You order 5 tacos and ask for 10 mild sauces. They can't give them to you. Even from the drive-through, you have to park and come in to get the extra sauce yourself.
If I actually went to Taco Bell, I'd just wait in the drive thru line until they gave me my sauce. What idiot thought pissing on customers was good business.
You heard me - no guarantee of receipt, easy to spoof, etc. Just because people percieve something as reliable doesn't make it so.
Disseminate directives? Transfer OFFICIAL documents?
Yes, because you can always send something again.
Digging back into the internet stone age, is this article from the year 2000, Judge allows subpoenas delivered via email. If Y2K wasn't your bag though, 2002 saw a different judge uphold the validity of process serving by e-mail.
Great - claim that somebody has a particular email and call that service. It's a joke, just like CA and their paternity system - they ask the mother who the father is and where he resides. Without any attempt to verify any of this, if you don't contest paternity within the time limit, you're a daddy.
Your last link (I'm lazy - I didn't check all of them) refers to a case involving an online business, which is substantially different from general process service. Quotes from your cite:
Specifically, the 9th Circuit noted that the parties had not presented any legal "authority condoning service of process over the Internet or via email.
Do I need to keep going to illustrate how totally wrong you are not only about the reliability of email, but of the perceived reliability of email?
Yes. All you've done is demonstrate that the very people who generally don't get technology percieve email as secure and reliable. It may be reliable within an org, but not in the general sense. It lacks the basic facilities to do that, so regardless of its preception, it is what it is.
As to the legal status of email in terms of recognized communication, it is HIGHLY relevant. Interference in legally recognized communication can become a very tricky thing, because then it can potentially become interference in interstate commerce--something the government can and does regulate. (see also: war on drugs)
Let's not deal with the WOD - it's genrally an egregious waste of time and violation of our rights. As far as interference goes, spam filtering is generally recognized and, when done properly, does not mistake legitimate mail for spam. I'm not really clear on this 'legally recognized communication', as you've cited an internet case and one where subpoenas were sent along with registered mail copies. The fact that some legal documents are recognized went sent by email in coms circumstances does not mean that all email is legally protected. If a judge were to rule that way, then it would be illegal to filter mail from the next email worm, which is clearly absurd. Face it, email isn't as reliable as you think, and sometimes it gets lost. Also, deleting an email is not illegal, at least not yet.
When a hosting provider provides services to a spammer, he is a spam-supporter (as well as the other clients who pay him), so it is only fair that the whole network be listed as the spamhaus it is.
Yeah, because hosting providers always know who the spammers are and all the other clients can immediately jump ship. Get a clue.
And, in terms of preventing the "sending" of mail, you could consider a blacklist to be a postman who would, whenever he saw a letter from a given return address, he'd destroy it.
Okay, let's use that metaphor. The postman has 50 lbs of mail for you every day. 45 lbs are fraudulent or advertising some sort of snake oil/porn site. Your mailbox holds 7 lbs of mail. The postmaster has a list of people who send mail to every email address on the face of the earth and a good number of addresses that don't exist. The postman takes those sending addresses and uses them to weed out roughly 40 lbs of mail, so your mailbox is only half full of crap instead of 90%. Unfortunately, you just lost 30% of your mail because it wouldn't fit.
A blacklist allows any server in-between the sender and the recipient to say "no, sorry, your ass is blocked."
Do you have a better idea?
As email becomes more and more prevalent as a form of legally recognized communication (emails are used in court as evidence) it's important to recognize the implications of interfering with that communication without disclosing such interference.
Irrelevant. Nobody expects that email is a reliable transport, and sending mail is no proof of receipt. The legal status of email is largely irrelevant to the question.
Would you like it if I were your postman and every time I saw your electric bill, I took it and destroyed it because I didn't like the electric company and I didn't think anybody should be subjected to their tortures?
Strawman. I have never had a legit receipt get blocked. Also, that is counter to how RBLs tend to operate.
We need a wiki-style collaborative blacklist that has a membership of thousands who all collaborate on this issue.
Yeah, that'll scale.
