If you want to call this civil disobedience, then you have to follow the principle and be prepared to suffer any consequences of your action. The concept of civil disobience mandates that you be WILLING to serve a jail term or suffer any other punishment that may come as a result of your actions. THat's the whole point. You can't call it civil disobedience on one hand and then complain and moan about getting caught and look for ways to hide your identity. For this to actually be c.d. then you must be willing and expecting to be caught and pay whatever penalties that are levvied against you.
Don't try to call it something that it isn't. If you don't expect to pay the fines or serve the jail sentence then you can't call it civil disobedience. Sorry, it's not a tag that you can just apply to your actions so that you feel better about yourself.
Moderators, what exactly is "Interesting" about that link? That it proves that it's possible to use photoshop or the gimp to add linux logos to some model's undies? Wow, stop the presses, digital images can be manipulated! That's soooo interesting.
Right. Think of the porn site as just proxying the free webmail signup to the end user. Except that it chooses the webmail signup username and login information, and the only part of it that the user has to do is defeat the Captcha.
It's actually a pretty fine idea. At first my reaction was that Yahoo just needs to check the Referrer header when the captcha loads, and only allow it to load from a Yahoo signup page. The porn site would be forced to actually proxy the data of the image, instead of simply providing a link to the image on yahoo's server. Slightly more work, but certainly not insurmountable.
You fucking idiots, suprnova is completely free. It's.ORG not.COM. The.COM site is run by a bunch of sqautters hoping to make a buck off of STUPID IDIOTS that can't get the domain right.
You are so completely misguided in your attempts to understand the Nyquist theorem that it's almost comical to anyone that has ACTUALLY TAKEN A SIGNAL PROCESSING CLASS IN COLLEGE. Please, stop before you embarrass yourself further.
1. Every signal can be composed of a series of sinusoidal waves. It's a mathematical fact. Yes, even your precious trangle wave can be represented *precisely* by a series of sine waves.
2. Nyquist's theorem states precisely that you sample at regular periods. I don't know where you're getting this notition that it requires you to sample at irregular intervals.
You need to stop thinking about this in terms of the time domain and learn something about the frequency domain. There is a LOT of mathematics that a LOT of very smart people have worked on for a great deal of time before you were even born. And they completely prove your "theories" wrong.
Take any signal. Any arbitrary signal you want. Sine wave, square wave, etc. Now bandlimit it. It's physically impossible for frequencies to extend out to infinity, so every signal that is physically producable in nature is band-limited. Now sample that signal at some frequency. So long as that sample frequency is twice the band limit, you can reconstruct that signal EXACTLY. Not almost, not partially, not with some distortion, but EXACTLY. You may not understand why this is, but you can prove this mathematically.
Finally, about your little triangle wave diatribe. First of all, a perfect triangle wave is impossible in nature. Notice I said perfect. The reason is that to accomplish that would require and infinite number of harmonics, and thus frequency components out to infinity. YOu can see this from its fourier series. Now, a sine wave, on the other hand, represents a single frequency, or an impulse function in the frequency domain. Anyway, the point here is that if you have a triangle wave of frequency 'n' and a sine wave of frequency 'n', the triangle wave is going to have many, many higher harmonics of 'n', whereas the sine wave does not. Therefore OF COURSE you cannot represent a triangle wave of frequency 'n' by sampling it at '2*n'. To think that you can shows a complete understanding of how the frequency domain works. HOWEVER, if you took that triangle wave, and band-limited it at some cutoff frequency (sufficiently high enough to approximate a perfect triangle wave) and then sampled it at twice that frequency, then you would be able to perfectly reconstruct that waveform.
Re:Take a better look at Jabber
on
Enterprise IM?
·
· Score: 1
Hey, don't worry! Our product used quadruple-ROT13! That's four times the protection!
Re:With PHP5, why not use Perl?
on
Core PHP Programming
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Yes, and PHP has had to pay a price for that simplicity that appeals to beginners. For example, take the whole "register globals" thing. Well, it sure sounds appealing to a beginner that every field in a form is automatically a variable with the same name in the global namespace. I mean, it's so easy to just say "print $name" or whatever, right? Oh, but wait: you have to meticuously scrub all user-supplied data, otherwise you leave yourself open to cross-site-scripting or SQL injection attacks. And if the user on the other end adds a field to the URL that you didn't think about beforehand, then you now have a new variable in your global namespace that you *may* not have been aware of. Is it really a good idea to expose the entire global namespace of your language to the end user? And yes, they changed the default for this a while ago, somewhere around 4.1 or so. But there are still some bad scripts out there that require it turned on. And there are still dozens and dozens (if not hundreds) of exploits that are still being discovered or are as-yet unpatched because of the lazyness introduced by the mantra of "Don't worry, I'll fill in all the variables for you. You just worry about sticking them in a SQL statement."
