Oh bullshit. This is a total troll, are you kidding me?
5.2kW cannot be sucked out of "a normal building power strip." And you are sure as heck going to notice 5.2kW of heat, and the regular everyday HVAC is most definitely not all it requires. "Uncooled ordinary room" my ass.
Congratulations! It's with great pleasure that I present you with this week's Most Xenophobic Post on Slashdot Award! Rod, tell the man what's he's just won!
That's right, Skip, the fine gentlemen will enjoy a free lifetime membership to the Republican Party! He'll need that while he's relaxing on the beaches of sunny Porta Vallarta! Of course, we'll also provide bodyguards at all times to keep all those dirty ethnics from stealing his wallet.
Oh please. That's ridiculous. It's called offering two product lines. OF COURSE the more expensive line will come with free technical support and better driver support. If you buy a $40 printer then you have to be willing to receive a piece of shit that only works with Windows and costs a fortune to refill. Duh! If I offered you a new car for $500 but made it so that you had to buy gas from me for $10/gallon, would you call that "pounding Joe User up the ass?" Of course not. It would be Joe User's own damn fault for believing that he was getting a great deal for $500.
Quality costs. Anyone that is honestly surprised by the antics of the $50-and-below printer manufacturers needs a reality check. Sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it too. TNSTAAFL.
This summary, and the article it links to, both seem to paint the picture that there are two distinct sets of developers in the world, those that target Windows and those that target Linux (or other open source platforms). This is just simply misleading, as I don't think it's the case at all.
First of all, most people who write code for a living have little control over what target OS they are developing for. These things tend to be dictated by the business that the company is in, or their clients, or the decisions of upper management, or historical reasons, etc. Most developers write code for Windows at work because that's where most software development happens, not because that's really their choice.
And just because you code for Windows at work doesn't mean you don't use Linux or participate in open source development at home or in your free time.
I guess what I'm getting at here is that I'm not surprised at all that Windows developers thought Linux was more secure, as a lot of them probably have used Linux or use it at home in some form (such as for a firewall.) In other words, you can't just break software people up into "Windows people" and "Linux people" and expect the members of each set to view their target OS as more secure, more stable, etc. People develop software for Windows for lots of reasons -- "it's a day job", "that's what the client demanded", "it's just corporate policy", etc. I guess what I'm saying is that this article doesn't really prove much, other than the fact that a lot of people think Linux is secure, but we knew that much already. Or simply: "Sure I write code for Windows for $DAYJOB, but that doesn't mean I think Windows is secure, and I use FreeBSD for my firewall at home."
Has anyone else read the book Faster by James Gleick? It's a really interesting study on how, as a group, our idea of time has been modified in recent years. It seems as if the pace of everything has gotten "faster, quicker, more efficient" and yet, at the same time we should be reaping the rewards of all this efficiency with more free time, which obviously hasn't materialized.
Anyway, the book is really good and I recommend it (in addition to most of Gleick's other stuff.) It explores all the different aspects of how we treat time management in the modern world. For example, take the case of someone buying a complicated PDA or other gadget and then spending a whole lot of time configuring it, wrestling with sync software, entering all their contacts into the device, keeping batteries charged, etc. -- when their old method (probably a little black book or rolodex) took a lot less effort when you sum everything up. And yet, they feel like they're saving time. This is just one type of example that the book tries to delve into, and I'm afraid I haven't done it justice. The book was a very pleasant read and makes you think about a lot of things we do in the "modern age" (whatever that is.)
I think you're misunderstanding WHY the frame rate was capped.
My interpretation of this matter is that the game physics engine uses a FIXED and CONSTANT 60Hz time scale. So no matter how fast or slow the graphics are drawn, the piecewise linear simulations are all done with constant delta-t's. Everyone's jump follows the same trajectory, every rocket lands in the same location, etc. regardless of how many snapshots of this motion are displayed (i.e. frame rate.)
The implication of this is two-fold:
1. The motion (acceleration, etc.) is independent of frame rate, it has its own timebase and so calculations do not depend on frame rate in the least. This is likely the whole reason for doing it this way.
2. Frame rates higher than 60 FPS would result in simply drawing the same frame again, since the underlying physics model only updates that fast. Therefore the cap is in place just to prevent this extra pointless work being done. Even if someone were to remove the artificial cap, it would not matter at all because all they'd be doing is drawing more duplicate frames, which probably would consume resources that could be better spent rendering more detail in each frame.
