Except that, as I said somewhere above (this time delay is annoying:) ), if the spammer has to start acting like a legitimate emailer, then (s)he has to start taking notice of the temp fail messages or just re-run the spam list. Either way, their productivity has dropped - and their income is based on a relatively miniscule response rate to huge numbers of messages. Cut down on the number of messages sent in a time period and you have just hit them in their income.
Part of what I like about it is that they either react to it and take a hit to the pocketbook, or they don't, and I get less spam. As I see it, a win/win situation - FOR ME - and a lose/lose situation for the spammer. I like that.
I agree that there is no "magical waiting period or re-try time period". However, by forcing the spammer to re-run through their spam list, their life has been made a little harder, they have been forced to be a little more visible, we have pushed them to use more resources (hopefully hitting them in the wallet), and we have forced them to do something that, BY ITSELF, can be used as a spam indicator. As I mentioned in another post, I rarely get duplicate emails from people - so getting duplicates within 4 hours - as spammers try to get past the greylist - would be a (one) possible signature for spam.
Spammers are generally (or so I understand) using a 'fire-and-forget' method of spam sending, which is why/how they can send millions of emails a day. Responding to the greylist method takes that away from them or forces them to double their resource usage, their bandwidth, their exposure on the Internet. Resources are not free, bandwidth is not free and most spammers are exposure adverse.
Either they work a way around the problem - the only way I currently see is to behave more like a legitimate emailer which reduces the number of addresses they can reach in a time period and so, for the same response rate, reduces their income - or they don't bother and the greylist reduces network traffic by refusing the email BEFORE IT IS EVEN SENT.
I agree the greylist is not a cure - but I never said it was, and it seems to me to be a win-win situation to use it.
Until there is a fundamental change in the protocols I see this, if adopted widely enough, as a viable way to reduce bandwidth usage and spam. I don't see a change in the fundamental protocols happening quickly (if at all), I do see the greylist here today.
I really like the part where the record of the attempted email ages out in 4 hours so that more email from that address/sender has to restart the 1 hour temp failure wait.
Most people do not send me multiple duplicate emails, so if a spammer had to send his entire spam list twice withing 4 hours to beat the greylist, then that would be a fairly obvious spam signature in itself!
As stated, the only reason the hour works right now is because the spammers don't see this in the wild.
What was stated in the article was that the 1 minute time would work only because the spammers don't see this in the wild - which is the reason why 1 hour is the default and the (currently) suggested setting.
You are correct that if legitimate email can be sent, then illegitimate mail can be sent. BUT, if a spammer sends 1,000,000 emails through a hijacked source, then has to send the 1,000,000 emails again later (when? 1 minute is possible, but 1 hour is default - although people can set it for longer) the chances of the hole being plugged is greater, the chances of detection is increased, and the increase in bandwidth costs might be a deterrent - if not the first time, the possibly in the aggregate.
You may be right that this would not work, but I don't know enough about the actions of an open relay. Will it continue to try to deliver the spam when the temp failure is sent, or will it send the failure code to the spammer machine? If it keeps trying to deliver, then yes, the spammer just has to inject 20,000 spam messages onto 50 open relays and let the hijacked machine do his dirty work. That is not, though, how I understood open relays worked.
From the article: If we have never seen this triplet before, then refuse this delivery and any others that may come within a certain period of time with a temporary failure. (emphasis addded)
Later in the article it goes into much more detail about the delay, how long to delay if the triplet has not been seen before, life time of the whitelist, etc.
It also talks about configuring the times - they mention the default delay is 1 hour, but that their records suggest that 1 minute would have caught 99% of the same spam messages - "The data collected during testing showed that more than 99% of the mail that was blocked with the tested setting of 1 hour would still have been blocked with a delay setting of only 1 minute. At that point, having a larger initial delay will definitely help, as it gives time for other blocking methods to act. For this reason, it is suggested that at least a one hour delay value be kept as a default, since spammers will start adapting as soon as this method becomes known and starts being used. (again, emphasis added)
I had seen that before, and my question then is the same as now - What did Bob do that was so bad that he was condemed to such a living hell? Dave must have been REALLY pissed at Bob...:-)
A squatter on land can earn legal title to the land upon which he squats if he squats for the statutory period of time. The legal term for squatter's rights is title by adverse possession.
