would connecting to a irc server say be any different then using a phone patch to talk to a friend?
Not really...but remember that the ham who operates the gateway, not just the ham who connects through it, is responsible for the content. Under those circumstances, a ham would be at best very foolish to allow it to connect to the open internet when he isn't there to monitor every packet.
As long as they kept it clean I don't see what harm could be done.
Amateurs may not transmit a number of things, outlined in section 97.113 of the FCC rules. Messages for commercial gain, obscene or indecent messages (so much for the pr0n.GIFs), any encrypted message (except ones encrypted only for authentication purposes), or any message on a regular basis that can reasonably be sent over another radio service.
Further, section 97.115 places severe restrictions on messages that may be sent by an amateur station when they did not originate at that station.
That's what I mean by limited.
Of course, you sig, "Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!", kinda tells us what you are all about.
Oh, really? What does it say to you? Probably not what you think it says. Hint: I'm not a M$ toady.
...it's worth a reminder that amateur packet radio is subject to a number of content restrictions that make it extremely poorly suited as a transport medium for general Internet traffic. It's only useful for sending stuff from one ham to another.
That said, I may do some hacking in this area myself...
Your car died long after warranty. Boo fuckin hoo.
15,000 miles. Okkay, so it was out of warranty. I wouldn't have been nearly so unhappy if it'd only broken once. In fact, if I'd had to have it rebuilt just once, I'd have grumbled, but that would be all. It was the second failure, coupled with Ford's absolute refusal to do anything at all for me, that pushed me over the edge.
I bet you didn't get proper regular maintainance, or you ignored some warning signs, since transmissions usually start messing up their fluid long before they have parts die.
Wrong-o, Dexron breath. In fact, the car got maintenance every 3000 miles, religiously, and the transmission fluid was changed every 21000 miles - more often than Ford recommended. To be precise, the transmission fluid had been changed at the previous service, at 63000 miles.
Then a different part dies a few months later, thems the breaks. Don't blame Ford for one shitty service department.
Two shitty service departments: the one that did the initial rebuild and didn't replace all of the parts they should, and the one that got it the second time and tried to jerk me around with that "national backorder" crap. The part that failed the second time should have been replaced the first time around. That would have saved me well over a kilobuck.
Besides, if you wanted a reliable car, you shouldn't have bought American, you fool.
I'll agree with this wholeheartedly: the Explorer got replaced with a Toyota RAV4 in 1996, and that got replaced with a Lexus RX300 in 2000. My next car will be built by Toyota, too.
Oh, and to answer the question you ask in the subject: Because they don't get it either. That's why their victory will be hollow: because even if they do win the war, they will utterly fail in stifling criticism.
Case in point: I have a page which describes my rotten experiences with the Ford Motor Company and a 1992 Explorer, at http://www.conmicro.cx/explorer.html. I didn't go out and register fordsucks.com, even though I could have in 1994 when I had the problem. Guess what? People have no trouble finding the page anyway.
You still fail to show how a corporation with a trademarked name is preventing you from expressing your opinion.
Virtually ALL words are trademarked, most many times over. MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. True or False?
True but irrelevant. So what if you can't use their name in the address? They can't do a thing about the content of your page.
By giving priority to trademarks for ALL words, the authorities totally disrespect your rights to use them. True or False?
False. You can use trademarks all you want to in the content of your page. All that's required is that you acknowledge their ownership. You can't use them in the address of your page, but you still fail to explain why this is relevant.
Reason being, a good domain name shouts it louder.
If this is the case, then "good" domain names should still be bringing 7-figure prices. Guess what? They're not. They're figuring out that people don't type in URLs they think might lead them where they want to go, but rather use search engines.
Which are you most likely to find looking for information about UN WIPO in the UK - and which more likely to remember in a weeks time?
Once again, neither. I'll use Google to find it, and it'll be found either place. If I want to find it regularly, I'll bookmark it; if not, I'll repeat the search.
You also say, "Neither one of those addresses carries any information whatsoever about the point you're propounding."
As UN WIPO.org take away like sounding domain names to trademarks (like United Nations has trademark 'WIPO') - I think it makes my point quite well - True or False?