Domains Priced Right is another DBP affiliate, but I can't tell if they are simply a storefront reseller for either DBP or godaddy -- their "company info" page lists the same address in Scottsdale, AZ as DBP's whois info. It really seems like it would be in DBP's best interest to list all of their affiliates somewhere. Apparently when you reload the How to get a private registration page, you get a randomly selected affiliate for the "purchase/convert/transfer" links. So far the only two I've seen are godaddy and DPR, but there could be others.
I don't think I've seen anyone post this yet or not, but ICANN maintains a list of all accredited registars. You may be surprised how many there are. It also lists which TLDs each one can register for you.
Additionally, if do not want your contact information to be public, you can use DomainsByProxy.com. You register through a registrar that's one of DBP's affiliates and pay an extra $15/year or so and they act as a proxy for the domain contact. They list their postal and email addresses for your domain, and forward you anything that is sent, optionally filtering for spam. You still own the domain name, and the default if anything comes up (i.e. they suspect you of spamming or something) is that the registration information reverts to your own true contact information... So it's kind of "fail-safe" in that respect.
You need two things: A domain name, and DNS servers.
The first is easy, plop down $8 with godaddy.com for any old domain name.
The second is a little bit more complicated. You need (at least) two seperate machines that can act as nameserver for your domain. If your IP address is really static, then you can use that machine as one of your nameservers. The way this works is you enter the nameserver's machine domain name (e.g. "ns1.yourdomain.com") and IP address in the whois registry. Normally, you would use a nameserver of a completely seperate domain, and in this case you don't have to list anything special. But in the case of e.g. "foobar.com" with nameserver "ns1.foobar.com", obviously you can't do a DNS lookup on "ns1.foobar.com" in order to resolve "foobar.com" addresses -- it's a chicken-and-egg thing. So you enter this information in the whois registry.
Another alternative is to use the services of a third-party DNS server. One popular one is zoneedit.com. They are free if the number of queries is below some threshold, otherwise you buy credits and "spend" them based on the load. Alternatively, you can run your own primary authoritative nameserver (as above) and then use zoneedit in "slave" mode, where they pull a zone transfer from your primary nameserver and act as secondary. This has the advantage that you are in complete control over the zone (since you run the main nameserver) but you also have some degree of redundancy in that the zoneedit.com servers (which are theoretically very bulletproof) will still answer queries if your host is down or unreachable. There are a couple of other free DNS services out there, for example granitecanyon.com. A google search will tell more. You may also be able to obtain this service from your registrar, for a little bit more money.
So once you've decided how you're going to do the DNS servers, you just add an A record that points the domain name to your IP address, and possibly a CNAME or additional A records for any various subdomains, eg www.yourdomain, ftp.yourdomain, etc. For mail you simply add a MX record for yourdomain.com that points to the IP address of your machine, and make sure that you have a mail server listening on port 25. In a pinch you can even skip the MX record, as the spec says that if there is no MX record the MTA should try the IP address of the A record for the domain of the recipient.
Almost any other registrar can do everything Network Solutions does for you, for $8 to $12 a year. Who the hell cares about "frequent flyer miles"? If you're paying $35 a year then I can see why you feel excited about saving a few dollars, but for those of us that pay $8/year with godaddy.com, your argument has no value.
And regardless of value or customer service, NetSol/Verisign are a bunch of unmitigated assholes. Examples: fradulent renewal notices, SiteFinder, domain hijacking.
Maybe you should try reading that article first. There's nothing wrong with the BIND patches if used as the parent suggested. It was improper application of the "delegation-only" feature to all domains that caused the breakage. In other words, it's a configuration error. Blame the sysadmin, it is no fault of BIND.
(That whole story should have been modded "-1, Troll")
The premise of this article is like taking a turn of the century steam-powered buggy and comparing it to a modern luxury car like a Mercedes E-class or something. OF COURSE the 100 year old buggy with it's 12 horsepower motor, 40 MPH top speed, wooden spoke wheels that jar every bone of your body, unreliable boiler that craps out every few hours (etc.) is going to seem completely worthless and outdated to anyone that's driven a modern vehicle. But that doesn't mean that the steam-powered buggy wasn't a revolutionary achievement at the time, compared to having to keep horses around and deal with all their crap, etc.
By removing the context you completely miss the point. I'm sure that if you took a PS2 into the future and sat some 12 year-old down with it they would laugh and scoff and wonder what kind of idiot would actually buy that piece of crap, compared to SuperConsole3000 or whatever the modern technology of the day is.
