Seeing how well blind faith has worked in muslim countries, the think-tank came to the following conclusion:
"If we can change our educational system fundamentally, so that believing without question in a supreme authority becomes ingrained in successive generation's psyches, then we can supplant God's authority with our own, and the people, having gotten used to not questioning authority, will do whatever we tell them, like sheep"
Raw sockets are NOT an API, but you do deserve a prize for trying to sound profound when you obviously have no clue. I'll let others decide which prize you should receive.
Raw sockets are an option when you create a socket, using the exact same API you would use to create a normal socket.
Changing the privilege level required for such a request to succeed is where the action is.
I find the idea of attributing liability inane. Finding the cause is all-important, because you want to prevent recurrence of disaster, and that's what the extra eyes are for, but as for liability, I expect it's like someone already posted; the final word goes to the people at NASA that launch the sucker, they have to do final validation tests.
Let's say this java thingie miscalculates some data because it incorrectly interprets input as being in metric units, when in fact it's in imperial units.
"It could never happen!" I can hear all of you saying.
Well, it could, it can and it did.
Maybe if there had been x-thousand eyes looking at the code, it might have been caught by someone.
Bottom line, mistakes happen, but in open-source, you lower the percent of them.
Let's keep it that way! As long as the developers release it when it's done, and not according to some abstract schedule, we'll have the best operating system there is.
Reading your post makes me think that Windows is a toy.
All the things you listed are what you would NEED in a mature operating system.
Arguably, lots of the items you mentioned are hard to configure, where on Windows they are easy.
But I'd still rather have a tougher time setting up a workstation or server and wind up with something stable and solid than install Windows quickly, only to spend months if not years aggravated on the shoddiness of Microsoft's product.
In today's Internet climate, it's folly to run Windows. The number of problems it has caused has grown exponentially.
Maybe if Linux had been the defacto standard from day one, things would have progressed slower at first, but by now, we'd be a lot further along, never having to have lost months, weeks and years to the vagaries of a toy operating system like Windows.
Reading the posts, I think that the major source of addresses for spammers must be from address-books of machines they pwn.
I've read newsgroups USED to be a source of e-mail addresses for spammers, and web-pages too, and although they must still be used, it's probably a lot more accurate to infect a machine and steal the address book, or at least read all the addresses of messages received in the inbox...
I don't think so; more often than not, spammers use a variation of joe-jobs to deliver spam.
Haven't you ever received a failure notification for a message you never sent that was refused by a remote domain?
I have, and I KNOW I'm not infected, so why are the bounces coming back to me?
If it really was the spammers actually sending the spam, the originator could be easily traced and shut down.
So most of the time, spammers are using bot-nets. It's a zombie army doing their work for them.
It seems like there hasn't been a very public dissection of how the bot-nets are maintained, but I am betting that they receive address lists along with their delivery payload, so maybe someone could willfully have their machine infected, and stock it with thousands of fake e-mail addresses that would get sent back to the bot-net.
If increasing the noise ratio on P2P networks is a good thing, maybe we can use a similar technique to defeat spammers?
For example, if we could pollute spammers' email address databases with millions of bogus e-mail addresses, then instead of delivering millions of spam e-mails to real e-mail accounts every day, maybe spammers could only reliably send a few hundred to users, the rest of their messages would be to bogus addresses and be "noise" that spammers have to deal with.
Slashdot Mirror
>Now how would I have managed that?
I don't see a James T. Kirk user on Slashdot... quick, I'll go register that user ID and claim to be him.
If you are for real, why don't you go muck about in someone else's timeline?
I for one don't like the idea of people coming from the future and messing with my timeline.
I just saw the movie premiere night (call me a geek)
And I loved it!
OK, they sort of amped-up Trilian and Arthur's relationship, but I still thought the movie was wonderful.
Seeing how well blind faith has worked in muslim countries, the think-tank came to the following conclusion:
"If we can change our educational system fundamentally, so that believing without question in a supreme authority becomes ingrained in successive generation's psyches, then we can supplant God's authority with our own, and the people, having gotten used to not questioning authority, will do whatever we tell them, like sheep"
I'll take a tinfoil hat in x-large, please.
Mmmm... Pie...
Pi is giving digits that relate to the ratio of the diameter of a circle to it's circumference. That's a very definite thing.
The other generators are returning, well, noise.
Steve Gibson is a networking GOD.
I've read lots of articles he's written, and he's sharp as a tack.
