I wonder how many of these spammers are using open relays.
Whenever I read of proposed spam legislation and law enforcement attempts, I can't help but think that this somehow encourages companies and individuals to not take the neccessary care in configuring thier hosts, suscribing to blackhole lists, or running proper filters on thier hosts/servers.
When I see the disparity between email providers in the amount of spam I recieve, I realise that the admins are at least partially to blame. (My mail account at mail.com recieves approximately 7 to 12 spam emails a day, while my account at gmx has recieved only about 5 during the past year.)
Are there still any reliable blackhole lists?
Can/should email providers filter outgoing mail to regulate thier customers?
Can administrators control the spam problem?
I really don't like the idea of leaving this up to legislation, as it's likely that the DMA can buy themselves a few loopholes.
I may be an a Free Software loyalist, but I do have to admit that the Exchange/Outlook combo can do an awful lot.
In fact, it's near impossible to find one app that does all that exchange does.
But at work I have yet to see anyone use Outlook for anything except an email client, and I really have to wonder how the salesmen keep selling them on features that no-one there intends to use.
Rather than look at what Exchange/Outlook does for your criteria, perhaps you should look at what people are actually using the programs for and look to replace those functions that are needed.
But expect logic to fail if you are dealing with OS loyalty issues. I work at a non-profit that could benefit greatly from reduced licensing cost, but they've been unwilling to seriously consider any alternatives.
Every distro has it's fanatics, hell, I've run into several RedHat bigots myself. It does make advocacy more difficult when the water has been tainted by people who use thier OS choice as a political statement or use advocacy as an outlet for thier personal axe grinding.
Debian's choice to be all DFSG distro is actually the only practical choice for a non-comercial org producing an OS. The battles in the past over the Troll Tech license had more to do with avoiding future troubles that a vaguely worded or confusing license could produce.
When an org has limited rescources, no comercial structure, and consists entirely of volunteers with no binding contract, then it makes sense to adhere to a very strict only Free Software position.
What is to prevent the independant ISPs from switching thier systems over?
I believe that cisco already supports IPv6 on most (all?) of thier equipment. There are IPv6 packages for most OS, and you can support IPv6 and IPv4 simultaneously if neccessary.
Is it neccessary for the smaller guys to wait?
If.mil is going IPv6 in 2008, does that mean the rest of the net waits until then?
Did someone then point out that they could have made the ashtrays out of cast aluminum
Actually the make the Navy ashtrays out of stamped sheet aluminum, in several different styles including some with cork sheeting attached to the bottoms to reduce slippage, which is important on the surface, and noise, which is important when under.
But we all know how concerned the producers of our prime time entertainment are about accuracy.
I don't think there I ever saw a glass ashtray on a submarine, but I only fixed them, and I spent as little time near the subs as possible.
they only want to use what they are comfortable with. And for 95% of the graduating class that's windows.
I was enlisted in the Navy, and I can't ever remember anyone asking me what tools I would prefer. In fact, I remember quite distinctly being taught that i would use "whatever damn tools we tell you to use" or something similar, but with more swearing and less concern for any opinion that I may or may not have held (but obviously I did not hold any opinions, because if any one of my superiors got the notion that I did hold such an opinion there would have been hell to pay).
This Army that you develop software for certainly sounds like a nice place, with all of this concern over what operating system might the enlisted folk prefer and such. It warms my heart to know how much things have changed, and instills in my mind great confidence in our leaders to know that they will not let silly notions about stability, efficiency, cost, and especially security get in the way of allowing our elisted men work in the computer operating environment of thier choice.
But this seems to be the wrong way to address a company, especially a company like SCO.
First, SCO doesn't care what you or I think about them. They want money.
More specifically, they want money for what they bought, as in "We have deep pockets and political connections. Show us the respect that we paid for."
Any protest of that type is unlikely to have the desired impact on SCO, the media or the outcome of the court case.
Second, if you think that there is something illegal happening at SCO, such as insider trading, buying and selling of stock by executives that is in opposition to to the interest of investors, lying on the quarterly and anuall reports, etc., then report that to the SEC. But be damned sure of your accusations.
