MediaForce has been doing this in the US for some time. I did a little work in the Abuse department of a major ISP, and we received a lot of complaints from them, about our users trading copyrighted material.
Take a look at the later-model G3 iMacs and the G4 Cube; they have no fans. The Cube uses an external power supply, not inside the case, and it radiates heat like any adapter brick. The iMac has the power supply inside, and as hot air rises out the top it draws cool air in the bottom.
Obviously the iMac only works that way because it's also engineered not to produce very much heat; I wouldn't expect the same to be possible with your standard Athlon system. Even Apple's newer desktop systems don't run cool enough not to need fans. Still, it seems to me that some of the same concepts could be applied.
One of the reasons for having a fan on the power supply is to act as a case fan as well - it draws warm air out of the rest of the system, and cools the power supply on the way out. It seems to me you wouldn't want to just remove the power supply fan, unless you had another way of cooling the rest of the system.
It seems to me that there are two reasons for tabbed browsing:
1) to compensate for poor window navigation - it's too hard to keep track of and switch between open windows, so we use tabs, instead of trying to fix the operating system (window manager) so we don't have this problem across other applications. It's hard to switch between multiple windows in a word processor or spreadsheet app too, but the workaround only exists in some browsers.
2) opening a new tab is far faster than opening a new window. I can only assume this is because the code to open a new window isn't optimized for speed, while the code for opening a new tab within an existing window is, and since the developers use tabs, this won't change.
That said, I'm using tabs in Mozilla right now, because of these reasons.
I hate to say this, but I won't be surprised if Microsoft gets it right in the next version of Windows. XP is already working on addressing this issue, although from what I've seen so far it's not there yet.
Except of course there is no construct for "To Be" in Klingon. The linguist who designed it was a bit of a purist. Needless to say he had to do a bit of interesting work with the dialog to translate Hamlet's speach for the Undiscovered Country. LOL
In case anyone is wondering, the reason for this is that in Klingon, all adjectives are really verbs. For example, "to be big" or "to be green" are each one verb, so "the ship is big" is two words, "the ship" and "is big". I don't remember how that line was translated; I think a new verb "to be" was created, which is never used except in Shakespeare.
I think since QT was ported to OS X, it's easier to use native widgets with KHTML rather than gecko. Chimera for instance does not use real aqua text entry and widgets within the web page, but a theme that looks like they are.
Given that four billion people can't share a meaningful twenty character namespace, how do you suggest this problem is resolved?
26 letters in the alphabet (in English). Ten letters = 141 trillion combinations. If 1% of them are "meaningful", that's only 1.4 trillion. But you said 20 characters, not 10 - 26^20 = 19,928,148,895,209,409,152,340,197,376.
Why shouldn't a commercial business have a.com domain? Because you are an ISP, and the.net TLD was created for ISPs. I don't think there is an implication in the.net TLD that you are somehow non-profit.
You're suggesting that one company should only be allowed to use one domain name? Not a bad ideal, perhaps, but that's not the established rule (guess who owns cocacola.net and disney.org).
Ok, so IPs aren't fixed. You're missing my point - which is to have a system that *is* fixed and that is big enough for four billion people to share. Such a system surely cannot be impossible?
Nothing on the Internet is fixed, but domain names are usually pretty close, unless stolen or allowed to expire.
Re:Isn't deleting logs an obstruction of justice?
on
Cryptome Log Subpoenaed
·
· Score: 1, Troll
Actually, I would believe that a lot of people on/., and in this country in general, would quote the phrase "Give me freedom or give me death".
Ah, but how many of them would quote it correctly, and how many of them would attribute it to Ben Franklin?
Basing everything on IP addresses is stupid - IP address change as the network infrastructure changes, but hostnames keep on working. Until somebody takes our domain away.
Why shouldn't a commercial business have a.com domain?
I don't think you have a clear understanding of how DNS works, based on your e-mail suggestions and your notion that IP addresses are unchangeable.
