how is Apple making the iPad so cheap? Nobody tries to go head to head with Apple. It's a waste of time. They're just too hip. So you fight on price or you fight on features. If the other tablet makers are neck & neck with Apple on price there must be a reason....
Two reasons: economies of scale, and Steve Jobs is an ass.
Apple can get good pricing because when they order a component and the manufacturer asks how many units they'd like, the answer is often "all of them." Apple doesn't usually get all of them, but they get a large percentage of the total manufacturing capacity of the vendor, they sometimes source from multiple vendors, and they still can't keep up with demand.
And, when Steve Jobs gets an answer he doesn't like, he doesn't just give up, he fights. He fought the record companies until they were willing to sell music online without DRM; he fought Verizon until they were willing to sell an iPhone without loading it full of crap and disabling half the features; fighting component vendors until they give the best possible price is an amusing diversion.
The original iPod shipped with a 5GB hard drive. At the time, digital cameras used exactly the same kind of hard drive. Photographers quickly figured this out and started buying iPods as fast as they could get their hands on them, because the full retail price of an iPod was cheaper than anywhere else they could buy a 5GB hard drive for their cameras. Jobs had to fight pretty hard to get the kind of pricing that would let Apple do that.
6) Configure your server to identify itself by the same hostname that your reverse DNS points to (and, obviously, be sure that you have an A record for that hostname that points to your IP address).
Assuming the domain in question is softegg.com, then reverse DNS is indeed not setup correctly, and it is no surprise that his email is getting blocked.
My diagnosis is slightly different: in fact he does have perfectly valid reverse DNS (71.178.232.50 resolves to static-71-178-232-50.washdc.fios.verizon.net which resolves back to 71.178.232.50), but it's his mail server that is misconfigured to identify itself as "localhost.localdomain". That's what looks suspicious, not his reverse DNS. I would recommend either:
1) Configure his mail server to identify itself as the hostname that his IP address resolves to (static-71-178-232-50.washdc.fios.verizon.net), or
2) Ask Verizon to set up custom reverse DNS for him, and configure his mail server to identify itself with that hostname. This is prettier, but technically no more valid than option 1, which would require no help from his ISP.
(And yeah, he has extra MX records. Some spammers will skip straight to the last one; legitimate MTAs should try them in preference order, lowest to highest, so this could mean if there's a failure, MTAs will try his server three times before falling back to Google, but some implementations may be smart enough to recognize all three as the same host and skip to Google on the second try. I wouldn't personally set it up this way, but I'm not gonna recommend changing it without asking him why he chose to set it up this way.)
If your ISP is preventing 25 outbound, you don't have an ISP.
TBH, I'm not quite sure what you do have. I've met that sort of thing once before, I would describe them as a Web access provider.
Sorry, but I disagree. I strongly support residential ISPs that block outbound port 25. My preference would be, if you have a static IP address (which may cost a little extra, which I'm also fine with) they should unblock port 25 upon request (for no additional fee, but only upon request, not by default).
Yeah, it's an extra hoop to jump through if you want to run your own mail server. I run my own mail server, and that's precisely why I want outbound port 25 to be blocked by default: I have to deal with spam coming from all the ISPs that don't do this.
And no, this shouldn't affect end users, because end users should be using 587 or 465, not 25. It's not 1998 anymore.
You are aware that your emails are sent in plain text unless you only send email to people whose servers support an encrypted connection? Most do not.
STARTTLS has been around for awhile now. Are you sure that "most" servers don't support it?
A lot of larger financial institutions are even beginning to require other companies they do business with to enforce TLS encryption when communicating with them (so, for example, if you do business with JP Morgan/Chase, they want you to configure your outgoing SMTP server to refuse to deliver mail to JPMC's servers if a TLS connection fails, bouncing the message to the sender instead of falling back to plain text).
I'm confused by what you're asking for. Are you implying that no configuration is required for a serial interface, and therefore the need to configure iDRAC/iLO/Raritan makes this type of solution unsuitable? Are you suggesting that you can connect remotely to a serial interface without having a functioning network? Are you saying that a serial solution doesn't take up any rack space?
I have no idea what the pricing is, but I would expect a serial solution to be cheaper, and to work better over high-latency connections. Those are valid reasons to prefer serial over the alternatives I suggested.
From what I can tell, neither Dell nor HP boxes have usable serial consoles. Your hardware is all at a staffed location where you can have someone 24x7 plug in a keyboard and monitor?
Credit cards (or debit cards used as credit cards) do not use a PIN, and now at many places (pay-at-the-pump gas stations, fast food restaurants) don't require a signature either. It's one-factor authentication; if you physically possess the card, you're authorized to make the transaction.
Does this mean she's trying to prevent others from using her name in articles/posts/blogs/etc without her approval or consent? Will she be able to use the DMCA to force removal of anything negative about her that she does't like?