Third, write well reasoned, insightful letters to the editor of major (business) news outlets. Be clear in your opinions and support all your claims with logical and ethical arguments. Business readers are not much swayed by pathos.
And be ready for the remote possibility that SCO may win the court case, despite having no valid claims. It's happened in the past, it will happen in the future, and it's just the way it sometimes goes. I know it sucks to be in on the side of right in a losing battle, but there's a lot of that going around right now.
I remember when the Segway was introduced, and it was sooo ugly, awkward and stupid. The first thought in my head was that everyone would look like an ass when riding one. It's as if the only market they could think of was grandmas and dweebs.
It's as if they didn't even try to think about what the balancing tech could do for them, but immediately went to the "make sure no-one can get hurt" phase of design. Of course, there's already been one dweeb caught taking a spill.
The NIMBY syndrome really irks me.
on
A Mighty Wind
·
· Score: 1
But first I'd like to add a proper PARTNER=SLASHDOT link to the article.
Bet you didn't know you could do that.;)
Like I said before, This NIMBY stuff really irks me to no end. Especially if it's generated by something as good an idea as a windfarm, but Cronkite's concern (private, for proffit usage of public space) is quite valid. This concern could be addressed by permitting the purchase or lease of the land, by the company, from the community.
That said, the Nantucket community should be welcoming the wind farm as an opportunity to further the cause of energy independance for the United States, and of leaving behind a cleaner planet for future generations.
The reality is that the coastal plains of the New England Atlantic coast are ideal locations to find steady and strong winds (at least they were thirteen years ago), making them ideal for this application. It disturbs me that NIMBY ever happens at all (why should the poor be the only ones to smell the landfill, paper mill, power plant, etc), but it is especially troubling when it is blocking something as sensible as a wind farm that will be three to six miles away.
I do like the fourth amendment protections that the USPS must abide by though. (at least they did before the Patriot Act.)
My fear is that privately run postal delivery would not be required to ensure the privacy of the mail, or to protect the delivery of certain mail from interference. A warrant to search the mail is notoriously difficult to come by, as it well should be. Private deliverers are free to inspect and report at will, just as ISPs are under no obligation to apply the Fourth Amendment to your internet communication. (My opinion is that ones internet packets should be afforded the same protections as ones mail.)
And no, I don't always take the "Democrats side" of an issue. I also believe in supporting the Second Amendment as well, although I do not own, or plan to possess, a firearm.
Before you can use Linux inside IBM, you need to take the online "Open Source Legal Course" (title probably abridged) and sign off that you have. The mini-course discusses the legal implications of the GPL, etc.
Actually, I've bolloxed it pretty badly in my earlier post. Correction below.
There's a three bits for "format prefix" for the type of traffic, and eight bits "reserved for future use" and the 64 bits at the end are for the "unique hardware identifier" are not required to match the Mac Address (but often will).
It seems that there will be between 9,007,199,254,740,992 and 2,305,843,009,213,693,952 possible networks (the rfc uses the term aggregates) of 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 hosts each, depending on the what the eight reserved bits are used for.
That's 166,153,499,473,114,484,112,975,882,535,043,072 to 42,535,295,865,117,307,932,921,825,928,971,026,432 possible hosts connected, if every network contains the maximum nuber of hosts.
I must admit that I'm a bit confused by some of the posts I've seen here stating the huge number of addresses that IPv6 prommisses to bring.
I've perused the specification (I'll read it more thoroughly later) and the address format and I'm not getting 340282366920938463463374607431768211456 (128 bits) separate addresses. I'm getting 281474976710656 (48 bits) public (sub)network addresses plus 65536 (16 bits) of site addresses allocated to each of those, followed by a 64bit hardware identifier (MAC address). It appears that IPv6 means 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 IP adresses each linked to a MAC adress, of which 281,474,976,710,656 are reserved for address space at each site.
Admittedly, I'm no expert on this and could be interpeting this wrong. Someone pease clarify how this works.
But I'm not sure that I like the "mandatory benchmark" method of encouraging the adoption of Free Software.