Kinda correct. A squatter on land against the owners wishes can earn title to the land upon which he squats if he squats for the statutory period of time. That is WHY the legal term for squatters rights is 'title by adverse possession'.
If you own property in STATE$ and I move onto it, you don't automatically lose title just because I was there for XX days/months/years - ESPECIALLY if you did not even know I was there, or if you knew I was there but you allowed me to be there. However, if you told me to get off your property and I didn't, you fenced your property and you put a lock on your gate but I climed over, etc., but you never had me forcibly evicted or called the police authorities, THEN I could claim title by adverse possession - basically you would not enforce your property rights, so you lost them.
This is pretty much equivalent to trademarks, where you either defend them or lose them. I don't know how that compares to IP laws.
I especially have never heard of a doctrine where you lose your IP rights, and somebody else gets them just because you did not fight hard enough for them.
I think SCO(Caldera) did not abandon their rights to the public domain, I think they freely gave them while knowing what they were doing but now see a source of revenue so are overlooking that fact.
I don't know what they are meaning, but I assume it has to do with the origins of hacking and phonephreaking, where a whistle given as a prize in Cap'n Crunch cereal was found to have the exact tone needed to fake out the phone company switches and allow those techies 'in-the-know' to make (illegal) free calls. Of course, those in-the-know where more than willing to share the knowledge.
CaptainCrunch was the Nom de Gurre of a prominant phreaker.
Therefore, a 'crunchie' would be a techie, someone who is willing to share (possibly illegal) information, a predesessor of 'hacker'.
Of course, that is only if my assumptions about the origins of the word are anywhere close to reality...
SCO is correct in saying that Linus can't possibly check every code submissions for copyright violations.
It IS NOT attainable.
So is it or is it not? SCO(Caldera), in documents to the court, says not. I don't know if it is or not, and I don't intend to expound an opinion without lots more information.
My point is that SCO(Caldera) is saying Linus should be doing something SCO(Caldera) says it is not possible for him to do. (From the article, I am not getting that Linus is not ALLOWED to do it, but that it is not possible for ANYONE to do it.)
Linus is not checking all contributions against potential patents. Are you kidding me? So for every contribution he has to go search the patent database?
"If source code is copied from protected Unix code," the SCO document adds, "there is no way for Linus Torvalds to identify that fact." (emphasis added)
So they are saying Linus is a bad boy because he is NOT doing something THEY ACKNOWLEDGE HE CAN'T DO, even if he wanted to - which he has said he does not want to, and for good, sound, and sufficient reasons.
SCO(Caldera), I don't care how many lawyers you bring into the case, you are not able to hold someone to a standard that you then point out is unattainable.
A thought just struck me, and I am trying to be gentle with it, as it is in a strange place...
WHAT IF...
What if SCO(Caldera) is HELPING?!? We have been saying for a long time we needed a court case to validate the GPL. MAYBE SCO(Caldera) is lending a helping hand as they go down the toilet?
What if they are playing the fool ON PURPOSE, while IBM, in cahoots with them, LETS SCO(Caldera) take them to court - TO FORCE politicians/courts/public to acknowledge the GPL as valid or to pass laws to Dutch-boy the legal dyke (I think I dated her...) - laws that are way overdue by my way of thinking - or to acknowledge Linux as a no/low cost INDUSTRIAL STRENGTH Unix(c).
Can anyone else think of a reason why SCO(Caldera) would not only shoot themselves in the foot over and over again, but even stop and reload so they can shoot themselves in the foot some more?
SCO(Caldera) has certainly made a lot of noticeable waves, lots of press copy, and lots of noise, but have also pretty much presented themselves as buffoons while doing so. I can not believe they (and their lawyers) are not smart enough to NOT present themselves as half-wits if they didn't WANT to.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled conspiracy theory...
Question: If room temp is 27C and you double the room temperature, what would it be in degrees Kelvin? Would it be 273 + ( 27 * 2), or would it be 2* (273 + 27)?
The first would be 327K or 54C, while the second would be 600K or 327C.
I think the problem everyone is having is that a room temp (~27C) of 300 means 300 measuring divisions away from absolute zero. If you move another 300 divisions away from absolute zero to 600K, you have not doubled the ~27C to ~54C, you have gone to ~327C!
The conversion factor of 273 is only applied ONCE, not each time; unless you really mean that you have doubled the room temp by going from 80.3F to 620.6F, and that 1700.6F is 'only' 3 times room temp, then 15,000K is NOT "50 times room temperature.", it is 50 times as far away from absolute zero as room temperature is from absolute zero.