False. Your domain name, wipo.org.uk, carries no information whatsoever about your point: that the WIPO is a bunch of corporate toadies that are somehow stifling free speech. Your page does carry that information, but the address of that page is irrelevant to the point.
P.S. You also said, "Here's where you lose me: I see no logical connection whatsoever between Paul's statement and this one."
There was a paragraph in between those two, meant to explain WIPO.org.uk was a NAMED RESOURCE - you said domains are just addresses.
Here's the paragraph you mention:
I use WIPO.org.uk [wipo.org.uk] because the United Nations use WIPO.org to take away domains from owners. There was no better domain for me to make protest and publish the solution to trademark problem.
This still doesn't establish any connection between Paul's statement that the DNS is for naming resources and your contention that ICANN and big business are out to muffle free speech. It is that connection that I believe is nonexistent, and asserting that connection without backing it up is the flaw in the argument against ICANN and WIPO.
Paul Mockapetris [cmu.edu], DNS creator, said, "The goal of domain names is to provide a mechanism for naming resources in such a way that the names are usable in different hosts, networks, protocol families, internets, and administrative organizations."
So far, so good. Paul's right, obviously, since he created the system, so he should darn well know what it's good for.
ICANN and Big Business want control over words you can use on the Internet. They say to stop trademark problems - to my mind that is a lie. For one thing, they want to muffle you.
Here's where you lose me: I see no logical connection whatsoever between Paul's statement and this one. The key is simple, and your next statement is the perfect example: Which of these gets the message across better: WIPO.org.uk OR freespace.virgin.net/garry.anderson/WIPO?
NEITHER!
Neither one of those addresses carries any information whatsoever about the point you're propounding. Further, if I'm going to go looking for information about the WIPO, there's not a reason in the world why I'd blindly type wipo.org.uk into my browser's URL window, any more than I'd type freespace.virgin.net/garry.anderson/WIPO or www.apple.com or www.freehost4u.com/spam.of.the.week . I'd use a search engine. (Google is your friend.) Search engines don't give a fuzzy rat's ass what the URL is to the page they're indexing.
That's why I don't believe domain names are anything more than slightly-easier-to-remember forms of IP addresses, and trying to give them more significance is a complete waste of time.
So what if the WIPO is a bunch of nasty eeeeeevil nogoodniks who want to give trademark owners special consideration over every word in the language? They CANNOT suppress your speech! The content of your pages is completely independent of the address people use to get there. That's the fundamental distinction. This is one of those cases where the judo ideal of using their own strength against them is the right answer: They're going to win no matter what you do, so let them. By recognizing the hollowness of their victory, and not letting it get in the way of your true message, you diminish their true power.
That's why I say this is all a tempest in a teapot. All of this wrangling is over something that, in the final analysis, is totally irrelevant.
What, exactly, does it matter what ICANN does? All they do is control the top-level domains and mandate a dispute resolution policy.
Big, fat, hairy deal.
Domain names are addresses, people! They're not speech! In an age of search engines such as google, who cares whether or not someone can use disneysucks.info to slam Disney, or some other domain name, as long as the content is there? ICANN doesn't control content, or even how you get to it.
The ill feelings that linger between GNOME developers and KDE developers are not good for the community, and it is very useful to help calm the antagonism.
The only reason there are ill feelings is because of RMS's jihad. He's right in that they are bad, yet he continues to provoke them, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. Anything that's not GPVed is fair game for RMS's blind, unfeeling hatred.
ooh, scary! I'm sure I'll be cut off from a sizeable subsystem of the.cx domain.
You didn't read my message, did you? My system is a small one, true. Multiply my system by the thousands of others whose administrators maintain private blacklists - and, I assure you, not all of them are small - and you're talking about a significant chunk of the net.
Open relays aren't the problem. Without them, you're stuck with webmail and large ISPs.
Wrong. People can send email from their own systems - as I do - or through their ISP's outgoing email server. That is *not* an open relay, since (if it's properly configured) only relays messages from that ISP's customers.
Some joker with a DSL or Cable modem (his or somebody else's) sends more than any open relay.