And, until recently the entire language had a flat namespace. If you wanted to create a module to do something you just sort of picked a starting prefix for all your function names and hope that they don't collide with anything. This is surely fine when the language is young, and it must look rather appealing to the beginner -- as in, "Hey, neat, no worrying about all those complicated classes or scoping or namespaces or anything, I just have this extremely long list of functions that I can call." And that sort of organization really doesn't scale. It would not be able to support the 10,000 (or whatever) modules that CPAN offers for Perl. And as the number of PHP modules balloons they realized in 5.x that they needed much stronger class-like typing and organzation, instead of just having a long list of a bunch of functions.
So, yes, PHP is terribly easy to learn... but that isn't necessarily good from the standpoint of security or long-term language health.
Oh come on, how does this junk get moderated up? The notion that we're somehow running out of IPv4 address space is a MYTH. We are perfectly capable of continuing to 2020 or past, even when you extrapolate out current growth rates. Yes, it was rather nearsighted at the time to assign whole class-A blocks, but CIDR notation was not around at the time and so there was really no other viable alternative. That a handful of organizations still have class-A's does NOT in any way have anything to do with the so-called address shortage, which has been shown to be complete hogwash.
A quote from this paper from July concludes that we easily have another two decades of life left in IPv4.
Assuming a smooth continuity of growth in demand where growth rates are proportional to the size of the Internet, and assuming a continuation of the current utilization efficiency levels in the Internet, and assuming a continuing balance between public address utilization and various forms of address compression, and assuming the absence of highly disruptive events, then it would appear that the IPv4 world, in terms of address availability, could continue for another two decades or so without reaching any fixed boundary.
I don't think this really changes anything. They've always had the ability to single-step/reverse engineer the windows NTFS driver, it's not like they lacked that ability before. But that's a very daunting task, regardless of whether you do it in Windows or in Linux, because it's a complicated filesystem and the driver is pretty big. It's like saying, "Hey! We got these great new backpacks for our climb to the top of Everest! They're red instead of our old ones which were black. But otherwise they're the same model."
How does shit like this get modded up to +5? This completely misses the point.
- Every ISP contract on the face of the earth has a provision that the ISP can refuse service to anyone at any time for any reason. If you try to challenge them on their policy they will cancel your account, and that will be the end of that. There is zero way that you can compel them to give you service.
- Every ISP contract on the face of the earth has language that refers to behavior that is disruptive to the system. Using hundreds of times more than the average is definitely disruptive, in that it either results in slower speeds for everyone when the uplink is saturated, or it results in the purchase of more uplink bandwidth. Either of those could easily be categorized as "disruptive."
- Every ISP contract on the face of the earth has language that allows them to continually update the terms as they see fit. In fact just about every utility does this: your power company, cable TV company, telephone company, etc. No utility with half a brain would lock themselves into having to provide service the terms of which they cannot control.
Yes, it might suck that they advertise their connection as "unlimited." But that refers to the fact that it's always on, not that you can do whatever you want. I'm sorry if you didn't realize that when you signed up, but you do now, so deal with it. And if you neglected to read your contract that's hardly their fault. And, here's the important thing: even if they don't mention a cap at all, they can still refuse service to you.
So lets just put to rest this notion that somehow an ISP contract gives you jack shit in terms of rights, or that you would be able to "fight them" in any meaningful way. It's just not possible. If you're so naive that you think "unlimited" means you can do something that's completely disruptive to everyone else, then you should really start reading the fine print next time.
If you really want to leech like mad, why don't you go price a T1? Hey, you can saturate that puppy 24x7 and no one will nag you about bandwidth. Oh, wait, that costs four or six times as much as you're paying now? Oooohhh, well I'm so sorry, but that's how the world works. Either you put up with shitty bandwidth caps and pay $40 a month, or step up to the plate and pay what that bandwidth ACTUALLY COSTS if you insist on using as if it were a free, unlimited resource.
