Well, it would mean that a few people would not be able to run there own mail servers. But really, I don't think that there is any way to get everyone to secure their PCs. So, I believe that My suggestion is the only practical alternative to uncontrolled spam.
Well, the only problem to your suggestion is that waiting on Microsoft to secure its OS is about as productive as pissing into the wind. Other than that I totally agree.
that a large percentage of malware is designed to turn the user's PC into a mail spamming bot. I, for the life of me, do not understand how this can be effective if ISPs took even moderate precautions.
1. Don't allow your users to send port 25 traffic to any address but your own mail server. 2. Don't allow any one user to send massive quantities of email. Most user's won't need to send thousands of emails in a single day. 3. Use blackhole lists to prevent SPAM from networks that don't follow the above rules.
It seems like the above three rules would put a big roadblock for spammers. Am I missing something?
I would not doubt that Microsoft would try to extort its own customers in a SCO-like shake down. I'm pretty sure they paid SCO to do it as a sort of trial balloon. An insignificant piss ant like SCO first attacks giant like IBM, drags the litigation out for years and then Microsoft comes in: "See what SCO is doing to IBM? Nice little company you have here... Be a shame if Microsoft had to destroy it through litigation..."
I also don't doubt that some businesses may have capitulated. That does not, however, give any validity to their patent claims.
As an IT community we need to respond to Microsoft's aggression in several ways.
First we must start screaming for the justice department to once again prosecute them for their continued anti-trust violations. They must be held accountable for the damage they are doing through leveraging their monopolies. We must insist that they be broken apart into at least three and probably four separate companies.
Second, we must not cooperate with Microsoft in any way. Any "gifts" that they offer always turn out to have strings attached. Do not support any part of their dot-net strategy. I use "dot-net" in a loose way to cover many different things like their libraries, ASP.NET etc. The Mono project should die. Don't support it, don't use it.
Third, we should work to make Java, PHP, etc the defacto standards in delivering active server pages.
We all need to work together to make Microsoft irrelevant. It won't be quick, it won't be easy but it must be done. This company has shown again and again and again that it is not interested in coexistence.
Sure I do. And I carry a license. That's proof that I have been certified as competent to operate a vehicle in a safe and sane manner. That's very different than carrying a document just to exist. That I will NEVER do.
I for one will NEVER carry any papers that the Government tells me that I must carry just to walk around and breath the air! They can kiss my lilly white ass.
Much of what Mr. Eckel says is true but I find it grating when he blames everything on the technology. For example:
"JavaScript has been around since, effectively, the beginning of the Web, but the browser wars made JavaScript inconsistent and thus painful to use."
Okay, let's forget for a minute that JavaScript isn't Java. That aside, the inconsistency of JavaScript during the time that Microsoft was illegally killing Netscape through the use of its monopoly was by Microsoft's design. It was using the now famous "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" strategy. This was not the fault of the technology and there is nothing anyone can do to prevent Microsoft from playing dirty. Well not unless the Justice Department remembers where it left its balls.
And Bruce gives us this little bit of pseudo wisdom:
"If you use Firefox, how many sites do you visit that are at least partially unreadable because they've been created only for Internet Explorer (IE)? It seems to me that things are getting worse; I'm seeing more, not less sites that don't work right with Firefox...to the point that I'm seriously considering going back to IE.
Again, the incompatibilities are by Microsoft's design. A strategy to unfairly and illegally maintain its monopoly market share by (you guessed it) embracing and extending "open standards." Good one Bruce, switch back to IE and let Microsoft's dirty tactics work. It looks like the Justice Department isn't the only one who has lost its balls.
I agree that if an ISP has the ability to prioritize traffic there could be benefits to the users. However not all ISPs may be as good intentioned as the one in your example. I could see an ISP not wanting a lot of gamers using up their bandwidth and throttling their rates back instead.
What about big telecoms who have a vested interest in not allowing VOIP to cut into their profits?
It does worry me that spammers may use net neutrality laws to prevent their networks from being black holed.
1. Vista is real kewl. 2. I can't believe how apple is lying about being superior. 3. In the future we'll lock in customers by offering our applications as services and by storing the user's data on our servers.
Most people hear about Mr. Gates good deeds and they transfer those deeds to their image of Microsoft. Also most people are unaware of the extent of Microsoft's bad behavior.
No amount of money given by Bill Gates to the poor excuse Microsoft's bad behavior and no amount of dirty tricks by Microsoft reduces the good that Bill Gates is doing. They are two different things.
"However, you need a better principle than "we want stuff for free", which is unquestionably how any anti-DRM protests would be presented as."
If you're saying that the music industry will try to spin anti-DRM protests to their advantage I agree. They will try to frame the movement in any way that they can to bring about the end result they desire.
This isn't about "getting stuff for free." This is about our fair use rights. When I buy music or movies I have the right to backup those copies or move those copies onto a more convenient media such as a movie server. This is a right, not a privilege.