Those jokers send their spam through open relays, in an attempt to evade other blacklists. You even note this yourself, though you don't appear to understand it: what, exactly, do you think someone sending mail through someone else's DSL or cable modem is doing if not abusing an open relay?
Most of your spam is your ISP's fault directly -- either through bad security or bad configuration or willfull participation. *cough*AOL*Hotmail*cough
I run my own email server. My ISP has nothing to do with it.
So much talking, so many errors. The fact is that, by eliminating open relays, a significant amount of spam is thrown out. If we didn't have open relays, we'd be much further along in the war on spam.
Be thankful there are public blacklists. Even the ones that aren't maintained - if, indeed, there are any, as opposed to ones that are maintained by people whose standards for removal are tight - are comparatively easy to get out of, and you know which ones they are.
You should be worrying about the private blacklists, like the one I maintain for my host. When I get spam, I drop that host in the blacklist, and they never, ever, ever get out. Multiply my system by thousands.
Spam is destroying the usefulness of email. People are being forced to take extreme measures to fight it. Don't like those measures? Don't spam, and don't run an open relay, and don't help spammers, in the first place.
...well, at least as implemented in OS/360 and its descendants: device-independent I/O. The point of all of that was that you could redirect your program's input or output to any dataset (file, in modern terms for anyone who's not a mainframer), be it on tape, disk, card (reader or punch, as appropriate), or printer. This was NOT a Unix invention: OS/360 had it in the late 60s. (Other OSes may well have had it before that). The statement //SYSIN DD * is the same idea as the Unix < redirection operator. To change that input to a different dataset, all you had to do was change that one JCL statement; no program changes were needed.
Every once in a while someting stirs these old memories and it makes my brain hurt. I once had an ISPF display in a window on the same desktop with some Java source code in another window and my ears started to bleed.
Well, you can now have your very own MVS system on the same desktop as your web browser...Check out Hercules.
Am I the only one who thinks it's ironic as hell that a guy who's done more than just about anyone to hurt the fight against spam is making money from it?
Image what I could build with 1.2 million in cheap clone hardware... I think I could do at least twice as much processing, and include the pop/imap servers.
Then you get to maintain and run those thousand boxes. Consider power, floor space, and most importantly, people requirements. (Are you going to maintain those systems yourself? Two or three people, maybe? I don't think so.)
Oh please, you are telling me that to justify the purchase of a mainframe you are going to say, 'it runs sendmail?' I hope you have some more important uses for it.
Of course there are more important uses for the mainframe. There are mainframes slogging away daily in medium and large companies doing boring things like general ledger and payroll processing...the kind of unglamorous stuff that geeks turn their noses up at, at least until their paycheck doesn't arrive on time.
My point here is that the mainframe is also good at doing stuff like sendmail (or qmail, if you prefer). For the enterprise that has one (or several), carving off a logical partition to run Linux and handle the enterprise's email may well be a reason to keep it around instead of pushing it out the door and replacing it with a hundred NT boxes. Even sendmail is more secure than Exchange.
Who really cares? There are much better, cheaper machines for the job.
Give it a closer look. Quite aside from the cost of a high-end Sun or HP (priced an E10K lately?), study after study has shown that the mainframe provides better reliability at a lower total cost of ownership than Unix or NT systems that provide the same functionality.
This is the kind of thing that mainframes do well: information processing with little or no actual computation. Their I/O abilities really make the difference here.
Hopefully, this kind of result will show the skeptics that there's a real purpose for the big boxes.
I modded him down because the comment felt less like a genuine expression of opinion toward Mr. Breathed and his work and more like a smart ass pot-shot designed to get the author attention (and the comment about The Onion was merely off-topic).
You're helping to destroy Slashdot. Go read the Jargon File definition of "troll". Far too many comments are moderated down as trolling just because they express an unpopular opinion, or express an opinion in an unpopular manner. This results in posters being silenced - yes, here, a poster will be silenced if he's moderated down 5 times in 24 hours - when they don't deserve it.
Someone expressing an opinion they truly believe is not, by definition, trolling.
Anyway, meta-moderation will even the score if other don't agree with me.
I hope so, but haven't seen it happen yet. You can bet your sweet bippy that I'll metamoderate that as "unfair" if I get the chance.