1) That SCO has found their source code in source code published online that anyone can download and
No, they're not even claiming that much. If you cut through all the mumbo-jumbo, their complaint in their case against IBM revolves around their assertion that IBM created a derivative work based on proprietary Unix code, and then donated that to Linux. They've made a bunch of noise and press releases about Unix code in Linux, but if you go back and look at the lawsuit it's strictly about IBM not following the terms of their contract that they had for the Unix source, specifically the part about derived works belonging to SCO and remaining proprietary and confidential.
You don't get higher-than-CD quality in 2/3rds the size
While the statement that Dataplay is of lesser quality than CDs is true, the above reasoning is misleading. The size of the media, or the number of bytes it can store, are irrelevant to judging its quality. If I had a dataplay disk that stored 100MB, and used it to store a single song at (say) 24bits 60kHz sample rate, it would definitely be "higher-than-CD quality", whatever that means.
Christ dude, there were no less than four such mistakes in the post. Duh, that was his point. That's why it's modded funny. If "cut the muster" is the only one that you noticed, perhaps you need to go read it again.
Firstly, yes, you can never produce a 100% secure system. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't TRY. Not confirming signups is like saying "well, we'll just leave this vulnerable app here for someone to exploit, no reason in fixing that."
Secondly, if you agree that unsolicited email is spam then you must agree that if someone unknown to me enters MY email address in YOUR web page and YOU start sending me your newsletter, then YOU are spamming me. You sent me unsolicited email.
Third, you cannot use metaphors of physical message delivery systems (telephones, mail, etc.) when discussing spam. Email != phone calls or postal mail. It is completely different due to the cost structure. It's meaningless to try to use arguments about verifying phone numbers or postal addresses, because spam does not work in those media.
Finally, asking the DMA for their definition of spam is laughable. Of course they are going to define spam as something that allows their members to spam. That is their whole point of existance, to allow their members to do what they want. And almost every anti-spam organization out there will agree that the DMA's definition is incorrect and letting a spammer define spam is pointless. The same goes for congress, because NO, I don't think they are in a position to define spam correctly since they are heavily influenced by businesses and the DMA. So, yes, indeed I'm leaving out these definitions of spam, because they are not valid in my opinion. If you think they are then naturally we are going to disagree. If you allow the perpetrator to simply define what he is doing wrong as no longer being wrong, then everything ceases to be wrong and you have anarchy.
Okay, if you don't define spam as "Unsolicited bulk email" then sure you may not see it as spam. But that's spammer-speak. Almost the entire anti-spam community agrees that email that is either UBE or UCE is spam. If you can't adopt that definition then you're in your own little backwater.
You can't just shirk responsibility for your site. If someone enters a false email address, whatever your server does with that address is still your responsibility. If you send email to it without confirming it, that email is spam by all of the commonly accepted definitions. It's definitely UBE and probably UCE as well, if you're selling something.
Likewise if you run a web site with a server vulnerability and someone hacks it and uses your machine to relay spam or commit a crime, you're still responsible. Just because someone else feeds you bad data doesn't mean you're not responsible for verifying it. It's like saying "Well sure, those people stole the credit card information that was stored on our server, but we're not responsible for that at all! They did it, not us!"
Yes, this is different from snail mail and other physical forms of communication. It's very easy to send thousands of emails at almost no cost. That is not the same with physical mail, so don't even think about bringing that into the argument.
Look, there is no debating this. If you accept unconfirmed signups for your mailing list then you are a spammer. By definition. Sure, if someone enters a false email address then they have done something wrong, and they should be held responsible for that. But that doesn't mean the person running the site is NOT a spammer for not doing due-diligence/best-practices. If your site is compromised and used to send spam or DDoS attacks, does that mean you have no responsibility, and it's all the attackers fault? No. You ran an insecure site, and you are just as responsible for that traffic coming from your machine.
False emails happen by mistake. They happen on purpose. They happen a lot. Suppose there's some wacko out there that decides they hate you. They take your email address and enter it into hundreds or thousands of sign-up forms on the web. Perhaps you need to reread that link about "The Story of Nadine" if you don't believe this.
If everyone did what you seem to think is acceptable and not verify those signups, then suddenly that person, through no action of their own, will start to receive hundreds of spam a day. I don't care if those emails are for legitimate products and have an unsubscribe link. It's still spam. Spam is about consent, not content. This person now has to deal with these hundreds of spam a day, all because these asshole webmasters are too scared about "oh no, someone might be confused and not signup for me marketing blast." Sorry, your need to advertise does not give you the right to spam. Try telling that person that's now receiving all those unsolicited emails that those people flooding his inbox aren't spammers. Yeah, right.
