Since the slashdot kiddies apparently find reading a/. blurb AND and entire article too tiring....
GIMP, by default, distributes a no-GIF-support version of the software. In countries where people can ignore (stupid) US Patents on software, there is a plugin for GIMP that adds GIF support to GIMP. This is how GIMP gets around the Unisys patent
Well, your basic mouse already has 2 axes - Right-Left and Front-Back. Hook the wheel to Up-Down, and you're set.
Even better, use those 3 axes as "throttles", and you won't have to keep picking your mouse up and putting it close to you when you're moving forward a lot. Move forward a bit to start moving forward, move back a bit to stop moving forward.
But this won't happen - the people that will get cut off are the being BEING DDoS'd, not the people performing the DDoS. Any single node in the DDoS attack sends a trivial amount of data - Well, maybe not trivial, but not exactly bandwidth-breaking amounts of data. The beauty of the DDoS is that it's power comes from the number of computers doing small parts to contribute to the larger scope. One computer sending 1K packets every second is no big deal. 1000 computers doing the same just dropped 1M of data onto your link every second.
No, the caps won't stop DDoS's - except that the DDoS's won't be able to hit their targets after the first 1G of data comes in after 10 minutes.
You missed the part where the Suncoast Linux User's Group had a sponsored table at the show. That was significantly more populated by visitors than the MS booths, but that's besides the point. The point is, they paid to be there, just like MS did. And during their paid attendance, MS got pissy.
These are the facts as attested to in the article. Now stop making up your 'probably's and 'maybe's and 'i bet that's and learn to read.
The ccTLD's are protesting ICANN only as far as ICANN is thie organization that is supposed to support their technical decisions. In actuality, it's the DNSO and the heirarchy within ICANN that is being protested.
I was thinking about this the other day, and was wondering when, if at all, the ccTLD people were going to come out for, against, or neutral in the ICANN problems of late. While this isn't a response against the TLD policies, it is a response against the organization in general, and if the ccTLD's were to take their business elsewhere (i.e., New.Net), it could cause serious problems for ICANN's legitimacy as the "One True Root", since New.Net would also be hosting about 250 legitimate TLD's.
And on a side note, what's the big deal ICANN seems to have about adding a whole bunch of TLD's anyway? IIRC, a large percentage of the ccTLD's were added within months of each other, and it doesn't seem that the net has blown up yet. Why is adding 10 more gTLD's going to cause problems?
Oops, forgot my footnotes:) And whoever modded my main post as a troll is one of the people who can't read that I mention up there in the beginning. They apparently can't read here either.
1. You wouldn't know it from reading comp.os.linux.help
2. Aunt Maude who just bought her new Celeron 500 and 15 inch monitor bundle from Walmart
You're right, I don't know what I was thinking:) Attacks like SYN and such are still creating the bandwidth DOS attack. However, they tend to do it a lot less effectively, since the problem witht he spoofed attacks is that they appear to be valid data, where I can tell that a 64K fragmented ping packed is not valid, and have the ability to filter based solely on the properties of the traffic. You can't filter on those terms for a spoofed DoS attack.
It seems there's a confusion in the discussion below, because people are too dumb to read the part of the article where Steve talks about Spoofed attacks. Let me try to explain.
SG talked about two different attacks. The main one is the brute-force, fill-your-bandwidth, ping attack. This attack is based on known ports and data types that fall outside of what can be considered 'normal' traffic, since in no way should well over a gig of ICMP ping data per minute be considered normal. Because of this, the routers on the upstream side could be configured to disallow the passing of that data. This is what brought the servers back on the net each time.
The part he just briefly touches on is the spoofed attacks, like SYN attaacks and the like. These attacks require the source to manipulate the TCP stack outside of what would be considered 'normal' use. Like sending SYN packets and not sending the SYN-ACK in reply to an ACK that is required in the 3-way handshake. These attacks simulate normal data - SYN attacking the web server, for example. All connections to a web server start with a SYN. So there is no way to statelessly determine if any given SYN is valid or not. The only way to calcel out these attacks is to disable valid services running in your network.