You say our business was based on a flawed model. Perhaps the DNS system that had already existed for several years when our company was founded was indeed flawed, but I hardly think we can be blamed for working with the system.
Now Company B argues that they have a claim on www.widgets.com. Ok, now ICANN puts their foot down and states that a domain name is NOT a trademark, and offers to host www.widgets.com for both companies, with links to their main web pages, and possibly some descriptive text indicating what the different possibilities are. Company B's $1000 can go towards relocating company A's pages onto another server.
You're assuming that the only reason for having a domain name is just to use for a web page. That's just plain silly.
I work for what was a major national DSL ISP until a month ago. Their name used to be Telocity. Then they were bought out and renamed to DirecTV Broadband. Guess what domain names they currently use? telocity.com, telocity.net, tlct.net, directvdsl.com, directvinternet.com, directvbroadband.net, and a handful of others, each with a different purpose. Why didn't they simply stop using the first three? Because making sure nothing was using those domains anymore would cost a huge amount of time and money, and since they'd probably miss a few things here and there, a lot of things would break.
I don't really know how many things would break if they suddenly lost the tlct.net domain. I'm sure they could recover pretty quickly if they just made sure everything on the network was using their own DNS servers to resolve that domain. Sure, www.tlct.net is just a redirect that nobody uses, but there are plenty of other hostnames on that domain!
While Linux has been progressing nicely and people have been making money, who is paying the developer?
The developer's employer. RedHat is one example of a profitable company that employs developers to write GPL'd code. However, most GPL developers do it in their free time because it's what they like to do, not because it's what they're paid to do.
And the conclusion we came on is that Open Source is good for everybody, but the developer.
What developer? The developer who choose to release his own code under the GPL? Or the developer who wants to use somebody else's code that was released under the GPL, but doesn't want to release his modifications under the GPL?
But licenses like the GPL are not good for the developers who actually write the code. Those people cannot get paid what they are due. This is what closed source did.
Nothing forces developers to release their own original code under the GPL. If getting paid for the software is a significant motivation, then perhaps they should choose something else, but don't try to tell the rest of us what to do, just because what works for us doesn't suit your needs.
But the Open Sourcers today are takers.
There are users, and there are developers. It used to be that almost all users were also developers; now many users are not. If you're a developer, and you don't like people using your code without contributing to it, maybe you shouldn't let them use your code at all. However, this is actually one of the nice things about the GPL: if you're a developer, and you don't like companies modifying your code and then selling their modifications without compensating you, the GPL will prevent that from happening, while a BSD license won't. Naturally, if you prefer to allow companies to do this, the GPL is not for you.
No it isn't. Otherwise why are Apple buying up app vendors (I don't recall the name of the product i'm thinking of, some graphics/music program), and scaring all the customers silly because they think Apple will make them Mac only?
You may be thinking of Shake.
Except OS X isn't tinkerable at all. Practically all the code Apple has written is closed source, and the Mac parts of MacOS are generally only capable of doing things one way.
Hogwash. Just because it's closed-source doen't mean it's not tinkerable. Perhaps not to the extent you'd like, but really, how many end users hack the source code of their GUI? OSX has a ways to go, but it's quickly becoming more hackable than OS9 ever was, and if you don't think OS9 was hackable, well, you haven't known many Mac users.
Unlike every Linux and Windows, MacOS is still not capable of being themed by 3rd parties (unless you consider a grey version of the default a "theme").
Hogwash. I'm using a third-party theme right now. It happens to be an imitation of the Platinum theme from Mac OS 9, because that's what I happen to like, but there are others. Not a huge number of themes available, but it's a relatively new OS. They'll come.
And yes, this Platinum theme is a little quirky - it's got a funny little piece of something at the top of the scrollbar, no window borders, and a few other details aren't quite right. And, I've combined it with the Mozilla Classic theme from Mac OS 9, which is even quirkier with the OSX version of Mozilla. I'll probably go back to Modern. Anyway, like I said, give it time.