Throughout cartoon history, there aren't any--repeat, ANY--primary animal cartoon characters that are females. If one was female, she was primarily a girlfriend to the main character. Minnie Mouse. Look at kids' TV. If there's a female character in a big furry suit on Barney or Sesame Street, she has long eyelashes and flits and flutters about like some nightmarish caricature from Jerry Falwell's wet dream.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really...but remember that the ham who operates the gateway, not just the ham who connects through it, is responsible for the content. Under those circumstances, a ham would be at best very foolish to allow it to connect to the open internet when he isn't there to monitor every packet.
As long as they kept it clean I don't see what harm could be done.
Clean? IRC??!! BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Amateurs may not transmit a number of things, outlined in section 97.113 of the FCC rules. Messages for commercial gain, obscene or indecent messages (so much for the pr0n
Further, section 97.115 places severe restrictions on messages that may be sent by an amateur station when they did not originate at that station.
That's what I mean by limited.
Of course, you sig, "Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!", kinda tells us what you are all about.
Oh, really? What does it say to you? Probably not what you think it says. Hint: I'm not a M$ toady.
That said, I may do some hacking in this area myself...
...de K5ZC
That's what I was looking for...but I couldn't find the port number anywhere in the doc or the setup dialogs.
...but I was never able to actually try it: it wouldn't work through my firewall, and I couldn't ever find any doc on just what holes to open up.
Shut the fuck up.
My, my, my. What enlightened discourse. I am awed by your eloquence. I tremble before the master.
</sarcasm>
15,000 miles. Okkay, so it was out of warranty. I wouldn't have been nearly so unhappy if it'd only broken once. In fact, if I'd had to have it rebuilt just once, I'd have grumbled, but that would be all. It was the second failure, coupled with Ford's absolute refusal to do anything at all for me, that pushed me over the edge.
I bet you didn't get proper regular maintainance, or you ignored some warning signs, since transmissions usually start messing up their fluid long before they have parts die.
Wrong-o, Dexron breath. In fact, the car got maintenance every 3000 miles, religiously, and the transmission fluid was changed every 21000 miles - more often than Ford recommended. To be precise, the transmission fluid had been changed at the previous service, at 63000 miles.
Then a different part dies a few months later, thems the breaks. Don't blame Ford for one shitty service department.
Two shitty service departments: the one that did the initial rebuild and didn't replace all of the parts they should, and the one that got it the second time and tried to jerk me around with that "national backorder" crap. The part that failed the second time should have been replaced the first time around. That would have saved me well over a kilobuck.
Besides, if you wanted a reliable car, you shouldn't have bought American, you fool.
I'll agree with this wholeheartedly: the Explorer got replaced with a Toyota RAV4 in 1996, and that got replaced with a Lexus RX300 in 2000. My next car will be built by Toyota, too.
Case in point: I have a page which describes my rotten experiences with the Ford Motor Company and a 1992 Explorer, at http://www.conmicro.cx/explorer.html. I didn't go out and register fordsucks.com, even though I could have in 1994 when I had the problem. Guess what? People have no trouble finding the page anyway.
Virtually ALL words are trademarked, most many times over. MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. True or False?
True but irrelevant. So what if you can't use their name in the address? They can't do a thing about the content of your page.
By giving priority to trademarks for ALL words, the authorities totally disrespect your rights to use them. True or False?
False. You can use trademarks all you want to in the content of your page. All that's required is that you acknowledge their ownership. You can't use them in the address of your page, but you still fail to explain why this is relevant.
Reason being, a good domain name shouts it louder.
If this is the case, then "good" domain names should still be bringing 7-figure prices. Guess what? They're not. They're figuring out that people don't type in URLs they think might lead them where they want to go, but rather use search engines.
Which are you most likely to find looking for information about UN WIPO in the UK - and which more likely to remember in a weeks time?
Once again, neither. I'll use Google to find it, and it'll be found either place. If I want to find it regularly, I'll bookmark it; if not, I'll repeat the search.
You also say, "Neither one of those addresses carries any information whatsoever about the point you're propounding."
As UN WIPO.org take away like sounding domain names to trademarks (like United Nations has trademark 'WIPO') - I think it makes my point quite well - True or False?
