These licenses and digital restrictions have become completely ridiculous.
Companies are treating data bits as if they were molecules, which they aren't. You can't effortlessly copy a molecule. But you *can* effortlessly copy data bits. Anything that says otherwise is going against the inherent advantages of digital media.
How could you possibly get laws like that on the books? Government by the consent of the governed - traffic laws are exactly what most people want them to be. Have you ever heard candidate running for Governor say, "I'll make causing two accidents punishable by a 5-year mandatory license suspension."?
The problem is people who know what they want (e.g. You) are a very, tiny, miniscule part of the population that's listed in the "Other" category on the exec's pie charts. When an ISP is offering a service labeled "residential", they're envisoning thousands of unpatched Windows boxes with stock IIS 5.0 and wide-open SMB ports. They _have_ to block ports to protect clueless users from themselves, as well as protect their own infrastructure from the next Code Red/Slammer/SoBig/etc.
The service that you want (not tied to a landline, no port restrictions, etc.) is widely available, but you'll be paying for it. Most ISDN for example will give you 128Kbit, no port restrictions, no land line required, etc., but you'll be paying $150/month for it.
Yes, it sucks that many DSL providers will drop an incoming TCP SYN packet before it ever reaches your home server, but they've got to pick their priorities and "unlimited TCP" got thrown out.
Rats. So there's a critical mass of MXes out there which either 1) aren't listed correctly in the DNS, or 2) are deliberately not listed as MXes because they are "send-only" SMTP servers. Dang.
Well...maybe this MX test could be one consideration among several? Messages from a non-MX host would be automatically assigned some negative bias in the whole spam-filtering process, to make them more likely to be flagged as spam. I'll have to toy around with the idea.
I guess I must be working with different data sets. My spam comes almost exclusively from adsl-23l3-202.dynamic.some-isp.net. Thus, from my point of view, it seemed like a great idea. Hypothesis contrary to fact, I guess. Perhaps I should post my cleartext e-mail in a Usenet forum to get a more sizeable data set.
I agree that the mail server doing the sending and the server doing the receiving can be entirey different - but in my correspondence, I very rarely see a sending MTA which isn't also listed in the MX section of the sender's domain.
I've been thinking about this method for a while - basically, you configure your SMTP server to do this:
MTA connects to you, gives you a MAIL FROM: xxxxx@somedomain.com
Your server performs a MX query for somedomain.com, getting a list of IP addresses
Your server compares the IP of the connecting MTA to the list of IPs in the MX records.
No match? Connection gets aborted.
This idea is cleary too simple to have not been thought of before - but I have yet to find a good explanation as to why it won't work. Verizon.net uses this exact method - try
sending a SMTP message from a host that isn't listed in your domain's MX records, you get a 550 Sorry, you aren't allowed to mail for this domain". or something comparable. How come this method isn't more widely used? Going through my own
SMTP server logs show that the vast majority of SMTP servers sending legit mail are also listed in the domain's MX records. The only price is that you require the sender and receiver to be the same within a domain - hardly an unreasonable requirement.
I'd wadger that the original poster is from an area where real-estate prices are high. Think like in New York or Washington D.C. where people have to pay $250,000 for a crappy little rowhouse and 2+ hour commute to work. I'm guessing that's why he's saying $45 is not enough, which is entirely true in that case. Just my $0.02.
Maybe it's just me, but it seems unfair to judge the sucess probability of a future manned mission based on past robotic missions. The Mars Scorecard points out the problem pretty clearly, the same problem which NASA team members cited when working on the Mars landing for Spirit and Opportunity. It's simply this: Autonomous systems are difficult to design.Go to the NASA Mars Rovers site, and watch this video:
You'll see just how hard it is to get a robotic system to land properly. A manned mission with a pilot in the front seat would have a much better chance of adapting to unforseen circumstances, and thereby increase the likelihood of a succesful mission. Not to mention the added possibility of repairing problems.
Certainly those people are hurting the economy. Think about all those wasted dollars! Those people could have started a 401(k) or mutual fund for themselves, but instead they bought a big ghetto-blaster and a Lexus, both of which will be worthless long before they're paid for. I shake my head in disbelief at the situation. (and the corporations who make cash loans so easy to obtain are party to blame)
I don't know what you guys are talking about. My car runs on Oxygen, which is produced all the time by plants around the world. Sure, it uses some kind of fossil fuel to catalyze a chemical reaction, but it's oxygen that spins the flywheel. If fossil fuels get depleted, that's a very bad thing - but there's always plenty of oxygen. All we need to do is find a different catalyst. (don't believe me? Look under your hood - you'll be surprised to learn that your "gas pedal" is not controlling the amount of gas going into your cylindars, but it's regulating the amount of air flowing through the intake manifold. It's an Oxygen pedal, not a gas pedal.)
