Brother HL-2270DW user here. Black, duplex, wired and wireless ethernet. I've been using it on Win7 (virtual for mostly MS Office) and (almost exclusively) Linux for two years, including three semesters for myself and my wife at university. The thing is bulletproof. Sets up fairly easily (guide available for x64 Linux, and proved easy on both Ubuntu and Gentoo) and has good toner yield. I knocked it over during a move, had to repair part of the casing, but nothing mechanical was harmed.
My tone was a result of the idea that the GOP and Democrats differ on net neutrality and other tech issues. At that point, I was soured on the direction of your post, as both major parties have proved themselves to be both technologically illiterate and to have no interest in preserving our freedom in any such respect. Overwhelming majorities of both Democrats and Republicans voted for, as an example, the USA PATRIOT act. The DMCA passed by unanimous consent and voice vote. Those are just two examples.
OK, you're incorrectly nitpicking my terminology when you address my description of encryption-based systems as a "legitimate solution". If you took the time to actually look at what I am describing here, I am talking about whether it is legitimately a solution rather than a mitigation. My brief description here is not intended as a fully fleshed out proposal, but a general concept that, if adopted, would render spamming botnets basically useless.
As I've mentioned in other posts, one of the easiest solutions to the keys is to serve the keys from the mail server that actually hosts the account. Send from any SMTP server you want, it will still verify with the actual server. Want to send mail from president@whitehouse.gov from a server in North Korea? It would still check against the key on whitehouse.gov's mail key server.
I can certainly agree with you that the people running the filters are a significant problem, but email remains an inherently broken system by nature of it accepting at face value some key things which need to be properly verified.
One of the fundamental problems with spam is that email is amazingly easy to fake. I can send you an email from president@whitehouse.gov through any valid SMTP server and it will arrive as such. What my proposal does is verifies the claimed key or signature is the correct key for the claimed source account.
The advantages of this are twofold. First, virus-originated would no longer be able to spoof every address in your contacts list while sending e-mail, and any that did would be dropped by the servers. This provides both a disincentive to create and utilize such viruses.
Second, it eliminates the need for everything to go through SMTP servers (or for SMTP servers to even be separate from your sending device) as the verification would be performed between your mail server and the receiving mail servers based upon the keys used.
Third, it increases the ability to locate and shut down spammers by requiring the email to be sent from accounts attached to domains that actually resolve. It wouldn't be a huge stretch to implement a report-back system that helped e-mail services identify accounts on their own servers being used for spamming.
It's not a matter of whether it would work, it's a matter of whether people will implement it at any point. My guess is no, but I still like the idea.
Spam filtering not a solution. E-mail has a monopoly on a lot of functions today. Getting accounts on most websites, getting receipts and confirmations from online purchases, recovering passwords, and countless other functions of the Internet. One thing they all have in common is that not only are they E-mail, but they are also unencrypted and can be spoofed with minimal effort.
A free market solution would be to offer more options. Automatic, universal encryption or digital signatures applied to everything genuine would be a legitimate solution to spam, and everything else gets dropped by your server. There are some minor obstacles, but if every mail server also serves the keys for the accounts it holds, it would be a simple matter to verify what current keys to accept at the recieving end.
Republicans have always had a sliglhtly libertarian flavor to their talking points, but talking the talk does not mean walking the walk. And when they talk the "libertarian" talk they usually rebrand it as "conservatism".
I agree on every reasonable level, but unfortunately, the level of reason has lost this fight as it has many in our current society. RMS, Pekka Himanen, ESR, and so many others may be the ones with the reasonable right to define the term, but the common usage has shifted away from an accurate definition to a demonization.
It's much like the term liberal. Classically, it referred to what is today "libertarian", while today (at least in the United States) it is seldom used to describe libertarianism, but rather progressivism. For a libertarian to insist on continuing to use it wouldn't help that libertarian get his message out in any way.
Actually, the Texaxs libertarians (both big and small L) are going to be against this stuff as a matter of course. I know of very few establishment Republicans who actually claim to be libertarians. Misleading subject line is misleading.
This one's about the car dealerships, not the oil companies. General Motors has been one of the key electric car pushers, but their dealers were far from hands-off on this one.
For the oil companies, sticking it to Tesla is just a fringe benefit.
We're actually in that situation as well, and in larger amounts. Including the levies upon our airline tickets that help subsidize these particular jackbooted thugs.
"At least they're not doing XYZ" is the language of one living under a tyrannical regime. This is not how a free society operates. The colonists revolted over less.
I've been slowly growing bald, and personally, I wish it would just accelerate. Worrying about how beautiful your scalp might be is a bit too much of a firstworldproblem for me to take seriously.