Illegal file sharing is not acceptable and I understand that and agree but taking away my fair use rights is also unacceptable and that is what any protest should be about.
So I guess when you say that anti-DRM protests will "unquestionably be presented" in a certain way, I must disagree.
"If change happens from without, it's the result of a great deal of concerted violence (read: legal, governmental or mercantile force)."
Not really. The heads of corporations are people too. They can shamed into doing the right things. You might be amazed at how effective a well organized protest campaign can be.
"While they can certainly punish individual members of the Executive Branch acting on their own, they can't punish those acting directly under the orders of the President."
Really, after World War II many German generals tried just that defense. "I was only following orders." They were hanged.
I really hate defeatism attitudes like shown in the parent post.
"Oh, corporations are too powerful don't bother fighting them." , "Oh Microsoft is too powerful, just accept the fact that they will bully the tech industry forever.", "Oh we all know that there were shenanigans played in the last few elections but that's just the way politics is so fuck off and just accept your corrupt overlords"
Maybe the parent poster is satisfied with just rolling over and playing dead but God damn it, I for one may go down but I'll go down swinging!
"The consultant advised them to focus on simple messages, such as "Public access equals government censorship."
Simple sound bites are used because people respond. Most people don't want to take the effort to absorb anything more complicated. God knows we wouldn't want to have to think for ourselves.
And have you ever noticed that the sound bites don't even have to be true? "Public access equals government censorship." "The war in Iraq is a war on terrorism." "The jury is out on global warming."
I've also noted that if you dig deep enough you find that it's all about money and power.
I think that trying to invalidate people for making posts without providing evidence is bullshit. Tell me that if I went back and looked at all of your posts I would find that you provide evidence for every statement you make. Hell, you made some specific claims in your posts to me without providing "evidence."
"Congratulations. That's the longest excuse I've every read for not being able to backup a claim with facts. Perhaps you should join MS's FUD department, you have a gift."
I think trying to control the format of other's posts in an attempt to attack people who say something with which you don't agree is bullshit. No way were you just "asking" for evidence and you know it.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it would mean that a few people would not be able to run there own mail servers. But really, I don't think that there is any way to get everyone to secure their PCs. So, I believe that My suggestion is the only practical alternative to uncontrolled spam.
Well, the only problem to your suggestion is that waiting on Microsoft to secure its OS is about as productive as pissing into the wind. Other than that I totally agree.
that a large percentage of malware is designed to turn the user's PC into a mail spamming bot. I, for the life of me, do not understand how this can be effective if ISPs took even moderate precautions.
1. Don't allow your users to send port 25 traffic to any address but your own mail server.
2. Don't allow any one user to send massive quantities of email. Most user's won't need to send thousands of emails in a single day.
3. Use blackhole lists to prevent SPAM from networks that don't follow the above rules.
It seems like the above three rules would put a big roadblock for spammers. Am I missing something?
I would not doubt that Microsoft would try to extort its own customers in a SCO-like shake down. I'm pretty sure they paid SCO to do it as a sort of trial balloon. An insignificant piss ant like SCO first attacks giant like IBM, drags the litigation out for years and then Microsoft comes in: "See what SCO is doing to IBM? Nice little company you have here... Be a shame if Microsoft had to destroy it through litigation..."
I also don't doubt that some businesses may have capitulated. That does not, however, give any validity to their patent claims.
As an IT community we need to respond to Microsoft's aggression in several ways.
First we must start screaming for the justice department to once again prosecute them for their continued anti-trust violations. They must be held accountable for the damage they are doing through leveraging their monopolies. We must insist that they be broken apart into at least three and probably four separate companies.
Second, we must not cooperate with Microsoft in any way. Any "gifts" that they offer always turn out to have strings attached. Do not support any part of their dot-net strategy. I use "dot-net" in a loose way to cover many different things like their libraries, ASP.NET etc. The Mono project should die. Don't support it, don't use it.
Third, we should work to make Java, PHP, etc the defacto standards in delivering active server pages.
We all need to work together to make Microsoft irrelevant. It won't be quick, it won't be easy but it must be done. This company has shown again and again and again that it is not interested in coexistence.
Sure I do. And I carry a license. That's proof that I have been certified as competent to operate a vehicle in a safe and sane manner. That's very different than carrying a document just to exist. That I will NEVER do.
I for one will NEVER carry any papers that the Government tells me that I must carry just to walk around and breath the air! They can kiss my lilly white ass.
Much of what Mr. Eckel says is true but I find it grating when he blames everything on the technology. For example:
"JavaScript has been around since, effectively, the beginning of the Web, but the browser wars made JavaScript inconsistent and thus painful to use."
Okay, let's forget for a minute that JavaScript isn't Java. That aside, the inconsistency of JavaScript during the time that Microsoft was illegally killing Netscape through the use of its monopoly was by Microsoft's design. It was using the now famous "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" strategy. This was not the fault of the technology and there is nothing anyone can do to prevent Microsoft from playing dirty. Well not unless the Justice Department remembers where it left its balls.
