There are still applications useful in the amateur and commercial land/mobile radio world that will simply not run on anything other than an old DOS machine. The programming software for the Motorola Syntor X9000 series mobile radios is an excellent example. This is why I keep an old NEC ProSpeed 'portable' around. It's built like the proverbial tank, and will probably outlast me.
For later (but still not really 'Windows class') software, I keep several 486's around, in various speeds from 16/33 all the way up to 133. Just like with Motorola, there's lots of still-useful software in the electronics, instrument control/datalogging, and RF world that simply won't run on anything newer than the last version of DOS.
In essence, older computers and OS's are (and will probably continue to be) very useful for running specialized stuff that was never ported to Windows, probably because it never needed the bloat, overhead, and instability that went with it (translation: It did its job very well indeed, and there was no reason to "fix" it).
Now, if you want to expand that definition of "hardware" to include test equipment, the oldest items of such that I have, and still use, are a couple of Tektronix 7000-series oscilloscopes from the mid 70's, and an HP AC voltmeter from the early 70's. All are still going strong, I'm pleased to say.
Ya know, I think the parents that originated this suit would also be likely to try and make their kids wear tinfoil hats, and are likely the kind of people who believe everything they see on the SciFi channel's so-called "Tuesday Declassified."
Speaking as an RF techie: The emissions from WiFi nodes are in the low milliwatt range (50-200). They pose less of a risk than cellphones (assuming cellphones pose ANY risk, something I'm still not at all convinced of).
Furthermore, the strength of any RF signal is inversely proportional to the square of the distance you are from the source of said emission. Then again, I don't suppose that hard facts are going to slow down the ignorant and paranoid in the slightest.
Instead of spending loads of $$ to project an image, why not spend it towards FIXING THE BUGS and SECURITY HOLES in their stuff?
In short: Isn't improving the actual product(s) more important than seeing some cookie-cutter TV star using them?
They can put all the TV spin they want on their OS's and apps. It won't do them one iota of good if said OS and apps remain in their current state, security-wise (which means they're about as secure as a block of Swiss cheese).
There's also AMI. Also, I really have to wonder if machines with locked-in BIOS sets are going to suffer the same fate as DIVX discs, Microsoft's "Bob," and all the other weird ideas that litter the technology graveyards.
Speaking for myself, I can say with confidence that I would NEVER, under ANY conditions, buy a system that's been locked up as the article describes. I will NOT tolerate some megalomaniacal company telling me what OS I can or cannot run on a system that I buy/own.
The good news is that a move like this could certainly be a shot in the arm for the used computer industry, considering all the systems that are pre-DRM/pre-BIOS insanity/etc.
The best possible means of controlling spam is to run one's own mail system(s). However, doing so correctly takes decent levels of skill in Unix-type OS's, TCP/IP networking, firewall setup and security basics.
I don't think it's at all reasonable to expect that all end users of E-mail have those skills. It takes considerable time, effort, and outside help, even for someone with lots of prior network and computing background (it took me about a year and a half), to become what could probably be considered a 'competent' SysAdmin.
Even assuming the right skills are present, one still needs an ISP that will (1), provide one or more static IP addresses on a broadband connection, and (2), allow their customers to be self-hosted. Such ISPs are, in my experience, rare at best.
It's well within the realm of possibility for ISP's, the big backbone providers, and domain registrars, to put a very serious dent in spamming right here and now. Some things they could all do include:
(1) For domain registrars: Be absolutely scrupulous about requiring accurate contact info in ANY domain registration. We're talking valid address, phone number, and contact name and E-mail addresses. VERIFY that information BEFORE issuing a domain registration. Considering that most spammers want to remain anonymous, this simple change alone would throw a huge wrench into spammers' gears.
(2) For ISP's: Stop hosting spammers NO MATTER HOW MUCH THEY'RE WILLING TO PAY!!! This is a big problem, as spammers are willing to pay serious $$ for ISP's to ignore their own Terms of Service.
There should be a universal policy of suspending an account at the first hint of a spam complaint regarding it. Once said complaint is investigated, the account should be immediately terminated, AND a substantial clean-up fee charged, if there is clear proof that the account was involved with spamming. If not, simply lift the suspension.
(3) For the big backbone providers (and they're the ones who could really help if only they weren't as indifferent as the former Bell System): ENFORCE your own Terms of Service! If one of the downstream ISP's they're supplying bandwidth to is infested with spammers, and does not seem interested in controlling the problem, cut that ISP's pipe fercryinoutloud! Tell them that the pipe remains cut until they dump ALL their spammy customers, permanently! If SpewSpewNet (aka UUNet) did this with even ONE of their big spam havens, I think it'd make a huge difference in the Internet's 'Quality of Life' as it were.
If the ISP in question goes out of business as a result, well, they have no one but themselves to blame for hosting network abusers and criminals.
Regrettably, I doubt we'll see any of the above taking place. Too much greed vs. too much common sense, and greed usually wins.
So it's not microwaveable -- So what?
on
NYT on RFID
·
· Score: 1
There are (and will be) other ways to destroy the tags. One that comes immediately to mind is those multi-thousand volt stun-guns or shock-wands, used in self-defense applications. Once the tag is located (using the appropriate reader), just zap the crap out of the area and see if the tag is still readable. Repeat until you no longer get a response.
"Unfortunately, THEY DO. It's called Free Speech. Bill of Rights, at the top."
Sorry, wrong, thanks for playing. That's the same argument the spammers have been using for years.
The First Amendment states that CONGRESS shall make no law that restricts free speech, etc. I'm not Congress, nor would I want to be, and the First says NOTHING about Internet providers and private property.
The word 'private' is the key. I run all my own servers -- DNS, mail, web, FTP, the works -- and I pay for the electricity and bandwidth to do so out of my own pocket. If something breaks, I cover the cost of repairs in replacement parts and my labor to put them in.