The problem isn't necessarily that Windows will now be able to spoof - the number of machine on the 'Net that can spoof has increased dramatically since Linux appeared on the scene. However, people that run linux also tend to know more about the technical aspects of their computers, and understand how to look for the signs of your computer being taken over (1). The typical Windows consumer (2), however, has very little idea what goes on inside the case where all those wires are connected to, and half of the time, couldn't even get the computer set up right if the cables and ports weren't color-coded. These are the people that see a new Email from Aunt Maude that says "Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny! Open now!" and open the little attachment that drops the Sub7 pieces into their registry before dancing around on their computer and making them laugh. And the problem is stupid laws that keep the FBI from pursuing 13-year-old script kiddies because out laws prevent much of anything from happening to them. Kids that sell drugs and rape other kids go to Juvenille Detention until their 18, at which point they get out, do it again, and go away for a long time. The legal system needs to start treating the spoiled brats who have nothing better to do than DoS computers the same way. If they were picketing and physically blocking entrance to a Brick-and-Mortar store, the police would drag them away. This is the cyberspace extension of that very same idea.M
He probably runs multiple servers - it's hard to test Windows trojans on a linux box. And DDoS is blind to your OS. You can DDoS a Linux box as easily as a Windows box as easily as a MacOS box. DDoS is a weakness of TCP/IP, not of a particular OS; therefore, it can affect any system on the internet
Windows crappy sockets implementation prevents it from participation in spoofed packet building attacks, like SYN floods and the like. These attacks are verydifficult to defend against, because they simulate actual valid traffic. And you can't block the source address, because it's invalid.
Windows crappy security allows trojans to be installed that can make attackes that don't require spoofing to be effective - massive pingfloods and the like. These attacks, as SG shows, can be effectively 'cancelled' to a degree. The attack was still going on, but the number of packets coming in wasn't as big a deal the the fat pipe upstream from the small T1 lines
Also, they need not keep you employed. You work for them. You don't have them obligated or contracted to use your meager output for their business needs. People here seem to have a problem with the way an Employee-Employer relationship works. Let me translate for the under-20-crowd...
ur b055 0W|\|Z j00!
What you say? I have to wear dress clothes? Well, no, you don't have to, you can find another job. Good luck. In case you haven't noticed, most companies aren't hiring, they're cutting. And that means filling your seat with another person to provide the service they need will be a trivial task, because someone who just got laid off will have no problem putting on a tie if it means they'll get paid again.
No, it implies that I show deference to my superioes, who feel that a semi-formal or formal dress code is appropriate for the place I work. It's fine that you do quality work, but you are not a programmer in the vein of Alan Cox, or Jeremy Allison, or Linus Torvalds, and so are, franky, easily replaced. You are of the opinion that the way you dress is simply a matter of comfort. However, the way you dress is representative of both you and your opinion of the place where you are going to.
I'm a contractor at a company in FL, where they typical dress code is, at it's most stringent, semi-formal: Dockers and polo shirts. The company I am at now is jeans and polo shirts. I still wear my Dockers though. Why? Aside from the fact that I bought $300 worth of clothes just before I started this job, being one of the best-dressed people here has garnered be more respect right from the get-go. The saying that "The clothes make the man" is almost hitting the nail on the head. I was able to walk in here, and within 2 weeks, start making recommendations about hardware usage and configuration, purchases, and things like that. Why? Because I looked like I knew what I was talking about. Now that I've had the chance to show that I know what I'm talking about, they think I'm the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Again, you work for them, not the other way around. If the biggest problem you have at your job is that they want you to look good while working for them, then shut yer whining, you've got it pretty got for the way the market's been lately.
Why bother asking. You've got a job that pays you doing what you like. You're complaining about a dress code? Wah.
