Issues like this are where the rabid "free speech at any price" crowd lose the rest of the country.
The bottom line is that there are many porn sites out there that *deliberately* seek to attract people who were not seeking porn. The most notable example, of course, is "whitehouse.com". Ultimately, this is a truth in advertising issue: if I open a can that says "peanuts", it should contain peanuts. If I order a "real, fully functional sailboat" it shouldn't be six inches high. And, in the world of information, if I buy a magazine entitled "Home Wine Making", it should contain information on wine making. Imagine if it were a tract against drinking from some benighted fundamentalists? You'd be pissed, wouldn't you? You'd want your money back, wouldn't you?
The problem, of course, with domain-name-spamming, is that once I've given you my eyeballs, I can't take them back. There is no way for me to demand a refund. Furthermore, these sites are often deliberately deceptive. "Whitehouse.com" was not founded at that address because he thought it would be a good way to found his business: it was founded because he wanted to trick people who would otherwise not want to view his warez into viewing them. This is false and deceptive, and is nowhere near legitimate free speech. Why don't you focus your energy on something that matters?
(And, please, spare me the slippery slope conspiracy theories.)
This is a valid concern. However, You need to remember the alternative: everyone developing their own standard and their own implementation, which may or may not be well done. Ultimately, this has been shown not to work: how many cases have we heard of where someone has broken into an ISP and stolen fifty billion accounts? Worse, how many have have there been that we have NOT heard of? With a federated system like this, the quality of implementations should be much better and, more importantly, the quality of standards should be much better. Encryption is not for the faint of heart - there are probably only a few dozen people in the world who know how to do this kind of thing right - and none of them work for joesautorepair.com. Best of all, as someone has pointed out, with a large scale system like this, bugs will be big enough news to make the papers - instead of the current situation where it has to be 50000 people affected to even hear about.
I just LOVE listening to the audio broadcast of this on SCO's site. I think I'll listen to it again, and again, and again. Maybe I could listen to it on every computer in my house...
Linux's rapid maturity--for example, growing up to work on large multiprocessor servers--is evidence of the presence of Unix intellectual property, the SCO suit said. "It is not possible for Linux to rapidly reach Unix performance standards for complete enterprise functionality without the misappropriation of Unix code, methods or concepts to achieve such performance, and coordination by a larger developer, such as IBM," the suit said.
Yeah, right. Linux ha sbeen ramping upward steadily for over ten years now! That is the most absurd argument I've ever heard. The fact is that the principles of making a fairly resilient kernel are well known. Stop whining SCO!
Pay cash or do without is my motto. The bottom line is that the current credit economy is disasterous for the individual. Guess what... YOU DON'T NEED A NEW CAR. Guess what... You don't NEED to own a house on credit. Your great-grandparents waited until they could pay cash or, at most, bought it with a 15 year note and at least 20% down. In fact, the whole consumer credit mess was invented by the US Gov't in the late forties as a way of preventing the massive economic crash that would otherwise have followed WWII. JUST SAY NO.
About ten years ago, the credit reporting companies merged my credit (non-existent at the time) with my mother's (bad), because we had the same birthday and same first name (long story) and, obviously, the same last name and she died about the time I got my first job. It was the best thing that ever happened to me, because it forced me to learn to live without credit.
Valid point - so check it. Connect back to the SMTP server in question, and see if its a relay before you add it to the database. As far as I'm concerned, anyone running an open relay in this day and age deserves slow email.
Okay, I think you've got what to do down - this is a great idea. The problem is, when to use it?
Here's what I propose: setup a large number of bogus email accounts. Broadcast them everywhere, and let them be honey-pots for spam. The point is, since you NEVER use this account for anything but dropping in spammable places, anything you receive on it *must* be spam. As soon as you get a connection from a mail server to one of these addresses, you *know* it's an open relay, and you put it in your database -- automatically, with no interaction required.