It's just one more example of how giving one person too much power before they're ready to use it responsibly with proper discretion results in a disaster.
Don't like it? Don't trust the RBL 100% - you can always use it as a scoring mechanism
You're why sysdadmins and blacklists have a bad name. Just because you can do it, doesn't mean you should or even that it's particularly intelligent to do so.
When you're a sysadmin, you have to weigh the flood of penis pills and mortgage scams against one or two people not getting an email because the sender is hosted by someone who can't secure their mailserver. It's really an easy call. Before you start spouting on about giving users the choice of what to receive, there's also the sheer volume of spam - accepting too much email can put a serious strain on the servers and degrade the experience for everyone.
But B wouldn't have pretend that they wrote the driver, or even publish it. As long as A has managed to get their driver on the Windows Install CD, all B has to do is to release a product that will work with that driver.
You'll find that, when that happens, typically A is a chipset manufacturer and B is a company that uses chips from A. To quote someone farther upthread, it's a lot harder to make hardware that works with a particular driver than to write a driver for your hardware. Besides, what if you have a bug?
i think the other fault in the whole argument is that designing a video card (or most other hardware) to be perfectly compatable with drivers for someone else's card would be far more expensive than writing your own drivers.
Agreed. The way it usually works is that a chipset is created, along with a reference implementation. Manufacturers then use those drivers or modify them/add to them for their particular product. The only real exception i can think of is the generic VGA vards that proliferated shortly before windows took off.
It is -supremely- arrogant to assume you know more about marketing than people who have studied it, put it to use, and are good enough at it to be working for a major international corporation.
Hardly. It's entirely possible that the marketeers haven't even considered the opportunity. There's nothing about working at a major international corporation that says that you in particular are any good. It's not like you built it.
I'm not saying they're perfect, but it's kind of like sitting up in the middle of an operation and saying to the surgeon, "hey, isn't that cut a little deep?"
Funny story - when I broke my neck, I was wheeled into the ER complaining of upper back pain. The resident on call decided to put both of my legs in casts, even though he'd performed no xrays whatsoever and the legs had open wounds. Doctors aren't gods. Sometimes, they aren't even competent.
Among -many- reasons...Company A writes a driver and designs a video card, publishes the specs- Company B comes along, designs a card that works with that spec, and gets driver development for free.
Company A then sues B for copyright infringement for using their drivers.
If they don't feel like sharing their toys with OpenBSD, fine, it's a free country...but for god sakes, stop whining about it.
This is called applying public pressure - give us what we need so we can interoperate with your stuff or we'll go play with this other company that will.
My favorite bit is when he starts talking about X million dollars in sales Adaptec could have had, and how it's "their loss!" Guess what, Theo? It's a double-digit BILLION dollar market. None of the major players really give a hoot about OpenBSD.
You'd think that Adaptec would be willing to spend a few $10k in order to gain $5M in revenue. Hell, I'd do it.
So it's possible (to lose your design), and company officers (CxOs) who are BOUND BY CHARTER to maximize the companys profits must say they did appropriate due dilligence to try to prevent any possible "loss".
You're talking about a software company. Hardware companies tend to make money by selling hardware, and releasing specs can grow those sales. Anyway, CxOs are not bound by charter to maximize short term profit or anything ridiculous like that - they're bound to not do anything really stupid. Lesser offenses are covered by wall street losses.
No, it's not easy. First you have to define what is pornographic.
It is that easy: porn sites self identify. You can't impose the use of the domain, but porn sites can register there. It's not like they're bashful about what they are.
Since something that is considered obscene in one jurisdiction may be viewed as normal or even art in another who decides what content must go into this ".xxx" domain?
That's easy - porn sites go in.xxx. They are generally distinguished by an attempt to make money off porn, so self identifying works fine.
If the codec could take full advantage of my two processors, the time to encode would take a little over half as long.
The codec should have no concept of threads - the correct place for thread management is at the top of the encoding process, where video is chunked out. For instance, you could set up your codec to mpeg-encode a 1-hour video i n5 minute segments, then ensure that there are n threads each encoding a segment, one per processor. You could also note that the data or cache requirements for that sort of thing exceed your hardware specs and scale back the thread count, thus achieving similar performance without tying up as many resources.