My parents had a similiar experience with their car. It was an old Sable or Taurus or something..anyway, t he alternator went bad and needed to be replaced. So they took it into a shop and they did the replacement
work. But when they got the car back, the radio didn't work anymore, because it was turned to max volume,
with the bass all the way up, and tuned to some damn ghetto rap music station. The 'mechanics' had blown some kind of fuse inside the radio or burned up its amplification circuitry.
Needless to say, they _never_ went back to that dealer for anything. Burning the dealer's arse would have been an even better idea because then the idiots responsible for that damage would have been held accountable.
A good source of general information on fuel economy is the EPA's Green Vehicle Guide. This will provide some good information and cold, hard numbers. Of course, the only way to know you'll be really satisfied is by taking one for a test drive.
That's the best post I've read in a long time. It's amazing how people can come up with creative ways to misuse products, harm themselves, and then profit from it.
It's like suing an auto manufacturer because someone ran their car into a large sycamore tree and got injured. I mean, the car manual didn't say, "DO NOT DRIVE INTO LARGE SYCAMORE TREES", right? There are some large sycamore trees around where I live. Maybe I'll give this a try!
I wonder if she had a cell phone or a used Lexus, too? People who think they are poor--but aren't--are simply great. Keep those minimum payments rolling, baby!
Yeah, this is waaay O/T, but I liked your remark. When I drive through a poor part of town or seedy apartment complex, I'm always amazed by the number of expensive cars in the parking lot. Lexus, Mercedes, Audi - you name it. Chevy Corvettes are popular among the 'poor', too. A lot of them don't seem to understand that paying 22% non-tax-exempt interest on a rapidly depreciating asset is a very bad investment. I'll stick with my low-cost fuel-efficient econobox.
I have to agree with MrLizardo here - SUVs are disproportionately large for the purpose they serve. Many arguments against SUVs have already been well presented, but I'd like to add one more: They block others' view of the roadway. It's very annoying when somebody in a Yukon or Navigator pulls right in front of me, and prevent me from seeing anything else that's happening on the roadway. Station Wagons don't cause the same problem. ([mini]vans block the roadway too, but usually people who buy them really do need them, unlike SUVs.)
The point is that I really don't see a need for anyone to own an SUV. Most people could get by with a mid-size sedan (and most people do). For those who frequently haul a lot of people, get a station wagon. For those who frequently haul cargo, get a cargo trailor for your existing car. If you only do these things more than occasionally, then just rent a truck when you need one.
I couldn't agree more. The car analogy works well here. Somebody who never
changes their oil or checks the coolant level on their car is going to have
big problems before too long. I guess it stems from computers being sold
as "magic boxes" instead of complex machines, which is what they really are.
That's right guys, keep branding criminal activity as Free Speech. Pretty soon we'll lose it entirely.
He broke the law, he got caught, now he's paying the price. Should I argue against my speeding ticket because I was excersicing my first ammendment right to speak out against the speed limit? Should I willfully break copyright law just to "speak out" against the RIAA? First ammendment rights are not an excuse for criminal behaviour, and I refuse to feel anything but contempt for those who think that way.
Laws don't change in the breaking, except in rare, extreme cases which this isn't. Laws change by voting for representatives on election day or writing to your governor/senator/etc.
Well there goes my "excellent" karma. It was fun while it lasted.
And if, at 15 feet, you continue to move forward, the seatbelt will tighten even further, until an Audio sensor detects a human voice screaming, "AAahh! AAAH! OH God you're KILLING ME!!" at which point the seatbelt will release tension slightly.
Maybe it's just that I know that I won't be screwing hot chicks any time soon, and so I've relinquished the belief that it's what I want.:)
I'm sorry to hear about the drinking thing, and how it alienates you from your friends. Maybe it's a small consolation, but I think you've definitely made the right choice.
Congrats on the job - I bet you're the envy of many in your social circle.
Slashdot Mirror
Right on. I 2nd the motion.
These licenses and digital restrictions have become completely ridiculous.
Companies are treating data bits as if they were molecules, which they aren't. You can't effortlessly copy a molecule. But you *can* effortlessly copy data bits. Anything that says otherwise is going against the inherent advantages of digital media.