Every time I think Cameron has truly demonstrated how much he fails at understanding technology, he goes and does something like this and proves how much worse his failures on that front can get. We have to remember, Cameron thought it was reasonable to believe ISPs could magically block porn as well in some reliable fashion.
The biggest problem here is that Microsoft wants Windows to be all things to all people. Tablets do not need to bring with them all the baggage that PCs have built up over the years, and it seems that Microsoft needs to understand that and properly develop a tablet OS, even a tablet Windows, with that in mind.
Political terms are a funny thing. You say right-wing to mean Authoritarian, but it seems more often the extreme left means the same thing. The Tea Party is, in a gridded cube of fiscal-social-governmental measurement, somewhere in the frugal-indifferent-libertarian side, as opposed to the wasteful-restrictive-authoritarian side the Republican Party that you seem to be implying the Tea Party to be extreme version of. The Democrats, on the other hand, are on the wasteful-permissive(or else)-authoritarian side.
Sure, there is variance found in any group, but one thing the Tea Party crowd has in common with each other is that they are all pissed off with the way things are at present, and have united against the practice of huge budget deficits and government waste.
I have yet to see any evidence of the Tea Party being behind the personal attacks on Obama, nor of them attacking voting rights for any eligible American. I'd probably be called a Tea Party guy by some, and my complaints on those two topics are Obama's stated policies and the ever-increasing claims of voter-fraud that undermine our nation's trust in its elections. Every election since 2000 has been "stolen" by one side or the other, by the judgement of a not-insignificant portion of the voting public.
Heavily discounted compared to what one pays for cable, anyway. I did the math once and for less than three months' cable bills, my inlaws could download every show they care about except live football, and even then, they're seldom home to watch it on weekends.
I tend to find that unnecessary comparisons to present political happenings to things outside of governmental politics just makes the argument less convincing. The second I saw "open-source tea party", I quickly skimmed to see if anyone was making a push for government savings through adoption of Linux as a government standard. When I saw that it was about something else, I wrote the article off as a waste of time that would only piss a lot of people off who actually contribute to the FOSS community.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm on the side that I'm on because the criminals and terrorists that scare me the most are the ones that work in my own government.
Not only more important, but compulsory under the constitution.
Brother HL-2270DW user here. Black, duplex, wired and wireless ethernet. I've been using it on Win7 (virtual for mostly MS Office) and (almost exclusively) Linux for two years, including three semesters for myself and my wife at university. The thing is bulletproof. Sets up fairly easily (guide available for x64 Linux, and proved easy on both Ubuntu and Gentoo) and has good toner yield. I knocked it over during a move, had to repair part of the casing, but nothing mechanical was harmed.
I tend to agree, yes.
My tone was a result of the idea that the GOP and Democrats differ on net neutrality and other tech issues. At that point, I was soured on the direction of your post, as both major parties have proved themselves to be both technologically illiterate and to have no interest in preserving our freedom in any such respect. Overwhelming majorities of both Democrats and Republicans voted for, as an example, the USA PATRIOT act. The DMCA passed by unanimous consent and voice vote. Those are just two examples.
The entire point of the fourth amendment was to shoot down the exact logic law enforcement (and the NSA) use for this kind of stuff..
OK, you're incorrectly nitpicking my terminology when you address my description of encryption-based systems as a "legitimate solution". If you took the time to actually look at what I am describing here, I am talking about whether it is legitimately a solution rather than a mitigation. My brief description here is not intended as a fully fleshed out proposal, but a general concept that, if adopted, would render spamming botnets basically useless.
As I've mentioned in other posts, one of the easiest solutions to the keys is to serve the keys from the mail server that actually hosts the account. Send from any SMTP server you want, it will still verify with the actual server. Want to send mail from president@whitehouse.gov from a server in North Korea? It would still check against the key on whitehouse.gov's mail key server.
I can certainly agree with you that the people running the filters are a significant problem, but email remains an inherently broken system by nature of it accepting at face value some key things which need to be properly verified.
One of the fundamental problems with spam is that email is amazingly easy to fake. I can send you an email from president@whitehouse.gov through any valid SMTP server and it will arrive as such. What my proposal does is verifies the claimed key or signature is the correct key for the claimed source account.
The advantages of this are twofold. First, virus-originated would no longer be able to spoof every address in your contacts list while sending e-mail, and any that did would be dropped by the servers. This provides both a disincentive to create and utilize such viruses.
Second, it eliminates the need for everything to go through SMTP servers (or for SMTP servers to even be separate from your sending device) as the verification would be performed between your mail server and the receiving mail servers based upon the keys used.