Step 2: You also do a "fingerprint" on the spam you get in your honeypot (you know the routine - what's the length, average use of the word "dildo", etc) so that you can identify this particular spam "copy" by the message -- NOT the header. This allows you to automatically filter out spam messages. If the spammers want to adapt, they have to rewrite their copy. As long as your signature algorithm is fairly lose -- that is, not a true hash algorithm -- they should have to do a total rewrite if they don't want to be detected. You can then filter these at the relays. Thus, once again, you raise the cost for them to do their spam. Since you are filtering by actual known-spam content -- that is, you're doing this like they do virus signatures -- you should get virtually no false positives.
And, anybody whose friends who are emailing them about penis enlargement doesn't really deserve email anyway.
Is it just me, or is 64-bit computing, the hammer, and AMD getting a lot of press for the past few days? I wonder if this is the start of a big media blitz.
"But there aren't any new iMacs in Apple's future and Microsoft, bolstered by its victory over the U.S. Department of Justice, is clearly not going to help the
beleaguered computer maker this time."
Or, put another way, God said 'Do not look back, lest thee be turned to a piller of salt...' and the sys admin said 'No, don't click there! No! NO! DON'T CLI....ok, now all your data is gone.'
I think you're on to something here. Believe it or not, starting with Aquinas (maybe even earlier) most responsible Medieval theologians had serious doubts about Witchcraft per se -- and that didn't matter because the common people believed that witches had these horrible powers. The image of these powers was informed by fairy tales and the like -- the popular media of the day -- rather than by responsible sources.
Very similarly, the popular image of 'Hackers' is formed by films like 'the net' or even 'the Matrix'. People believe that Hackers are capable of all kinds of perfidy, not because they have heard so from a responsible source or understand the issues involved, but because their fears have been ramped out of proportion by the popular media. (This is not to say that there were not some very serious ecclesiastical figures behind some of the witch burnings - just that Witch trials were really driven by the public, not generally by the church.)
Actually, I think we mostly agree here. My point is that all the airline security stuff we are now undertaking is pretty much a case of closing the door after the horse got out. Somehow I bet that the next Al Quaida attack will not involve commercial airliners -- because airliners are no longer a feasible wayh of attacking.
So why are we wasting so much time and energy trying to defend the airlines? Answer: politics.
The idiotic thing is that I very much doubt Al Quaida will ever again try to use an Airplane as a bomb, or even hijack one. Why? The customers won't sit still for it any more. There have been a number of cases since 9-11 where would-be hijackings etc. have been stopped by the PASSENGERS. The equation is changed. The bottom line is that all the airline security garbage is nothing but a feel-good measure that does little or nothing about the fundamental problem - which is that you've got a lot of medium crazy people who want to kill Americans.
You're right. Tockow whining about no one letting him know is almost as dumb as continuing to read a site with such poor editorial practices. Take your custom elsewhere!
So far as I know, there are no commercially available clustering solutions for OS X. Beowulf would probably work with some porting, but that's not really suitable for most server applications. Certainly, there is nothing like Sun Clustering or Veritas Cluster Server.
Now, if Apple wanted that market, they could probably do some really intriguing things using the Mach foundations of OSX (much as IBM did using the Mach foundations of AIX.) But "could" and "have" are very different things. Further, if Apple wants to be taken as a high-end server vendor, they will also have to develop high-end professional services. Sorry, but much as I love my powerbook, Apple just aren't there yet.
Yeesh. The xserve has, what, 2 processors? A Sunfire 15K has 106!
http://www.sun.com/servers/highend/sunfire15k/inde x.xml
Sorry dude, but the xserve is at best a low-end server. Hurry along, you'll be late for school.
Geesh dude - you sound like a sports caster. "Juggernaut-like"??? Quicktime and quartz extreme!?!?! These don't even RUN on high-end servers! High end servers don't even have monitors!