Please mods, mod the parent down. Steve Gibson IS an honourable man, and it's sickening to read slander like the grandparent.
Nope,
Raw sockets are NOT an API, but you do deserve a prize for trying to sound profound when you obviously have no clue. I'll let others decide which prize you should receive.
Raw sockets are an option when you create a socket, using the exact same API you would use to create a normal socket.
Changing the privilege level required for such a request to succeed is where the action is.
Of course...
Now if you were running a REAL operating system, it would be entirely appropriate to have a full TCP/IP stack.
I have to agree with Microsoft on this one.
Possibly.
I find the idea of attributing liability inane.
Finding the cause is all-important, because you want to prevent recurrence of disaster, and that's what the extra eyes are for, but as for liability, I expect it's like someone already posted; the final word goes to the people at NASA that launch the sucker, they have to do final validation tests.
Not flamebait here; but what does it matter?
Let's say this java thingie miscalculates some data because it incorrectly interprets input as being in metric units, when in fact it's in imperial units.
"It could never happen!" I can hear all of you saying.
Well, it could, it can and it did.
Maybe if there had been x-thousand eyes looking at the code, it might have been caught by someone.
Bottom line, mistakes happen, but in open-source, you lower the percent of them.
Let's keep it that way!
As long as the developers release it when it's done, and not according to some abstract schedule, we'll have the best operating system there is.
Reading your post makes me think that Windows is a toy.
All the things you listed are what you would NEED in a mature operating system.
Arguably, lots of the items you mentioned are hard to configure, where on Windows they are easy.
But I'd still rather have a tougher time setting up a workstation or server and wind up with something stable and solid than install Windows quickly, only to spend months if not years aggravated on the shoddiness of Microsoft's product.
In today's Internet climate, it's folly to run Windows. The number of problems it has caused has grown exponentially.
Maybe if Linux had been the defacto standard from day one, things would have progressed slower at first, but by now, we'd be a lot further along, never having to have lost months, weeks and years to the vagaries of a toy operating system like Windows.
Yes, I think it's fair to say Microsoft will go down in history as a great marketing company.
Not as a great software company, but marketing is what they decided to concentrate on.
Let's all get together and sue Videotron instead.
That'll show them which side their bread is buttered on.
Duke sucks!
Fapfapfapfapfap
>The way to beat them is not to beg for them to open up their standard, but to create a better open standard backed by the community
.wma
Like MP3.
While it is subject to some restrictions, the format IS open, so we see a lot more people encoding audio in MP3 than in
Reading the posts, I think that the major source of addresses for spammers must be from address-books of machines they pwn.
I've read newsgroups USED to be a source of e-mail addresses for spammers, and web-pages too, and although they must still be used, it's probably a lot more accurate to infect a machine and steal the address book, or at least read all the addresses of messages received in the inbox...
Heh heh... A classic response. :-)
Thanks for being polite, at least.
I don't think so; more often than not, spammers use a variation of joe-jobs to deliver spam.
Haven't you ever received a failure notification for a message you never sent that was refused by a remote domain?
I have, and I KNOW I'm not infected, so why are the bounces coming back to me?
If it really was the spammers actually sending the spam, the originator could be easily traced and shut down.
So most of the time, spammers are using bot-nets. It's a zombie army doing their work for them.
It seems like there hasn't been a very public dissection of how the bot-nets are maintained, but I am betting that they receive address lists along with their delivery payload, so maybe someone could willfully have their machine infected, and stock it with thousands of fake e-mail addresses that would get sent back to the bot-net.
If increasing the noise ratio on P2P networks is a good thing, maybe we can use a similar technique to defeat spammers?
For example, if we could pollute spammers' email address databases with millions of bogus e-mail addresses, then instead of delivering millions of spam e-mails to real e-mail accounts every day, maybe spammers could only reliably send a few hundred to users, the rest of their messages would be to bogus addresses and be "noise" that spammers have to deal with.
How could we go about doing this?
I NEVER signed any agreement saying I would watch ads.
I have always maintained the opposite.
This would give proof of evolution?
How long until the Bush administration puts an end to their research?
Really, sounds like something Ray would do.
If the performance on those cards is anywhere near decent I'll be buying one.
http://www.thinkgeek.com/computing/input/5a7f/
Since the whole thing is sealed, I can put it in the dishwasher if I want.
Although the keycaps have had a tendancy to wear off... I wish they made them some way that they didn't.