The math being presented is proving the second part, not the first; and 1/50th of 15,000K (in Fahrenheit) is NOT room temperature.
So Buddha walks into a pizza parlor and says: "Hey, make me one with everything."
The Zen master walks up to the hotdog vendor and says "Make me one with everything." So the hot dog vendor builds a delux dog and hands it over. The Zen master hands the vendor a $10, and the vendor pockets it. "Hey, where's my change?" demands the Zen master.
"Change must come from within!" replied the hot dog vendor.
15,000 degrees Kelvin (the article clearly states 15000 Celsius or 27,032 degrees Fahrenheit) is close to 14,727 Celsius. Divide that by 50 and you get 294.5 degrees Celsius, or about 560 degrees fahrenheit. My kitchen oven does not go that high - except for the cleaning cycle.
NOT room temp.
15,000 degrees Kelvin is about 340 times room temp, not 50.
Amazing the number of/.ers who can't do simple math (or even fairly simple logic)...
The problem with your logic is simply demonstrated.
As you wrote, 300 K = 26.85 C = 80.33 F. BUT 300K*2 (600K) != 53.7C, 600 K = 327C, or 620 F, NOT 80.33F*2 (160.66F).
Using the link you provided, 15000K = 26540.33F. 26540.33F/50 = 530.81F 26540.33F/78F = 340.26 times room temperature.
Had a story in yesterdays local paper about a burglar who broke into a closed steakshop and was arrested. According to the story, BECAUSE HE HAD A POCKETKNIFE IN HIS TROUSERS, he was sentenced to life in prison.
In the article there was no mention of "three strikes", "carreer criminal", etc, just that he was put away for life because he had a pocket knife on him when he committed a crime.
Pocketknives are not illegal, just don;t get caught breaking the law while you have one in your possession!
Taping the postage paid to a brick won't work. Taping it to a package THAT CONTAINS a brick DOES work.
Tape it to a brick, the Post Office says "Hey, that's a brick!" and tosses it.
Tape it to a package that contains a brick (the whole reason for the paper bag in the parent post), the Post Office says "Neither rain, nor sleet..."
Unless you think the Post Office OPENS packages to see what is in them, in which case just add another layer of tinfoil and turn off the TV - the CIA can't beam messages to you if the TV is off. At least, that is what the voices keep telling me...
I used to work for the post office. Things may have changed since then, but several years ago, the instructions in the parent post would work, and the brick would have been delivered - postage due.
First, you should use part of your "hard-earned money" to buy a clue.
Theft is depriving someone of property. If I come into your studio and remove boxes of CDs without your permission, that is theft. You no longer have the thing - in this case, boxes of CDs.
Copyright gives the owner the right to copy and distribute their creation, for free or for a fee.
Piracy (in this context) is copying or distributing IP that you do not have the legal right to copy or distribute. If I pirate your CD, YOU STILL HAVE YOUR IP, and all the rights allowed under copyright. Nothing that you can touch has been taken from you. You still have all the rights to your IP, you still have all your CDs, NOTHING TANGIBLE WAS TAKEN.
Have your legal rights been violated? Yes.
Is piracy right? No. Is it theft? Again, no.
In case of IP piracy, a person is liable for copyright infringment (civil suit), not for theft (criminal case).
Bottom line is this person was not "quilty" of anything. He was accused of several things, none of which was proved, he has not been tried by a jury of his peers (interesting thought, that!), but he has agreed to pay over $10,000 so that a major entertainment association will stop harrassing him. That is extortion, and that IS illegal.
Microsoft urged customers to fix a vulnerability in the SQL Server 2000 software, but it apparently hadn't taken its own advice. Moreover, despite its 1-year-old security push, the software giant still had critical servers vulnerable to Internet attacks.(emphasis added)
From Rick Devenuti, the chief information officer for Microsoft at the time of the slammer attack:
. "At any given point in time, it is hard to be 100 percent patched with any machine. We are working hard to make patch management easier. But 100 percent is a high bar and in this case we are not there."
I also remember reading an article stating the vulnerability had been patched 6 months before, then another patch was released which re-opened the hole, which was then re-patched - which means two things:
1) if you patched as you should, Microsoft left you vulnerable, and
2) if your machine was not affected, then you either did not apply the patch which broke your security (What, you didn't apply a patch!?) or you re-patched before slammer was released.