I'm not making this up. Go read some anti-spam web pages. Go read NANAE. If you think using unconfirmed signups is justifiable in any shape or form then you are part of the spam problem. By definition.
No, dipshit, I'm not making this up. Here's a mental experiment, since you're obviously in denial. If you run a web site, and you accept sign-ups for a mailing list, then anyone can enter any email address. If you do not confirm that that person is in control of that email address and wants to receive your mailings, then you are sending UNSOLICITED BULK EMAIL to that person, which by anyone's definition is spam. If I enter your email address and the website doesn't confirm it, then they are spamming you. That is by definition, there is no wiggle room. If you did not ask for it, it's spam. And the question is not "Could this happen?" but "When will this happen?" If you do not practise confirmed-opt-in then you WILL have email addresses on your lists that did not want your mailings which means by definition you are a spammer.
Your complaint about "having to sign up multiple times" is complete bullshit. There is nothing about the process that would require you to sign up more than once. You enter your email, the site sends a confirmation email, you hit reply, and you are on the list. ANYTHING ELSE MAKES THAT SITE A SPAMMER.
No, you've got it subtly wrong. It was meant to help mainsleeze, which are large companies that spam but under the auspices[1] of "email marketing" or "permission based marketing" or whatever they want to call it. These companies don't mind providing unsubscribe links, and they don't use proxies. The more they can clamp down on the "porn 'n' pills" group of lowlifes, the more it makes their flavor of spam seem legitimate. "See look, you're no longer getting all of those pornographic emails, we cleaned it up!" Meanwhile they spam away, knowing that their form of spam has been legitimized.
[1] Some of you may say that corporate email marketing for actual legal products or services is legitimate as long as it provides an unsub link. This is false. The only kind of email marketing that is NOT spam is "closed-loop, confirmed opt-in". This means you can't just stick a "sign up for our newsletter" box on your home page and then send away to any email addresses submitted. Before being added to the list you must send a confirmation email to each new address, and the person must reply or repond some way (with a unique, unforgeable token.) If you do not do this you are a spammer, regardless of what you may think.
Except that the people that buy this crap are not case modders. The term "case modder" implies that you have some artistic vision to take something boring and through hard work and craftsmanship you modify it to make something unique. This, however, is a bunch of overpriced crap that's trying to cash in on the "sure, I'll pay $30 for a fan with LEDs" crowd. "Case modding" does not mean picking out your case from a menu of options in a catalog.
Apparently, these are the same people that plaster their Civics with stickers and buy "horsepower adders", as if a gauze air filter and neon colored ignition wires actually had any (non-psychological) effect on performance.
Just use the non-"One" version. RealPlayer v8 works fine and once you uncheck all the right things in preferences and delete it from startup it's well-behaived in that it only runs when you start it and closes when you kill it.
I'm not saying that it represents necessarily good decision making on the part of those companies... But I'm just pointing out that it's all too common to have some random server running some random application (that's probably itself very old) that's crutial to the business. Nobody in the company has ever tried it with any other platform, nobody knows if it would work, no one knows how long it would take to switch formats or port the app, nobody knows how long it would be down while all this is going on, etc. When you have a situation like this that's crutial to the business functions of the company and it's working and supported, it's going to be an uphill battle to convince anyone to change, ESPECIALLY to commodity and/or "community supported" stuff.
Please, don't take this as me trying to justify SCO's crapware in any respect. I'm just trying to point out that if you spend a lot of time in open source circles it's very easy to get this skewed version of things in which it's inexplicable why any company wouldn't have burned every last piece of SCO media and torn up every support contract after months of this lawsuit garbage and years of crappy software that's going nowhere. You'll find that businesses often have tons of random legacy junk sitting around that's still useful, and to keep it running it makes more sense from a business standpoint to keep paying SCO for support contracts or upgrades, regardless of the merits of SCO's software. SCO knows this, and they have to play into it if they want to survive... (Or at least, a semi-sane SCO before all this lawsuit crap. Now they've pretty much made it impossible to survive post-lawsuit.)
It's kind of like the tale ('Signs'?) where the car runs over the man and pins him against a tree or wall or something, holding his innards in place. You know that his game is up sooner or later but you also know that moving the car is going to make a huge mess with his guts oozing out everywhere...so it's best to just keep things as they are for as long as possible until at least the EMT arrives and he has a slight chance of surviving.