I am under NO LEGAL OBLIGATION WHATSOEVER to accept E-mail traffic from ANYone. If I want to block traffic from some other network because I don't like the color of the SysAdmin's car, I would be perfectly within my rights to do so.
Likewise, if some other admin wants to block traffic from my network because s/he doesn't like my political views, well, that's within their right as well. I can't do Jack Squat about it.
In short: My servers, my bandwidth, my rules. In the case of other ISPs or 'net-connected hosts, it's their servers, their bandwidth, their rules. Simple private property rights.
Still think I'm wrong? Ok. Find me an ISP, for example, that will guarantee delivery of E-mail to ANY address under ANY conditions, no matter what. Not gonna happen.
If, after all that, you still don't Get It, then I'm wasting my energy typing because no amount of logic is going to convince you.
Smart? Yeah, sure... 'Smart' like the petty criminal he really is.
Spammers, as a rule, either have zero concept of private property rights, or they (like telemarketers) think they have some mysterious "right" to (ab)use their intended recipient's E-mail boxes.
If this creepoid is so smart, and making so many $$, why is he living in a dilapidated mobile home in the middle of a Florida trailer park?
"I there are that many GE and Motorola radios, odds are someone has already written replacement software the runs natively under Linux."
You're missing the point. The examples I gave were only one small facet of the versatility of serial ports. My point is why get rid of them altogether when it costs practically nothing to at least provide a ten-pin Berg header for one.
In any case, you're incorrect. There is no Linux package for doing the radio programming I mention because the programming protocols are 102% proprietary, and have never been made available in such a way that open source could take advantage of them.
Latest is not always greatest. If you want to get one of these stripped-down boxes, be my guest. I'm merely pointing out that VIA is targeting an awfully narrow market segment as opposed to more general-purpose machines.
I would, instead, say that RS232 ports have stood the Test of Time, and continue to do so. Personally, I would never buy ANY motherboard or PC that did not include at least two basic serial ports (either 232 or 422, I don't care which).
The (bad) assumption that VIA is making, of course, is that everyone will be using an OS that supports USB, and that if people need serial ports they'll use a USB-to-RS232 converter. However, the only OS's I know of that support USB to a degree that it's usable are Windows 2000 and XP, some releases of Linux, and FreeBSD.
While that covers a lot of ground, it still locks out specialized applications, such as those in the industrial arena, which need hardware-based serial ports. It also locks out good ole' DOS (unless someone's come up with a USB driver for DOS...?)
Before the Bronx cheers start, let me say that there's still plenty of low-level and specialized applications that use DOS. In fact, much of the programming software for Motorola and GE radios depends on it BECAUSE IT DOESN'T NEED WINDOWS COMPLEXITY AND BLOAT!!!
There are also plenty of devices Out There, including lots of networking and test equipment, that depend on, or can be more easily worked with through, communication over a basic serial port and 'dumb terminal' emulator on a PC. Don't even get me started on the numerous items of amateur radio hardware that use a serial port for communications and control.
I can only assume, based on this latest news, that VIA is simply not interested in selling to market segments where "legacy" ports are still required. Fair enough. I'll stick to "real" motherboards, and VIA can stick to their goodies.
The Internet itself has never been anything more than a communications tool to me. A very useful one, I grant you, but still just a tool. If, for whatever reason, the entire 'net evaporated tomorrow, it would mean only minor changes in the way I handle my life and side business. Some examples:
--Word processors and laser printers work quite well without the presence of E-mail. I would simply start using postal mail more than I do now.
--Web site? An interesting toy, but is it something I REALLY cannot live without? I don't think so! I would find other ways to advertise my side business. There are enough cheap print mediums specific to my chosen field that I think I could afford a couple of small, well-placed ads.
--FTP? Handy, but hardly indispensable. Before the advent of the 'net, manufacturers of electronic and computer equipment would maintain dial-up bulletin board systems containing docs, drivers, and other such goodies. I'd simply start using them again.
What do all three of the above have in common? One word: COMMUNICATION. What does one need to know to be an effective communicator? Good writing and speaking skills, and the ability to THINK CAREFULLY about what you're writing or saying to your intended recipient(s).
No one "needs" the Internet to develop such skills. What is needed is a lot more focus on teaching such things in the school system, as well as the skills of critical and analytical thinking.
Cliff Stoll has already written extensively on this same topic (I.E., does anyone really need the Internet). Check out his books 'Silicon Snake Oil' and 'High-Tech Heretic.'
AP WIRE(less), 18-Sep-03. Microsoft Corporation president Steve 'Balmy' Ballmer announced today the formation of a new subdivision of the company which will specialize in the production and marketing of exploits for the Windows operating system.
"All we're doing is catering to existing demand" Ballmer said during a press conference. "People want this stuff as much as they want Windows, and we're the best choice to make the exploits available. After all, we know better than anyone how many bugs are in our own code..."
The first official release of the Windows Exploit Advantage Kit, or WEAK, is scheduled to take place on December 42nd. When questioned about the date, Mr. Ballmer had this to say; "It's our way of honoring the late Douglas Adams. Even if that weren't enough, it turns out that the number of bugs in Windows, divided by half the number of years before our sun goes nova, equals exactly 42. What could be more appropriate for a release date...?"
Last week, despite the fact that finances are tight for me at the moment, I had this odd urge to go and buy the motherboard/CPU/memory combo for my next computer (I always build my own).
As I was contemplating 'why,' considering that my current system does pretty well, I realized that one big reason was that I wanted to get something that was (1), somewhat future-proof; and (2), that did not currently implement DRM ANYwhere in the mom-board's hardware, all because I hate the idea of a bunch of MBA's/CEO's/whatever telling me what I can or cannot do with my computer.
Now, seeing this story as I'm getting ready to put the new system together, it makes me wonder all over again if there really is any such thing as a coincidence.
For the benefit of the curious: I got a Tyan Tiger MPX, a pair of Athlon MP 2400+'s, half a gig of Corsair ECC memory, and a PC Power & Cooling 510ATX supply. Should keep me going for another 5-6 years at least.
