Actually I don't expect them to unload XBOX and MSN. XBOX/MSN is their way of trying to slip the "media center PC" into everyone's livingroom and replace webTV. It's a consumer level platform that microsoft just happens to control much more tightly than a regular PC. As long as MS can get the major apps on there (Games, MSN everything, office, and maybe PVR), people might be willing to give up their PC and use the XBOX instead. It really would be the true consumer electronics version of the PC.
Yeah, except the US has been reducing it's nuclear warheads stockpile for years. It's all been trending that direction. Any "new" weapons are pretty much ment to replace the aging ones. And I doubt you'll see the total number climb much, unless someone decides to get into an arms race.
The problem with raising taxes is that tax increases exhibit diminishing revenue increases. Thus a 10% increase in the tax rate does not give a 10% increase in revenue. Besides that, there is no way to guarantee that congress won't spend the money instead of reducing our deficit. The real solution is for all government programs to sunset after a certain period of time. And the only way to get them back is to rewrite them from scratch.
You may or may not be right about N Korea, but of course the situation there is slightly different than that in Iraq. (Espcially given the vested interest the S Korea, China, and Japan have there.
I think you miss the point though. There are currently two strategies for fighting spammers using zombies.
The first one is that ISPs should block outbound 25 requests and force customer's to relay their mail through the ISP's mailhub. Upside, ISP's know anyone on their network is trying to send rediculous volumes of email and is probably a zombie. The obvious downside is that you MUST use their mail server if you are attached to their network and it may have certain limitations, plus you have to change your SMTP server every time you switch locations, or you have to use webmail. (Unless you are using VPN or something).
The second strategy is to use SMTP auth over TLS. Upsides, you can reject joe-jobs (at least for those domains with SPF) at the recieveing end without waiting for the ISP with the zombie's to find the joe-jobers. It also means that each mail address is associated with a outgoing server(s), just like each account has it's own incoming server(s) (imap/pop). This way every message that claims to be from a certain domain can be guaranteed to come from that domain, if they have SPF record. No real downside that I can see
Of course if your work chooses to use SMTP auth and SPF, and your home ISP chooses to block port 25 (which is really an ugly hack), then you have to resort to webmail to send from your home address when you are at work and you have to use webmail or use SMTP over TLS on port 587 to send work mail from home.
Bounces never worked correctly for a forged from address anyways, since they bounced to the "given" address. Forwarding under the old system was just allowing you to forge the from address, which made spamming and mail bombs super easy.
Frankly if forwarding is the only thing this breaks, then we've done well. Besides, you shouldn't need to forward if you email client doesn't suck.
This would still be an improvement over the current situation. Firstly, at least the virus writers would have to discover the correct mailhub. Even if they do, then the sending ISP would know immediately that it had an infected customer. This would make spam trojans orders of magnitude more difficult to write.
But we already have tools to fight open relays. And SPF isn't that much of a burden. What it will force us to do is use SMTP auth, webmail, or VPNs to relay email instead of using the SMTP host of the ISP you are connected to when you travel.
I don't see how this will make some people more vunerable. Sure their share of the joe-job burden will go up, but only because THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO FORGE AS MANY DOMAINS. It's not like it makes the other users more vunerable than before, it just puts them in a shrinking pool of exploitable domains.
Most of the big cable providers do, in order to prevent spam zombie's from sending spam from their IP net (basically forcing you to use their SMTP server unless you use port 587 (reserverd for SMTP over TLS) or some other nonstandard port.
Just what we need, a totally imcompatible and bug filled protocol that no one wants to adopt due to the inertia of the existing technology. Frankly it would be easier to break little thinks in SMTP than to adopt this new and exciting protocol.
You should only get filtered if the domains you send from HAVE an SPF record and you send from servers not on the approved list for those domains. (And only then if the reciever checks the records and rejects on the basis rather than just filter.)
Well, actually they would need to spoof thier IP address over TCP (as opposed to UDP) This would prove to be rather more difficult than the current spam sending regime.
The only thing that really upset me here was the offloading of stabilization to distros. What about distros that don't have a huge developer army (Slackware for example). Before this the vanilla kernel was actually useable. I wonder if this will make it less so. OTOH 2.6 isn't really feature complete quite yet. Some things like LVM2 still are missing from 2.6. So I guess I don't mind feature additions as long as they don't destablilize the main tree, thus requiring distros to use a non-vanilla kernel. Once we do that, you force distros to use an even more highly patched kernel than they currently do.
Again the comparison is not really fair, as the schools aren't buying $500 whiteboxes with XP home without Ghost and antivirus software. They are buying more reliable (and expensive) optiplexes with XP Pro (more $$) and buying Ghost corporate and anti-virus licenses for all the computers. The eMac is cheeper, even upfront.
Why the condecending attitude? The need to "clue me in" because obviously anyone that doensn't agree with you must be stupid or ignorant. Of course bin Laden wants the US out of the middle east, but that's not where his goals end. Anyone willing to pull their head out of the sand and look at bin Laden's own statements should be able to reach that conclusion on their own. So the idea that suddenly leaving the middle east would make bin Laden happy is a gross misunderstanding of his real, stated goals.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually I don't expect them to unload XBOX and MSN. XBOX /MSN is their way of trying to slip the "media center PC" into everyone's livingroom and replace webTV. It's a consumer level platform that microsoft just happens to control much more tightly than a regular PC. As long as MS can get the major apps on there (Games, MSN everything, office, and maybe PVR), people might be willing to give up their PC and use the XBOX instead. It really would be the true consumer electronics version of the PC.