Slashdot Mirror
It is 100% pure scam, built upon spam. What a great way to make a buck. Snopes article on the matter: http://www.snopes.com/computer/internet/wordofmout h.asp
If you want to call this civil disobedience, then you have to follow the principle and be prepared to suffer any consequences of your action. The concept of civil disobience mandates that you be WILLING to serve a jail term or suffer any other punishment that may come as a result of your actions. THat's the whole point. You can't call it civil disobedience on one hand and then complain and moan about getting caught and look for ways to hide your identity. For this to actually be c.d. then you must be willing and expecting to be caught and pay whatever penalties that are levvied against you.
Don't try to call it something that it isn't. If you don't expect to pay the fines or serve the jail sentence then you can't call it civil disobedience. Sorry, it's not a tag that you can just apply to your actions so that you feel better about yourself.
Moderators, what exactly is "Interesting" about that link? That it proves that it's possible to use photoshop or the gimp to add linux logos to some model's undies? Wow, stop the presses, digital images can be manipulated! That's soooo interesting.
Right. Think of the porn site as just proxying the free webmail signup to the end user. Except that it chooses the webmail signup username and login information, and the only part of it that the user has to do is defeat the Captcha.
It's actually a pretty fine idea. At first my reaction was that Yahoo just needs to check the Referrer header when the captcha loads, and only allow it to load from a Yahoo signup page. The porn site would be forced to actually proxy the data of the image, instead of simply providing a link to the image on yahoo's server. Slightly more work, but certainly not insurmountable.
You fucking idiots, suprnova is completely free. It's .ORG not .COM. The .COM site is run by a bunch of sqautters hoping to make a buck off of STUPID IDIOTS that can't get the domain right.
You are so completely misguided in your attempts to understand the Nyquist theorem that it's almost comical to anyone that has ACTUALLY TAKEN A SIGNAL PROCESSING CLASS IN COLLEGE. Please, stop before you embarrass yourself further.
1. Every signal can be composed of a series of sinusoidal waves. It's a mathematical fact. Yes, even your precious trangle wave can be represented *precisely* by a series of sine waves.
2. Nyquist's theorem states precisely that you sample at regular periods. I don't know where you're getting this notition that it requires you to sample at irregular intervals.
You need to stop thinking about this in terms of the time domain and learn something about the frequency domain. There is a LOT of mathematics that a LOT of very smart people have worked on for a great deal of time before you were even born. And they completely prove your "theories" wrong.
Take any signal. Any arbitrary signal you want. Sine wave, square wave, etc. Now bandlimit it. It's physically impossible for frequencies to extend out to infinity, so every signal that is physically producable in nature is band-limited. Now sample that signal at some frequency. So long as that sample frequency is twice the band limit, you can reconstruct that signal EXACTLY. Not almost, not partially, not with some distortion, but EXACTLY. You may not understand why this is, but you can prove this mathematically.
Finally, about your little triangle wave diatribe. First of all, a perfect triangle wave is impossible in nature. Notice I said perfect. The reason is that to accomplish that would require and infinite number of harmonics, and thus frequency components out to infinity. YOu can see this from its fourier series. Now, a sine wave, on the other hand, represents a single frequency, or an impulse function in the frequency domain. Anyway, the point here is that if you have a triangle wave of frequency 'n' and a sine wave of frequency 'n', the triangle wave is going to have many, many higher harmonics of 'n', whereas the sine wave does not. Therefore OF COURSE you cannot represent a triangle wave of frequency 'n' by sampling it at '2*n'. To think that you can shows a complete understanding of how the frequency domain works. HOWEVER, if you took that triangle wave, and band-limited it at some cutoff frequency (sufficiently high enough to approximate a perfect triangle wave) and then sampled it at twice that frequency, then you would be able to perfectly reconstruct that waveform.
Hey, don't worry! Our product used quadruple-ROT13! That's four times the protection!