To quote an AC,
"Wrong", and
Bullshit Bullshit More bullshit You are so full of shit
No but I SP my cars oil every 3k miles and if I dont its not $Dealers fault.
Right, if you CHOSE to not service your car every 3K miles it is nobodies fault, it is your choice.
HOWEVER, if you chose not to service your car and it eventually dies directly due to lack of maintenance, it still is not the fault of $DEALER. Why? Because you were given documentation when you bought the car from $DEALER that says specifically that the oil has to be changed every XX miles or your warranty is void. I have not yet seen the documentation from Microsoft that states you have to apply service packs or your warranty is void. (What warrenty? The only thing I see is the disclaimer that there is no warrenty.)
Microsoft is selling a product touted as complete, then issuing recalls and service advisories because they 'forgot' to include brakes. Oh, and a steering wheel. Also, there is this thing about the windscreen wipers - when you came in to have them installed (sorry about forgetting to do that when we built your car) we removed the steering wheel, so you have to bring it back again so we can install the steering wheel. Again.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that, as I said somewhere above (this time delay is annoying :) ), if the spammer has to start acting like a legitimate emailer, then (s)he has to start taking notice of the temp fail messages or just re-run the spam list. Either way, their productivity has dropped - and their income is based on a relatively miniscule response rate to huge numbers of messages. Cut down on the number of messages sent in a time period and you have just hit them in their income.
Part of what I like about it is that they either react to it and take a hit to the pocketbook, or they don't, and I get less spam. As I see it, a win/win situation - FOR ME - and a lose/lose situation for the spammer. I like that.
I agree that one of us doesn't get it. :)
I agree that there is no "magical waiting period or re-try time period". However, by forcing the spammer to re-run through their spam list, their life has been made a little harder, they have been forced to be a little more visible, we have pushed them to use more resources (hopefully hitting them in the wallet), and we have forced them to do something that, BY ITSELF, can be used as a spam indicator. As I mentioned in another post, I rarely get duplicate emails from people - so getting duplicates within 4 hours - as spammers try to get past the greylist - would be a (one) possible signature for spam.
Spammers are generally (or so I understand) using a 'fire-and-forget' method of spam sending, which is why/how they can send millions of emails a day. Responding to the greylist method takes that away from them or forces them to double their resource usage, their bandwidth, their exposure on the Internet. Resources are not free, bandwidth is not free and most spammers are exposure adverse.
Either they work a way around the problem - the only way I currently see is to behave more like a legitimate emailer which reduces the number of addresses they can reach in a time period and so, for the same response rate, reduces their income - or they don't bother and the greylist reduces network traffic by refusing the email BEFORE IT IS EVEN SENT.
I agree the greylist is not a cure - but I never said it was, and it seems to me to be a win-win situation to use it.
Until there is a fundamental change in the protocols I see this, if adopted widely enough, as a viable way to reduce bandwidth usage and spam. I don't see a change in the fundamental protocols happening quickly (if at all), I do see the greylist here today.
I really like the part where the record of the attempted email ages out in 4 hours so that more email from that address/sender has to restart the 1 hour temp failure wait.
Most people do not send me multiple duplicate emails, so if a spammer had to send his entire spam list twice withing 4 hours to beat the greylist, then that would be a fairly obvious spam signature in itself!
As stated, the only reason the hour works right now is because the spammers don't see this in the wild.
What was stated in the article was that the 1 minute time would work only because the spammers don't see this in the wild - which is the reason why 1 hour is the default and the (currently) suggested setting.
You are correct that if legitimate email can be sent, then illegitimate mail can be sent. BUT, if a spammer sends 1,000,000 emails through a hijacked source, then has to send the 1,000,000 emails again later (when? 1 minute is possible, but 1 hour is default - although people can set it for longer) the chances of the hole being plugged is greater, the chances of detection is increased, and the increase in bandwidth costs might be a deterrent - if not the first time, the possibly in the aggregate.
You may be right that this would not work, but I don't know enough about the actions of an open relay. Will it continue to try to deliver the spam when the temp failure is sent, or will it send the failure code to the spammer machine? If it keeps trying to deliver, then yes, the spammer just has to inject 20,000 spam messages onto 50 open relays and let the hijacked machine do his dirty work. That is not, though, how I understood open relays worked.