You are a professional. Just because clients don't usually come by your office doesn't mean they won't ever come by. You need to be ready in case they do. And it's not like your job involves crawling around under a raised floor pulling cables. I saw what someone else said down below and have to agree - if getting dressed in a pair of pants and a nice shirt is too much of a hassle for you, go work at your local corner convenience store. You get paid a respectable about of money, show some respect for the place that pays you that money.
- becuase after reading it, I still know nothing about the game. Call it a rant, call it a troll, call it whatever you want, but don't call it a review when it's just a complaint. It's by Michael, I wouldn't even have read it, except the title and leader paragraph make me think that it's a review of MystIII. And now that I've read it, I know just as much about MystIII as I did before I read it - absolutely nothing.
Acceptable other titles:
I hate MystIII
Ignore the hardware requirements
Why bother when you can break your computer with DirectX8 for free
Any of these titles, or similar titles, would have told be this was crap before I wasted my time clicking on the link that added another reader to Michael's stories, bored myself by skimming over the drivel, and getting to the end having gained nothing. If he wants to rant about it, that's fine, but don't try to dress up a rant as a review when you never got to review it. The only think Michael reviewed was the installation process.
...it's a grumpy little boy complaining that he didn't get to play his new game. Let's look at your logical scoring and rating:
Gameplay: 0/10. OK, but you say you never got to play the game. Modified score: Michael's Gameplay experience: 0/10
Graphics: 0/10. Again, you never got to the graphics, because you never got into the game. Another modified score: Score for graphics Michael Saw: 0/10 Oh, and we have to add: Percent of graphics Michael saw: 0
Sound: 0/10. See Graphics
Value: 0/10. Hey, this one you actually got right. This game had no value to you.
We also have to add a few scores you forgot:
Attempt at rational explanation: 0/10
Troll Factor: 10/10
Amount of intelligence used to make game run in 16-bit color software mode: 0/10
Amount of respect this review gets: -15/10
OSDN, if you read these posts, I would be happy to make my editorial services available to you for much less than what Michael is probably making. I'm actually technically literate, and having graduates from high school, have learned to express my opinion on subjects in both a resonable and non-condescending tone. If you wish to speak further with me, my contact information is in my user profile.
Yeah, but the guy wants to know what you do after you get tired of being a general sysadmin.
Mind you, I'm not talking about the kind of sysadmin that gets stuck witht he DR Documentation in your current company - I'm talking about the kind of admin that a company like Veritas hires and sends out on consulting gigs to companies that are bringing in outside help for DR - or like Oracle does for Performance Tuning probelms.
The SUN JVM in an interpreter/compiler, and is licensed such that works produced by the output of the compiler are not subject the the licensing of that compiler. This issue is about one program being included inside another.
Just because something is modular in the kernel doesn't mean it can only be a module. The only case that this exists, AFAIK, is the protocol-specific masquerading modules.
Maybe against the current recommendations, anything that I don't have to load as a module (my AWE32 and Masq mods) gets compiled into the kernel. Why? Because it's not like I won't need the features - that's why I selected them for compile in the first place.
If you encrypt all of your main filesystems, then you'll just have a/boot partition with vmlinuz on it, and the encrypted filesystem mods already loaded. Load the kernel, find the encrypted root, and *Bam* there's your newly-readable filesystem. This isnt' rocket science.
That may be precisely what email confirmation is meant to ensure, but then you need to tell your respective representatives that you want double opt-in confirmation, because checking a box, then responding to an email is more than basic opt-in. And lest you think this is just me, every advertising company out there will use this definition too.
Don't complain about the definition of what you're asking for, ask for the right thing to begin with.
I haven't even been a SysAdmin for that long, but I consistently get 'suggestions' from vendors that I might consider becoming a Disaster Recovery specialist. Is it glamorous or easy? No, but you know that if you get into a position where you actually have some say over DR, that what you say needs done will be done. All 3 companies that I've been at lately have slashed spending for IT. Except for DR - you'd think the DR team ate capital for lunch every day.
DR, performance tuning, interoperability, and so forth. You will limit yourself, but you always have your basic SysAdmin abilities to fall back on.