Yes, and PHP has had to pay a price for that simplicity that appeals to beginners. For example, take the whole "register globals" thing. Well, it sure sounds appealing to a beginner that every field in a form is automatically a variable with the same name in the global namespace. I mean, it's so easy to just say "print $name" or whatever, right? Oh, but wait: you have to meticuously scrub all user-supplied data, otherwise you leave yourself open to cross-site-scripting or SQL injection attacks. And if the user on the other end adds a field to the URL that you didn't think about beforehand, then you now have a new variable in your global namespace that you *may* not have been aware of. Is it really a good idea to expose the entire global namespace of your language to the end user? And yes, they changed the default for this a while ago, somewhere around 4.1 or so. But there are still some bad scripts out there that require it turned on. And there are still dozens and dozens (if not hundreds) of exploits that are still being discovered or are as-yet unpatched because of the lazyness introduced by the mantra of "Don't worry, I'll fill in all the variables for you. You just worry about sticking them in a SQL statement."
And, until recently the entire language had a flat namespace. If you wanted to create a module to do something you just sort of picked a starting prefix for all your function names and hope that they don't collide with anything. This is surely fine when the language is young, and it must look rather appealing to the beginner -- as in, "Hey, neat, no worrying about all those complicated classes or scoping or namespaces or anything, I just have this extremely long list of functions that I can call." And that sort of organization really doesn't scale. It would not be able to support the 10,000 (or whatever) modules that CPAN offers for Perl. And as the number of PHP modules balloons they realized in 5.x that they needed much stronger class-like typing and organzation, instead of just having a long list of a bunch of functions.
So, yes, PHP is terribly easy to learn... but that isn't necessarily good from the standpoint of security or long-term language health.
A quote from this paper from July concludes that we easily have another two decades of life left in IPv4.
I don't think this really changes anything. They've always had the ability to single-step/reverse engineer the windows NTFS driver, it's not like they lacked that ability before. But that's a very daunting task, regardless of whether you do it in Windows or in Linux, because it's a complicated filesystem and the driver is pretty big. It's like saying, "Hey! We got these great new backpacks for our climb to the top of Everest! They're red instead of our old ones which were black. But otherwise they're the same model."
How does shit like this get modded up to +5? This completely misses the point.
- Every ISP contract on the face of the earth has a provision that the ISP can refuse service to anyone at any time for any reason. If you try to challenge them on their policy they will cancel your account, and that will be the end of that. There is zero way that you can compel them to give you service.
- Every ISP contract on the face of the earth has language that refers to behavior that is disruptive to the system. Using hundreds of times more than the average is definitely disruptive, in that it either results in slower speeds for everyone when the uplink is saturated, or it results in the purchase of more uplink bandwidth. Either of those could easily be categorized as "disruptive."
- Every ISP contract on the face of the earth has language that allows them to continually update the terms as they see fit. In fact just about every utility does this: your power company, cable TV company, telephone company, etc. No utility with half a brain would lock themselves into having to provide service the terms of which they cannot control.
Yes, it might suck that they advertise their connection as "unlimited." But that refers to the fact that it's always on, not that you can do whatever you want. I'm sorry if you didn't realize that when you signed up, but you do now, so deal with it. And if you neglected to read your contract that's hardly their fault. And, here's the important thing: even if they don't mention a cap at all, they can still refuse service to you.
So lets just put to rest this notion that somehow an ISP contract gives you jack shit in terms of rights, or that you would be able to "fight them" in any meaningful way. It's just not possible. If you're so naive that you think "unlimited" means you can do something that's completely disruptive to everyone else, then you should really start reading the fine print next time.
If you really want to leech like mad, why don't you go price a T1? Hey, you can saturate that puppy 24x7 and no one will nag you about bandwidth. Oh, wait, that costs four or six times as much as you're paying now? Oooohhh, well I'm so sorry, but that's how the world works. Either you put up with shitty bandwidth caps and pay $40 a month, or step up to the plate and pay what that bandwidth ACTUALLY COSTS if you insist on using as if it were a free, unlimited resource.
1) That SCO has found their source code in source code published online that anyone can download and
No, they're not even claiming that much. If you cut through all the mumbo-jumbo, their complaint in their case against IBM revolves around their assertion that IBM created a derivative work based on proprietary Unix code, and then donated that to Linux. They've made a bunch of noise and press releases about Unix code in Linux, but if you go back and look at the lawsuit it's strictly about IBM not following the terms of their contract that they had for the Unix source, specifically the part about derived works belonging to SCO and remaining proprietary and confidential.
Can't *anyone* spot a troll that's whoring for karma so that it can remain "karma positive" and won't have to post at 0? Buelller? Bueller?
You don't get higher-than-CD quality in 2/3rds the size
While the statement that Dataplay is of lesser quality than CDs is true, the above reasoning is misleading. The size of the media, or the number of bytes it can store, are irrelevant to judging its quality. If I had a dataplay disk that stored 100MB, and used it to store a single song at (say) 24bits 60kHz sample rate, it would definitely be "higher-than-CD quality", whatever that means.