I see that, in fine /. tradition, you didn't RTFA.
From the article: If we have never seen this triplet before, then refuse this delivery and any others that may come within a certain period of time with a temporary failure. (emphasis addded)
Later in the article it goes into much more detail about the delay, how long to delay if the triplet has not been seen before, life time of the whitelist, etc.
It also talks about configuring the times - they mention the default delay is 1 hour, but that their records suggest that 1 minute would have caught 99% of the same spam messages - "The data collected during testing showed that more than 99% of the mail that was blocked with the tested setting of 1 hour would still have been blocked with a delay setting of only 1 minute. At that point, having a larger initial delay will definitely help, as it gives time for other blocking methods to act. For this reason, it is suggested that at least a one hour delay value be kept as a default, since spammers will start adapting as soon as this method becomes known and starts being used. (again, emphasis added)
RTFA!
I had seen that before, and my question then is the same as now - What did Bob do that was so bad that he was condemed to such a living hell? Dave must have been REALLY pissed at Bob... :-)
Re: the link provided.
;-)
Are they SURE this is a historical opportunity that must not be squandered? They ONLY said it four times, after all...
A squatter on land can earn legal title to the land upon which he squats if he squats for the statutory period of time. The legal term for squatter's rights is title by adverse possession.
Kinda correct. A squatter on land against the owners wishes can earn title to the land upon which he squats if he squats for the statutory period of time. That is WHY the legal term for squatters rights is 'title by adverse possession'.
If you own property in STATE$ and I move onto it, you don't automatically lose title just because I was there for XX days/months/years - ESPECIALLY if you did not even know I was there, or if you knew I was there but you allowed me to be there. However, if you told me to get off your property and I didn't, you fenced your property and you put a lock on your gate but I climed over, etc., but you never had me forcibly evicted or called the police authorities, THEN I could claim title by adverse possession - basically you would not enforce your property rights, so you lost them.
This is pretty much equivalent to trademarks, where you either defend them or lose them. I don't know how that compares to IP laws.
I especially have never heard of a doctrine where you lose your IP rights, and somebody else gets them just because you did not fight hard enough for them.
I think SCO(Caldera) did not abandon their rights to the public domain, I think they freely gave them while knowing what they were doing but now see a source of revenue so are overlooking that fact.
I don't know what they are meaning, but I assume it has to do with the origins of hacking and phonephreaking, where a whistle given as a prize in Cap'n Crunch cereal was found to have the exact tone needed to fake out the phone company switches and allow those techies 'in-the-know' to make (illegal) free calls. Of course, those in-the-know where more than willing to share the knowledge.
CaptainCrunch was the Nom de Gurre of a prominant phreaker.
Therefore, a 'crunchie' would be a techie, someone who is willing to share (possibly illegal) information, a predesessor of 'hacker'.
Of course, that is only if my assumptions about the origins of the word are anywhere close to reality...
The standard is not unattainable.
It IS attainable.
SCO is correct in saying that Linus can't possibly check every code submissions for copyright violations.
It IS NOT attainable.
So is it or is it not? SCO(Caldera), in documents to the court, says not. I don't know if it is or not, and I don't intend to expound an opinion without lots more information.
My point is that SCO(Caldera) is saying Linus should be doing something SCO(Caldera) says it is not possible for him to do. (From the article, I am not getting that Linus is not ALLOWED to do it, but that it is not possible for ANYONE to do it.)
Patents, not copyright, by the way.
Linus is not checking all contributions against potential patents. Are you kidding me? So for every contribution he has to go search the patent database?
From the article:
"If source code is copied from protected Unix code," the SCO document adds, "there is no way for Linus Torvalds to identify that fact." (emphasis added)
So they are saying Linus is a bad boy because he is NOT doing something THEY ACKNOWLEDGE HE CAN'T DO, even if he wanted to - which he has said he does not want to, and for good, sound, and sufficient reasons.
SCO(Caldera), I don't care how many lawyers you bring into the case, you are not able to hold someone to a standard that you then point out is unattainable.
A thought just struck me, and I am trying to be gentle with it, as it is in a strange place...
WHAT IF...
What if SCO(Caldera) is HELPING?!? We have been saying for a long time we needed a court case to validate the GPL. MAYBE SCO(Caldera) is lending a helping hand as they go down the toilet?