First, it may require the adoption of Free Software for an application where there is a comercial alternative that is better suited, thus making Free Software look not only bad, but like a "bully" lobby.
Second, it prevents Free Software from succeeding on it's merits alone, thus creating the perception that free software is of lower quality and needing "help" from legislation mandating its use. Similar to some bad implementations of Afirmative Action in the United States that actualy hinder minorities in respect to individuals being respected for thier skills in certain industries. (I know that I may get beat up by some well-meaning people, and attract the support of some wrong-minded bigots for that statement, but I'll deal with that as it comes.)
Third, there is no need for manditory adoption in order to support Free Software, if equal consideration can be mandated. Free Software is of high enough quality, relatively complete, and has a diverse number of applications to compete on an even playing field. The greatest hindrance to the adoption of Free Software alternatives is in combatting the expensive "back room" dealing that the software giant and other opponents of Free Software are able to conduct through campaign contributions and outright bribery and/or blackmail. (Not in the U.S., though. No, that would never happen here!)
The biggest danger of such legislation is that it gives political ammunition to the comercial software vendors. Any computer related problems could be made to look as if the fault lies with Free Software, even if there is no real connection. Or if free software is incorrectly applied (intentionally or unintentionally) to a problem and falls short, then the comercial vendors will be sure to use that not only to get this particular legislation changed, but to prevent other, well planned, "equal consideration" legislation from being adopted in other nations, regions, or cities around the world.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder how many of these spammers are using open relays.
Whenever I read of proposed spam legislation and law enforcement attempts, I can't help but think that this somehow encourages companies and individuals to not take the neccessary care in configuring thier hosts, suscribing to blackhole lists, or running proper filters on thier hosts/servers.
When I see the disparity between email providers in the amount of spam I recieve, I realise that the admins are at least partially to blame. (My mail account at mail.com recieves approximately 7 to 12 spam emails a day, while my account at gmx has recieved only about 5 during the past year.)
Are there still any reliable blackhole lists?
Can/should email providers filter outgoing mail to regulate thier customers?
Can administrators control the spam problem?
I really don't like the idea of leaving this up to legislation, as it's likely that the DMA can buy themselves a few loopholes.
I may be an a Free Software loyalist, but I do have to admit that the Exchange/Outlook combo can do an awful lot.
In fact, it's near impossible to find one app that does all that exchange does.
But at work I have yet to see anyone use Outlook for anything except an email client, and I really have to wonder how the salesmen keep selling them on features that no-one there intends to use.
Rather than look at what Exchange/Outlook does for your criteria, perhaps you should look at what people are actually using the programs for and look to replace those functions that are needed.
But expect logic to fail if you are dealing with OS loyalty issues. I work at a non-profit that could benefit greatly from reduced licensing cost, but they've been unwilling to seriously consider any alternatives.
see parent for details.
The Xfree86 status page for ati shows accelerated support for the newer ati chips.
Maybe ati sent them the specs?
Every distro has it's fanatics, hell, I've run into several RedHat bigots myself. It does make advocacy more difficult when the water has been tainted by people who use thier OS choice as a political statement or use advocacy as an outlet for thier personal axe grinding.
Debian's choice to be all DFSG distro is actually the only practical choice for a non-comercial org producing an OS. The battles in the past over the Troll Tech license had more to do with avoiding future troubles that a vaguely worded or confusing license could produce.
When an org has limited rescources, no comercial structure, and consists entirely of volunteers with no binding contract, then it makes sense to adhere to a very strict only Free Software position.
"Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, teach a man how to fish..."
And he better stay out of my pond.
If the Native Americans had invented calculus and sailing vessels first, they would have been spreading smallpox in Europe.
No, they would bring themselves to the smallpox instead of waiting for it to come to them.
For a second there, I thought I was reading Plastic.
actually it was a Straw Man,
Why should Microsoft allow running Linux on their Xbox?
To get Linux people to buy an Xbox.
I'm sure that I'd buy games for my Xbox if I had one, but I'm sure as hell not going to buy one unless I can run Linux on it.