I'm still waiting for my 40 acares and a mule...
Christ dude, there were no less than four such mistakes in the post. Duh, that was his point. That's why it's modded funny. If "cut the muster" is the only one that you noticed, perhaps you need to go read it again.
Firstly, yes, you can never produce a 100% secure system. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't TRY. Not confirming signups is like saying "well, we'll just leave this vulnerable app here for someone to exploit, no reason in fixing that."
Secondly, if you agree that unsolicited email is spam then you must agree that if someone unknown to me enters MY email address in YOUR web page and YOU start sending me your newsletter, then YOU are spamming me. You sent me unsolicited email.
Third, you cannot use metaphors of physical message delivery systems (telephones, mail, etc.) when discussing spam. Email != phone calls or postal mail. It is completely different due to the cost structure. It's meaningless to try to use arguments about verifying phone numbers or postal addresses, because spam does not work in those media.
Finally, asking the DMA for their definition of spam is laughable. Of course they are going to define spam as something that allows their members to spam. That is their whole point of existance, to allow their members to do what they want. And almost every anti-spam organization out there will agree that the DMA's definition is incorrect and letting a spammer define spam is pointless. The same goes for congress, because NO, I don't think they are in a position to define spam correctly since they are heavily influenced by businesses and the DMA. So, yes, indeed I'm leaving out these definitions of spam, because they are not valid in my opinion. If you think they are then naturally we are going to disagree. If you allow the perpetrator to simply define what he is doing wrong as no longer being wrong, then everything ceases to be wrong and you have anarchy.
Okay, if you don't define spam as "Unsolicited bulk email" then sure you may not see it as spam. But that's spammer-speak. Almost the entire anti-spam community agrees that email that is either UBE or UCE is spam. If you can't adopt that definition then you're in your own little backwater.
You can't just shirk responsibility for your site. If someone enters a false email address, whatever your server does with that address is still your responsibility. If you send email to it without confirming it, that email is spam by all of the commonly accepted definitions. It's definitely UBE and probably UCE as well, if you're selling something.
Likewise if you run a web site with a server vulnerability and someone hacks it and uses your machine to relay spam or commit a crime, you're still responsible. Just because someone else feeds you bad data doesn't mean you're not responsible for verifying it. It's like saying "Well sure, those people stole the credit card information that was stored on our server, but we're not responsible for that at all! They did it, not us!"
Yes, this is different from snail mail and other physical forms of communication. It's very easy to send thousands of emails at almost no cost. That is not the same with physical mail, so don't even think about bringing that into the argument.
Look, there is no debating this. If you accept unconfirmed signups for your mailing list then you are a spammer. By definition. Sure, if someone enters a false email address then they have done something wrong, and they should be held responsible for that. But that doesn't mean the person running the site is NOT a spammer for not doing due-diligence/best-practices. If your site is compromised and used to send spam or DDoS attacks, does that mean you have no responsibility, and it's all the attackers fault? No. You ran an insecure site, and you are just as responsible for that traffic coming from your machine.
False emails happen by mistake. They happen on purpose. They happen a lot. Suppose there's some wacko out there that decides they hate you. They take your email address and enter it into hundreds or thousands of sign-up forms on the web. Perhaps you need to reread that link about "The Story of Nadine" if you don't believe this.
If everyone did what you seem to think is acceptable and not verify those signups, then suddenly that person, through no action of their own, will start to receive hundreds of spam a day. I don't care if those emails are for legitimate products and have an unsubscribe link. It's still spam. Spam is about consent, not content. This person now has to deal with these hundreds of spam a day, all because these asshole webmasters are too scared about "oh no, someone might be confused and not signup for me marketing blast." Sorry, your need to advertise does not give you the right to spam. Try telling that person that's now receiving all those unsolicited emails that those people flooding his inbox aren't spammers. Yeah, right.
I'm not making this up. Go read some anti-spam web pages. Go read NANAE. If you think using unconfirmed signups is justifiable in any shape or form then you are part of the spam problem. By definition.