The DMCA has nothing to do with trademarks! Get your intellectual property laws straight.
Billy Joel® did this. Apparently if someone prints an unauthorized t-shirt with your name on it, you can sue them, but only after you've informed them of the violation and given them a chance to stop. If your name always appears with a ® symbol next to it, that counts as notification, so you can just sue them immediately.
I heard somewhere (quite likely on Slashdot) that Facebook stores images in a custom filesystem (or something), heavily optimized for efficiency, and that because of the way the system works, it is not technically possible to delete a photo.
(You could, in theory, overwrite the photo, but they don't do that. They can remove it from their index, however, which is as close to deleting it as they get.)
WHATWG exists precisely because W3C was dragging their feet (and dragging them in a direction that neither browser makers nor web developers wanted to go). It was only after Hickson and WHATWG created HTML 5 that W3C woke up and said "oh, um, ok, I guess that will be our new standard!"
If you're going to break into a store to steal "as much as you can carry" at least pick a store that has the highest value per size (like a jewellery store). Stealing games just seems incredibly stupid.
Jewelry stores are prepared for that. The stuff you see locked up in glass display cases during the day is removed when the store closes, and locked up in a vault at night. They also have much better alarm systems, because they expect people to try to steal jewelry.
I'm worried about SOMEONE ELSE clicking to allow some random third-party application access to MY personal information, WITHOUT my authorization.
How did that someone else get your personal information?
I submitted it, of course, setting my privacy settings to only allow it to be shared with my friends. I trust my friends not to deliberately share my address and phone number with anyone who shouldn't have it. I do NOT trust my friends to never ever play a game or take a quiz or run any of the myriad of other silly little applications they are constantly bombarded with on Facebook.
Does this make me stupid, for trusting Facebook to respect what their privacy options appear to do? Is it unreasonable for a user to assume that when they choose the option that says "share this only with my friends, and nobody else" that the information will not be made widely available to random third parties?
If that is unreasonable, why? Because Facebook exists on the Internet? Or is it because privacy statements and security settings don't mean anything? Or is it because Facebook is a business, trying to make money?
If any of these is your answer, you're going to have a difficult time enjoying the comforts of modern society without ever providing personal information to a company that operates online and claims they'll keep your information confidential. Should I be afraid to submit my personal information to my bank via their web site, if they happen to be a private business trying to make money and have a privacy policy saying they won't share it with the world? What makes that OK?
If you a) put your address and phone number online and b) click to specifically allow an application to access them, too fucking bad if something bad happens.
I'm not worried about that. I'm worried about SOMEONE ELSE clicking to allow some random third-party application access to MY personal information, WITHOUT my authorization.
Also, not to drag up that old flamebait nonsense, but the Mac has been supporting multi button mice since OS 8, and shipping with them since the mid 90s.
Minor nitpick: 1) while Mac OS 8 supported contextual menus, activating them with a right-click was only supported by third-party drivers (which some mouse vendors provided, but many did not), 2) you meant the mid 2000s, not the mid 90s, and 3) right-click on Mac laptops wasn't available until they introduced multitouch trackpads less than three years ago.
All the AC-with-battery-backup alarm clocks I've seen will sound the alarm normally when running on battery, they just won't light the display (so you can't see what time it is, but you still wake up). This goes for clock radios too.
They pay someone to manage the line, by standing at the back of the line holding a giant bunch of helium balloons (so customers can see the balloons from across the store, thus knowing where the end of the line is) and as more customers queue up, this person chooses a path for where the line is to form. It will zig-zag around through much of the store, and can take easily a couple of hours to get through.
Fry's does manage it fairly well, but I certainly wouldn't call it a pleasant shopping experience.
Having root privileges on the web server isn't the same as having access to configure the firewall, assuming the firewall is a separate device and you're not simply relying on a software firewall on the web server itself. But yeah, if they can reconfigure Apache, you're already in trouble.
The child whose parents don't make him work is going to have a difficult time living in a society in which he must work to earn money to survive, because he won't have had practice or experience...
Here's the thing, though... WHO in their right mind would use an ATM is Russia anyway? Good grief, I'd be surprised if they were *NOT* compromised.
If I were to visit Russia, I think I would opt for in-bank transactions and cash-only, *OR* a special limited balance account set up SPECIFICALLY for that trip, to be shit-canned upon return home.
OK, but what if you actually LIVED in Russia and weren't just visiting?
Slashdot Mirror
how is Apple making the iPad so cheap? Nobody tries to go head to head with Apple. It's a waste of time. They're just too hip. So you fight on price or you fight on features. If the other tablet makers are neck & neck with Apple on price there must be a reason....
Two reasons: economies of scale, and Steve Jobs is an ass.