Mobile phones are indeed a nice thing to have, BUT... has anyone, be they manufacturer, reseller, or even end user, given any thought whatsoever to the issue of disposal and recycling of outdated or "obsolete" (I loathe that word) phones?
"Planned obsolescence" may be considered a Good Thing for helping to keep phone manufacturers in business, but what I'd like to know is how recyclable older phones are. What are manufacturers doing to recycle the materials in older units into newer ones, thus helping to keep toxic electronics residue out of the landfills?
Is anyone in any position of authority asking (and getting good answers) to this question? Or are we all going to find ourselves, eventually, living in condos built out of retired computer and mobile phone parts?
"MS is doing everything they can to keep people using updated software. Literally they make you go out of your way to run out-ot-date unpatched software. At some point the blame has to shift from MS to the end-user..."
This is actually a good point. The Internet was thrown wide open to everybody and their brother's dog starting in 1996. It was opened without warning, without restrictions, without any background into its history or proper online behavior, nothing.
In fact, as far as Joe or Jane Six-Pack is concerned, this vast new communications resource called "E-mail" just 'appeared.' The web soon followed, and I think we all know where things went from there.
It all comes down to one simple concept that I think too many people have forgotten: Responsibility.
Examples: Getting a driver's licens requires training and a test because you need to be responsible for your own safety AND that of others you share the road with. Getting a ham radio license takes training and a test because you need to be responsible for your equipment and insure that it doesn't interfere with others sharing the airwaves.
What happened to the idea of Internet operator's permits? Considering the havoc that can obviously be wreaked with a few million unprotected Windows machines, all blithely connected to the 'net by their clueless owners without any sort of antiviral or firewall protection, don't the very same principles apply to 'net connection as they do to getting one of the licenses I mentioned above?
It's far too late now to even consider such an idea. However, I also have to wonder if we'd have half the problems online that we do today if some sort of access-licensing scheme had been PROPERLY implemented from the word 'go.'
In summary: Yes, some blame for the current state of affairs has to find its way to the end user. Anyone who's ignorant or stupid enough to connect an unprotected machine to the Internet deserves what they get. When their system gets cracked, and turned into a spammer zombie, and their ISP subsequently disconnects their access, it'll be a good lesson in basic system security.
If they don't want to assume responsibility for their own hardware & software, well, I'm sure there are things other than an Internet connection that will be worthwhile for them to pursue.
...I can't help but start thinking about some of the Fun-But-Eevyl Things that one could do with this kind of hardware. The hack already done to the now-infamous 'Billy Bass' (or was it 'Boogie Bass?' I never was too clear on that) comes immediately to mind, as do the electronic surgical procedures performed on hapless furbys.
For example: I seem to recall that several of the parade floats have wireless receivers for the purpose of playing parade music through onboard speakers. I think it would be great fun to find what frequency they're on, use a transmitter powerful enough to override Disney's signal (FM does have that nice 'capture' effect), and broadcast a nice, juicy belch right in the middle of the event.
This idea took on new meaning with my recent (somewhat unwilling) exposure to the big parade at the Orlando park. Every time the stupid narration told the audience to yell "Pixie Dust," I found myself wondering how much effort it would take to substitute the words "Angel Dust!"
Same thing applies to Lucky. I'll bet that, with some creative tweaking, he could be made to do all kinds of things that would be, shall we say, less than politically correct?
All I can say is that I hope someone does it when the press is around to report it.;-)
Or, to put it another way, the rumors of SPEWS demise have been greatly exaggerated.
Here's what's going on. Joe Jared opted to take down Osirusoft.com's MIRRORING of the SPEWS database, and also chose to stop providing his relays.osirusoft.com DNSBL.
The SPEWS DNSBL listings, I'm happy to report, are still very much alive and well. SysAdmins desiring to resume using this resource can point their MTA's DNSBL lookup to l1.spews.dnsbl.sorbs.net. Other mirrors are available as well, and a polite query in the newsgroup news.admin.net-abuse.email should provide all the info one would need.
So, in summary, to the spammers who blew a whole $1.49 on that bottle of cheap wine at your local Circle-K or 7-11 to celebrate -- sorry! Looks like you wasted your money.;-)
Years ago, back before Tektronix's quality of documentation suffered the Curse of the MBA's, when they still had real schematics and valuable service info in their equipment manuals, one would often find cute little additions to the corner of a schematic diagram.
Two that I remember, which I think showed up in manuals for the 540-series or similar era oscilloscopes, were a wizard on a skateboard, and a forlorn-looking imp, blackened like a charcoal briquette, with little wisps of smoke coming up as though he'd been struck by lightning.
The additions were appropriate, too. The wizard, I think, showed up in the triggering section (this was a time when some Tek engineers were referred to as 'wizards,' thanks to the advances they were making in triggered-sweep 'scopes), while the imp appeared in the high-voltage power supply area.
I think such additions would help keep technical writers from going quietly nuts. I know from experience that it's a demanding and very dull task to write a good manual. I'm not going to blame anyone for doing what amount to sanity-saving doodles, especially if they're well done.
I would guess it will take no more than three months for another blocklist, very similar to SPEWS, to rise from the ashes. Remember that SPEWS, and the anonymous group of admins that made it up, are still Out There -- they're just without DNS at the moment.
One important point to remember is that Joe Jared himself was NOT SPEWS. No one ever knew who they were (at least no one that will admit to it). He merely acted as a reflector for their listings.
Another thing to remember is that a DDoS attack -- ANY DDoS attack -- is a criminal act. If the release of the recent incarnations of the SoBig worm and the DDoS attacks against SPEWS are indeed related, then it only proves that spammers are indeed criminals.
For my part, I've already seen an increase in spam as the result of losing access to the SPEWS DNSBL. I've had to update our local blocklist six times today, and that's really unusual for my setup. I suspect I'll be fairly busy over the next couple of weeks, doing a little of the same each day.
Spammers may have won a battle today. They're a LONG way from winning the war.