I thought the article was really funny, as naturally the kids couldn't understand why anyone would want to play those old games. But you can't use that somehow as proof that "kids these days just don't get it" or any other sort of comparison of kids now vs. kids then. You completely invalidate the argument by removing the context.
USB support was not incorporated into Windows until 95 OSR2, and even that was really sketchy. Most USB manufacturers only support Win98 and later (if they even bother with 9x these days.)
Oh good job. Way to contribute to the problem of joe jobs! I'm glad to see that you're contributing to the spam problem while hiding it from your eyes.
Any "solution" that autoreplies to email based on who it purports to be from is broken and needs to be fixed. Sending autoreplies to spam just causes somebody's legitimate inbox to fill with garbage whenever the spammers use that innocent party's address in their spam. Naturally since you personally don't see any of these nasty side effects it must not be there, right?
Anyone who doesn't think this is a big deal obviously has never had to experience a joe job.
The so-called "Right of first sale" doctrine applies to THINGS. If you had bought a physical ROM, you have the right to sell it to someone if you don't want it. The fact that you downloaded a series of bytes does NOT mean that you can necessarily have the right to distribute those to other people, regardless of whether you keep a copy or not. That's just how the cookie crumbles. Copyright law gives the holder of the copyright the right to dictate terms of how that art is copied, and they're free to restrict that in any way they want. Buying or selling a physical thing such as an actual ROM or a CDROM does not involve copying, and hence it's not restricted by copyright law. (Naturally, if you made a COPY of that cdrom and sold that, then it would be covered by copyright law and illegal unless the copyright holder allowed it.)
It's based on closed source proprietary software, and riddled with restrictions. Here are some snippets from the terms of service:
To access the Service, you will need to install or activate Napster's proprietary software application; from time to time, you may also be required to install other software made available through the Service (collectively this software is called the "Client"). You may also need to install certain third-party software....
You may not authorize, encourage or allow any Tracks or Materials used or obtained by you to be reproduced, modified, displayed, performed, transferred, distributed or otherwise used by anyone else....
You may not attempt (or support others' attempts) to circumvent, reverse engineer, decrypt, or otherwise alter or interfere with any Usage Rules or Tracks....
You may burn each Purchased Track to a CD up to five times as part of any particular playlist of songs....
You may transfer a Purchased Track an unlimited number of times to portable devices that are compatible with the Service's Usage Rules and security requirements....
Any security technology that is provided with a Purchased Track is an inseparable part of it. If you have Purchased Tracks, it is your responsibility not to lose, destroy or damage them. Napster shall have no liability to you in the event of any such loss, destruction, or damage....
If you are using the version of the Service that is accessible from Microsoft Corporation's Windows Media Player 9 Series, you will only be able to burn or transfer Purchased Tracks using the Windows Media Player. I...
You may use the "Sync/Restore" function to obtain another copy of those Purchased Tracks for up to two additional computers that you own....
Currently, the Service is only available to residents of the United States. You understand and acknowledge that you may not sign up for, access, or attempt to access or use the Service from countries outside of the U.S.
As you can see, this service is riddled with restrictions and the music that you buy is locked into a proprietary format... There are no guarantees about your ability to retrieve new copies of these tracks in the future, and your ability to back them up may be limited (see the "2 additional computers" clause.) It's unclear whether you'd even be able to use the same tracks that you purchased after reinstalling your Windows OS. Use of the tracks with a portable device looks like it's dependent on that device having sufficient DRM installed, and probably must be supported by WMP.
Finally, it's limited to US citizens that are using MS Windows and/or Mac OS.
I don't think this service will be received very well, and its only similarity to any other form of Napster is its name.
Yes, but in this case they're only getting $6/year, as opposed to $35 or $50 or whatever they're charging currently. If everyone used an alternative registrar (e.g. godaddy.com) then Verislime would -definitely- feel the hurt on the bottom line, where it counts.
That is only the case if you are running an ancient, brain dead copy of the original (Matt's Script Archive) formmail.pl. But you'd be a retard for doing that and deserve everything you get. Modern formmail scripts do not allow spam through.
Do you honestly think that the kind of people that would want to use such an exploit would actually learn about it from slashdot? Don't you think they'd know how to find the BugTraq archives themselves?
Do you honestly think that by pretending that an exploit doesn't exist you're any safer? Do you think you will patch your systems (and urge your supervisors to grant you the priority to patch those systems) faster knowing that an exploit is easily available? Do you not agree that it doesn't matter whether you feel good or bad about the situation, what matters is how fast and to what extent all vulnerable systems are patched? Do you not think that knowing of an exploit helps that goal?
