The courts aren't THAT dumb you know.... Do you actually think you could really convince anyone that you were in fact trying to review or criticise a work by automatically adding some canned prerecorded utterance to the end? And convince them to ignore the fact that you just happen to also be using this same automated means to later remove that soundbyte and reconstruct the original song, for the purpose of avoiding having to pay for music?
If there was someone I particularly didn't like, and decided to push them into traffic of a busy street, do you REALLY think I could convince a jury that I was trying to help him because there was a bee about to sting him, even if there just happened to be a bee there (that I had put there right before shoving him)?
Seriously. Go get a clue then come back when you're ready to make sense.
You shouldn't be running the signal as a pass-thru with your VCR. If your TV is so ancient that it only has a RF input, that is hardly the DVD player's fault. Most people that buy DVD players also have TVs that were made in the last 30 years and have a composite input, at the very least. Should you still want to do this, get a damn player that lets you disable macrovision, such as any Apex model. Don't whine about how hard it is to reflash. Here are the steps: 1. download CD image from web site. 2. burn CD. 3. Put cd in player. 4. Turn on player. 5. Disable macrovision in newly enabled menu. If that's too complicated then you should put down the remote, turn off the computer, and go back to sucking your thumb.
I couldn't agree more. I would expect this sort of discussion in, say, 1997. But this is just absurd. Spend a whole $50 on a cheap-but-feature-rich Apex and be done with it.
Uh, guys? Your validation code needs a little tweaking. Somebody was able to insert the following into the code of that http://ex-mozilla.org/date.html page:
<HR><FONT SIZE="+2"> satan </FONT><BR> old email id: satan <P><script language="JavaScript"> document.location = "http://www.fuckingmachines.com"; </script>
Are you insane? What kind of business model is that? Pay me, then go out and freely download the file. It's one thing to run a tip-jar style site, but expect it to be just that, tips -- something above and beyond some other form of payment. You can't seriously expect this proposed idea to make more than a scant amount, and it sure as heck isn't going to pay for the infrastructure the poster was talking about (large online presense, artwork database, etc.) I would never expect to break even by relying solely on the tip jar/honor system effect.
I am truly shocked at the level of clulessness that lawmakers show with regard to spam. Or maybe it's not so much cluelessness, but rather shrewd cunning in being able to pass what amount to pro-spam bills under the guise of anti-spam measures.
First of all, the "opt-in" vs "opt-out" debate was cute and everything in 1997 when we didn't get more than a handful of spam, but it's embarrassing that anyone is seriously maintaining that there's a need for debate on this issue. Opt-out roughly translates to "anyone can spam the living hell out of you and get off scott-free." The notion that it should be OK to send ANYTHING unsolicited, regardless of its advertised removal procedure is simply ridiculous. Imagine if just a fraction of every business (in the US alone) that wanted your attention sent you an email - email would instantly become useless. But on top of that, rule 1 of spammers is that spammers lie, and hence the burden of trust must NOT be on the end user to trust that the spammer will do what they're supposed to with those removal requests. Sure he'll remove you, from list 12499-B, but add you to lists 12499-C through -Q. Hey, it's a "functioning opt-out procedure", whaddya whining about? Only someone that is either clueless or is backed by advertising money would advocate something as idiotic as "opt out" as federal policy.
Next is the notion that it's okay as long as you put some token in the subject or promise not to fake headers. Here's where I make some bad joke that ends with "...and which one picks up the $100 bill first? The man-hating dyke, because Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and Spammers That Give A Shit About Not Forging Headers are all FIGMENTS OF YOUR IMAGINATION." But seriously, this [Adv] subject line stuff is a joke. First of all, it's a bad way to filter spam because you have to accept the entire message in the DATA section before you can reject it, as opposed to rejecting it based on blacklists or other details of the "RCPT TO " phase. In other words it still costs your mail server bandwidth, time, and space. Additionally, this whole "put a tag so we can block it" makes the implicit statement that EVERYONE wants to block this unsolicited swill... which pretty much means that no marketer that wants to play by the rules is ever going to spend the time, effort, or money to send out email that's been self-immolated in such a way, and no spammer is going to give two shits about what he is or isn't supposed to be doing, otherise he wouldn't be a spammer. Therefore, adding "[Adv]" is a completely worthless idea, a conclusion that most clueful people made, about, oh, 5 years ago.