I want my Xbox/GNU/Linux brand webtv!
There's no certainty that there is an actual Big Brother. Orwell leaves the possibility open that there is only The Party.
What is to prevent the independant ISPs from switching thier systems over?
.mil is going IPv6 in 2008, does that mean the rest of the net waits until then?
I believe that cisco already supports IPv6 on most (all?) of thier equipment. There are IPv6 packages for most OS, and you can support IPv6 and IPv4 simultaneously if neccessary.
Is it neccessary for the smaller guys to wait?
If
That seems a little ass backwards to me.
Did someone then point out that they could have made the ashtrays out of cast aluminum
Actually the make the Navy ashtrays out of stamped sheet aluminum, in several different styles including some with cork sheeting attached to the bottoms to reduce slippage, which is important on the surface, and noise, which is important when under.
But we all know how concerned the producers of our prime time entertainment are about accuracy.
I don't think there I ever saw a glass ashtray on a submarine, but I only fixed them, and I spent as little time near the subs as possible.
they only want to use what they are comfortable with. And for 95% of the graduating class that's windows.
I was enlisted in the Navy, and I can't ever remember anyone asking me what tools I would prefer. In fact, I remember quite distinctly being taught that i would use "whatever damn tools we tell you to use" or something similar, but with more swearing and less concern for any opinion that I may or may not have held (but obviously I did not hold any opinions, because if any one of my superiors got the notion that I did hold such an opinion there would have been hell to pay).
This Army that you develop software for certainly sounds like a nice place, with all of this concern over what operating system might the enlisted folk prefer and such. It warms my heart to know how much things have changed, and instills in my mind great confidence in our leaders to know that they will not let silly notions about stability, efficiency, cost, and especially security get in the way of allowing our elisted men work in the computer operating environment of thier choice.
but there's obviously something more there than an operating system.
If you believe that, I've got a $600.00 toilet seat you might be interested in.
(I hope I'm not showing my age.)
Works fine here.
I'm using galeon v1.2.5 on blackbox. Maybe it's your distro?
But this seems to be the wrong way to address a company, especially a company like SCO.
First, SCO doesn't care what you or I think about them. They want money.
More specifically, they want money for what they bought, as in "We have deep pockets and political connections. Show us the respect that we paid for."
Any protest of that type is unlikely to have the desired impact on SCO, the media or the outcome of the court case.
Second, if you think that there is something illegal happening at SCO, such as insider trading, buying and selling of stock by executives that is in opposition to to the interest of investors, lying on the quarterly and anuall reports, etc., then report that to the SEC. But be damned sure of your accusations.
Third, write well reasoned, insightful letters to the editor of major (business) news outlets. Be clear in your opinions and support all your claims with logical and ethical arguments. Business readers are not much swayed by pathos.
And be ready for the remote possibility that SCO may win the court case, despite having no valid claims. It's happened in the past, it will happen in the future, and it's just the way it sometimes goes. I know it sucks to be in on the side of right in a losing battle, but there's a lot of that going around right now.
I remember when the Segway was introduced, and it was sooo ugly, awkward and stupid. The first thought in my head was that everyone would look like an ass when riding one. It's as if the only market they could think of was grandmas and dweebs.
It's as if they didn't even try to think about what the balancing tech could do for them, but immediately went to the "make sure no-one can get hurt" phase of design. Of course, there's already been one dweeb caught taking a spill.
But first I'd like to add a proper PARTNER=SLASHDOT link to the article .
;)
Bet you didn't know you could do that.
Like I said before, This NIMBY stuff really irks me to no end. Especially if it's generated by something as good an idea as a windfarm, but Cronkite's concern (private, for proffit usage of public space) is quite valid. This concern could be addressed by permitting the purchase or lease of the land, by the company, from the community.
That said, the Nantucket community should be welcoming the wind farm as an opportunity to further the cause of energy independance for the United States, and of leaving behind a cleaner planet for future generations.