I think what you meant to say was: "Logic and reason have never stopped slashdot posters from blaming the sky being blue on Microsoft, so why start now?"
Yeah, for all of slashdot's whining about open source, you'd think they'd actually take a stand and not post links to crappy proprietary formats that require shitty software like quicktime to play.
1. Run blaster-cleanup.exe (or whatever it's called) 2. Phone network support 3. "Yes, I reformatted and reinstalled. My MAC address? It's..." 4. Connect to net, resume fast downloads of pron.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh bullshit. This is a total troll, are you kidding me?
5.2kW cannot be sucked out of "a normal building power strip." And you are sure as heck going to notice 5.2kW of heat, and the regular everyday HVAC is most definitely not all it requires. "Uncooled ordinary room" my ass.
Congratulations! It's with great pleasure that I present you with this week's Most Xenophobic Post on Slashdot Award! Rod, tell the man what's he's just won!
That's right, Skip, the fine gentlemen will enjoy a free lifetime membership to the Republican Party! He'll need that while he's relaxing on the beaches of sunny Porta Vallarta! Of course, we'll also provide bodyguards at all times to keep all those dirty ethnics from stealing his wallet.
Who the hell is TT205, and why should I care about its feet?
Oh please. That's ridiculous. It's called offering two product lines. OF COURSE the more expensive line will come with free technical support and better driver support. If you buy a $40 printer then you have to be willing to receive a piece of shit that only works with Windows and costs a fortune to refill. Duh! If I offered you a new car for $500 but made it so that you had to buy gas from me for $10/gallon, would you call that "pounding Joe User up the ass?" Of course not. It would be Joe User's own damn fault for believing that he was getting a great deal for $500.
Quality costs. Anyone that is honestly surprised by the antics of the $50-and-below printer manufacturers needs a reality check. Sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it too. TNSTAAFL.
This summary, and the article it links to, both seem to paint the picture that there are two distinct sets of developers in the world, those that target Windows and those that target Linux (or other open source platforms). This is just simply misleading, as I don't think it's the case at all.
First of all, most people who write code for a living have little control over what target OS they are developing for. These things tend to be dictated by the business that the company is in, or their clients, or the decisions of upper management, or historical reasons, etc. Most developers write code for Windows at work because that's where most software development happens, not because that's really their choice.
And just because you code for Windows at work doesn't mean you don't use Linux or participate in open source development at home or in your free time.
I guess what I'm getting at here is that I'm not surprised at all that Windows developers thought Linux was more secure, as a lot of them probably have used Linux or use it at home in some form (such as for a firewall.) In other words, you can't just break software people up into "Windows people" and "Linux people" and expect the members of each set to view their target OS as more secure, more stable, etc. People develop software for Windows for lots of reasons -- "it's a day job", "that's what the client demanded", "it's just corporate policy", etc. I guess what I'm saying is that this article doesn't really prove much, other than the fact that a lot of people think Linux is secure, but we knew that much already. Or simply: "Sure I write code for Windows for $DAYJOB, but that doesn't mean I think Windows is secure, and I use FreeBSD for my firewall at home."
Has anyone else read the book Faster by James Gleick? It's a really interesting study on how, as a group, our idea of time has been modified in recent years. It seems as if the pace of everything has gotten "faster, quicker, more efficient" and yet, at the same time we should be reaping the rewards of all this efficiency with more free time, which obviously hasn't materialized.
Anyway, the book is really good and I recommend it (in addition to most of Gleick's other stuff.) It explores all the different aspects of how we treat time management in the modern world. For example, take the case of someone buying a complicated PDA or other gadget and then spending a whole lot of time configuring it, wrestling with sync software, entering all their contacts into the device, keeping batteries charged, etc. -- when their old method (probably a little black book or rolodex) took a lot less effort when you sum everything up. And yet, they feel like they're saving time. This is just one type of example that the book tries to delve into, and I'm afraid I haven't done it justice. The book was a very pleasant read and makes you think about a lot of things we do in the "modern age" (whatever that is.)
I think you're misunderstanding WHY the frame rate was capped.
My interpretation of this matter is that the game physics engine uses a FIXED and CONSTANT 60Hz time scale. So no matter how fast or slow the graphics are drawn, the piecewise linear simulations are all done with constant delta-t's. Everyone's jump follows the same trajectory, every rocket lands in the same location, etc. regardless of how many snapshots of this motion are displayed (i.e. frame rate.)