Isn't this how a blacklist is supposed to work? I thought the idea was precisely to annoy the honest users, such that they complain to the ISP. If the users know that they are blacklisted because of a spammer, they are likely to either leave the ISP or pressure it to turn the spammer off. It's not nice, but the intent is to get results.
Some people want blacklists to work this way, and indeed it can be an effective strategy. However, a blacklist is generally supposed to work by just blocking spam, without getting in the way of the honest users on systems that are NOT being used for spam.
If there's one open relay on a subnet and I want to block open relays, then that one open relay should be blocked, so I don't get spam. I still want to receive mail from the other 200 servers on the same subnet. Yes, blocking the other 200 will force the ISP to take action, but maybe the ISP would have taken action anyway? Maybe there's a better way to get them to take action? Maybe I want an RBL that will not list innocent servers such as those 200.
This isn't a huge problem for spammers. If they send you an HTML email, then just opening the email (or previewing it in Outlook) can provide the verification that they need.
I use Mozilla as my mail client, which is configured not to load images or execute scripts in HTML e-mail. If images are attached, they'll be displayed below the message (not inline), but images will not be loaded from a web server. If I really want to see the images in a particular piece of mail, I could always turn images back on, but I don't think I've had occasion to do this in several months.
Apple already ported Tk, although I haven't been able to get it to work. And the OS ships with python. So, if you have better luck than I've had with Tk, you should have no problem.
Um, the BSD part is open-source. The GUI on top is no less open-source than it's ever been. What are you complaining about?
Re:Traffic Lights
on
New Phrack
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Theres an article about hacking traffic lights. Do you think that now that the information is now open to a wide public, we will see traffic lights doing weird things?
Yes, it's normal. I think it's mostly because all the phone company's database systems are based around the idea that every account is tied to a telephone number. It's technically possible to run DSL over a dry pair with no voice service, but unless they assigned you a phone number, they'd have no way to track it (for billing and maintenance purposes). Of course their databases could be upgraded to handle this sort of thing, but these databases have been around since before the AT&T breakup.
I'm wondering why outlook is a 'government-mandated' app. It's hard to see the difference between an email generated by outlook or another email app. Why force people to use an app, while there are plenty of different compatible apps available?
Because Outlook is used for other things besides sending and receiving e-mail. If my boss sends me a meeting invitation, and I click Accept, I get a reminder popup 15 minutes before the meeting. I want other people on my team to be able to see certain e-mails, so I set up a rule to filter them into a folder with a few clicks of the mouse (the rule is stored server-side, not client-side, so it works when I'm offline), then I share that folder so each member of my team has access to it - maybe read-only access, maybe full read/write, depending on what I need - but they can't access the rest of my mail at all.
There are other ways of doing these things, and there are plenty of features in Outlook that I never use, but this stuff only works if everybody is doing it the same way, so you have to standardize on something, and Outlook is the existing standard. Managers love it. Try training a manager to set up appointments with something other than Outlook. They won't be happy.
I have been asked to sign a few NDAs, I just said "I'm taking them home to review them." I then never spoke of them again, and was never asked for them back.
geez, what's up with the underage thing? No, I mean women over 18, and the one I mentioned specifically is like.. 40ish or something; she's a Solaris sysadmin.
Slashdot Mirror
MediaForce has been doing this in the US for some time. I did a little work in the Abuse department of a major ISP, and we received a lot of complaints from them, about our users trading copyrighted material.
I'm surprised that the majority of posters are resorting to unimaginative "what BS" posts instead of thinking up innovative ideas.
;-)
So, you're new here? Welcome!
Take a look at the later-model G3 iMacs and the G4 Cube; they have no fans. The Cube uses an external power supply, not inside the case, and it radiates heat like any adapter brick. The iMac has the power supply inside, and as hot air rises out the top it draws cool air in the bottom.