AOL owns all their equipment, and they're paying the (no doubt substantial) monthly bills for electricity, bandwidth, etc. They have absolute authority to operate their stuff any way they choose. If they want to block mail from some other ISP because they don't like the color of the admin's car, well... they can do it. That's the way the Internet, as a whole, operates.
Now, with that said... If they start losing customers because of their blocking policies, I'll wager that they'll rethink said policies in a big hurry.
Now, with all THAT said... I've done a little research. It seems that AOL's accusations that CIHost is a spammer are not entirely unfounded. From what I found, it seems they were spamming their own hosting services less than a year ago. More recently, around the beginning of July, it appears that they provided spam support services.
There are numerous other instances, dating from 2000-2002, from the Google Groups search for the group news.admin.net-abuse.email. In short, it would appear that CIHost, while the number of recent reports seems to have slacked off, may still not be completely free of spammer infestation themselves.
They would be very wise to clean their own house before they start yelling "Foul!" about other ISPs doing nothing more than exercising their private property rights.
At the risk of sounding like one of those infomercial testimonials...
I ran qmail for a year or so, then ended up switching to Postfix. At this point, you couldn't pay me to switch back to qmail.
It's not that qmail's a "bad" program. It's certainly not! Dave B. did a heck of a job with it, and I know it's in service as a Sendmail replacement at thousands of sites.
My gripes with qmail are that you practically need to be a programmer to implement it "properly" (at least that's my impression), and that, in order to have an ideal working environment for it, you have to replace the inetd daemon, and add in other tools that are far from simple for non-programmers to implement and use.
My biggest gripe with qmail was how it implemented spam blocking. Complex and clumsy (to my view), with no way that I found to "whitelist" a given domain name or IP, and no way to block on domain name lookup either.
Postfix solved all the problems listed above, and it came pre-installed with NetBSD (my Internet server OS of choice). As for its blocking/whitelist syntax, it couldn't be simpler. Examples...
For blocking: some.host 554 Access denied. For whiteliesting: some.host OK
You simply replace 'some.host' with an IP address or host name, and the three-digit error code with anything you want. qmail was limited to two error codes. The best part is that you can, if you wish, block entire countries that have become spam sewers simply by doing things like this in the blocklist:
.cn 554 Access denied. China's a spammer paradise.
With qmail, you'd have to go through and enter every single IP range assigned to China, manually. I know -- I did this at one time for qmail, and it was two hours plus worth of work! What's even worse is that you have no control over what error message text is sent back. Postfix lets you put in anything you want.
While I will admit that Postfix's default blocking file cannot directly accomodate CIDR notation or IP ranges, Rahul Dhesi, one of the nice folks who inhabits news.admin.net-abuse.email, wrote a handy script to take a source blockfile, complete with said CIDR notations and specific syntax to indicate a range, and convert it into a form usable with Postfix. He also has a bunch of other handy tools for use with Postfix on his site.
I may not know what a "milter" is, but I do know that postfix can block or pass mail on just about anything you want. It supports regular expressions, hashes, etc.
I guess I do sound like a testimonial... Well, the heck with it! I like Postfix.;-) The info at Postfix's home site speaks for itself.
"Hams are technically literate folks who don't pay for anything if they don't have to. If you can build it, why pay someone for it? I'm shocked that most of them can make a radio out of some wire and a resistor because it's cheap, yet choose to pay $200 for a Windows license."
Speaking as a long-term hamateur (I've been licensed nearly 26 years), I have some comments on your statements above.
First, name me ANYone on this planet that doesn't pay for something if they don't "have" to. I can assure you with absolute confidence that this is not a trait that is limited to ham radio folk.;-)
Amateur radio, like other hobbies, gives back exactly what you put into it. If you just want to spend a minimal amount on a low-end radio for use on the local repeaters, and chat with others, fine. You'll get that, no problem.
If, on the other wing, you want your signal to go halfway around the planet, bounce off the moon and land back on Earth at some distant point, or put up your own repeater or APRS station, you're going to need to invest significant $$ in the appropriate hardware (and software, if needed) to do it.
Considering the high cost of some of that hardware, particularly specialized commercially-made antennas, is it any wonder that many hams (myself included) are tinkerers and kit-builders? Is it any wonder that we're opportunistic as all get-out when it comes to scrounging, and re-utilizing surplus parts to build our own stuff?
As far as your comments on $200 or so for Windows goes, let me add this. Learning how to tinker properly with electronics, especially radio hardware, takes lots of time. It also takes, in most cases, a significant investment in test and measurement equipment, and many specialized hand and power tools. Oscilloscopes, signal generators, and spectrum analyzers are not cheap, even on the used market, any more than a good drill press or contact crimper is.
Given that, and given the high degree of difficulty, and the equally high degree of skill, required to write a decent operating system or application software, I would certainly (heck, I did) choose to simply buy available products if they will meet my needs.
Put it another way; I really don't have the time or skill to write my own OS and software, nor is it something that I would choose to learn. It's enough of a challenge keeping up with what I'm doing on the hardware side (which does, admittedly, include the occasional bit of assembly code for embedded microcontrollers). It's much more expedient, in many cases, to simply buy what is already made that can be adapted to serve my requirements.
If SCO is bound and determined to commit public-relations and corporate suicide, all in one swell foop, I'm sure there are cleaner and quieter ways to go about it.
All this grandstanding (without presenting independently-verifiable proof of their claims, I think that's all they're doing) is only going to do one thing: Create a serious financial drain on the company in terms of court costs.
One interesting side effect to this whole mess may be that BSD-based OS's will get more attention. As far as I know, neither NetBSD, nor FreeBSD, nor OpenBSD have ever been the subject of lawsuits of the type that SCO is pushing.
Whatever happens, I think SCO has gone utterly, irretrievably bonkers if they think this kind of behavior will help them in any way. I feel sorry for the employees...
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't be very much on-topic, per se, but it could be really funny...