A crowbar can only usually defeat the server security if you break into the server room... which is (hopefully) going to be harder than breaking into some random employee's home and taking the post-it off the monitor they're using when teleworking.
On the contrary, a crowbar is very effective in extracting passwords from the employee directly.
Every time I hear people comparing Gates to a star wars villian, I think of some 30 year old wearing a star trek uniform in his parent's basement ranting against Bill. Thanks, PA!
Gas is one of the worlds cheapest liquids period. Other then tap water, nothing even comes close (or it didn't until the recent run up in price). I still think a gallon of milk is about 2.50-3.00 (I don't pay any attention to the price, but I pretty sure it's over $2/gal).
Quit comparing Gas to milk - the price of milk is artifically inflated by the US Govt so that dairy farmers won't all go out of business - if milk goes below $2/gal, the feds buy milk until it goes back above $2.
Modern C++ features like templates are really a godsend in many application development projects
Where I work, we love STL - the only downside is our old gcc version that generates 200M binaries with about 700M of symbols. I hear that's fixed in recent versions, though.
What, why is this not ethical? Are you assuming he *lied* in the review to get people to buy the book?
Conflict of interest - he has a vested interest in getting you to buy the book, not present a balanced review. In this case, I don't care, as it's not a big thing.
So it's more or less "one company, one sysadmin."
I fail to see a problem.:)
You must be new:). Once you automate everything, they fire you because everything runs itself, then they ignore the systems until they explode out of neglect. Depending on the company, they may threaten legal action or bring you back as a consultant.
Slashdot Mirror
Now I get paid to work for a ski resort doing IT work.
So, what sort of work does a Ski resort do? Is it mostly webdev, or is it more operational support?
You order 5 tacos and ask for 10 mild sauces. They can't give them to you. Even from the drive-through, you have to park and come in to get the extra sauce yourself.
If I actually went to Taco Bell, I'd just wait in the drive thru line until they gave me my sauce. What idiot thought pissing on customers was good business.
Um, what?
You heard me - no guarantee of receipt, easy to spoof, etc. Just because people percieve something as reliable doesn't make it so.
Disseminate directives? Transfer OFFICIAL documents?
Yes, because you can always send something again.
Digging back into the internet stone age, is this article from the year 2000, Judge allows subpoenas delivered via email. If Y2K wasn't your bag though, 2002 saw a different judge uphold the validity of process serving by e-mail.
Great - claim that somebody has a particular email and call that service. It's a joke, just like CA and their paternity system - they ask the mother who the father is and where he resides. Without any attempt to verify any of this, if you don't contest paternity within the time limit, you're a daddy.
Your last link (I'm lazy - I didn't check all of them) refers to a case involving an online business, which is substantially different from general process service. Quotes from your cite:
Do I need to keep going to illustrate how totally wrong you are not only about the reliability of email, but of the perceived reliability of email?
Yes. All you've done is demonstrate that the very people who generally don't get technology percieve email as secure and reliable. It may be reliable within an org, but not in the general sense. It lacks the basic facilities to do that, so regardless of its preception, it is what it is.
As to the legal status of email in terms of recognized communication, it is HIGHLY relevant. Interference in legally recognized communication can become a very tricky thing, because then it can potentially become interference in interstate commerce--something the government can and does regulate. (see also: war on drugs)
Let's not deal with the WOD - it's genrally an egregious waste of time and violation of our rights. As far as interference goes, spam filtering is generally recognized and, when done properly, does not mistake legitimate mail for spam. I'm not really clear on this 'legally recognized communication', as you've cited an internet case and one where subpoenas were sent along with registered mail copies. The fact that some legal documents are recognized went sent by email in coms circumstances does not mean that all email is legally protected. If a judge were to rule that way, then it would be illegal to filter mail from the next email worm, which is clearly absurd. Face it, email isn't as reliable as you think, and sometimes it gets lost. Also, deleting an email is not illegal, at least not yet.
Truth is an absolute defense against defamitory statements.