Apple can get good pricing because when they order a component and the manufacturer asks how many units they'd like, the answer is often "all of them." Apple doesn't usually get all of them, but they get a large percentage of the total manufacturing capacity of the vendor, they sometimes source from multiple vendors, and they still can't keep up with demand.
And, when Steve Jobs gets an answer he doesn't like, he doesn't just give up, he fights. He fought the record companies until they were willing to sell music online without DRM; he fought Verizon until they were willing to sell an iPhone without loading it full of crap and disabling half the features; fighting component vendors until they give the best possible price is an amusing diversion.
The original iPod shipped with a 5GB hard drive. At the time, digital cameras used exactly the same kind of hard drive. Photographers quickly figured this out and started buying iPods as fast as they could get their hands on them, because the full retail price of an iPod was cheaper than anywhere else they could buy a 5GB hard drive for their cameras. Jobs had to fight pretty hard to get the kind of pricing that would let Apple do that.
We have.
You're not wrong. However, if enforcing TLS becomes commonplace, I'm sure the next step will be to start doing certificate validation.
6) Configure your server to identify itself by the same hostname that your reverse DNS points to (and, obviously, be sure that you have an A record for that hostname that points to your IP address).
Assuming the domain in question is softegg.com, then reverse DNS is indeed not setup correctly, and it is no surprise that his email is getting blocked.
My diagnosis is slightly different: in fact he does have perfectly valid reverse DNS (71.178.232.50 resolves to static-71-178-232-50.washdc.fios.verizon.net which resolves back to 71.178.232.50), but it's his mail server that is misconfigured to identify itself as "localhost.localdomain". That's what looks suspicious, not his reverse DNS. I would recommend either:
1) Configure his mail server to identify itself as the hostname that his IP address resolves to (static-71-178-232-50.washdc.fios.verizon.net), or
2) Ask Verizon to set up custom reverse DNS for him, and configure his mail server to identify itself with that hostname. This is prettier, but technically no more valid than option 1, which would require no help from his ISP.
(And yeah, he has extra MX records. Some spammers will skip straight to the last one; legitimate MTAs should try them in preference order, lowest to highest, so this could mean if there's a failure, MTAs will try his server three times before falling back to Google, but some implementations may be smart enough to recognize all three as the same host and skip to Google on the second try. I wouldn't personally set it up this way, but I'm not gonna recommend changing it without asking him why he chose to set it up this way.)
If your ISP is preventing 25 outbound, you don't have an ISP.
TBH, I'm not quite sure what you do have. I've met that sort of thing once before, I would describe them as a Web access provider.
Sorry, but I disagree. I strongly support residential ISPs that block outbound port 25. My preference would be, if you have a static IP address (which may cost a little extra, which I'm also fine with) they should unblock port 25 upon request (for no additional fee, but only upon request, not by default).
Yeah, it's an extra hoop to jump through if you want to run your own mail server. I run my own mail server, and that's precisely why I want outbound port 25 to be blocked by default: I have to deal with spam coming from all the ISPs that don't do this.
And no, this shouldn't affect end users, because end users should be using 587 or 465, not 25. It's not 1998 anymore.
You are aware that your emails are sent in plain text unless you only send email to people whose servers support an encrypted connection? Most do not.
STARTTLS has been around for awhile now. Are you sure that "most" servers don't support it?
A lot of larger financial institutions are even beginning to require other companies they do business with to enforce TLS encryption when communicating with them (so, for example, if you do business with JP Morgan/Chase, they want you to configure your outgoing SMTP server to refuse to deliver mail to JPMC's servers if a TLS connection fails, bouncing the message to the sender instead of falling back to plain text).
I'm confused by what you're asking for. Are you implying that no configuration is required for a serial interface, and therefore the need to configure iDRAC/iLO/Raritan makes this type of solution unsuitable? Are you suggesting that you can connect remotely to a serial interface without having a functioning network? Are you saying that a serial solution doesn't take up any rack space?
I have no idea what the pricing is, but I would expect a serial solution to be cheaper, and to work better over high-latency connections. Those are valid reasons to prefer serial over the alternatives I suggested.
From what I can tell, neither Dell nor HP boxes have usable serial consoles. Your hardware is all at a staffed location where you can have someone 24x7 plug in a keyboard and monitor?
Dell iDRAC, Raritan KVM-over-IP.
Credit cards (or debit cards used as credit cards) do not use a PIN, and now at many places (pay-at-the-pump gas stations, fast food restaurants) don't require a signature either. It's one-factor authentication; if you physically possess the card, you're authorized to make the transaction.
Does this mean she's trying to prevent others from using her name in articles/posts/blogs/etc without her approval or consent? Will she be able to use the DMCA to force removal of anything negative about her that she does't like?
The DMCA has nothing to do with trademarks! Get your intellectual property laws straight.