...than SpAmazon. And Bookpool will never spam you like Amazon will, given half a chance.
The book is still in pre-order state from Bookpool, but they'll ship it to you when it hits. You can check the details at this link.
There are still applications useful in the amateur and commercial land/mobile radio world that will simply not run on anything other than an old DOS machine. The programming software for the Motorola Syntor X9000 series mobile radios is an excellent example. This is why I keep an old NEC ProSpeed 'portable' around. It's built like the proverbial tank, and will probably outlast me.
For later (but still not really 'Windows class') software, I keep several 486's around, in various speeds from 16/33 all the way up to 133. Just like with Motorola, there's lots of still-useful software in the electronics, instrument control/datalogging, and RF world that simply won't run on anything newer than the last version of DOS.
In essence, older computers and OS's are (and will probably continue to be) very useful for running specialized stuff that was never ported to Windows, probably because it never needed the bloat, overhead, and instability that went with it (translation: It did its job very well indeed, and there was no reason to "fix" it).
Now, if you want to expand that definition of "hardware" to include test equipment, the oldest items of such that I have, and still use, are a couple of Tektronix 7000-series oscilloscopes from the mid 70's, and an HP AC voltmeter from the early 70's. All are still going strong, I'm pleased to say.
Ya know, I think the parents that originated this suit would also be likely to try and make their kids wear tinfoil hats, and are likely the kind of people who believe everything they see on the SciFi channel's so-called "Tuesday Declassified."
Speaking as an RF techie: The emissions from WiFi nodes are in the low milliwatt range (50-200). They pose less of a risk than cellphones (assuming cellphones pose ANY risk, something I'm still not at all convinced of).
Furthermore, the strength of any RF signal is inversely proportional to the square of the distance you are from the source of said emission. Then again, I don't suppose that hard facts are going to slow down the ignorant and paranoid in the slightest.
Instead of spending loads of $$ to project an image, why not spend it towards FIXING THE BUGS and SECURITY HOLES in their stuff?
In short: Isn't improving the actual product(s) more important than seeing some cookie-cutter TV star using them?
They can put all the TV spin they want on their OS's and apps. It won't do them one iota of good if said OS and apps remain in their current state, security-wise (which means they're about as secure as a block of Swiss cheese).
There's also AMI. Also, I really have to wonder if machines with locked-in BIOS sets are going to suffer the same fate as DIVX discs, Microsoft's "Bob," and all the other weird ideas that litter the technology graveyards.
Speaking for myself, I can say with confidence that I would NEVER, under ANY conditions, buy a system that's been locked up as the article describes. I will NOT tolerate some megalomaniacal company telling me what OS I can or cannot run on a system that I buy/own.
The good news is that a move like this could certainly be a shot in the arm for the used computer industry, considering all the systems that are pre-DRM/pre-BIOS insanity/etc.
The best possible means of controlling spam is to run one's own mail system(s). However, doing so correctly takes decent levels of skill in Unix-type OS's, TCP/IP networking, firewall setup and security basics.
I don't think it's at all reasonable to expect that all end users of E-mail have those skills. It takes considerable time, effort, and outside help, even for someone with lots of prior network and computing background (it took me about a year and a half), to become what could probably be considered a 'competent' SysAdmin.
Even assuming the right skills are present, one still needs an ISP that will (1), provide one or more static IP addresses on a broadband connection, and (2), allow their customers to be self-hosted. Such ISPs are, in my experience, rare at best.
It's well within the realm of possibility for ISP's, the big backbone providers, and domain registrars, to put a very serious dent in spamming right here and now. Some things they could all do include:
(1) For domain registrars: Be absolutely scrupulous about requiring accurate contact info in ANY domain registration. We're talking valid address, phone number, and contact name and E-mail addresses. VERIFY that information BEFORE issuing a domain registration. Considering that most spammers want to remain anonymous, this simple change alone would throw a huge wrench into spammers' gears.
(2) For ISP's: Stop hosting spammers NO MATTER HOW MUCH THEY'RE WILLING TO PAY!!! This is a big problem, as spammers are willing to pay serious $$ for ISP's to ignore their own Terms of Service.
There should be a universal policy of suspending an account at the first hint of a spam complaint regarding it. Once said complaint is investigated, the account should be immediately terminated, AND a substantial clean-up fee charged, if there is clear proof that the account was involved with spamming. If not, simply lift the suspension.
(3) For the big backbone providers (and they're the ones who could really help if only they weren't as indifferent as the former Bell System): ENFORCE your own Terms of Service! If one of the downstream ISP's they're supplying bandwidth to is infested with spammers, and does not seem interested in controlling the problem, cut that ISP's pipe fercryinoutloud! Tell them that the pipe remains cut until they dump ALL their spammy customers, permanently! If SpewSpewNet (aka UUNet) did this with even ONE of their big spam havens, I think it'd make a huge difference in the Internet's 'Quality of Life' as it were.
If the ISP in question goes out of business as a result, well, they have no one but themselves to blame for hosting network abusers and criminals.
Regrettably, I doubt we'll see any of the above taking place. Too much greed vs. too much common sense, and greed usually wins.
There are (and will be) other ways to destroy the tags. One that comes immediately to mind is those multi-thousand volt stun-guns or shock-wands, used in self-defense applications. Once the tag is located (using the appropriate reader), just zap the crap out of the area and see if the tag is still readable. Repeat until you no longer get a response.
JayBlaylock wrote...
"Unfortunately, THEY DO. It's called Free Speech. Bill of Rights, at the top."
Sorry, wrong, thanks for playing. That's the same argument the spammers have been using for years.
The First Amendment states that CONGRESS shall make no law that restricts free speech, etc. I'm not Congress, nor would I want to be, and the First says NOTHING about Internet providers and private property.
The word 'private' is the key. I run all my own servers -- DNS, mail, web, FTP, the works -- and I pay for the electricity and bandwidth to do so out of my own pocket. If something breaks, I cover the cost of repairs in replacement parts and my labor to put them in.