Not in the UK.
When a hosting provider provides services to a spammer, he is a spam-supporter (as well as the other clients who pay him), so it is only fair that the whole network be listed as the spamhaus it is.
Yeah, because hosting providers always know who the spammers are and all the other clients can immediately jump ship. Get a clue.
And, in terms of preventing the "sending" of mail, you could consider a blacklist to be a postman who would, whenever he saw a letter from a given return address, he'd destroy it.
Okay, let's use that metaphor. The postman has 50 lbs of mail for you every day. 45 lbs are fraudulent or advertising some sort of snake oil/porn site. Your mailbox holds 7 lbs of mail. The postmaster has a list of people who send mail to every email address on the face of the earth and a good number of addresses that don't exist. The postman takes those sending addresses and uses them to weed out roughly 40 lbs of mail, so your mailbox is only half full of crap instead of 90%. Unfortunately, you just lost 30% of your mail because it wouldn't fit.
A blacklist allows any server in-between the sender and the recipient to say "no, sorry, your ass is blocked."
Do you have a better idea?
As email becomes more and more prevalent as a form of legally recognized communication (emails are used in court as evidence) it's important to recognize the implications of interfering with that communication without disclosing such interference.
Irrelevant. Nobody expects that email is a reliable transport, and sending mail is no proof of receipt. The legal status of email is largely irrelevant to the question.
Would you like it if I were your postman and every time I saw your electric bill, I took it and destroyed it because I didn't like the electric company and I didn't think anybody should be subjected to their tortures?
Strawman. I have never had a legit receipt get blocked. Also, that is counter to how RBLs tend to operate.
We need a wiki-style collaborative blacklist that has a membership of thousands who all collaborate on this issue.
Yeah, that'll scale.
It's just one more example of how giving one person too much power before they're ready to use it responsibly with proper discretion results in a disaster.
Don't like it? Don't trust the RBL 100% - you can always use it as a scoring mechanism
You're why sysdadmins and blacklists have a bad name. Just because you can do it, doesn't mean you should or even that it's particularly intelligent to do so.
When you're a sysadmin, you have to weigh the flood of penis pills and mortgage scams against one or two people not getting an email because the sender is hosted by someone who can't secure their mailserver. It's really an easy call. Before you start spouting on about giving users the choice of what to receive, there's also the sheer volume of spam - accepting too much email can put a serious strain on the servers and degrade the experience for everyone.
But B wouldn't have pretend that they wrote the driver, or even publish it. As long as A has managed to get their driver on the Windows Install CD, all B has to do is to release a product that will work with that driver.
You'll find that, when that happens, typically A is a chipset manufacturer and B is a company that uses chips from A. To quote someone farther upthread, it's a lot harder to make hardware that works with a particular driver than to write a driver for your hardware. Besides, what if you have a bug?
i think the other fault in the whole argument is that designing a video card (or most other hardware) to be perfectly compatable with drivers for someone else's card would be far more expensive than writing your own drivers.
Agreed. The way it usually works is that a chipset is created, along with a reference implementation. Manufacturers then use those drivers or modify them/add to them for their particular product. The only real exception i can think of is the generic VGA vards that proliferated shortly before windows took off.
It is -supremely- arrogant to assume you know more about marketing than people who have studied it, put it to use, and are good enough at it to be working for a major international corporation.
Hardly. It's entirely possible that the marketeers haven't even considered the opportunity. There's nothing about working at a major international corporation that says that you in particular are any good. It's not like you built it.
I'm not saying they're perfect, but it's kind of like sitting up in the middle of an operation and saying to the surgeon, "hey, isn't that cut a little deep?"
Funny story - when I broke my neck, I was wheeled into the ER complaining of upper back pain. The resident on call decided to put both of my legs in casts, even though he'd performed no xrays whatsoever and the legs had open wounds. Doctors aren't gods. Sometimes, they aren't even competent.
Among -many- reasons...Company A writes a driver and designs a video card, publishes the specs- Company B comes along, designs a card that works with that spec, and gets driver development for free.