What if they are playing the fool ON PURPOSE, while IBM, in cahoots with them, LETS SCO(Caldera) take them to court - TO FORCE politicians/courts/public to acknowledge the GPL as valid or to pass laws to Dutch-boy the legal dyke (I think I dated her...) - laws that are way overdue by my way of thinking - or to acknowledge Linux as a no/low cost INDUSTRIAL STRENGTH Unix(c).
Can anyone else think of a reason why SCO(Caldera) would not only shoot themselves in the foot over and over again, but even stop and reload so they can shoot themselves in the foot some more?
SCO(Caldera) has certainly made a lot of noticeable waves, lots of press copy, and lots of noise, but have also pretty much presented themselves as buffoons while doing so. I can not believe they (and their lawyers) are not smart enough to NOT present themselves as half-wits if they didn't WANT to.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled conspiracy theory...
Question: If room temp is 27C and you double the room temperature, what would it be in degrees Kelvin? Would it be 273 + ( 27 * 2), or would it be 2* (273 + 27)?
The first would be 327K or 54C, while the second would be 600K or 327C.
27C = 80.6F
54C = 129.2F
327C = 620.6F
I think the problem everyone is having is that a room temp (~27C) of 300 means 300 measuring divisions away from absolute zero. If you move another 300 divisions away from absolute zero to 600K, you have not doubled the ~27C to ~54C, you have gone to ~327C!
The conversion factor of 273 is only applied ONCE, not each time; unless you really mean that you have doubled the room temp by going from 80.3F to 620.6F, and that 1700.6F is 'only' 3 times room temp, then 15,000K is NOT "50 times room temperature.", it is 50 times as far away from absolute zero as room temperature is from absolute zero.
The math being presented is proving the second part, not the first; and 1/50th of 15,000K (in Fahrenheit) is NOT room temperature.
You are right, the order of operations is important, but you are the one getting it wrong.
15000K is what in F?
15000-273=14727C, and (C *9/5)+32 = F, so
14727C = 26540.6F.
What number times room temperature in F gives 26540.6F? Assuming room temp is 78F, 26540.6/78 = 340.26 times room temp.
For giggles, what is 1/50 of 26540.6F?
530.8F
Or work it the other way 'round. Room temp is about 20C. 50 times this is 1000C, convert it to K and you get 1273K. Still not even close to 15,000K.
Point is 15,000K = 14,727C, not 30C*50 or 1,500C - so your answer is about 90% off - or totally wrong.
30C + 273 = 300K
50 * (30C + 273) = 50 * 300K
(30C * 50) + (273 * 50) = (300k * 50)
1500C + 13650 = 15150K
((80.6 degrees fahrenheit* 50) +32 * (5/9))=
4030 + 32 * (5/9) =
2256.66 degrees C +273 = 2529.66K, or about a sixth of 15,000K
( ( ( ( 15000 - 273 ) * 9 / 5 ) + 32 ) / 50 ) =
( ( ( 14727 * 9 / 5 ) + 32 ) / 50 ) =
( ( 265083.6 + 32 ) / 50 ) =
265115.6 / 50 =
530.17F
If that is the temp in your CPU room, you need to turn the air conditioning up a notch...
So Buddha walks into a pizza parlor and says: "Hey, make me one with everything."
The Zen master walks up to the hotdog vendor and says "Make me one with everything." So the hot dog vendor builds a delux dog and hands it over. The Zen master hands the vendor a $10, and the vendor pockets it. "Hey, where's my change?" demands the Zen master.
"Change must come from within!" replied the hot dog vendor.
Wrong, wrong, and wrong.
/.ers who can't do simple math (or even fairly simple logic)...
15,000 degrees Kelvin (the article clearly states 15000 Celsius or 27,032 degrees Fahrenheit) is close to 14,727 Celsius. Divide that by 50 and you get 294.5 degrees Celsius, or about 560 degrees fahrenheit. My kitchen oven does not go that high - except for the cleaning cycle.
NOT room temp.
15,000 degrees Kelvin is about 340 times room temp, not 50.
Amazing the number of
The problem with your logic is simply demonstrated.
As you wrote, 300 K = 26.85 C = 80.33 F. BUT 300K*2 (600K) != 53.7C, 600 K = 327C, or 620 F, NOT 80.33F*2 (160.66F).
Using the link you provided, 15000K = 26540.33F.