On top of that, I would really like to see any of these US lawmakers do something about the anonymous proxies strewn about Korea, China, Argentina, Brazil, Nigeria, and a handfull of other third world places. "Forcing" spammers to not forge headers is like "forcing" a mugger not to stick a knife in your gut and rob you when you stroll down a dark back-alley street with a huge wad of cash bulging out of your pocket.
What other inane things have congress-critters proposed? A national do-not-email list? Oh that's rich. Did the idea that it could be abused ever once cross their mind? Don't even get me started on this "prior business relationship" loophole either. It's not so much a loophole as a gigantic gaping gash. They've been playing that game for years already: "At some point in time you visited some web site of some affiliate of ours, and therefore this is a previous business relationship." Uh-huh. Riiiight.
Here's the point of this rant. I'm glad they can at least recognise the need for action but their attempts to do anything about it are so pathetically awful that I'm GLAD no such laws have passed. In my opinion, the best way to effectively combat spam is to force ISPs to enforce their own AUP's/TOS's. Spammers pay good money for so-called
Yeah, I sure would want The Stickiest Substance Known To Man A.K.A. Duct Tape near my mr. happy, riiight. That's what I call a winning combination, pubes and duct tape.
Right... see patents are bad when it's Amazon trying to patent the semi-obvious, but when some random guy tries to patent the semi-obvious, well, that's ok, as long as it's something cool.
Gosh, does anybody read the Slashdot manual before spouting off these days?:-)
I'm seriously surprised the editors didn't sneak in a shameless link to ThinkGeek's Duct Tape Wallet, I mean talk about a perfect product tie-in story, geez.
Why in the world did he install no less than 8 fans? I didn't see a whole lot in there that really needed heavy duty cooling. I realize he has them all speed-controled so most likely they aren't all on, but still. Why install 8 small 80mm fans, when two or three larger sized fans would move as much or more air with a lot less volume? Those small case fans are hardly efficient in terms of moving air, as far as fans in general go.
That aside, it's certainly a good display of great craftsmanship.
There are several things that it appears most people do not understand about hotmail or email in general:
You cannot trust the From: line! A whole lot of spam looks like it's from a Hotmail account based on the email address in the header. But this is almost always forged, and it says nothing about the actual service used to send the email. Most times, the mail is sent via an open proxy, usually in an uncontrolled network. Korea, China, Argentina, Nigeria, Brazil are all very good sources of open proxies. In other words: Do not think for a single moment that because the spam says it's from abcd123@hotmail.com that it had anything whatsoever to do with Hotmail!
Mail sent using HTTPMail, the proprietary WebDAV interface that this article referrs to, will always have an easy to spot Received line that contains "with DAV;". It will also have an X-Originating-IP: [a.b.c.d] header that can be trusted. Note that sometimes the spammer will try to forge a fake X-Originating-IP, but it will usually either have the wrong capitalization (Ip vs. IP) or it won't have viable IP address numbers, usually with dotted quads greater than 255. It will also usually have an X-Originating-Email header that identifies the actual account name. Because of this, anyone dumb enough to spam with this method gets the account they used shut down almost immediately. In contrast, open proxies leave no evidence whatsoever of the actual originating party of the message.
It is hardly a secret. For example, there's an open-source Mail plug in for OSX that lets one send/receive mail with HTTPMail. Additionally, there are Windows utilities that create a pop3-HTTPMail gateway, allowing you to read hotmail that way.
As of March of this year, you can only send 100 emails per day per account using this method. Slashdot covered the story when the change was made. Here's a link to one version of the announcement.
For the above reasons, you won't get a lot of spam from this service. I just grepped my known-spam folder with about 2000 messages for the last 6 months or so, and found FOUR such HTTPMail-delivered spam -- and they were all from msn.com addresses/accounts, not hotmail.
So please, I know slashdot will take any opportunity it can get to Microsoft-bash but in this case the blogger is pronouncing the sky to have fallen when it has not. The fact is that this service IS traceable and IS throttled, two aspects which make it relevent only to the newbie spammer that doesn't know what he's doing.