I am under NO LEGAL OBLIGATION WHATSOEVER to accept E-mail traffic from ANYone. If I want to block traffic from some other network because I don't like the color of the SysAdmin's car, I would be perfectly within my rights to do so.
Likewise, if some other admin wants to block traffic from my network because s/he doesn't like my political views, well, that's within their right as well. I can't do Jack Squat about it.
In short: My servers, my bandwidth, my rules. In the case of other ISPs or 'net-connected hosts, it's their servers, their bandwidth, their rules. Simple private property rights.
Still think I'm wrong? Ok. Find me an ISP, for example, that will guarantee delivery of E-mail to ANY address under ANY conditions, no matter what. Not gonna happen.
If, after all that, you still don't Get It, then I'm wasting my energy typing because no amount of logic is going to convince you.
Smart? Yeah, sure... 'Smart' like the petty criminal he really is.
Spammers, as a rule, either have zero concept of private property rights, or they (like telemarketers) think they have some mysterious "right" to (ab)use their intended recipient's E-mail boxes.
If this creepoid is so smart, and making so many $$, why is he living in a dilapidated mobile home in the middle of a Florida trailer park?
"I there are that many GE and Motorola radios, odds are someone has already written replacement software the runs natively under Linux."
You're missing the point. The examples I gave were only one small facet of the versatility of serial ports. My point is why get rid of them altogether when it costs practically nothing to at least provide a ten-pin Berg header for one.
In any case, you're incorrect. There is no Linux package for doing the radio programming I mention because the programming protocols are 102% proprietary, and have never been made available in such a way that open source could take advantage of them.
Latest is not always greatest. If you want to get one of these stripped-down boxes, be my guest. I'm merely pointing out that VIA is targeting an awfully narrow market segment as opposed to more general-purpose machines.
I would, instead, say that RS232 ports have stood the Test of Time, and continue to do so. Personally, I would never buy ANY motherboard or PC that did not include at least two basic serial ports (either 232 or 422, I don't care which).
The (bad) assumption that VIA is making, of course, is that everyone will be using an OS that supports USB, and that if people need serial ports they'll use a USB-to-RS232 converter. However, the only OS's I know of that support USB to a degree that it's usable are Windows 2000 and XP, some releases of Linux, and FreeBSD.
While that covers a lot of ground, it still locks out specialized applications, such as those in the industrial arena, which need hardware-based serial ports. It also locks out good ole' DOS (unless someone's come up with a USB driver for DOS...?)
Before the Bronx cheers start, let me say that there's still plenty of low-level and specialized applications that use DOS. In fact, much of the programming software for Motorola and GE radios depends on it BECAUSE IT DOESN'T NEED WINDOWS COMPLEXITY AND BLOAT!!!
There are also plenty of devices Out There, including lots of networking and test equipment, that depend on, or can be more easily worked with through, communication over a basic serial port and 'dumb terminal' emulator on a PC. Don't even get me started on the numerous items of amateur radio hardware that use a serial port for communications and control.
I can only assume, based on this latest news, that VIA is simply not interested in selling to market segments where "legacy" ports are still required. Fair enough. I'll stick to "real" motherboards, and VIA can stick to their goodies.
The Internet itself has never been anything more than a communications tool to me. A very useful one, I grant you, but still just a tool. If, for whatever reason, the entire 'net evaporated tomorrow, it would mean only minor changes in the way I handle my life and side business. Some examples:
--Word processors and laser printers work quite well without the presence of E-mail. I would simply start using postal mail more than I do now.
--Web site? An interesting toy, but is it something I REALLY cannot live without? I don't think so! I would find other ways to advertise my side business. There are enough cheap print mediums specific to my chosen field that I think I could afford a couple of small, well-placed ads.
--FTP? Handy, but hardly indispensable. Before the advent of the 'net, manufacturers of electronic and computer equipment would maintain dial-up bulletin board systems containing docs, drivers, and other such goodies. I'd simply start using them again.
What do all three of the above have in common? One word: COMMUNICATION. What does one need to know to be an effective communicator? Good writing and speaking skills, and the ability to THINK CAREFULLY about what you're writing or saying to your intended recipient(s).
No one "needs" the Internet to develop such skills. What is needed is a lot more focus on teaching such things in the school system, as well as the skills of critical and analytical thinking.
Cliff Stoll has already written extensively on this same topic (I.E., does anyone really need the Internet). Check out his books 'Silicon Snake Oil' and 'High-Tech Heretic.'
AP WIRE(less), 18-Sep-03. Microsoft Corporation president Steve 'Balmy' Ballmer announced today the formation of a new subdivision of the company which will specialize in the production and marketing of exploits for the Windows operating system.
"All we're doing is catering to existing demand" Ballmer said during a press conference. "People want this stuff as much as they want Windows, and we're the best choice to make the exploits available. After all, we know better than anyone how many bugs are in our own code..."
The first official release of the Windows Exploit Advantage Kit, or WEAK, is scheduled to take place on December 42nd. When questioned about the date, Mr. Ballmer had this to say; "It's our way of honoring the late Douglas Adams. Even if that weren't enough, it turns out that the number of bugs in Windows, divided by half the number of years before our sun goes nova, equals exactly 42. What could be more appropriate for a release date...?"
Last week, despite the fact that finances are tight for me at the moment, I had this odd urge to go and buy the motherboard/CPU/memory combo for my next computer (I always build my own).
As I was contemplating 'why,' considering that my current system does pretty well, I realized that one big reason was that I wanted to get something that was (1), somewhat future-proof; and (2), that did not currently implement DRM ANYwhere in the mom-board's hardware, all because I hate the idea of a bunch of MBA's/CEO's/whatever telling me what I can or cannot do with my computer.
Now, seeing this story as I'm getting ready to put the new system together, it makes me wonder all over again if there really is any such thing as a coincidence.
For the benefit of the curious: I got a Tyan Tiger MPX, a pair of Athlon MP 2400+'s, half a gig of Corsair ECC memory, and a PC Power & Cooling 510ATX supply. Should keep me going for another 5-6 years at least.