False. Your domain name, wipo.org.uk, carries no information whatsoever about your point: that the WIPO is a bunch of corporate toadies that are somehow stifling free speech. Your page does carry that information, but the address of that page is irrelevant to the point.
P.S. You also said, "Here's where you lose me: I see no logical connection whatsoever between Paul's statement and this one."
There was a paragraph in between those two, meant to explain WIPO.org.uk was a NAMED RESOURCE - you said domains are just addresses.
Here's the paragraph you mention:
This still doesn't establish any connection between Paul's statement that the DNS is for naming resources and your contention that ICANN and big business are out to muffle free speech. It is that connection that I believe is nonexistent, and asserting that connection without backing it up is the flaw in the argument against ICANN and WIPO.
Paul Mockapetris [cmu.edu], DNS creator, said, "The goal of domain names is to provide a mechanism for naming resources in such a way that the names are usable in different hosts, networks, protocol families, internets, and administrative organizations."
So far, so good. Paul's right, obviously, since he created the system, so he should darn well know what it's good for.
ICANN and Big Business want control over words you can use on the Internet. They say to stop trademark problems - to my mind that is a lie. For one thing, they want to muffle you.
Here's where you lose me: I see no logical connection whatsoever between Paul's statement and this one. The key is simple, and your next statement is the perfect example:
Which of these gets the message across better: WIPO.org.uk OR freespace.virgin.net/garry.anderson/WIPO?
NEITHER!
Neither one of those addresses carries any information whatsoever about the point you're propounding. Further, if I'm going to go looking for information about the WIPO, there's not a reason in the world why I'd blindly type wipo.org.uk into my browser's URL window, any more than I'd type freespace.virgin.net/garry.anderson/WIPO or www.apple.com or www.freehost4u.com/spam.of.the.week . I'd use a search engine. (Google is your friend.) Search engines don't give a fuzzy rat's ass what the URL is to the page they're indexing.
That's why I don't believe domain names are anything more than slightly-easier-to-remember forms of IP addresses, and trying to give them more significance is a complete waste of time.
So what if the WIPO is a bunch of nasty eeeeeevil nogoodniks who want to give trademark owners special consideration over every word in the language? They CANNOT suppress your speech! The content of your pages is completely independent of the address people use to get there. That's the fundamental distinction. This is one of those cases where the judo ideal of using their own strength against them is the right answer: They're going to win no matter what you do, so let them. By recognizing the hollowness of their victory, and not letting it get in the way of your true message, you diminish their true power.
That's why I say this is all a tempest in a teapot. All of this wrangling is over something that, in the final analysis, is totally irrelevant.
Big, fat, hairy deal.
Domain names are addresses, people! They're not speech! In an age of search engines such as google, who cares whether or not someone can use disneysucks.info to slam Disney, or some other domain name, as long as the content is there? ICANN doesn't control content, or even how you get to it.
This is a tempest in a teapot.
You are mad because Richard Stallman is winning and your side is losing.
Oh? And which side, exactly, do you think I'm on? Hint: It's not necessarily the side of Microsoft, or even of proprietary software in general.
From RMS's message:
The ill feelings that linger between GNOME developers and KDE developers are not good for the community, and it is very useful to help calm the antagonism.
The only reason there are ill feelings is because of RMS's jihad. He's right in that they are bad, yet he continues to provoke them, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. Anything that's not GPVed is fair game for RMS's blind, unfeeling hatred.
ooh, scary! I'm sure I'll be cut off from a sizeable subsystem of the
You didn't read my message, did you? My system is a small one, true. Multiply my system by the thousands of others whose administrators maintain private blacklists - and, I assure you, not all of them are small - and you're talking about a significant chunk of the net.
Open relays aren't the problem. Without them, you're stuck with webmail and large ISPs.
Wrong. People can send email from their own systems - as I do - or through their ISP's outgoing email server. That is *not* an open relay, since (if it's properly configured) only relays messages from that ISP's customers.
Some joker with a DSL or Cable modem (his or somebody else's) sends more than any open relay.