I seem to remember seeing this hashed over various times in the past. It sounds great and all, but when you give all this crazy crap to a marine and ask him what he thinks, he says "This is 27 pounds I *don't* need." (Well, he may not say that if his CO is around, but that's what he's thinking.)
Technology is great and all, but until they can pack it all down to a few ounces, I really don't see it taking off. Every soldier knows how much burden something like just an extra pound adds to a pack. It can really make a difference. In the end it seems to always come down to the battery. They can shrink LCD screens, keyboards, earpieces, whatever. But to have a useful lifetime they still need a heavy battery pack and I think that's what's really holding this back.
The military is all about "total information access" or whatever they call it. But in fact, sheer information alone is useless. I was at Quantico a few years ago presenting a research project and during a presentation, the director of this program emphasized that current technology gives them boatloads of data, the rub is in making sense of it and presenting in a useful way -- both to the soldier and to the people at base camp (or whatever.) So just strapping a GPS module, encrypted digital radio, digicam, etc. on a soldier's back isn't neccessarily useful for anyone involved. Somehow you've got to figure out how to make it all useful.
I think a component of it should involve the inverse discrete cosine transform (iDCT.) This algorithm is used in all kinds of lossy compression methods (jpeg, mp3, mpeg-4 [DivX, Xvid, 3ivx, etc]) and it seems like something that's pretty common. I'm pretty sure those 12-hour DVD-to-AVI transcodes are running a zillion iDCTs, and probably a lot of other stuff too.
I think you've mistake. You see, this article should have been posted in the "It's Funny. Laugh." topic. Because of course, this is too ridiculous to be true. No one but retarded fanboys would pay any money to play a bunch of washed up loser millionaire musicians... Wait, you mean they're serious. Wow. What a bunch of asshats.
There exists no such client that I'm aware of; Bram's official version will easily connect to 50 to 75 peers for a popular torrent, if you let it. Same with the experimental builds. You may be confusing the fact that the default port range (before version 3.2) was 6881-6889, but you only need one port per torrent, not one port per client; and the range was extended to 6881-6999 as of v3.2. It's not a limiting factor anyway as you can specify any port range you want with the --minport and --maxport command line parameters that exist in every version.
7 KB/s isn't shit, but 175-200 KB/s isn't half bad, which is what I can get on popular torrents. You probably need to cap your upload bandwidth and forward the BT ports if you are in a NAT environment.
And BTW, here's a thought for you: even if a client is limited to sending at 5KB/s, if you are connected to 20 such clients that's 100 KB/s. Now consider the case of 75 peers.
Re:Failed to mention the blue screen issues
on
BitTorrent Guide
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Slashdot Mirror
The courts aren't THAT dumb you know.... Do you actually think you could really convince anyone that you were in fact trying to review or criticise a work by automatically adding some canned prerecorded utterance to the end? And convince them to ignore the fact that you just happen to also be using this same automated means to later remove that soundbyte and reconstruct the original song, for the purpose of avoiding having to pay for music?
If there was someone I particularly didn't like, and decided to push them into traffic of a busy street, do you REALLY think I could convince a jury that I was trying to help him because there was a bee about to sting him, even if there just happened to be a bee there (that I had put there right before shoving him)?
Good luck with that...
It's one of those secret codewords known only to the secret sect of those who have deciphered the mysteries of the tag.
The whole thing never happened, you know.
The CD player first went on sale in the Fall of 1982 in Europe and Japan, and in the US in the Spring of 1983. source
And remember, shiny side out... always shiny side out!
Even the 9-year-olds on _Reading Rainbow_ gave better reviews without ruining the whole book. Chock another one into the "Worst of Slashdot" bin.
Seriously. Go get a clue then come back when you're ready to make sense.
You shouldn't be running the signal as a pass-thru with your VCR. If your TV is so ancient that it only has a RF input, that is hardly the DVD player's fault. Most people that buy DVD players also have TVs that were made in the last 30 years and have a composite input, at the very least. Should you still want to do this, get a damn player that lets you disable macrovision, such as any Apex model. Don't whine about how hard it is to reflash. Here are the steps: 1. download CD image from web site. 2. burn CD. 3. Put cd in player. 4. Turn on player. 5. Disable macrovision in newly enabled menu. If that's too complicated then you should put down the remote, turn off the computer, and go back to sucking your thumb.