You deserve a mod up for sure.
How could you possibly get laws like that on the books? Government by the consent of the governed - traffic laws are exactly what most people want them to be. Have you ever heard candidate running for Governor say, "I'll make causing two accidents punishable by a 5-year mandatory license suspension."?
Forget having to wait until 2:00pm for the annoucement, I've got it right here!
(...with apologies to the JPL crew. :-P )
The problem is people who know what they want (e.g. You) are a very, tiny, miniscule part of the population that's listed in the "Other" category on the exec's pie charts. When an ISP is offering a service labeled "residential", they're envisoning thousands of unpatched Windows boxes with stock IIS 5.0 and wide-open SMB ports. They _have_ to block ports to protect clueless users from themselves, as well as protect their own infrastructure from the next Code Red/Slammer/SoBig/etc.
The service that you want (not tied to a landline, no port restrictions, etc.) is widely available, but you'll be paying for it. Most ISDN for example will give you 128Kbit, no port restrictions, no land line required, etc., but you'll be paying $150/month for it.
Yes, it sucks that many DSL providers will drop an incoming TCP SYN packet before it ever reaches your home server, but they've got to pick their priorities and "unlimited TCP" got thrown out.
Rats. So there's a critical mass of MXes out there which either 1) aren't listed correctly in the DNS, or 2) are deliberately not listed as MXes because they are "send-only" SMTP servers. Dang.
Well...maybe this MX test could be one consideration among several? Messages from a non-MX host would be automatically assigned some negative bias in the whole spam-filtering process, to make them more likely to be flagged as spam. I'll have to toy around with the idea.
I guess I must be working with different data sets. My spam comes almost exclusively from adsl-23l3-202.dynamic.some-isp.net. Thus, from my point of view, it seemed like a great idea. Hypothesis contrary to fact, I guess. Perhaps I should post my cleartext e-mail in a Usenet forum to get a more sizeable data set.
I agree that the mail server doing the sending and the server doing the receiving can be entirey different - but in my correspondence, I very rarely see a sending MTA which isn't also listed in the MX section of the sender's domain.
I've been thinking about this method for a while - basically, you configure your SMTP server to do this:
This idea is cleary too simple to have not been thought of before - but I have yet to find a good explanation as to why it won't work. Verizon.net uses this exact method - try sending a SMTP message from a host that isn't listed in your domain's MX records, you get a 550 Sorry, you aren't allowed to mail for this domain". or something comparable. How come this method isn't more widely used? Going through my own SMTP server logs show that the vast majority of SMTP servers sending legit mail are also listed in the domain's MX records. The only price is that you require the sender and receiver to be the same within a domain - hardly an unreasonable requirement.
Try the link at the bottom of the page:h tml
Sniffing stools speeds diarrhoea diagnosis
19 February 2004
http://www.nature.com/nsu/040216/040216-13.
I'd wadger that the original poster is from an area where real-estate prices are high. Think like in New York or Washington D.C. where people have to pay $250,000 for a crappy little rowhouse and 2+ hour commute to work. I'm guessing that's why he's saying $45 is not enough, which is entirely true in that case. Just my $0.02.
I thought the Polar Ice Caps were mostly frozen CO2? Could be wrong, but I seem to remember that's some snow that you really don't want to eat.
Maybe it's just me, but it seems unfair to judge the sucess probability of a future manned mission based on past robotic missions. The Mars Scorecard points out the problem pretty clearly, the same problem which NASA team members cited when working on the Mars landing for Spirit and Opportunity. It's simply this: Autonomous systems are difficult to design.Go to the NASA Mars Rovers site, and watch this video:
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/video/mov ies/mer_ch_edl_TerrorComb.mpg
You'll see just how hard it is to get a robotic system to land properly. A manned mission with a pilot in the front seat would have a much better chance of adapting to unforseen circumstances, and thereby increase the likelihood of a succesful mission. Not to mention the added possibility of repairing problems.
Certainly those people are hurting the economy. Think about all those wasted dollars! Those people could have started a 401(k) or mutual fund for themselves, but instead they bought a big ghetto-blaster and a Lexus, both of which will be worthless long before they're paid for.
I shake my head in disbelief at the situation. (and the corporations who make cash loans so easy to obtain are party to blame)
I don't know what you guys are talking about. My car runs on Oxygen, which is produced all the time by plants around the world.