This has gotta be a troll - who the &*(#* mod'd it up?
mythtv supports remotes. and implements a full-screen interface very much like that of the tivo. It is kind of a pain to get working -- lots of prerequisites -- but, hey, whaddaya want for free?
I looked at the whole Tivo thing, and came to the conclusion that I would be better served to build my own using a linux box and either mythtv or freevo. The box also doubles as my household server, uses a WinTV card and a Geforce 2 to do video, plays cd's, plays arcade games, plays dvd's, rips cd's, burns vcds, etc. Still working on the integration a bit, but so far it is very nice. And all for about the same price as the tivo hardware without the monthly service fee. (Although I could definitely use a larger hard drive at this point.)
This article details NASA's budget proposal. Short form? Shuttle upgrades, nuclear deep space propulsion, and maybe a jupiter mission.
For what it's worth, I feel rather strongly that we need to solve the cost-to-orbit problem first - which will then make all the other science cheaper. The beanstalk idea is a good one, but I don't know if it will be viable in the next ten years, so one might also look at the old "National AeroSpace Plane" concept. The concept will work - if congress will fund it. Reducing the complexity of getting to orbit is the ONLY thing that will prevent another shuttle disaster. Its a 30 year old design now; we can do better.
Slashdot Mirror
The bottom line is that there are many porn sites out there that *deliberately* seek to attract people who were not seeking porn. The most notable example, of course, is "whitehouse.com". Ultimately, this is a truth in advertising issue: if I open a can that says "peanuts", it should contain peanuts. If I order a "real, fully functional sailboat" it shouldn't be six inches high. And, in the world of information, if I buy a magazine entitled "Home Wine Making", it should contain information on wine making. Imagine if it were a tract against drinking from some benighted fundamentalists? You'd be pissed, wouldn't you? You'd want your money back, wouldn't you?
The problem, of course, with domain-name-spamming, is that once I've given you my eyeballs, I can't take them back. There is no way for me to demand a refund. Furthermore, these sites are often deliberately deceptive. "Whitehouse.com" was not founded at that address because he thought it would be a good way to found his business: it was founded because he wanted to trick people who would otherwise not want to view his warez into viewing them. This is false and deceptive, and is nowhere near legitimate free speech. Why don't you focus your energy on something that matters?
(And, please, spare me the slippery slope conspiracy theories.)
This is a valid concern. However, You need to remember the alternative: everyone developing their own standard and their own implementation, which may or may not be well done. Ultimately, this has been shown not to work: how many cases have we heard of where someone has broken into an ISP and stolen fifty billion accounts? Worse, how many have have there been that we have NOT heard of? With a federated system like this, the quality of implementations should be much better and, more importantly, the quality of standards should be much better. Encryption is not for the faint of heart - there are probably only a few dozen people in the world who know how to do this kind of thing right - and none of them work for joesautorepair.com. Best of all, as someone has pointed out, with a large scale system like this, bugs will be big enough news to make the papers - instead of the current situation where it has to be 50000 people affected to even hear about.
I just LOVE listening to the audio broadcast of this on SCO's site. I think I'll listen to it again, and again, and again. Maybe I could listen to it on every computer in my house...
About ten years ago, the credit reporting companies merged my credit (non-existent at the time) with my mother's (bad), because we had the same birthday and same first name (long story) and, obviously, the same last name and she died about the time I got my first job. It was the best thing that ever happened to me, because it forced me to learn to live without credit.
Valid point - so check it. Connect back to the SMTP server in question, and see if its a relay before you add it to the database. As far as I'm concerned, anyone running an open relay in this day and age deserves slow email.
Here's what I propose: setup a large number of bogus email accounts. Broadcast them everywhere, and let them be honey-pots for spam. The point is, since you NEVER use this account for anything but dropping in spammable places, anything you receive on it *must* be spam. As soon as you get a connection from a mail server to one of these addresses, you *know* it's an open relay, and you put it in your database -- automatically, with no interaction required.