I couldn't agree more. I would expect this sort of discussion in, say, 1997. But this is just absurd. Spend a whole $50 on a cheap-but-feature-rich Apex and be done with it.
Uh, guys? Your validation code needs a little tweaking. Somebody was able to insert the following into the code of that http://ex-mozilla.org/date.html page:
<HR><FONT SIZE="+2"> satan
</FONT><BR> old email id: satan
<P><script language="JavaScript">
document.location = "http://www.fuckingmachines.com";
</script>
So the page loads a nice pron site. Quality.
Are you insane? What kind of business model is that? Pay me, then go out and freely download the file. It's one thing to run a tip-jar style site, but expect it to be just that, tips -- something above and beyond some other form of payment. You can't seriously expect this proposed idea to make more than a scant amount, and it sure as heck isn't going to pay for the infrastructure the poster was talking about (large online presense, artwork database, etc.) I would never expect to break even by relying solely on the tip jar/honor system effect.
"various assundry" indeed.
"various and sundry" is what you meant, I think.
I am truly shocked at the level of clulessness that lawmakers show with regard to spam. Or maybe it's not so much cluelessness, but rather shrewd cunning in being able to pass what amount to pro-spam bills under the guise of anti-spam measures.
First of all, the "opt-in" vs "opt-out" debate was cute and everything in 1997 when we didn't get more than a handful of spam, but it's embarrassing that anyone is seriously maintaining that there's a need for debate on this issue. Opt-out roughly translates to "anyone can spam the living hell out of you and get off scott-free." The notion that it should be OK to send ANYTHING unsolicited, regardless of its advertised removal procedure is simply ridiculous. Imagine if just a fraction of every business (in the US alone) that wanted your attention sent you an email - email would instantly become useless. But on top of that, rule 1 of spammers is that spammers lie, and hence the burden of trust must NOT be on the end user to trust that the spammer will do what they're supposed to with those removal requests. Sure he'll remove you, from list 12499-B, but add you to lists 12499-C through -Q. Hey, it's a "functioning opt-out procedure", whaddya whining about? Only someone that is either clueless or is backed by advertising money would advocate something as idiotic as "opt out" as federal policy.
Next is the notion that it's okay as long as you put some token in the subject or promise not to fake headers. Here's where I make some bad joke that ends with "...and which one picks up the $100 bill first? The man-hating dyke, because Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and Spammers That Give A Shit About Not Forging Headers are all FIGMENTS OF YOUR IMAGINATION." But seriously, this [Adv] subject line stuff is a joke. First of all, it's a bad way to filter spam because you have to accept the entire message in the DATA section before you can reject it, as opposed to rejecting it based on blacklists or other details of the "RCPT TO " phase. In other words it still costs your mail server bandwidth, time, and space. Additionally, this whole "put a tag so we can block it" makes the implicit statement that EVERYONE wants to block this unsolicited swill... which pretty much means that no marketer that wants to play by the rules is ever going to spend the time, effort, or money to send out email that's been self-immolated in such a way, and no spammer is going to give two shits about what he is or isn't supposed to be doing, otherise he wouldn't be a spammer. Therefore, adding "[Adv]" is a completely worthless idea, a conclusion that most clueful people made, about, oh, 5 years ago.
On top of that, I would really like to see any of these US lawmakers do something about the anonymous proxies strewn about Korea, China, Argentina, Brazil, Nigeria, and a handfull of other third world places. "Forcing" spammers to not forge headers is like "forcing" a mugger not to stick a knife in your gut and rob you when you stroll down a dark back-alley street with a huge wad of cash bulging out of your pocket.
What other inane things have congress-critters proposed? A national do-not-email list? Oh that's rich. Did the idea that it could be abused ever once cross their mind? Don't even get me started on this "prior business relationship" loophole either. It's not so much a loophole as a gigantic gaping gash. They've been playing that game for years already: "At some point in time you visited some web site of some affiliate of ours, and therefore this is a previous business relationship." Uh-huh. Riiiight.