Mobile phones are indeed a nice thing to have, BUT... has anyone, be they manufacturer, reseller, or even end user, given any thought whatsoever to the issue of disposal and recycling of outdated or "obsolete" (I loathe that word) phones?
"Planned obsolescence" may be considered a Good Thing for helping to keep phone manufacturers in business, but what I'd like to know is how recyclable older phones are. What are manufacturers doing to recycle the materials in older units into newer ones, thus helping to keep toxic electronics residue out of the landfills?
Is anyone in any position of authority asking (and getting good answers) to this question? Or are we all going to find ourselves, eventually, living in condos built out of retired computer and mobile phone parts?
Danheskett writes...
"MS is doing everything they can to keep people using updated software. Literally they make you go out of your way to run out-ot-date unpatched software. At some point the blame has to shift from MS to the end-user..."
This is actually a good point. The Internet was thrown wide open to everybody and their brother's dog starting in 1996. It was opened without warning, without restrictions, without any background into its history or proper online behavior, nothing.
In fact, as far as Joe or Jane Six-Pack is concerned, this vast new communications resource called "E-mail" just 'appeared.' The web soon followed, and I think we all know where things went from there.
It all comes down to one simple concept that I think too many people have forgotten: Responsibility.
Examples: Getting a driver's licens requires training and a test because you need to be responsible for your own safety AND that of others you share the road with. Getting a ham radio license takes training and a test because you need to be responsible for your equipment and insure that it doesn't interfere with others sharing the airwaves.
What happened to the idea of Internet operator's permits? Considering the havoc that can obviously be wreaked with a few million unprotected Windows machines, all blithely connected to the 'net by their clueless owners without any sort of antiviral or firewall protection, don't the very same principles apply to 'net connection as they do to getting one of the licenses I mentioned above?
It's far too late now to even consider such an idea. However, I also have to wonder if we'd have half the problems online that we do today if some sort of access-licensing scheme had been PROPERLY implemented from the word 'go.'
In summary: Yes, some blame for the current state of affairs has to find its way to the end user. Anyone who's ignorant or stupid enough to connect an unprotected machine to the Internet deserves what they get. When their system gets cracked, and turned into a spammer zombie, and their ISP subsequently disconnects their access, it'll be a good lesson in basic system security.
If they don't want to assume responsibility for their own hardware & software, well, I'm sure there are things other than an Internet connection that will be worthwhile for them to pursue.
...I can't help but start thinking about some of the Fun-But-Eevyl Things that one could do with this kind of hardware. The hack already done to the now-infamous 'Billy Bass' (or was it 'Boogie Bass?' I never was too clear on that) comes immediately to mind, as do the electronic surgical procedures performed on hapless furbys.
;-)
For example: I seem to recall that several of the parade floats have wireless receivers for the purpose of playing parade music through onboard speakers. I think it would be great fun to find what frequency they're on, use a transmitter powerful enough to override Disney's signal (FM does have that nice 'capture' effect), and broadcast a nice, juicy belch right in the middle of the event.
This idea took on new meaning with my recent (somewhat unwilling) exposure to the big parade at the Orlando park. Every time the stupid narration told the audience to yell "Pixie Dust," I found myself wondering how much effort it would take to substitute the words "Angel Dust!"
Same thing applies to Lucky. I'll bet that, with some creative tweaking, he could be made to do all kinds of things that would be, shall we say, less than politically correct?
All I can say is that I hope someone does it when the press is around to report it.
Or, to put it another way, the rumors of SPEWS demise have been greatly exaggerated.
;-)
Here's what's going on. Joe Jared opted to take down Osirusoft.com's MIRRORING of the SPEWS database, and also chose to stop providing his relays.osirusoft.com DNSBL.
The SPEWS DNSBL listings, I'm happy to report, are still very much alive and well. SysAdmins desiring to resume using this resource can point their MTA's DNSBL lookup to l1.spews.dnsbl.sorbs.net. Other mirrors are available as well, and a polite query in the newsgroup news.admin.net-abuse.email should provide all the info one would need.
So, in summary, to the spammers who blew a whole $1.49 on that bottle of cheap wine at your local Circle-K or 7-11 to celebrate -- sorry! Looks like you wasted your money.
Years ago, back before Tektronix's quality of documentation suffered the Curse of the MBA's, when they still had real schematics and valuable service info in their equipment manuals, one would often find cute little additions to the corner of a schematic diagram.
Two that I remember, which I think showed up in manuals for the 540-series or similar era oscilloscopes, were a wizard on a skateboard, and a forlorn-looking imp, blackened like a charcoal briquette, with little wisps of smoke coming up as though he'd been struck by lightning.
The additions were appropriate, too. The wizard, I think, showed up in the triggering section (this was a time when some Tek engineers were referred to as 'wizards,' thanks to the advances they were making in triggered-sweep 'scopes), while the imp appeared in the high-voltage power supply area.
I think such additions would help keep technical writers from going quietly nuts. I know from experience that it's a demanding and very dull task to write a good manual. I'm not going to blame anyone for doing what amount to sanity-saving doodles, especially if they're well done.
I would guess it will take no more than three months for another blocklist, very similar to SPEWS, to rise from the ashes. Remember that SPEWS, and the anonymous group of admins that made it up, are still Out There -- they're just without DNS at the moment.
One important point to remember is that Joe Jared himself was NOT SPEWS. No one ever knew who they were (at least no one that will admit to it). He merely acted as a reflector for their listings.
Another thing to remember is that a DDoS attack -- ANY DDoS attack -- is a criminal act. If the release of the recent incarnations of the SoBig worm and the DDoS attacks against SPEWS are indeed related, then it only proves that spammers are indeed criminals.
For my part, I've already seen an increase in spam as the result of losing access to the SPEWS DNSBL. I've had to update our local blocklist six times today, and that's really unusual for my setup. I suspect I'll be fairly busy over the next couple of weeks, doing a little of the same each day.