And Bruce gives us this little bit of pseudo wisdom:
"If you use Firefox, how many sites do you visit that are at least partially unreadable because they've been created only for Internet Explorer (IE)? It seems to me that things are getting worse; I'm seeing more, not less sites that don't work right with Firefox...to the point that I'm seriously considering going back to IE.
Again, the incompatibilities are by Microsoft's design. A strategy to unfairly and illegally maintain its monopoly market share by (you guessed it) embracing and extending "open standards." Good one Bruce, switch back to IE and let Microsoft's dirty tactics work. It looks like the Justice Department isn't the only one who has lost its balls.
class action lawsuit.
I agree that if an ISP has the ability to prioritize traffic there could be benefits to the users. However not all ISPs may be as good intentioned as the one in your example. I could see an ISP not wanting a lot of gamers using up their bandwidth and throttling their rates back instead.
What about big telecoms who have a vested interest in not allowing VOIP to cut into their profits?
It does worry me that spammers may use net neutrality laws to prevent their networks from being black holed.
Or just an idiot?
1. Vista is real kewl.
2. I can't believe how apple is lying about being superior.
3. In the future we'll lock in customers by offering our applications as services and by storing the user's data on our servers.
"I would assert that removing information is just as (if not more) insidious as the chilling effect of turning people over to be arrested."
Removing information is bad but in no way causes the human suffering that turning people over to be arrested causes. Your remark is rather stunning...
Most people hear about Mr. Gates good deeds and they transfer those deeds to their image of Microsoft. Also most people are unaware of the extent of Microsoft's bad behavior.
No amount of money given by Bill Gates to the poor excuse Microsoft's bad behavior and no amount of dirty tricks by Microsoft reduces the good that Bill Gates is doing. They are two different things.
"However, you need a better principle than "we want stuff for free", which is unquestionably how any anti-DRM protests would be presented as."
If you're saying that the music industry will try to spin anti-DRM protests to their advantage I agree. They will try to frame the movement in any way that they can to bring about the end result they desire.
This isn't about "getting stuff for free." This is about our fair use rights. When I buy music or movies I have the right to backup those copies or move those copies onto a more convenient media such as a movie server. This is a right, not a privilege.
Illegal file sharing is not acceptable and I understand that and agree but taking away my fair use rights is also unacceptable and that is what any protest should be about.
So I guess when you say that anti-DRM protests will "unquestionably be presented" in a certain way, I must disagree.
"If change happens from without, it's the result of a great deal of concerted violence (read: legal, governmental or mercantile force)."
Not really. The heads of corporations are people too. They can shamed into doing the right things. You might be amazed at how effective a well organized protest campaign can be.
"While they can certainly punish individual members of the Executive Branch acting on their own, they can't punish those acting directly under the orders of the President."
Really, after World War II many German generals tried just that defense. "I was only following orders." They were hanged.
I really hate defeatism attitudes like shown in the parent post.
"Oh, corporations are too powerful don't bother fighting them." , "Oh Microsoft is too powerful, just accept the fact that they will bully the tech industry forever.", "Oh we all know that there were shenanigans played in the last few elections but that's just the way politics is so fuck off and just accept your corrupt overlords"
Maybe the parent poster is satisfied with just rolling over and playing dead but God damn it, I for one may go down but I'll go down swinging!
The real rub is that if your PC is infected with a halfway decent bot you'll never know it unless you monitor the outbound traffic.
A good bot will install a root kit that will disable and/or lie to anti-virus software.
If the Prof. thinks that the wikipedia information is so bad maybe it would be a good class project to improve the accuracy.
His students would learn and it would benefit the entire world.
"The consultant advised them to focus on simple messages, such as "Public access equals government censorship."
Simple sound bites are used because people respond. Most people don't want to take the effort to absorb anything more complicated. God knows we wouldn't want to have to think for ourselves.
And have you ever noticed that the sound bites don't even have to be true? "Public access equals government censorship." "The war in Iraq is a war on terrorism." "The jury is out on global warming."
I've also noted that if you dig deep enough you find that it's all about money and power.
Prior to the 2004 election, Walter O'Dell, CEO of Diebold said that he would "deliver Ohio." He did.
And the problem is, they're right... Must bahhhhie....
If you see an ad requesting beta testers just say no!
But I'm having a brain fart!!!
I think that trying to invalidate people for making posts without providing evidence is bullshit. Tell me that if I went back and looked at all of your posts I would find that you provide evidence for every statement you make. Hell, you made some specific claims in your posts to me without providing "evidence."
"Congratulations. That's the longest excuse I've every read for not being able to backup a claim with facts. Perhaps you should join MS's FUD department, you have a gift."
I think trying to control the format of other's posts in an attempt to attack people who say something with which you don't agree is bullshit. No way were you just "asking" for evidence and you know it.