Here's the point of this rant. I'm glad they can at least recognise the need for action but their attempts to do anything about it are so pathetically awful that I'm GLAD no such laws have passed. In my opinion, the best way to effectively combat spam is to force ISPs to enforce their own AUP's/TOS's. Spammers pay good money for so-called
Yeah, I sure would want The Stickiest Substance Known To Man A.K.A. Duct Tape near my mr. happy, riiight. That's what I call a winning combination, pubes and duct tape.
Right... see patents are bad when it's Amazon trying to patent the semi-obvious, but when some random guy tries to patent the semi-obvious, well, that's ok, as long as it's something cool.
:-)
Gosh, does anybody read the Slashdot manual before spouting off these days?
I'm seriously surprised the editors didn't sneak in a shameless link to ThinkGeek's Duct Tape Wallet, I mean talk about a perfect product tie-in story, geez.
So, can I have some karma for copying and pasting a README file into a post? Seriously. Informative my ass.
Why in the world did he install no less than 8 fans? I didn't see a whole lot in there that really needed heavy duty cooling. I realize he has them all speed-controled so most likely they aren't all on, but still. Why install 8 small 80mm fans, when two or three larger sized fans would move as much or more air with a lot less volume? Those small case fans are hardly efficient in terms of moving air, as far as fans in general go.
That aside, it's certainly a good display of great craftsmanship.
So please, I know slashdot will take any opportunity it can get to Microsoft-bash but in this case the blogger is pronouncing the sky to have fallen when it has not. The fact is that this service IS traceable and IS throttled, two aspects which make it relevent only to the newbie spammer that doesn't know what he's doing.
I seem to remember seeing this hashed over various times in the past. It sounds great and all, but when you give all this crazy crap to a marine and ask him what he thinks, he says "This is 27 pounds I *don't* need." (Well, he may not say that if his CO is around, but that's what he's thinking.)
Technology is great and all, but until they can pack it all down to a few ounces, I really don't see it taking off. Every soldier knows how much burden something like just an extra pound adds to a pack. It can really make a difference. In the end it seems to always come down to the battery. They can shrink LCD screens, keyboards, earpieces, whatever. But to have a useful lifetime they still need a heavy battery pack and I think that's what's really holding this back.
The military is all about "total information access" or whatever they call it. But in fact, sheer information alone is useless. I was at Quantico a few years ago presenting a research project and during a presentation, the director of this program emphasized that current technology gives them boatloads of data, the rub is in making sense of it and presenting in a useful way -- both to the soldier and to the people at base camp (or whatever.) So just strapping a GPS module, encrypted digital radio, digicam, etc. on a soldier's back isn't neccessarily useful for anyone involved. Somehow you've got to figure out how to make it all useful.
I think a component of it should involve the inverse discrete cosine transform (iDCT.) This algorithm is used in all kinds of lossy compression methods (jpeg, mp3, mpeg-4 [DivX, Xvid, 3ivx, etc]) and it seems like something that's pretty common. I'm pretty sure those 12-hour DVD-to-AVI transcodes are running a zillion iDCTs, and probably a lot of other stuff too.
I think you've mistake. You see, this article should have been posted in the "It's Funny. Laugh." topic. Because of course, this is too ridiculous to be true. No one but retarded fanboys would pay any money to play a bunch of washed up loser millionaire musicians... Wait, you mean they're serious. Wow. What a bunch of asshats.
So, these bills are indistinguishable from real bills, except when they're not?
You keep using that word... I don't think it means what you think it means.
There exists no such client that I'm aware of; Bram's official version will easily connect to 50 to 75 peers for a popular torrent, if you let it. Same with the experimental builds. You may be confusing the fact that the default port range (before version 3.2) was 6881-6889, but you only need one port per torrent, not one port per client; and the range was extended to 6881-6999 as of v3.2. It's not a limiting factor anyway as you can specify any port range you want with the --minport and --maxport command line parameters that exist in every version.
7 KB/s isn't shit, but 175-200 KB/s isn't half bad, which is what I can get on popular torrents. You probably need to cap your upload bandwidth and forward the BT ports if you are in a NAT environment.
And BTW, here's a thought for you: even if a client is limited to sending at 5KB/s, if you are connected to 20 such clients that's 100 KB/s. Now consider the case of 75 peers.
Read this: http://www.dessent.net/btfaq/#freeze. You should use the drivers linked and NOT the latest from Linksys.