Third, it increases the ability to locate and shut down spammers by requiring the email to be sent from accounts attached to domains that actually resolve. It wouldn't be a huge stretch to implement a report-back system that helped e-mail services identify accounts on their own servers being used for spamming.
It's not a matter of whether it would work, it's a matter of whether people will implement it at any point. My guess is no, but I still like the idea.
Spam filtering not a solution. E-mail has a monopoly on a lot of functions today. Getting accounts on most websites, getting receipts and confirmations from online purchases, recovering passwords, and countless other functions of the Internet. One thing they all have in common is that not only are they E-mail, but they are also unencrypted and can be spoofed with minimal effort.
A free market solution would be to offer more options. Automatic, universal encryption or digital signatures applied to everything genuine would be a legitimate solution to spam, and everything else gets dropped by your server. There are some minor obstacles, but if every mail server also serves the keys for the accounts it holds, it would be a simple matter to verify what current keys to accept at the recieving end.
Wow. lots of offtopic nonsense in that post.
Republicans have always had a sliglhtly libertarian flavor to their talking points, but talking the talk does not mean walking the walk. And when they talk the "libertarian" talk they usually rebrand it as "conservatism".
of hating Apple! Thanks guys, I'm here all week. Tip your wait-staff.
I agree on every reasonable level, but unfortunately, the level of reason has lost this fight as it has many in our current society. RMS, Pekka Himanen, ESR, and so many others may be the ones with the reasonable right to define the term, but the common usage has shifted away from an accurate definition to a demonization.
It's much like the term liberal. Classically, it referred to what is today "libertarian", while today (at least in the United States) it is seldom used to describe libertarianism, but rather progressivism. For a libertarian to insist on continuing to use it wouldn't help that libertarian get his message out in any way.
Capability is the cardinal sin of the digital world, at least in the government's view.
Actually, the Texaxs libertarians (both big and small L) are going to be against this stuff as a matter of course. I know of very few establishment Republicans who actually claim to be libertarians. Misleading subject line is misleading.
This one's about the car dealerships, not the oil companies. General Motors has been one of the key electric car pushers, but their dealers were far from hands-off on this one.
For the oil companies, sticking it to Tesla is just a fringe benefit.
We're actually in that situation as well, and in larger amounts. Including the levies upon our airline tickets that help subsidize these particular jackbooted thugs.
"At least they're not doing XYZ" is the language of one living under a tyrannical regime. This is not how a free society operates. The colonists revolted over less.
I've been slowly growing bald, and personally, I wish it would just accelerate. Worrying about how beautiful your scalp might be is a bit too much of a firstworldproblem for me to take seriously.
The terrorists never had anything to do with it. Terrorism was just the government's excuse to do what they've always wanted to do.
Every time I think Cameron has truly demonstrated how much he fails at understanding technology, he goes and does something like this and proves how much worse his failures on that front can get. We have to remember, Cameron thought it was reasonable to believe ISPs could magically block porn as well in some reliable fashion.
The biggest problem here is that Microsoft wants Windows to be all things to all people. Tablets do not need to bring with them all the baggage that PCs have built up over the years, and it seems that Microsoft needs to understand that and properly develop a tablet OS, even a tablet Windows, with that in mind.
Political terms are a funny thing. You say right-wing to mean Authoritarian, but it seems more often the extreme left means the same thing. The Tea Party is, in a gridded cube of fiscal-social-governmental measurement, somewhere in the frugal-indifferent-libertarian side, as opposed to the wasteful-restrictive-authoritarian side the Republican Party that you seem to be implying the Tea Party to be extreme version of. The Democrats, on the other hand, are on the wasteful-permissive(or else)-authoritarian side.
Sure, there is variance found in any group, but one thing the Tea Party crowd has in common with each other is that they are all pissed off with the way things are at present, and have united against the practice of huge budget deficits and government waste.
I have yet to see any evidence of the Tea Party being behind the personal attacks on Obama, nor of them attacking voting rights for any eligible American. I'd probably be called a Tea Party guy by some, and my complaints on those two topics are Obama's stated policies and the ever-increasing claims of voter-fraud that undermine our nation's trust in its elections. Every election since 2000 has been "stolen" by one side or the other, by the judgement of a not-insignificant portion of the voting public.
Heavily discounted compared to what one pays for cable, anyway. I did the math once and for less than three months' cable bills, my inlaws could download every show they care about except live football, and even then, they're seldom home to watch it on weekends.
I tend to find that unnecessary comparisons to present political happenings to things outside of governmental politics just makes the argument less convincing. The second I saw "open-source tea party", I quickly skimmed to see if anyone was making a push for government savings through adoption of Linux as a government standard. When I saw that it was about something else, I wrote the article off as a waste of time that would only piss a lot of people off who actually contribute to the FOSS community.