Obviously the iMac only works that way because it's also engineered not to produce very much heat; I wouldn't expect the same to be possible with your standard Athlon system. Even Apple's newer desktop systems don't run cool enough not to need fans. Still, it seems to me that some of the same concepts could be applied.
One of the reasons for having a fan on the power supply is to act as a case fan as well - it draws warm air out of the rest of the system, and cools the power supply on the way out. It seems to me you wouldn't want to just remove the power supply fan, unless you had another way of cooling the rest of the system.
Hmm, I was going somewhere with this. Oh well.
It seems to me that there are two reasons for tabbed browsing:
1) to compensate for poor window navigation - it's too hard to keep track of and switch between open windows, so we use tabs, instead of trying to fix the operating system (window manager) so we don't have this problem across other applications. It's hard to switch between multiple windows in a word processor or spreadsheet app too, but the workaround only exists in some browsers.
2) opening a new tab is far faster than opening a new window. I can only assume this is because the code to open a new window isn't optimized for speed, while the code for opening a new tab within an existing window is, and since the developers use tabs, this won't change.
That said, I'm using tabs in Mozilla right now, because of these reasons.
I hate to say this, but I won't be surprised if Microsoft gets it right in the next version of Windows. XP is already working on addressing this issue, although from what I've seen so far it's not there yet.
Except of course there is no construct for "To Be" in Klingon. The linguist who designed it was a bit of a purist. Needless to say he had to do a bit of interesting work with the dialog to translate Hamlet's speach for the Undiscovered Country. LOL
In case anyone is wondering, the reason for this is that in Klingon, all adjectives are really verbs. For example, "to be big" or "to be green" are each one verb, so "the ship is big" is two words, "the ship" and "is big". I don't remember how that line was translated; I think a new verb "to be" was created, which is never used except in Shakespeare.
More general information here.
I think since QT was ported to OS X, it's easier to use native widgets with KHTML rather than gecko. Chimera for instance does not use real aqua text entry and widgets within the web page, but a theme that looks like they are.
Just because Qt was ported to OSX doesn't mean Safari is using it.
Given that four billion people can't share a meaningful twenty character namespace, how do you suggest this problem is resolved?
.com domain? Because you are an ISP, and the .net TLD was created for ISPs. I don't think there is an implication in the .net TLD that you are somehow non-profit.
26 letters in the alphabet (in English). Ten letters = 141 trillion combinations. If 1% of them are "meaningful", that's only 1.4 trillion. But you said 20 characters, not 10 - 26^20 = 19,928,148,895,209,409,152,340,197,376.
Why shouldn't a commercial business have a
You're suggesting that one company should only be allowed to use one domain name? Not a bad ideal, perhaps, but that's not the established rule (guess who owns cocacola.net and disney.org).
Ok, so IPs aren't fixed. You're missing my point - which is to have a system that *is* fixed and that is big enough for four billion people to share. Such a system surely cannot be impossible?
Nothing on the Internet is fixed, but domain names are usually pretty close, unless stolen or allowed to expire.
Actually, I would believe that a lot of people on /., and in this country in general, would quote the phrase "Give me freedom or give me death".
Ah, but how many of them would quote it correctly, and how many of them would attribute it to Ben Franklin?
Basing everything on IP addresses is stupid - IP address change as the network infrastructure changes, but hostnames keep on working. Until somebody takes our domain away.
.com domain?
Why shouldn't a commercial business have a
I don't think you have a clear understanding of how DNS works, based on your e-mail suggestions and your notion that IP addresses are unchangeable.
You say our business was based on a flawed model. Perhaps the DNS system that had already existed for several years when our company was founded was indeed flawed, but I hardly think we can be blamed for working with the system.