Step 2: You also do a "fingerprint" on the spam you get in your honeypot (you know the routine - what's the length, average use of the word "dildo", etc) so that you can identify this particular spam "copy" by the message -- NOT the header. This allows you to automatically filter out spam messages. If the spammers want to adapt, they have to rewrite their copy. As long as your signature algorithm is fairly lose -- that is, not a true hash algorithm -- they should have to do a total rewrite if they don't want to be detected. You can then filter these at the relays. Thus, once again, you raise the cost for them to do their spam. Since you are filtering by actual known-spam content -- that is, you're doing this like they do virus signatures -- you should get virtually no false positives.
And, anybody whose friends who are emailing them about penis enlargement doesn't really deserve email anyway.
Anyway, there's step 1 and 2. To summarize:
Is it just me, or is 64-bit computing, the hammer, and AMD getting a lot of press for the past few days? I wonder if this is the start of a big media blitz.
Very similarly, the popular image of 'Hackers' is formed by films like 'the net' or even 'the Matrix'. People believe that Hackers are capable of all kinds of perfidy, not because they have heard so from a responsible source or understand the issues involved, but because their fears have been ramped out of proportion by the popular media. (This is not to say that there were not some very serious ecclesiastical figures behind some of the witch burnings - just that Witch trials were really driven by the public, not generally by the church.)
So why are we wasting so much time and energy trying to defend the airlines? Answer: politics.
The idiotic thing is that I very much doubt Al Quaida will ever again try to use an Airplane as a bomb, or even hijack one. Why? The customers won't sit still for it any more. There have been a number of cases since 9-11 where would-be hijackings etc. have been stopped by the PASSENGERS. The equation is changed. The bottom line is that all the airline security garbage is nothing but a feel-good measure that does little or nothing about the fundamental problem - which is that you've got a lot of medium crazy people who want to kill Americans.
You're right. Tockow whining about no one letting him know is almost as dumb as continuing to read a site with such poor editorial practices. Take your custom elsewhere!
Now, if Apple wanted that market, they could probably do some really intriguing things using the Mach foundations of OSX (much as IBM did using the Mach foundations of AIX.) But "could" and "have" are very different things. Further, if Apple wants to be taken as a high-end server vendor, they will also have to develop high-end professional services. Sorry, but much as I love my powerbook, Apple just aren't there yet.
That url should read http://www.sun.com/servers/highend/sunfire15k/inde x.xml.
Yeesh. The xserve has, what, 2 processors? A Sunfire 15K has 106! http://www.sun.com/servers/highend/sunfire15k/inde x.xml
Sorry dude, but the xserve is at best a low-end server. Hurry along, you'll be late for school.
little ac... Apple doesn't sell a high-end server. High end servers don't fit in 1u rackmounts. High end servers take several racks all to themselves.
Geesh dude - you sound like a sports caster. "Juggernaut-like"??? Quicktime and quartz extreme!?!?! These don't even RUN on high-end servers! High end servers don't even have monitors! This has gotta be a troll - who the &*(#* mod'd it up?
You can do this using MythTV.
mythtv supports remotes. and implements a full-screen interface very much like that of the tivo. It is kind of a pain to get working -- lots of prerequisites -- but, hey, whaddaya want for free?
Yeah, I can get tv schedules (using xmltv). I can record. Does it automatically record stuff it thinks I want? No - but it does many nicer things.
Think different, oh thou geekish ones!
For what it's worth, I feel rather strongly that we need to solve the cost-to-orbit problem first - which will then make all the other science cheaper. The beanstalk idea is a good one, but I don't know if it will be viable in the next ten years, so one might also look at the old "National AeroSpace Plane" concept. The concept will work - if congress will fund it. Reducing the complexity of getting to orbit is the ONLY thing that will prevent another shuttle disaster. Its a 30 year old design now; we can do better.