there is no pool of resources being used up. --- Put Hemos through English 101!
1) MS Exhange doesn't (in fact, can't) relay, but doesn't report this fact to the sender. So your method would automatically block all mail coming from Exchange. This is not necessarily a killer, but...
2) There might be multiple SMTP servers between the originator and you. If the first one relays but the rest don't you will still get spam.
The general concensus on several different anti-spam mailing lists is that SpamCop, while somewhat useful, frequently misidentifies the source of the spam. One of the many problems is that many older Sendmail 8.6 systems used by spammers don't correctly identify the source of the email comming through the relay. They blindly stamp on anything you tell them in the HELO statement without any verification.
Not only are quality, reliability and choice possible with proprietary software, but each of those has a "good enough" variant that is very dangerous. And, unfortunate as it may be, many in the "Open Source" community are accepting "good enough" Free Software, too. --- Put Hemos through English 101!
Of a story I heard about a guy who went to RadioShack and gave all kinds of crazy information. ("Name: King Solomon", etc) The counter-jockey is annoyed but accepts the information (what else is he going to do?). At the end the RS grunt has to ask "Is all this information accurate?" and the guy says "No. Now ring up my purchase." --- Put Hemos through English 101!
(Sorry about premature posting on the last one... damn tab button) I don't claim any sort of expert status on the GPL, but I once read a statement about the GPL that came with an old version of GCC explaining the intent, written by Richard Stallman. This document made it pretty clear that the intent was only to ensure that code, once GPLed, could not subsequently be removed from the public domain. That is, whatever code you got under GPL, you may not restrict distribution of in any way. This does not exclude (the document explicitly said so!) developing proprietary binaries that use the GPLed code, as long as you only restrict the parts you have added. Stallman explained that this allowed companies to use open source code in proprietary programs without needing to copyright and eat up the existing public domain code.
Seems to me that Microworkz is allowed to do what they're doing. Was this document wrong or spurious? Has the GPL been changed? Has anyone asked Richard Stallman?
I don't claim any sort of expert status on the GPL, but I once read a statement about the GPL that came with an old version of GCC explaining the intent, written by Richard Stallman.
I just used it to report a spam and it (apparently) worked great. Couple of problems though: 1) I had to give a valid email to use the service. Upside is it allows "throwaway" addresses and they even provide one-use addresses to subscribers. 2) The report sent to the admins is kind of ugly. No explanation or "how to fix", but a bunch of headers and ugliness. 3) The website itself, while it works fine, is amazingly ugly. 16pt black type on yellow background, etc. --- Put Hemos through English 101!
If you want to be anonymous, try going to hotmail, yahoo mail, deja or one of the other "free mail" web sites and set up a new account. Give them FALSE INFORMATION. In many states it's not illegal to give false information if there is no fraudulent intent.
After all if they're forced to disclose account info they'll come looking for the person whom you made up. Granted logs of IP addresses can be tracked back to you, but there's always www.anonymizer.com ot get around that.
In my experience you should not have a problem adding a third ide controller, as long as you have the resources - especially if its pci. Linux does have to support it though, but I think that Linux supports tertiary, and quadriary IDE controllers. Basically, plug it in and it should work..
The Linux Journal has an article on the Stuttgart Neural Network Simulator. Great article! You can get the SNNS at http://www.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/ipvr/bv/pro jekte/snns/snns.html
Slashdot Mirror
Posted by Forward The Light Brigade:
nope if you DISTRIBUTE bins
you have to DISTRIBUTE source
nothing about changing matters
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
The SEC is US-only. SuSe is German.
---
Put Hemos through English 101!
Posted by 2B||!2B:
There's an easy way to get around the heat issue: redesign so the heat isn't generated in the first place.
I've seen lectures demonstrating solutions for many of the heat issues. At the University of Utah there are research projects (with a bunch of funding from Intel and IBM, where the results are being targetted at production) which tackle the issue of how to use fully asynchronous circuits within a standard CPU, and how to eliminate the refresh of the entire CPU on each clock cycle. Without getting into the specifics (they're all detailed on their web site), the result is a CPU which uses far less current for the same results, while at least doubling its speed due to the improved performance of the asynchronous algorithms. Anyway, heat will be far less an issue as Intel and others make more use of these techniques. And CPU's will be much more appropriate for portable computers, since the power requirement drops significantly.
http://www.async.elen.utah.edu/
http://www.cs.utah.edu/projects/acs/
Posted by EZ E:
Easy there firebreather, I made no claim that the GPL was wrong or spurious. My remark that the document (!= GPL) I had read might have been wrong or spurious was intended to prevent precisely the kind of knee-jerk flame that I got back.
Perhaps I should restate my question in historical terms. Wasn't the GPL written to address the need to make code publicly available without the risk that it would get eaten up and not be publicly available anyway? What is philosophically wrong with someone using open source code in conjunction with proprietary code, as long as they don't restrict what they got? As I (little old me) understand it, the idea of an open source copyright is to protect your freedom to distribute your code, not to prevent others from using it as they see fit, yesno? (Responses -= reflexive flames).
EE
Posted by Fatz2001:
:)
Music should be GPL. That way I can have the source to the music, change it, and recompile it as music-2.3.8 and let other people download and use the changes I have made. Then we can package it and call it Music 6.0, oh wait, never mind about the Music 6.0 thing, let's just call it music.
BTW, Slashdot this:
http://www.linuxhaven.com
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
"...you are taking money your state would usually get from sales tax."