Now Company B argues that they have a claim on www.widgets.com. Ok, now ICANN puts their foot down and states that a domain name is NOT a trademark, and offers to host www.widgets.com for both companies, with links to their main web pages, and possibly some descriptive text indicating what the different possibilities are. Company B's $1000 can go towards relocating company A's pages onto another server.
You're assuming that the only reason for having a domain name is just to use for a web page. That's just plain silly.
I work for what was a major national DSL ISP until a month ago. Their name used to be Telocity. Then they were bought out and renamed to DirecTV Broadband. Guess what domain names they currently use? telocity.com, telocity.net, tlct.net, directvdsl.com, directvinternet.com, directvbroadband.net, and a handful of others, each with a different purpose. Why didn't they simply stop using the first three? Because making sure nothing was using those domains anymore would cost a huge amount of time and money, and since they'd probably miss a few things here and there, a lot of things would break.
I don't really know how many things would break if they suddenly lost the tlct.net domain. I'm sure they could recover pretty quickly if they just made sure everything on the network was using their own DNS servers to resolve that domain. Sure, www.tlct.net is just a redirect that nobody uses, but there are plenty of other hostnames on that domain!
I smell a troll, but I'll bite:
While Linux has been progressing nicely and people have been making money, who is paying the developer?
The developer's employer. RedHat is one example of a profitable company that employs developers to write GPL'd code. However, most GPL developers do it in their free time because it's what they like to do, not because it's what they're paid to do.
And the conclusion we came on is that Open Source is good for everybody, but the developer.
What developer? The developer who choose to release his own code under the GPL? Or the developer who wants to use somebody else's code that was released under the GPL, but doesn't want to release his modifications under the GPL?
But licenses like the GPL are not good for the developers who actually write the code. Those people cannot get paid what they are due. This is what closed source did.
Nothing forces developers to release their own original code under the GPL. If getting paid for the software is a significant motivation, then perhaps they should choose something else, but don't try to tell the rest of us what to do, just because what works for us doesn't suit your needs.
But the Open Sourcers today are takers.
There are users, and there are developers. It used to be that almost all users were also developers; now many users are not. If you're a developer, and you don't like people using your code without contributing to it, maybe you shouldn't let them use your code at all. However, this is actually one of the nice things about the GPL: if you're a developer, and you don't like companies modifying your code and then selling their modifications without compensating you, the GPL will prevent that from happening, while a BSD license won't. Naturally, if you prefer to allow companies to do this, the GPL is not for you.
No it isn't. Otherwise why are Apple buying up app vendors (I don't recall the name of the product i'm thinking of, some graphics/music program), and scaring all the customers silly because they think Apple will make them Mac only?
You may be thinking of Shake.
Except OS X isn't tinkerable at all. Practically all the code Apple has written is closed source, and the Mac parts of MacOS are generally only capable of doing things one way.
Hogwash. Just because it's closed-source doen't mean it's not tinkerable. Perhaps not to the extent you'd like, but really, how many end users hack the source code of their GUI? OSX has a ways to go, but it's quickly becoming more hackable than OS9 ever was, and if you don't think OS9 was hackable, well, you haven't known many Mac users.
Unlike every Linux and Windows, MacOS is still not capable of being themed by 3rd parties (unless you consider a grey version of the default a "theme").
Hogwash. I'm using a third-party theme right now. It happens to be an imitation of the Platinum theme from Mac OS 9, because that's what I happen to like, but there are others. Not a huge number of themes available, but it's a relatively new OS. They'll come.
And yes, this Platinum theme is a little quirky - it's got a funny little piece of something at the top of the scrollbar, no window borders, and a few other details aren't quite right. And, I've combined it with the Mozilla Classic theme from Mac OS 9, which is even quirkier with the OSX version of Mozilla. I'll probably go back to Modern. Anyway, like I said, give it time.