Spammers may have won a battle today. They're a LONG way from winning the war.
AOL owns all their equipment, and they're paying the (no doubt substantial) monthly bills for electricity, bandwidth, etc. They have absolute authority to operate their stuff any way they choose. If they want to block mail from some other ISP because they don't like the color of the admin's car, well... they can do it. That's the way the Internet, as a whole, operates.
Now, with that said... If they start losing customers because of their blocking policies, I'll wager that they'll rethink said policies in a big hurry.
Now, with all THAT said... I've done a little research. It seems that AOL's accusations that CIHost is a spammer are not entirely unfounded. From what I found, it seems they were spamming their own hosting services less than a year ago. More recently, around the beginning of July, it appears that they provided spam support services.
There are numerous other instances, dating from 2000-2002, from the Google Groups search for the group news.admin.net-abuse.email. In short, it would appear that CIHost, while the number of recent reports seems to have slacked off, may still not be completely free of spammer infestation themselves.
They would be very wise to clean their own house before they start yelling "Foul!" about other ISPs doing nothing more than exercising their private property rights.
I ran qmail for a year or so, then ended up switching to Postfix. At this point, you couldn't pay me to switch back to qmail.
It's not that qmail's a "bad" program. It's certainly not! Dave B. did a heck of a job with it, and I know it's in service as a Sendmail replacement at thousands of sites.
My gripes with qmail are that you practically need to be a programmer to implement it "properly" (at least that's my impression), and that, in order to have an ideal working environment for it, you have to replace the inetd daemon, and add in other tools that are far from simple for non-programmers to implement and use.
My biggest gripe with qmail was how it implemented spam blocking. Complex and clumsy (to my view), with no way that I found to "whitelist" a given domain name or IP, and no way to block on domain name lookup either.
Postfix solved all the problems listed above, and it came pre-installed with NetBSD (my Internet server OS of choice). As for its blocking/whitelist syntax, it couldn't be simpler. Examples...
For blocking: some.host 554 Access denied.
For whiteliesting: some.host OK
You simply replace 'some.host' with an IP address or host name, and the three-digit error code with anything you want. qmail was limited to two error codes. The best part is that you can, if you wish, block entire countries that have become spam sewers simply by doing things like this in the blocklist:
.cn 554 Access denied. China's a spammer paradise.
With qmail, you'd have to go through and enter every single IP range assigned to China, manually. I know -- I did this at one time for qmail, and it was two hours plus worth of work! What's even worse is that you have no control over what error message text is sent back. Postfix lets you put in anything you want.
While I will admit that Postfix's default blocking file cannot directly accomodate CIDR notation or IP ranges, Rahul Dhesi, one of the nice folks who inhabits news.admin.net-abuse.email, wrote a handy script to take a source blockfile, complete with said CIDR notations and specific syntax to indicate a range, and convert it into a form usable with Postfix. He also has a bunch of other handy tools for use with Postfix on his site.
I may not know what a "milter" is, but I do know that postfix can block or pass mail on just about anything you want. It supports regular expressions, hashes, etc.
I guess I do sound like a testimonial... Well, the heck with it! I like Postfix.
Keep the peace(es).
Lxy Writes...
;-)
"Hams are technically literate folks who don't pay for anything if they don't have to. If you can build it, why pay someone for it? I'm shocked that most of them can make a radio out of some wire and a resistor because it's cheap, yet choose to pay $200 for a Windows license."
Speaking as a long-term hamateur (I've been licensed nearly 26 years), I have some comments on your statements above.
First, name me ANYone on this planet that doesn't pay for something if they don't "have" to. I can assure you with absolute confidence that this is not a trait that is limited to ham radio folk.
Amateur radio, like other hobbies, gives back exactly what you put into it. If you just want to spend a minimal amount on a low-end radio for use on the local repeaters, and chat with others, fine. You'll get that, no problem.
If, on the other wing, you want your signal to go halfway around the planet, bounce off the moon and land back on Earth at some distant point, or put up your own repeater or APRS station, you're going to need to invest significant $$ in the appropriate hardware (and software, if needed) to do it.
Considering the high cost of some of that hardware, particularly specialized commercially-made antennas, is it any wonder that many hams (myself included) are tinkerers and kit-builders? Is it any wonder that we're opportunistic as all get-out when it comes to scrounging, and re-utilizing surplus parts to build our own stuff?
As far as your comments on $200 or so for Windows goes, let me add this. Learning how to tinker properly with electronics, especially radio hardware, takes lots of time. It also takes, in most cases, a significant investment in test and measurement equipment, and many specialized hand and power tools. Oscilloscopes, signal generators, and spectrum analyzers are not cheap, even on the used market, any more than a good drill press or contact crimper is.
Given that, and given the high degree of difficulty, and the equally high degree of skill, required to write a decent operating system or application software, I would certainly (heck, I did) choose to simply buy available products if they will meet my needs.
Put it another way; I really don't have the time or skill to write my own OS and software, nor is it something that I would choose to learn. It's enough of a challenge keeping up with what I'm doing on the hardware side (which does, admittedly, include the occasional bit of assembly code for embedded microcontrollers). It's much more expedient, in many cases, to simply buy what is already made that can be adapted to serve my requirements.
73 de KC7GR
If SCO is bound and determined to commit public-relations and corporate suicide, all in one swell foop, I'm sure there are cleaner and quieter ways to go about it.
All this grandstanding (without presenting independently-verifiable proof of their claims, I think that's all they're doing) is only going to do one thing: Create a serious financial drain on the company in terms of court costs.
One interesting side effect to this whole mess may be that BSD-based OS's will get more attention. As far as I know, neither NetBSD, nor FreeBSD, nor OpenBSD have ever been the subject of lawsuits of the type that SCO is pushing.
Whatever happens, I think SCO has gone utterly, irretrievably bonkers if they think this kind of behavior will help them in any way. I feel sorry for the employees...