26540.33F/50 = 530.81F
26540.33F/78F = 340.26 times room temperature.
Had a story in yesterdays local paper about a burglar who broke into a closed steakshop and was arrested. According to the story, BECAUSE HE HAD A POCKETKNIFE IN HIS TROUSERS, he was sentenced to life in prison.
In the article there was no mention of "three strikes", "carreer criminal", etc, just that he was put away for life because he had a pocket knife on him when he committed a crime.
Pocketknives are not illegal, just don;t get caught breaking the law while you have one in your possession!
Yeah, yeah, yeah, wrong.
Taping the postage paid to a brick won't work. Taping it to a package THAT CONTAINS a brick DOES work.
Tape it to a brick, the Post Office says "Hey, that's a brick!" and tosses it.
Tape it to a package that contains a brick (the whole reason for the paper bag in the parent post), the Post Office says "Neither rain, nor sleet..."
Unless you think the Post Office OPENS packages to see what is in them, in which case just add another layer of tinfoil and turn off the TV - the CIA can't beam messages to you if the TV is off. At least, that is what the voices keep telling me...
I used to work for the post office. Things may have changed since then, but several years ago, the instructions in the parent post would work, and the brick would have been delivered - postage due.
Looks to me like they already did...
First, you should use part of your "hard-earned money" to buy a clue.
Theft is depriving someone of property. If I come into your studio and remove boxes of CDs without your permission, that is theft. You no longer have the thing - in this case, boxes of CDs.
Copyright gives the owner the right to copy and distribute their creation, for free or for a fee.
Piracy (in this context) is copying or distributing IP that you do not have the legal right to copy or distribute. If I pirate your CD, YOU STILL HAVE YOUR IP, and all the rights allowed under copyright. Nothing that you can touch has been taken from you. You still have all the rights to your IP, you still have all your CDs, NOTHING TANGIBLE WAS TAKEN.
Have your legal rights been violated? Yes.
Is piracy right? No. Is it theft? Again, no.
In case of IP piracy, a person is liable for copyright infringment (civil suit), not for theft (criminal case).
Bottom line is this person was not "quilty" of anything. He was accused of several things, none of which was proved, he has not been tried by a jury of his peers (interesting thought, that!), but he has agreed to pay over $10,000 so that a major entertainment association will stop harrassing him. That is extortion, and that IS illegal.
AC with +4 Insightful = Moderators on crack.
MS was caught by the Slammer worm because some developers had installed SQL Server on their workstations and neglected to keep them patched.
Are you sure?:
Microsoft urged customers to fix a vulnerability in the SQL Server 2000 software, but it apparently hadn't taken its own advice. Moreover, despite its 1-year-old security push, the software giant still had critical servers vulnerable to Internet attacks.(emphasis added)
From Rick Devenuti, the chief information officer for Microsoft at the time of the slammer attack:
. "At any given point in time, it is hard to be 100 percent patched with any machine. We are working hard to make patch management easier. But 100 percent is a high bar and in this case we are not there."
I also remember reading an article stating the vulnerability had been patched 6 months before, then another patch was released which re-opened the hole, which was then re-patched - which means two things:
1) if you patched as you should, Microsoft left you vulnerable, and
2) if your machine was not affected, then you either did not apply the patch which broke your security (What, you didn't apply a patch!?) or you re-patched before slammer was released.
To quote an AC,
"Wrong", and
Bullshit
Bullshit
More bullshit
You are so full of shit
No but I SP my cars oil every 3k miles and if I dont its not $Dealers fault.
Right, if you CHOSE to not service your car every 3K miles it is nobodies fault, it is your choice.
HOWEVER, if you chose not to service your car and it eventually dies directly due to lack of maintenance, it still is not the fault of $DEALER. Why? Because you were given documentation when you bought the car from $DEALER that says specifically that the oil has to be changed every XX miles or your warranty is void. I have not yet seen the documentation from Microsoft that states you have to apply service packs or your warranty is void. (What warrenty? The only thing I see is the disclaimer that there is no warrenty.)
Microsoft is selling a product touted as complete, then issuing recalls and service advisories because they 'forgot' to include brakes. Oh, and a steering wheel. Also, there is this thing about the windscreen wipers - when you came in to have them installed (sorry about forgetting to do that when we built your car) we removed the steering wheel, so you have to bring it back again so we can install the steering wheel. Again.
Don't you just love car analogies?