Billy Joel® did this. Apparently if someone prints an unauthorized t-shirt with your name on it, you can sue them, but only after you've informed them of the violation and given them a chance to stop. If your name always appears with a ® symbol next to it, that counts as notification, so you can just sue them immediately.
It is you who are mistaken, I'm afraid. In vi, pressing control-W deletes the previous word.
I heard somewhere (quite likely on Slashdot) that Facebook stores images in a custom filesystem (or something), heavily optimized for efficiency, and that because of the way the system works, it is not technically possible to delete a photo.
(You could, in theory, overwrite the photo, but they don't do that. They can remove it from their index, however, which is as close to deleting it as they get.)
WHATWG exists precisely because W3C was dragging their feet (and dragging them in a direction that neither browser makers nor web developers wanted to go). It was only after Hickson and WHATWG created HTML 5 that W3C woke up and said "oh, um, ok, I guess that will be our new standard!"
It's W3C that moves slowly, not WHATWG.
If you're going to break into a store to steal "as much as you can carry" at least pick a store that has the highest value per size (like a jewellery store). Stealing games just seems incredibly stupid.
Jewelry stores are prepared for that. The stuff you see locked up in glass display cases during the day is removed when the store closes, and locked up in a vault at night. They also have much better alarm systems, because they expect people to try to steal jewelry.
How did that someone else get your personal information?
I submitted it, of course, setting my privacy settings to only allow it to be shared with my friends. I trust my friends not to deliberately share my address and phone number with anyone who shouldn't have it. I do NOT trust my friends to never ever play a game or take a quiz or run any of the myriad of other silly little applications they are constantly bombarded with on Facebook.
Does this make me stupid, for trusting Facebook to respect what their privacy options appear to do? Is it unreasonable for a user to assume that when they choose the option that says "share this only with my friends, and nobody else" that the information will not be made widely available to random third parties?
If that is unreasonable, why? Because Facebook exists on the Internet? Or is it because privacy statements and security settings don't mean anything? Or is it because Facebook is a business, trying to make money?
If any of these is your answer, you're going to have a difficult time enjoying the comforts of modern society without ever providing personal information to a company that operates online and claims they'll keep your information confidential. Should I be afraid to submit my personal information to my bank via their web site, if they happen to be a private business trying to make money and have a privacy policy saying they won't share it with the world? What makes that OK?
If you a) put your address and phone number online and b) click to specifically allow an application to access them, too fucking bad if something bad happens.
I'm not worried about that. I'm worried about SOMEONE ELSE clicking to allow some random third-party application access to MY personal information, WITHOUT my authorization.
Oh I did mean mid 2000s, my correction - in my head I had "5" and thought 95 instead of 05.
I do this all the time too. :-(
I was certainly using a two button mouse in OS 8.6 though.
So was I, with a third-party driver. Also, InputSprockets supported multi-button mice natively, but that only worked with games, not regular apps.
Also, not to drag up that old flamebait nonsense, but the Mac has been supporting multi button mice since OS 8, and shipping with them since the mid 90s.
Minor nitpick: 1) while Mac OS 8 supported contextual menus, activating them with a right-click was only supported by third-party drivers (which some mouse vendors provided, but many did not), 2) you meant the mid 2000s, not the mid 90s, and 3) right-click on Mac laptops wasn't available until they introduced multitouch trackpads less than three years ago.
Just because a site demands real names doesn't mean it's more or less 'infantile.'
Of course not, and that's not what he said. Seriously, have you seen MySpace? Infantile sums it up pretty nicely.
All the AC-with-battery-backup alarm clocks I've seen will sound the alarm normally when running on battery, they just won't light the display (so you can't see what time it is, but you still wake up). This goes for clock radios too.
Have you actually been to Fry's on Black Friday?
They pay someone to manage the line, by standing at the back of the line holding a giant bunch of helium balloons (so customers can see the balloons from across the store, thus knowing where the end of the line is) and as more customers queue up, this person chooses a path for where the line is to form. It will zig-zag around through much of the store, and can take easily a couple of hours to get through.
Fry's does manage it fairly well, but I certainly wouldn't call it a pleasant shopping experience.
Having root privileges on the web server isn't the same as having access to configure the firewall, assuming the firewall is a separate device and you're not simply relying on a software firewall on the web server itself. But yeah, if they can reconfigure Apache, you're already in trouble.
The child whose parents don't make him work is going to have a difficult time living in a society in which he must work to earn money to survive, because he won't have had practice or experience...
Here's the thing, though... WHO in their right mind would use an ATM is Russia anyway? Good grief, I'd be surprised if they were *NOT* compromised.
If I were to visit Russia, I think I would opt for in-bank transactions and cash-only, *OR* a special limited balance account set up SPECIFICALLY for that trip, to be shit-canned upon return home.
OK, but what if you actually LIVED in Russia and weren't just visiting?