The implication of this is two-fold:
1. The motion (acceleration, etc.) is independent of frame rate, it has its own timebase and so calculations do not depend on frame rate in the least. This is likely the whole reason for doing it this way.
2. Frame rates higher than 60 FPS would result in simply drawing the same frame again, since the underlying physics model only updates that fast. Therefore the cap is in place just to prevent this extra pointless work being done. Even if someone were to remove the artificial cap, it would not matter at all because all they'd be doing is drawing more duplicate frames, which probably would consume resources that could be better spent rendering more detail in each frame.
Domains Priced Right is another DBP affiliate, but I can't tell if they are simply a storefront reseller for either DBP or godaddy -- their "company info" page lists the same address in Scottsdale, AZ as DBP's whois info. It really seems like it would be in DBP's best interest to list all of their affiliates somewhere. Apparently when you reload the How to get a private registration page, you get a randomly selected affiliate for the "purchase/convert/transfer" links. So far the only two I've seen are godaddy and DPR, but there could be others.
I don't think I've seen anyone post this yet or not, but ICANN maintains a list of all accredited registars. You may be surprised how many there are. It also lists which TLDs each one can register for you.
Naturally, some are probably much better than others. I'd recommend godaddy.com, gandi.net, or joker.com.
Additionally, if do not want your contact information to be public, you can use DomainsByProxy.com. You register through a registrar that's one of DBP's affiliates and pay an extra $15/year or so and they act as a proxy for the domain contact. They list their postal and email addresses for your domain, and forward you anything that is sent, optionally filtering for spam. You still own the domain name, and the default if anything comes up (i.e. they suspect you of spamming or something) is that the registration information reverts to your own true contact information... So it's kind of "fail-safe" in that respect.
You need two things: A domain name, and DNS servers.
The first is easy, plop down $8 with godaddy.com for any old domain name.
The second is a little bit more complicated. You need (at least) two seperate machines that can act as nameserver for your domain. If your IP address is really static, then you can use that machine as one of your nameservers. The way this works is you enter the nameserver's machine domain name (e.g. "ns1.yourdomain.com") and IP address in the whois registry. Normally, you would use a nameserver of a completely seperate domain, and in this case you don't have to list anything special. But in the case of e.g. "foobar.com" with nameserver "ns1.foobar.com", obviously you can't do a DNS lookup on "ns1.foobar.com" in order to resolve "foobar.com" addresses -- it's a chicken-and-egg thing. So you enter this information in the whois registry.
Another alternative is to use the services of a third-party DNS server. One popular one is zoneedit.com. They are free if the number of queries is below some threshold, otherwise you buy credits and "spend" them based on the load. Alternatively, you can run your own primary authoritative nameserver (as above) and then use zoneedit in "slave" mode, where they pull a zone transfer from your primary nameserver and act as secondary. This has the advantage that you are in complete control over the zone (since you run the main nameserver) but you also have some degree of redundancy in that the zoneedit.com servers (which are theoretically very bulletproof) will still answer queries if your host is down or unreachable. There are a couple of other free DNS services out there, for example granitecanyon.com. A google search will tell more. You may also be able to obtain this service from your registrar, for a little bit more money.
So once you've decided how you're going to do the DNS servers, you just add an A record that points the domain name to your IP address, and possibly a CNAME or additional A records for any various subdomains, eg www.yourdomain, ftp.yourdomain, etc. For mail you simply add a MX record for yourdomain.com that points to the IP address of your machine, and make sure that you have a mail server listening on port 25. In a pinch you can even skip the MX record, as the spec says that if there is no MX record the MTA should try the IP address of the A record for the domain of the recipient.
You have GOT to be joking or trolling. I'll bite.
Almost any other registrar can do everything Network Solutions does for you, for $8 to $12 a year. Who the hell cares about "frequent flyer miles"? If you're paying $35 a year then I can see why you feel excited about saving a few dollars, but for those of us that pay $8/year with godaddy.com, your argument has no value.
And regardless of value or customer service, NetSol/Verisign are a bunch of unmitigated assholes. Examples: fradulent renewal notices, SiteFinder, domain hijacking.
Maybe you should try reading that article first. There's nothing wrong with the BIND patches if used as the parent suggested. It was improper application of the "delegation-only" feature to all domains that caused the breakage. In other words, it's a configuration error. Blame the sysadmin, it is no fault of BIND.