Um, that's not jamie's first sentence, that's the reader submission. And regardless of how you may feel about the word, that's pretty much what they are. Would it make it better for you if I said instead of that Above.net was like a couple of Mafia thugs who run around the Internet kneecapping anyone who doesn't 'pay up' to their standards of Netizenship? No 'nazi' in there
> without requiring confirmation of subscription requests
OK, but what you're describing is a double-opt-in scheme, where I opt in, then I have to opt-in to the opt-in choices that I just made. I don't defend spam, but single-opt-in is what most things are right now. I rarely have to confirm that I've signed up to get my inbox blasted with crap.
> but not 'stealth' in any way
Due to the nature of the Internet, I expect that I should be able to get to every site, or be told that I can't get to the site. Masking machines behind DNS failure is stealth blocking, because I never know that the site is blocked. If you've managed to hack your DNS to take RBL sites, then redirect them to a "520: AboveNet Block" error page or something, but quit playing like a three year old who took his bat and ball home because he didnt' get his way. And if you debate this point, let me point out that the RBL, when configured in the recommended way, does indeed send errors back to the mail sender if you match an RBL host. So RBL mail blocking is not stealth, just RBL DNS.
> their mailing practices still suck
Why, because you don't have to reply to 15 Emails before getting a newsletter you didn't read through enough fine print to avoid getting? Is it bad PR to guerilla spam us by using thing like un-opt-in checkboxes (Check here if you wish to receive no email from...)? Hell yes. Should we require double-opt-in? Maybe, if you're too dumb to read, you deserve to get spammed. But are they doing anything technically wrong? No, they aren't.
> This is not a censorship issue
I don't defend spammers, but what exactly do you call it when a company blocks your access to Macromedia? The end justifies the means, so it's not censorship? That's what the French government says about Nazi paraphanalia (there's that 'nazi' word again) - that there is no good reason for anyone to ever see it. History be damned and who cares if we can't learn from those mistakes because we don't even know they're there.
If the recognized court of the government determines that he can not express his views on Scientology, then why wouldn't that be prosecution by the government? The court is merely the legal branch of the government in the United States.
Slashdot Mirror
Since the slashdot kiddies apparently find reading a /. blurb AND and entire article too tiring....
GIMP, by default, distributes a no-GIF-support version of the software. In countries where people can ignore (stupid) US Patents on software, there is a plugin for GIMP that adds GIF support to GIMP. This is how GIMP gets around the Unisys patent
This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U
Ah, you've never worked for bank executives, I can tell from your invalid assumption that because they are executives, they must be adults.
Well, your basic mouse already has 2 axes - Right-Left and Front-Back. Hook the wheel to Up-Down, and you're set.
Even better, use those 3 axes as "throttles", and you won't have to keep picking your mouse up and putting it close to you when you're moving forward a lot. Move forward a bit to start moving forward, move back a bit to stop moving forward.
This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U
But this won't happen - the people that will get cut off are the being BEING DDoS'd, not the people performing the DDoS. Any single node in the DDoS attack sends a trivial amount of data - Well, maybe not trivial, but not exactly bandwidth-breaking amounts of data. The beauty of the DDoS is that it's power comes from the number of computers doing small parts to contribute to the larger scope. One computer sending 1K packets every second is no big deal. 1000 computers doing the same just dropped 1M of data onto your link every second.
No, the caps won't stop DDoS's - except that the DDoS's won't be able to hit their targets after the first 1G of data comes in after 10 minutes.
This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U
You missed the part where the Suncoast Linux User's Group had a sponsored table at the show. That was significantly more populated by visitors than the MS booths, but that's besides the point. The point is, they paid to be there, just like MS did. And during their paid attendance, MS got pissy.
These are the facts as attested to in the article. Now stop making up your 'probably's and 'maybe's and 'i bet that's and learn to read.
The ccTLD's are protesting ICANN only as far as ICANN is thie organization that is supposed to support their technical decisions. In actuality, it's the DNSO and the heirarchy within ICANN that is being protested.