No, dipshit, I'm not making this up. Here's a mental experiment, since you're obviously in denial. If you run a web site, and you accept sign-ups for a mailing list, then anyone can enter any email address. If you do not confirm that that person is in control of that email address and wants to receive your mailings, then you are sending UNSOLICITED BULK EMAIL to that person, which by anyone's definition is spam. If I enter your email address and the website doesn't confirm it, then they are spamming you. That is by definition, there is no wiggle room. If you did not ask for it, it's spam. And the question is not "Could this happen?" but "When will this happen?" If you do not practise confirmed-opt-in then you WILL have email addresses on your lists that did not want your mailings which means by definition you are a spammer.
m l o uble
Your complaint about "having to sign up multiple times" is complete bullshit. There is nothing about the process that would require you to sign up more than once. You enter your email, the site sends a confirmation email, you hit reply, and you are on the list. ANYTHING ELSE MAKES THAT SITE A SPAMMER.
http://www.pan-am.ca/spammyths/rants/27jul2002.ht
http://www.cluelessmailers.org/glossary.html
http://www.spamfaq.net/spam-evils.shtml#opt_in
http://www.monkeys.com/spam-defined/
http://www.euro.cauce.org/en/optinvsoptout.html#d
http://www.spamresource.com/nadine/default.htm
No, you've got it subtly wrong. It was meant to help mainsleeze, which are large companies that spam but under the auspices[1] of "email marketing" or "permission based marketing" or whatever they want to call it. These companies don't mind providing unsubscribe links, and they don't use proxies. The more they can clamp down on the "porn 'n' pills" group of lowlifes, the more it makes their flavor of spam seem legitimate. "See look, you're no longer getting all of those pornographic emails, we cleaned it up!" Meanwhile they spam away, knowing that their form of spam has been legitimized.
[1] Some of you may say that corporate email marketing for actual legal products or services is legitimate as long as it provides an unsub link. This is false. The only kind of email marketing that is NOT spam is "closed-loop, confirmed opt-in". This means you can't just stick a "sign up for our newsletter" box on your home page and then send away to any email addresses submitted. Before being added to the list you must send a confirmation email to each new address, and the person must reply or repond some way (with a unique, unforgeable token.) If you do not do this you are a spammer, regardless of what you may think.
Except that the people that buy this crap are not case modders. The term "case modder" implies that you have some artistic vision to take something boring and through hard work and craftsmanship you modify it to make something unique. This, however, is a bunch of overpriced crap that's trying to cash in on the "sure, I'll pay $30 for a fan with LEDs" crowd. "Case modding" does not mean picking out your case from a menu of options in a catalog.
Apparently, these are the same people that plaster their Civics with stickers and buy "horsepower adders", as if a gauze air filter and neon colored ignition wires actually had any (non-psychological) effect on performance.
If you consider the last handful of Bond films to not have sucked, then remind me to never let you pick a movie to see.
Just use the non-"One" version. RealPlayer v8 works fine and once you uncheck all the right things in preferences and delete it from startup it's well-behaived in that it only runs when you start it and closes when you kill it.
download link
I'm not saying that it represents necessarily good decision making on the part of those companies... But I'm just pointing out that it's all too common to have some random server running some random application (that's probably itself very old) that's crutial to the business. Nobody in the company has ever tried it with any other platform, nobody knows if it would work, no one knows how long it would take to switch formats or port the app, nobody knows how long it would be down while all this is going on, etc. When you have a situation like this that's crutial to the business functions of the company and it's working and supported, it's going to be an uphill battle to convince anyone to change, ESPECIALLY to commodity and/or "community supported" stuff.
Please, don't take this as me trying to justify SCO's crapware in any respect. I'm just trying to point out that if you spend a lot of time in open source circles it's very easy to get this skewed version of things in which it's inexplicable why any company wouldn't have burned every last piece of SCO media and torn up every support contract after months of this lawsuit garbage and years of crappy software that's going nowhere. You'll find that businesses often have tons of random legacy junk sitting around that's still useful, and to keep it running it makes more sense from a business standpoint to keep paying SCO for support contracts or upgrades, regardless of the merits of SCO's software. SCO knows this, and they have to play into it if they want to survive... (Or at least, a semi-sane SCO before all this lawsuit crap. Now they've pretty much made it impossible to survive post-lawsuit.)
It's kind of like the tale ('Signs'?) where the car runs over the man and pins him against a tree or wall or something, holding his innards in place. You know that his game is up sooner or later but you also know that moving the car is going to make a huge mess with his guts oozing out everywhere...so it's best to just keep things as they are for as long as possible until at least the EMT arrives and he has a slight chance of surviving.