(That whole story should have been modded "-1, Troll")
The premise of this article is like taking a turn of the century steam-powered buggy and comparing it to a modern luxury car like a Mercedes E-class or something. OF COURSE the 100 year old buggy with it's 12 horsepower motor, 40 MPH top speed, wooden spoke wheels that jar every bone of your body, unreliable boiler that craps out every few hours (etc.) is going to seem completely worthless and outdated to anyone that's driven a modern vehicle. But that doesn't mean that the steam-powered buggy wasn't a revolutionary achievement at the time, compared to having to keep horses around and deal with all their crap, etc.
By removing the context you completely miss the point. I'm sure that if you took a PS2 into the future and sat some 12 year-old down with it they would laugh and scoff and wonder what kind of idiot would actually buy that piece of crap, compared to SuperConsole3000 or whatever the modern technology of the day is.
I thought the article was really funny, as naturally the kids couldn't understand why anyone would want to play those old games. But you can't use that somehow as proof that "kids these days just don't get it" or any other sort of comparison of kids now vs. kids then. You completely invalidate the argument by removing the context.
USB support was not incorporated into Windows until 95 OSR2, and even that was really sketchy. Most USB manufacturers only support Win98 and later (if they even bother with 9x these days.)
Oh good job. Way to contribute to the problem of joe jobs! I'm glad to see that you're contributing to the spam problem while hiding it from your eyes.
Any "solution" that autoreplies to email based on who it purports to be from is broken and needs to be fixed. Sending autoreplies to spam just causes somebody's legitimate inbox to fill with garbage whenever the spammers use that innocent party's address in their spam. Naturally since you personally don't see any of these nasty side effects it must not be there, right?
Anyone who doesn't think this is a big deal obviously has never had to experience a joe job.
The so-called "Right of first sale" doctrine applies to THINGS. If you had bought a physical ROM, you have the right to sell it to someone if you don't want it. The fact that you downloaded a series of bytes does NOT mean that you can necessarily have the right to distribute those to other people, regardless of whether you keep a copy or not. That's just how the cookie crumbles. Copyright law gives the holder of the copyright the right to dictate terms of how that art is copied, and they're free to restrict that in any way they want. Buying or selling a physical thing such as an actual ROM or a CDROM does not involve copying, and hence it's not restricted by copyright law. (Naturally, if you made a COPY of that cdrom and sold that, then it would be covered by copyright law and illegal unless the copyright holder allowed it.)
As you can see, this service is riddled with restrictions and the music that you buy is locked into a proprietary format... There are no guarantees about your ability to retrieve new copies of these tracks in the future, and your ability to back them up may be limited (see the "2 additional computers" clause.) It's unclear whether you'd even be able to use the same tracks that you purchased after reinstalling your Windows OS. Use of the tracks with a portable device looks like it's dependent on that device having sufficient DRM installed, and probably must be supported by WMP.
Finally, it's limited to US citizens that are using MS Windows and/or Mac OS.
I don't think this service will be received very well, and its only similarity to any other form of Napster is its name.
Yes, but in this case they're only getting $6/year, as opposed to $35 or $50 or whatever they're charging currently. If everyone used an alternative registrar (e.g. godaddy.com) then Verislime would -definitely- feel the hurt on the bottom line, where it counts.
That is only the case if you are running an ancient, brain dead copy of the original (Matt's Script Archive) formmail.pl. But you'd be a retard for doing that and deserve everything you get. Modern formmail scripts do not allow spam through.
www.domainsbyproxy.com
This is a non-problem. Spend $10 a year for a DBP account if it really bothers you.
Do you honestly think that the kind of people that would want to use such an exploit would actually learn about it from slashdot? Don't you think they'd know how to find the BugTraq archives themselves?
Do you honestly think that by pretending that an exploit doesn't exist you're any safer? Do you think you will patch your systems (and urge your supervisors to grant you the priority to patch those systems) faster knowing that an exploit is easily available? Do you not agree that it doesn't matter whether you feel good or bad about the situation, what matters is how fast and to what extent all vulnerable systems are patched? Do you not think that knowing of an exploit helps that goal?
I think what you meant to say was: "Logic and reason have never stopped slashdot posters from blaming the sky being blue on Microsoft, so why start now?"
Ouch dude... my condolences, no joking. that must have sucked.
Yeah, for all of slashdot's whining about open source, you'd think they'd actually take a stand and not post links to crappy proprietary formats that require shitty software like quicktime to play.
Since we're in a list-making mood, how about:
..."
1. Run blaster-cleanup.exe (or whatever it's called)
2. Phone network support
3. "Yes, I reformatted and reinstalled. My MAC address? It's
4. Connect to net, resume fast downloads of pron.