I was thinking about this the other day, and was wondering when, if at all, the ccTLD people were going to come out for, against, or neutral in the ICANN problems of late. While this isn't a response against the TLD policies, it is a response against the organization in general, and if the ccTLD's were to take their business elsewhere (i.e., New.Net), it could cause serious problems for ICANN's legitimacy as the "One True Root", since New.Net would also be hosting about 250 legitimate TLD's.
And on a side note, what's the big deal ICANN seems to have about adding a whole bunch of TLD's anyway? IIRC, a large percentage of the ccTLD's were added within months of each other, and it doesn't seem that the net has blown up yet. Why is adding 10 more gTLD's going to cause problems?
Oops, forgot my footnotes :) And whoever modded my main post as a troll is one of the people who can't read that I mention up there in the beginning. They apparently can't read here either.
1. You wouldn't know it from reading comp.os.linux.help
2. Aunt Maude who just bought her new Celeron 500 and 15 inch monitor bundle from Walmart
You're right, I don't know what I was thinking :) Attacks like SYN and such are still creating the bandwidth DOS attack. However, they tend to do it a lot less effectively, since the problem witht he spoofed attacks is that they appear to be valid data, where I can tell that a 64K fragmented ping packed is not valid, and have the ability to filter based solely on the properties of the traffic. You can't filter on those terms for a spoofed DoS attack.
It seems there's a confusion in the discussion below, because people are too dumb to read the part of the article where Steve talks about Spoofed attacks. Let me try to explain.
SG talked about two different attacks. The main one is the brute-force, fill-your-bandwidth, ping attack. This attack is based on known ports and data types that fall outside of what can be considered 'normal' traffic, since in no way should well over a gig of ICMP ping data per minute be considered normal. Because of this, the routers on the upstream side could be configured to disallow the passing of that data. This is what brought the servers back on the net each time.
The part he just briefly touches on is the spoofed attacks, like SYN attaacks and the like. These attacks require the source to manipulate the TCP stack outside of what would be considered 'normal' use. Like sending SYN packets and not sending the SYN-ACK in reply to an ACK that is required in the 3-way handshake. These attacks simulate normal data - SYN attacking the web server, for example. All connections to a web server start with a SYN. So there is no way to statelessly determine if any given SYN is valid or not. The only way to calcel out these attacks is to disable valid services running in your network.
The problem isn't necessarily that Windows will now be able to spoof - the number of machine on the 'Net that can spoof has increased dramatically since Linux appeared on the scene. However, people that run linux also tend to know more about the technical aspects of their computers, and understand how to look for the signs of your computer being taken over (1). The typical Windows consumer (2), however, has very little idea what goes on inside the case where all those wires are connected to, and half of the time, couldn't even get the computer set up right if the cables and ports weren't color-coded. These are the people that see a new Email from Aunt Maude that says "Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny! Open now!" and open the little attachment that drops the Sub7 pieces into their registry before dancing around on their computer and making them laugh. And the problem is stupid laws that keep the FBI from pursuing 13-year-old script kiddies because out laws prevent much of anything from happening to them. Kids that sell drugs and rape other kids go to Juvenille Detention until their 18, at which point they get out, do it again, and go away for a long time. The legal system needs to start treating the spoiled brats who have nothing better to do than DoS computers the same way. If they were picketing and physically blocking entrance to a Brick-and-Mortar store, the police would drag them away. This is the cyberspace extension of that very same idea.M
He probably runs multiple servers - it's hard to test Windows trojans on a linux box. And DDoS is blind to your OS. You can DDoS a Linux box as easily as a Windows box as easily as a MacOS box. DDoS is a weakness of TCP/IP, not of a particular OS; therefore, it can affect any system on the internet
There are two issues you're addressing here.
Windows crappy sockets implementation prevents it from participation in spoofed packet building attacks, like SYN floods and the like. These attacks are verydifficult to defend against, because they simulate actual valid traffic. And you can't block the source address, because it's invalid.