Sure, it uses some kind of fossil fuel to catalyze a chemical reaction, but it's oxygen that spins the flywheel.
If fossil fuels get depleted, that's a very bad thing - but there's always plenty of oxygen. All we need to do is find a different catalyst.
(don't believe me? Look under your hood - you'll be surprised to learn that your "gas pedal" is not controlling the amount of gas going into
your cylindars, but it's regulating the amount of air flowing through the intake manifold. It's an Oxygen pedal, not a gas pedal.)
My parents had a similiar experience with their car. It was an old Sable or Taurus or something..anyway, t
he alternator went bad and needed to be replaced. So they took it into a shop and they did the replacement
work. But when they got the car back, the radio didn't work anymore, because it was turned to max volume,
with the bass all the way up, and tuned to some damn ghetto rap music station. The 'mechanics' had blown some kind of fuse inside the radio or burned up its amplification circuitry.
Needless to say, they _never_ went back to that dealer for anything. Burning the dealer's arse would have been an even better idea because then the idiots responsible for that damage would have been held
accountable.
A good source of general information on fuel economy is the EPA's Green Vehicle Guide. This will provide some good information and cold, hard numbers. Of course, the only way to know you'll be really satisfied is by taking one for a test drive.
That's the best post I've read in a long time. It's amazing how people can come up with creative ways to misuse products, harm themselves, and then profit from it.
It's like suing an auto manufacturer because someone ran their car into a large sycamore tree and got injured. I mean, the car manual didn't say, "DO NOT DRIVE INTO LARGE SYCAMORE TREES", right? There are some large sycamore trees around where I live. Maybe I'll give this a try!
Yeah, this is waaay O/T, but I liked your remark. When I drive through a poor part of town or seedy apartment complex, I'm always amazed by the number of expensive cars in the parking lot. Lexus, Mercedes, Audi - you name it. Chevy Corvettes are popular among the 'poor', too. A lot of them don't seem to understand that paying 22% non-tax-exempt interest on a rapidly depreciating asset is a very bad investment. I'll stick with my low-cost fuel-efficient econobox.
Nevermind my earlier post, I found the video here:
The Original Video
See this video in context
Does anyone have a link to the original video? I'd like to at least see the kid's talent before signing anything.
I have to agree with MrLizardo here - SUVs are disproportionately large for the purpose they serve. Many arguments against SUVs have already been well presented, but I'd like to add one more: They block others' view of the roadway. It's very annoying when somebody in a Yukon or Navigator pulls right in front of me, and prevent me from seeing anything else that's happening on the roadway. Station Wagons don't cause the same problem. ([mini]vans block the roadway too, but usually people who buy them really do need them, unlike SUVs.)
The point is that I really don't see a need for anyone to own an SUV. Most people could get by with a mid-size sedan (and most people do). For those who frequently haul a lot of people, get a station wagon. For those who frequently haul cargo, get a cargo trailor for your existing car. If you only do these things more than occasionally, then just rent a truck when you need one.
I couldn't agree more. The car analogy works well here. Somebody who never changes their oil or checks the coolant level on their car is going to have big problems before too long. I guess it stems from computers being sold as "magic boxes" instead of complex machines, which is what they really are.
That's right guys, keep branding criminal activity as Free Speech. Pretty soon we'll lose it entirely.
He broke the law, he got caught, now he's paying the price. Should I argue against my speeding ticket because I was excersicing my first ammendment right to speak out against the speed limit? Should I willfully break copyright law just to "speak out" against the RIAA? First ammendment rights are not an excuse for criminal behaviour, and I refuse to feel anything but contempt for those who think that way.
Laws don't change in the breaking, except in rare, extreme cases which this isn't. Laws change by voting for representatives on election day or writing to your governor/senator/etc.
Well there goes my "excellent" karma. It was fun while it lasted.
But a slow and steady webserver is just plain annoying!
Actually, there probably isn't much left of the webserver anymore. :-(
And if, at 15 feet, you continue to move forward, the seatbelt will tighten even further, until an Audio sensor detects a human voice screaming, "AAahh! AAAH! OH God you're KILLING ME!!" at which point the seatbelt will release tension slightly.
Maybe it's just that I know that I won't be screwing hot chicks any time soon, and so I've relinquished the belief that it's what I want. :)
I'm sorry to hear about the drinking thing, and how it alienates you from your friends. Maybe it's a small consolation, but I think you've definitely made the right choice.
Congrats on the job - I bet you're the envy of many in your social circle.