Company A then sues B for copyright infringement for using their drivers.
If they don't feel like sharing their toys with OpenBSD, fine, it's a free country...but for god sakes, stop whining about it.
This is called applying public pressure - give us what we need so we can interoperate with your stuff or we'll go play with this other company that will.
My favorite bit is when he starts talking about X million dollars in sales Adaptec could have had, and how it's "their loss!" Guess what, Theo? It's a double-digit BILLION dollar market. None of the major players really give a hoot about OpenBSD.
You'd think that Adaptec would be willing to spend a few $10k in order to gain $5M in revenue. Hell, I'd do it.
So it's possible (to lose your design), and company officers (CxOs) who are BOUND BY CHARTER to maximize the companys profits must say they did appropriate due dilligence to try to prevent any possible "loss".
You're talking about a software company. Hardware companies tend to make money by selling hardware, and releasing specs can grow those sales. Anyway, CxOs are not bound by charter to maximize short term profit or anything ridiculous like that - they're bound to not do anything really stupid. Lesser offenses are covered by wall street losses.
No, it's not easy. First you have to define what is pornographic.
It is that easy: porn sites self identify. You can't impose the use of the domain, but porn sites can register there. It's not like they're bashful about what they are.
At this point... both software and hardware keystroke loggers become useless.
And so does your computer, should you spill a drink on your keyboards.
Since something that is considered obscene in one jurisdiction may be viewed as normal or even art in another who decides what content must go into this ".xxx" domain?
That's easy - porn sites go in .xxx. They are generally distinguished by an attempt to make money off porn, so self identifying works fine.
So what else is in Texas that might of interest?
I dunno, how about different lattitude? There's probably a reason that NASA has a bunch of launch facilities in the southern parts of the US.
If the codec could take full advantage of my two processors, the time to encode would take a little over half as long.
The codec should have no concept of threads - the correct place for thread management is at the top of the encoding process, where video is chunked out. For instance, you could set up your codec to mpeg-encode a 1-hour video i n5 minute segments, then ensure that there are n threads each encoding a segment, one per processor. You could also note that the data or cache requirements for that sort of thing exceed your hardware specs and scale back the thread count, thus achieving similar performance without tying up as many resources.
Meteorologists using the most advanced technology available can't even reliably tell us what the weather will be like in two weeks.
So what? You can't reliably predict the path of a single water molecule, but you know which way the river is flowing.
A crowbar can only usually defeat the server security if you break into the server room... which is (hopefully) going to be harder than breaking into some random employee's home and taking the post-it off the monitor they're using when teleworking.
On the contrary, a crowbar is very effective in extracting passwords from the employee directly.
Every time I hear people comparing Gates to a star wars villian, I think of some 30 year old wearing a star trek uniform in his parent's basement ranting against Bill. Thanks, PA!
Gas is one of the worlds cheapest liquids period. Other then tap water, nothing even comes close (or it didn't until the recent run up in price). I still think a gallon of milk is about 2.50-3.00 (I don't pay any attention to the price, but I pretty sure it's over $2/gal).
Quit comparing Gas to milk - the price of milk is artifically inflated by the US Govt so that dairy farmers won't all go out of business - if milk goes below $2/gal, the feds buy milk until it goes back above $2.
That way they [won't be / are less likely to be] ripped off by a bruteforce dictionary attack, just a crowbar attack through their front door.
When you think about it, a crowbar can be used to defeat pretty much any security scheme.
Modern C++ features like templates are really a godsend in many application development projects
Where I work, we love STL - the only downside is our old gcc version that generates 200M binaries with about 700M of symbols. I hear that's fixed in recent versions, though.
What, why is this not ethical? Are you assuming he *lied* in the review to get people to buy the book?
Conflict of interest - he has a vested interest in getting you to buy the book, not present a balanced review. In this case, I don't care, as it's not a big thing.
So it's more or less "one company, one sysadmin." :)
I fail to see a problem.
You must be new :). Once you automate everything, they fire you because everything runs itself, then they ignore the systems until they explode out of neglect. Depending on the company, they may threaten legal action or bring you back as a consultant.