Windows crappy security allows trojans to be installed that can make attackes that don't require spoofing to be effective - massive pingfloods and the like. These attacks, as SG shows, can be effectively 'cancelled' to a degree. The attack was still going on, but the number of packets coming in wasn't as big a deal the the fat pipe upstream from the small T1 lines
Also, I need not show respect for my company
Also, they need not keep you employed. You work for them. You don't have them obligated or contracted to use your meager output for their business needs. People here seem to have a problem with the way an Employee-Employer relationship works. Let me translate for the under-20-crowd...
ur b055 0W|\|Z j00!
What you say? I have to wear dress clothes? Well, no, you don't have to, you can find another job. Good luck. In case you haven't noticed, most companies aren't hiring, they're cutting. And that means filling your seat with another person to provide the service they need will be a trivial task, because someone who just got laid off will have no problem putting on a tie if it means they'll get paid again.
No, it implies that I show deference to my superioes, who feel that a semi-formal or formal dress code is appropriate for the place I work. It's fine that you do quality work, but you are not a programmer in the vein of Alan Cox, or Jeremy Allison, or Linus Torvalds, and so are, franky, easily replaced. You are of the opinion that the way you dress is simply a matter of comfort. However, the way you dress is representative of both you and your opinion of the place where you are going to.
I'm a contractor at a company in FL, where they typical dress code is, at it's most stringent, semi-formal: Dockers and polo shirts. The company I am at now is jeans and polo shirts. I still wear my Dockers though. Why? Aside from the fact that I bought $300 worth of clothes just before I started this job, being one of the best-dressed people here has garnered be more respect right from the get-go. The saying that "The clothes make the man" is almost hitting the nail on the head. I was able to walk in here, and within 2 weeks, start making recommendations about hardware usage and configuration, purchases, and things like that. Why? Because I looked like I knew what I was talking about. Now that I've had the chance to show that I know what I'm talking about, they think I'm the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Again, you work for them, not the other way around. If the biggest problem you have at your job is that they want you to look good while working for them, then shut yer whining, you've got it pretty got for the way the market's been lately.
Why bother asking. You've got a job that pays you doing what you like. You're complaining about a dress code? Wah.
You are a professional. Just because clients don't usually come by your office doesn't mean they won't ever come by. You need to be ready in case they do. And it's not like your job involves crawling around under a raised floor pulling cables. I saw what someone else said down below and have to agree - if getting dressed in a pair of pants and a nice shirt is too much of a hassle for you, go work at your local corner convenience store. You get paid a respectable about of money, show some respect for the place that pays you that money.
I would mod you up if I had any mod points and could mod an article I commented in :)
- becuase after reading it, I still know nothing about the game. Call it a rant, call it a troll, call it whatever you want, but don't call it a review when it's just a complaint. It's by Michael, I wouldn't even have read it, except the title and leader paragraph make me think that it's a review of MystIII. And now that I've read it, I know just as much about MystIII as I did before I read it - absolutely nothing.
Acceptable other titles:
Any of these titles, or similar titles, would have told be this was crap before I wasted my time clicking on the link that added another reader to Michael's stories, bored myself by skimming over the drivel, and getting to the end having gained nothing. If he wants to rant about it, that's fine, but don't try to dress up a rant as a review when you never got to review it. The only think Michael reviewed was the installation process.
...it's a grumpy little boy complaining that he didn't get to play his new game. Let's look at your logical scoring and rating:
We also have to add a few scores you forgot:
OSDN, if you read these posts, I would be happy to make my editorial services available to you for much less than what Michael is probably making. I'm actually technically literate, and having graduates from high school, have learned to express my opinion on subjects in both a resonable and non-condescending tone. If you wish to speak further with me, my contact information is in my user profile.
Yeah, but the guy wants to know what you do after you get tired of being a general sysadmin.
Mind you, I'm not talking about the kind of sysadmin that gets stuck witht he DR Documentation in your current company - I'm talking about the kind of admin that a company like Veritas hires and sends out on consulting gigs to companies that are bringing in outside help for DR - or like Oracle does for Performance Tuning probelms.