Those jokers send their spam through open relays, in an attempt to evade other blacklists. You even note this yourself, though you don't appear to understand it: what, exactly, do you think someone sending mail through someone else's DSL or cable modem is doing if not abusing an open relay?
Most of your spam is your ISP's fault directly -- either through bad security or bad configuration or willfull participation. *cough*AOL*Hotmail*cough
I run my own email server. My ISP has nothing to do with it.
So much talking, so many errors. The fact is that, by eliminating open relays, a significant amount of spam is thrown out. If we didn't have open relays, we'd be much further along in the war on spam.
You should be worrying about the private blacklists, like the one I maintain for my host. When I get spam, I drop that host in the blacklist, and they never, ever, ever get out. Multiply my system by thousands.
Spam is destroying the usefulness of email. People are being forced to take extreme measures to fight it. Don't like those measures? Don't spam, and don't run an open relay, and don't help spammers, in the first place.
those words would be explicitly confrontational, and I did not have any wish to do that.
Uhm, RMS...since when do you not wish to be confrontational? Your whole approach is confrontational.
...well, at least as implemented in OS/360 and its descendants: device-independent I/O. The point of all of that was that you could redirect your program's input or output to any dataset (file, in modern terms for anyone who's not a mainframer), be it on tape, disk, card (reader or punch, as appropriate), or printer. This was NOT a Unix invention: OS/360 had it in the late 60s. (Other OSes may well have had it before that). The statement
//SYSIN DD *
is the same idea as the Unix < redirection operator. To change that input to a different dataset, all you had to do was change that one JCL statement; no program changes were needed.
Every once in a while someting stirs these old memories and it makes my brain hurt. I once had an ISPF display in a window on the same desktop with some Java source code in another window and my ears started to bleed.
Well, you can now have your very own MVS system on the same desktop as your web browser...Check out Hercules.
Am I the only one who thinks it's ironic as hell that a guy who's done more than just about anyone to hurt the fight against spam is making money from it?
Nope, but it'd run twice as fast and have twice the capacity if it were running FreeBSD.
BTW, there's an active effort to port NetBSD to the 390...so this isn't as far off as you might think.
Then you get to maintain and run those thousand boxes. Consider power, floor space, and most importantly, people requirements. (Are you going to maintain those systems yourself? Two or three people, maybe? I don't think so.)
Sometimes you do get what you pay for.
Of course there are more important uses for the mainframe. There are mainframes slogging away daily in medium and large companies doing boring things like general ledger and payroll processing...the kind of unglamorous stuff that geeks turn their noses up at, at least until their paycheck doesn't arrive on time.
My point here is that the mainframe is also good at doing stuff like sendmail (or qmail, if you prefer). For the enterprise that has one (or several), carving off a logical partition to run Linux and handle the enterprise's email may well be a reason to keep it around instead of pushing it out the door and replacing it with a hundred NT boxes. Even sendmail is more secure than Exchange.
Who really cares? There are much better, cheaper machines for the job.
Give it a closer look. Quite aside from the cost of a high-end Sun or HP (priced an E10K lately?), study after study has shown that the mainframe provides better reliability at a lower total cost of ownership than Unix or NT systems that provide the same functionality.
Hopefully, this kind of result will show the skeptics that there's a real purpose for the big boxes.
You're helping to destroy Slashdot. Go read the Jargon File definition of "troll". Far too many comments are moderated down as trolling just because they express an unpopular opinion, or express an opinion in an unpopular manner. This results in posters being silenced - yes, here, a poster will be silenced if he's moderated down 5 times in 24 hours - when they don't deserve it.
Someone expressing an opinion they truly believe is not, by definition, trolling.
Anyway, meta-moderation will even the score if other don't agree with me.
I hope so, but haven't seen it happen yet. You can bet your sweet bippy that I'll metamoderate that as "unfair" if I get the chance.
From the interview:
Throughout cartoon history, there aren't any--repeat, ANY--primary animal cartoon characters that are females. If one was female, she was primarily a girlfriend to the main character. Minnie Mouse. Look at kids' TV. If there's a female character in a big furry suit on Barney or Sesame Street, she has long eyelashes and flits and flutters about like some nightmarish caricature from Jerry Falwell's wet dream.
Two words: Dot Warner.