Isn't this how a blacklist is supposed to work? I thought the idea was precisely to annoy the honest users, such that they complain to the ISP. If the users know that they are blacklisted because of a spammer, they are likely to either leave the ISP or pressure it to turn the spammer off. It's not nice, but the intent is to get results.
Some people want blacklists to work this way, and indeed it can be an effective strategy. However, a blacklist is generally supposed to work by just blocking spam, without getting in the way of the honest users on systems that are NOT being used for spam.
If there's one open relay on a subnet and I want to block open relays, then that one open relay should be blocked, so I don't get spam. I still want to receive mail from the other 200 servers on the same subnet. Yes, blocking the other 200 will force the ISP to take action, but maybe the ISP would have taken action anyway? Maybe there's a better way to get them to take action? Maybe I want an RBL that will not list innocent servers such as those 200.
This isn't a huge problem for spammers. If they send you an HTML email, then just opening the email (or previewing it in Outlook) can provide the verification that they need.
I use Mozilla as my mail client, which is configured not to load images or execute scripts in HTML e-mail. If images are attached, they'll be displayed below the message (not inline), but images will not be loaded from a web server. If I really want to see the images in a particular piece of mail, I could always turn images back on, but I don't think I've had occasion to do this in several months.
Apple already ported Tk, although I haven't been able to get it to work. And the OS ships with python. So, if you have better luck than I've had with Tk, you should have no problem.
BTW Xwindows only differs from windows by only letter too, so even with your logic MS should loose their trademark.
The correct name is "The X Window System" if I recall correctly. Everyone calls it X-Windows, but that's not the official name.
OS X (a closed-source BSD variant)
Um, the BSD part is open-source. The GUI on top is no less open-source than it's ever been. What are you complaining about?
Theres an article about hacking traffic lights. Do you think that now that the information is now open to a wide public, we will see traffic lights doing weird things?
No, not really.
Is it like that everywhere or just here?
Yes, it's normal. I think it's mostly because all the phone company's database systems are based around the idea that every account is tied to a telephone number. It's technically possible to run DSL over a dry pair with no voice service, but unless they assigned you a phone number, they'd have no way to track it (for billing and maintenance purposes). Of course their databases could be upgraded to handle this sort of thing, but these databases have been around since before the AT&T breakup.
I'm wondering why outlook is a 'government-mandated' app. It's hard to see the difference between an email generated by outlook or another email app. Why force people to use an app, while there are plenty of different compatible apps available?
Because Outlook is used for other things besides sending and receiving e-mail. If my boss sends me a meeting invitation, and I click Accept, I get a reminder popup 15 minutes before the meeting. I want other people on my team to be able to see certain e-mails, so I set up a rule to filter them into a folder with a few clicks of the mouse (the rule is stored server-side, not client-side, so it works when I'm offline), then I share that folder so each member of my team has access to it - maybe read-only access, maybe full read/write, depending on what I need - but they can't access the rest of my mail at all.
There are other ways of doing these things, and there are plenty of features in Outlook that I never use, but this stuff only works if everybody is doing it the same way, so you have to standardize on something, and Outlook is the existing standard. Managers love it. Try training a manager to set up appointments with something other than Outlook. They won't be happy.
That took a while, I don't use OS X but I figured it would have been included on most major software sites by now.
Uhhh, it has been, but Freshmeat isn't "most".
I have been asked to sign a few NDAs, I just said "I'm taking them home to review them." I then never spoke of them again, and was never asked for them back.
;-)
Were you ever asked to come back to work?
I'm a contractor. stop bashing us. It's a good living.
I'm a contactor too. No it isn't.
I suppose they could put some weird binary or encrypted data in the files, but that would defeat the purpose of XML.
The purpose of XML is to have buzzword compliance, and this doesn't defeat that.
(Of course that's not the purpose most other people use XML for, but we're talking about Microsoft.)
geez, what's up with the underage thing? No, I mean women over 18, and the one I mentioned specifically is like.. 40ish or something; she's a Solaris sysadmin.