The SUN JVM in an interpreter/compiler, and is licensed such that works produced by the output of the compiler are not subject the the licensing of that compiler. This issue is about one program being included inside another.
No, what the have done is legal according to the LGPL, not the GPL. GPL2 and LGPL1 were released together to address exactly this issue.
Just because something is modular in the kernel doesn't mean it can only be a module. The only case that this exists, AFAIK, is the protocol-specific masquerading modules.
Maybe against the current recommendations, anything that I don't have to load as a module (my AWE32 and Masq mods) gets compiled into the kernel. Why? Because it's not like I won't need the features - that's why I selected them for compile in the first place.
If you encrypt all of your main filesystems, then you'll just have a /boot partition with vmlinuz on it, and the encrypted filesystem mods already loaded. Load the kernel, find the encrypted root, and *Bam* there's your newly-readable filesystem. This isnt' rocket science.
Is that legal in most states in the US?
</SARCASM>
That may be precisely what email confirmation is meant to ensure, but then you need to tell your respective representatives that you want double opt-in confirmation, because checking a box, then responding to an email is more than basic opt-in. And lest you think this is just me, every advertising company out there will use this definition too.
Don't complain about the definition of what you're asking for, ask for the right thing to begin with.
I haven't even been a SysAdmin for that long, but I consistently get 'suggestions' from vendors that I might consider becoming a Disaster Recovery specialist. Is it glamorous or easy? No, but you know that if you get into a position where you actually have some say over DR, that what you say needs done will be done. All 3 companies that I've been at lately have slashed spending for IT. Except for DR - you'd think the DR team ate capital for lunch every day.
DR, performance tuning, interoperability, and so forth. You will limit yourself, but you always have your basic SysAdmin abilities to fall back on.
> referencing 'nazis' in your first paragraph
Um, that's not jamie's first sentence, that's the reader submission. And regardless of how you may feel about the word, that's pretty much what they are. Would it make it better for you if I said instead of that Above.net was like a couple of Mafia thugs who run around the Internet kneecapping anyone who doesn't 'pay up' to their standards of Netizenship? No 'nazi' in there
> without requiring confirmation of subscription requests
OK, but what you're describing is a double-opt-in scheme, where I opt in, then I have to opt-in to the opt-in choices that I just made. I don't defend spam, but single-opt-in is what most things are right now. I rarely have to confirm that I've signed up to get my inbox blasted with crap.
> but not 'stealth' in any way
Due to the nature of the Internet, I expect that I should be able to get to every site, or be told that I can't get to the site. Masking machines behind DNS failure is stealth blocking, because I never know that the site is blocked. If you've managed to hack your DNS to take RBL sites, then redirect them to a "520: AboveNet Block" error page or something, but quit playing like a three year old who took his bat and ball home because he didnt' get his way. And if you debate this point, let me point out that the RBL, when configured in the recommended way, does indeed send errors back to the mail sender if you match an RBL host. So RBL mail blocking is not stealth, just RBL DNS.
> their mailing practices still suck
Why, because you don't have to reply to 15 Emails before getting a newsletter you didn't read through enough fine print to avoid getting? Is it bad PR to guerilla spam us by using thing like un-opt-in checkboxes (Check here if you wish to receive no email from...)? Hell yes. Should we require double-opt-in? Maybe, if you're too dumb to read, you deserve to get spammed. But are they doing anything technically wrong? No, they aren't.
> This is not a censorship issue
I don't defend spammers, but what exactly do you call it when a company blocks your access to Macromedia? The end justifies the means, so it's not censorship? That's what the French government says about Nazi paraphanalia (there's that 'nazi' word again) - that there is no good reason for anyone to ever see it. History be damned and who cares if we can't learn from those mistakes because we don't even know they're there.
If the recognized court of the government determines that he can not express his views on Scientology, then why wouldn't that be prosecution by the government? The court is merely the legal branch of the government in the United States.