Nonsense. The state collects sales tax because they have sales related costs (zoning, road maintenance, etc). The question is: What Internet sales related costs does the state have? Answering "well, we've always gotten this money therefore we are entitled to it" is not an answer.
---
Put Hemos through English 101!
"The person who receives the bounce may not know what to do about a relay upstream from them, but if they report it to their ISP perhaps a call from another admin might get the problem fixed. "
Assuming that
"It has to work this way, or spammers could simply forge a non-relaying SMTP host at the beginning of the message and bypass the checks."
I don't understand what you are saying.
---
Put Hemos through English 101!
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
The Golden Rule is: "Treat others as you would have them treat you". This says nothing about ignoring your own payoff. In fact, what it says is "When you want to increase your own payoff, increase the other guy's, too."
"...Raymond's Comedy of the Commons, where a cooperative few can support a large number of non-cooperators."
You should distinguish between coding non-cooperators (Microsoft, etc) and user non-cooperators (non-programming Linux users, etc). The first can be excluded by such simple means as the GPL (see www.az.com/~drysdam/GPL-as-strategy.html).
The second group is not a tragedy since there is no pool of resources being used up.
---
Put Hemos through English 101!
Posted by The Mongolian Barbecue:
and here I thought I'd just be moderated to -1 and ignored. Thanks for the witty replies =)
Posted by The Mongolian Barbecue:
the only true distro is a manual one, installed via hexediting a hard drive. The rest of you are sell-outs and losers. I have spoken.
Posted by DonR:
One of my favorite scenes in Half-Life:
See two soliders standing around a corner, talking to each other. Equip crossbow.
*thwack* Bolt in the back of the first ones head.
Second soldier keeps on walking and talking, as if his budy were there.
---
Donald Roeber
Posted by The Mongolian Barbecue:
fill in random garbage for all registration fields. It doesn't check email addresses.
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
1) MS Exhange doesn't (in fact, can't) relay, but doesn't report this fact to the sender. So your method would automatically block all mail coming from Exchange. This is not necessarily a killer, but...
2) There might be multiple SMTP servers between the originator and you. If the first one relays but the rest don't you will still get spam.
---
Put Hemos through English 101!
Posted by wtr:
The general concensus on several different anti-spam mailing lists is that SpamCop, while somewhat useful, frequently misidentifies the source of the spam. One of the many problems is that many older Sendmail 8.6 systems used by spammers don't correctly identify the source of the email comming through the relay. They blindly stamp on anything you tell them in the HELO statement without any verification.
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
Not only are quality, reliability and choice possible with proprietary software, but each of those has a "good enough" variant that is very dangerous. And, unfortunate as it may be, many in the "Open Source" community are accepting "good enough" Free Software, too.
---
Put Hemos through English 101!
Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:
Isn't that grammar?
LK
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
Of a story I heard about a guy who went to RadioShack and gave all kinds of crazy information. ("Name: King Solomon", etc) The counter-jockey is annoyed but accepts the information (what else is he going to do?). At the end the RS grunt has to ask "Is all this information accurate?" and the guy says "No. Now ring up my purchase."
---
Put Hemos through English 101!
Posted by EZ E:
(Sorry about premature posting on the last one... damn tab button)
I don't claim any sort of expert status on the GPL, but I once read a statement about the GPL that came with an old version of GCC explaining the intent, written by Richard Stallman.
This document made it pretty clear that the intent was only to ensure that code, once GPLed, could not subsequently be removed from the public domain. That is, whatever code you got under GPL, you may not restrict distribution of in any way. This does not exclude (the document explicitly said so!) developing proprietary binaries that use the GPLed code, as long as you only restrict the parts you have added. Stallman explained that this allowed companies to use open source code in proprietary programs without needing to copyright and eat up the existing public domain code.
Seems to me that Microworkz is allowed to do what they're doing. Was this document wrong or spurious? Has the GPL been changed? Has anyone asked Richard Stallman?
Posted by EZ E:
I don't claim any sort of expert status on the GPL, but I once read a statement about the GPL that came with an old version of GCC explaining the intent, written by Richard Stallman.
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
Try this one, too...
---
Put Hemos through English 101!
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
I think the poster was refering the IDP (Internet Death Penalty) for sysadmins who knowingly send/allow spam.
---
Put Hemos through English 101!
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
I just used it to report a spam and it (apparently) worked great. Couple of problems though: 1) I had to give a valid email to use the service. Upside is it allows "throwaway" addresses and they even provide one-use addresses to subscribers. 2) The report sent to the admins is kind of ugly. No explanation or "how to fix", but a bunch of headers and ugliness. 3) The website itself, while it works fine, is amazingly ugly. 16pt black type on yellow background, etc.
---
Put Hemos through English 101!
Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:
If you want to be anonymous, try going to hotmail, yahoo mail, deja or one of the other "free mail" web sites and set up a new account. Give them FALSE INFORMATION. In many states it's not illegal to give false information if there is no fraudulent intent.
After all if they're forced to disclose account info they'll come looking for the person whom you made up. Granted logs of IP addresses can be tracked back to you, but there's always www.anonymizer.com ot get around that.
LK
Posted by The Technical Revolutionary:
In my experience you should not have a problem adding a third ide controller, as long as you have the resources - especially if its pci. Linux does have to support it though, but I think that Linux supports tertiary, and quadriary IDE controllers. Basically, plug it in and it should work..
Posted by Critical Mass:
o jekte/snns/snns.html
The Linux Journal has an article on the Stuttgart Neural Network Simulator. Great article! You can get the SNNS at http://www.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/ipvr/bv/pr