The reality is that the coastal plains of the New England Atlantic coast are ideal locations to find steady and strong winds (at least they were thirteen years ago), making them ideal for this application. It disturbs me that NIMBY ever happens at all (why should the poor be the only ones to smell the landfill, paper mill, power plant, etc), but it is especially troubling when it is blocking something as sensible as a wind farm that will be three to six miles away.
Thanks for the lesson in humility.
I do like the fourth amendment protections that the USPS must abide by though. (at least they did before the Patriot Act.)
My fear is that privately run postal delivery would not be required to ensure the privacy of the mail, or to protect the delivery of certain mail from interference. A warrant to search the mail is notoriously difficult to come by, as it well should be. Private deliverers are free to inspect and report at will, just as ISPs are under no obligation to apply the Fourth Amendment to your internet communication. (My opinion is that ones internet packets should be afforded the same protections as ones mail.)
And no, I don't always take the "Democrats side" of an issue. I also believe in supporting the Second Amendment as well, although I do not own, or plan to possess, a firearm.
Before you can use Linux inside IBM, you need to take the online "Open Source Legal Course" (title probably abridged) and sign off that you have. The mini-course discusses the legal implications of the GPL, etc.
Is this course available to the public?
If so, do you have a link?
--qtp
We all know that the alien coverup story is to distract us from what's really going on...
Actually, I've bolloxed it pretty badly in my earlier post. Correction below.
2 possible hosts connected, if every network contains the maximum nuber of hosts.
There's a three bits for "format prefix" for the type of traffic, and eight bits "reserved for future use" and the 64 bits at the end are for the "unique hardware identifier" are not required to match the Mac Address (but often will).
It seems that there will be between 9,007,199,254,740,992 and 2,305,843,009,213,693,952 possible networks (the rfc uses the term aggregates) of 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 hosts each, depending on the what the eight reserved bits are used for.
That's 166,153,499,473,114,484,112,975,882,535,043,072 to 42,535,295,865,117,307,932,921,825,928,971,026,43
I must admit that I'm a bit confused by some of the posts I've seen here stating the huge number of addresses that IPv6 prommisses to bring.
I've perused the specification (I'll read it more thoroughly later) and the address format and I'm not getting 340282366920938463463374607431768211456 (128 bits) separate addresses. I'm getting 281474976710656 (48 bits) public (sub)network addresses plus 65536 (16 bits) of site addresses allocated to each of those, followed by a 64bit hardware identifier (MAC address). It appears that IPv6 means 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 IP adresses each linked to a MAC adress, of which 281,474,976,710,656 are reserved for address space at each site.
Admittedly, I'm no expert on this and could be interpeting this wrong. Someone pease clarify how this works.
(Thank you bc, my favorite calculator.)
But I'm not sure that I like the "mandatory benchmark" method of encouraging the adoption of Free Software.
First, it may require the adoption of Free Software for an application where there is a comercial alternative that is better suited, thus making Free Software look not only bad, but like a "bully" lobby.
Second, it prevents Free Software from succeeding on it's merits alone, thus creating the perception that free software is of lower quality and needing "help" from legislation mandating its use. Similar to some bad implementations of Afirmative Action in the United States that actualy hinder minorities in respect to individuals being respected for thier skills in certain industries. (I know that I may get beat up by some well-meaning people, and attract the support of some wrong-minded bigots for that statement, but I'll deal with that as it comes.)
Third, there is no need for manditory adoption in order to support Free Software, if equal consideration can be mandated. Free Software is of high enough quality, relatively complete, and has a diverse number of applications to compete on an even playing field. The greatest hindrance to the adoption of Free Software alternatives is in combatting the expensive "back room" dealing that the software giant and other opponents of Free Software are able to conduct through campaign contributions and outright bribery and/or blackmail. (Not in the U.S., though. No, that would never happen here!)
The biggest danger of such legislation is that it gives political ammunition to the comercial software vendors. Any computer related problems could be made to look as if the fault lies with Free Software, even if there is no real connection. Or if free software is incorrectly applied (intentionally or unintentionally) to a problem and falls short, then the comercial vendors will be sure to use that not only to get this particular legislation changed, but to prevent other, well planned, "equal consideration" legislation from being adopted in other nations, regions, or cities around the world.