XFCE. Seriously, if he's all anti-bloat and whatnot and is all up in arms about GCONF and lauguages other than C, then he should go use XFCE.
nt
Yeah, except the US has been reducing it's nuclear warheads stockpile for years. It's all been trending that direction. Any "new" weapons are pretty much ment to replace the aging ones. And I doubt you'll see the total number climb much, unless someone decides to get into an arms race.
The problem with raising taxes is that tax increases exhibit diminishing revenue increases. Thus a 10% increase in the tax rate does not give a 10% increase in revenue. Besides that, there is no way to guarantee that congress won't spend the money instead of reducing our deficit. The real solution is for all government programs to sunset after a certain period of time. And the only way to get them back is to rewrite them from scratch.
The Defense budget was not 200B only a few years ago, maybe 250-300B, but thats not reall much different from now. Iraq is worth about 100B/year.
You may or may not be right about N Korea, but of course the situation there is slightly different than that in Iraq. (Espcially given the vested interest the S Korea, China, and Japan have there.
Where did you get the information that western europe has been gaining on the US since the 70s. I'd be curious to see it.
The first one is that ISPs should block outbound 25 requests and force customer's to relay their mail through the ISP's mailhub. Upside, ISP's know anyone on their network is trying to send rediculous volumes of email and is probably a zombie. The obvious downside is that you MUST use their mail server if you are attached to their network and it may have certain limitations, plus you have to change your SMTP server every time you switch locations, or you have to use webmail. (Unless you are using VPN or something).
The second strategy is to use SMTP auth over TLS. Upsides, you can reject joe-jobs (at least for those domains with SPF) at the recieveing end without waiting for the ISP with the zombie's to find the joe-jobers. It also means that each mail address is associated with a outgoing server(s), just like each account has it's own incoming server(s) (imap/pop). This way every message that claims to be from a certain domain can be guaranteed to come from that domain, if they have SPF record. No real downside that I can see
Of course if your work chooses to use SMTP auth and SPF, and your home ISP chooses to block port 25 (which is really an ugly hack), then you have to resort to webmail to send from your home address when you are at work and you have to use webmail or use SMTP over TLS on port 587 to send work mail from home.
I've seen lots of blocking of port 25 on "consumer level" service but I've never seen port 587 blocked.
Frankly if forwarding is the only thing this breaks, then we've done well. Besides, you shouldn't need to forward if you email client doesn't suck.
This would still be an improvement over the current situation. Firstly, at least the virus writers would have to discover the correct mailhub. Even if they do, then the sending ISP would know immediately that it had an infected customer. This would make spam trojans orders of magnitude more difficult to write.
But we already have tools to fight open relays. And SPF isn't that much of a burden. What it will force us to do is use SMTP auth, webmail, or VPNs to relay email instead of using the SMTP host of the ISP you are connected to when you travel.
I don't see how this will make some people more vunerable. Sure their share of the joe-job burden will go up, but only because THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO FORGE AS MANY DOMAINS. It's not like it makes the other users more vunerable than before, it just puts them in a shrinking pool of exploitable domains.
Most of the big cable providers do, in order to prevent spam zombie's from sending spam from their IP net (basically forcing you to use their SMTP server unless you use port 587 (reserverd for SMTP over TLS) or some other nonstandard port.
SMTP using auth over TLS for submissions would be just fine. Most ISPs aren't blocking port 587, just 25.
Just what we need, a totally imcompatible and bug filled protocol that no one wants to adopt due to the inertia of the existing technology. Frankly it would be easier to break little thinks in SMTP than to adopt this new and exciting protocol.
And they will get behind it, as soon as their customers demand the ability to add txt records.
You should only get filtered if the domains you send from HAVE an SPF record and you send from servers not on the approved list for those domains. (And only then if the reciever checks the records and rejects on the basis rather than just filter.)
Well, actually they would need to spoof thier IP address over TCP (as opposed to UDP) This would prove to be rather more difficult than the current spam sending regime.
When did Turner become right-wing?
I shouldn't say LVM2 is missing from 2.6, just that certain features of it from 2.4 are missing.
The only thing that really upset me here was the offloading of stabilization to distros. What about distros that don't have a huge developer army (Slackware for example). Before this the vanilla kernel was actually useable. I wonder if this will make it less so. OTOH 2.6 isn't really feature complete quite yet. Some things like LVM2 still are missing from 2.6. So I guess I don't mind feature additions as long as they don't destablilize the main tree, thus requiring distros to use a non-vanilla kernel. Once we do that, you force distros to use an even more highly patched kernel than they currently do.
Again the comparison is not really fair, as the schools aren't buying $500 whiteboxes with XP home without Ghost and antivirus software. They are buying more reliable (and expensive) optiplexes with XP Pro (more $$) and buying Ghost corporate and anti-virus licenses for all the computers. The eMac is cheeper, even upfront.
Why the condecending attitude? The need to "clue me in" because obviously anyone that doensn't agree with you must be stupid or ignorant. Of course bin Laden wants the US out of the middle east, but that's not where his goals end. Anyone willing to pull their head out of the sand and look at bin Laden's own statements should be able to reach that conclusion on their own. So the idea that suddenly leaving the middle east would make bin Laden happy is a gross misunderstanding of his real, stated goals.