RedHat? What about Ford? Silly them to EOL supporting the Model T. Now where the hell am I going to get a pistons for a 177CU 22 HP motor? Now how the hell can I top out at 30MPH?
You Red Hat apologists are worse than the Mac fanatics. Can you possibly come up with a worse analogy than that? Red Hat 9 is less than 1 year old and will cease to receive security updates as of the end of April! That's like announcing you'll no longer be able to get parts or service for your 2003 Ford Explorer after April. Oh, and your support warranty? Sorry, that's going to be discontinued, but we'll give you a discount on upgrading to one of our new 2004 Ford Expeditions with the extended warranty coverage for your trouble. People that actually buy into Red Hat Enterprise Linux are morons if they think Red Hat won't do this to them again. How will you like your shiny new copy of RHEL 3 when you find out it'll be EOL'd in a year and you'll be forced to upgrade to RHEL 4 if you want to continue to get basic security updates? Even Microsoft is a LOT better than that. Windows 2000 came out in 1999 and still is updated quite frequently. I have some serious decisions I need to make within the next few months. Do I want to continue with this Linux experiment or go back to a tried and proven company that respects their customers like Microsoft. I can't afford to reinstall my OS every year... Sorry Red Hat, but you lose my business.
I don't have a problem with legal music downloading as long as the music is free or close to free. I'm not going to pay nearly $1 per track to get songs. Why not offer something for $20/month that lets you download all the music you want? You've got your continuous revenue stream of subscribers and the subscribers are paying a fair price for entertainment. Why do customers always have to be ripped off?
If it is a "legitimate company", then they are not sending unsolicited email advertising. Only criminals send junk email.
The US Postal System would disagree with you on that one. No, my problem isn't with unsolicted mail in so much as it's their thinly veiled attempts to disguise the origins, circumvent my spamassassin analysis engine, and generally prove to be annoying asswipes. I do not want their spam, but if they are a legitimate business they have as much right to market via e-mail as others do via snail mail. All I ask is that they clearly label their spam as commercial advertisements using a standard keyword and non-forged return addresses so that people who wish to not receive it can easily filter it out. I know that's probably as naive as expecting Congress to pass a law saying hackers must set the evil bit on their traffic, but we're fighting a losing battle here. The battle against spam is akin to the war on drugs. There's no way to eliminate it, so you have to tolerate it and find ways to control it.
My response to a company sending unsolicited advertising to me via email is a series of complaints to them and their hosting ISP, maintained until I get some kind of response
And I suppose you do the same thing for every snail mail marketer that sends you a catalog or credit card application or exciting opportunity to get a lower interest rate on your mortgage? Unless you're seriously getting screwed by your ISP you're not paying per email message or even byte transferred anymore so it's a moot point. Add in server-side filtering and a legitimate subject header spammers have to add that you can filter on and the problem that you as a user have goes away overnight. Sure, the ISP has their own issues with spam, but as an end-user they do not concern me. For all I care they can setup their mail servers to dump any message with the ADV keyword in it and put that in their terms of service if they hate spam that much. Spam loving users would just go elsewhere.
In short, expect your spam count to rise. It will just be a little more "honest", as the CAUCE release notes, not a better situation in general.
As an end-user I would've been satisfied if this bill only contained one requirement:
Marketers must insert "[ADV]" into the beginning of the subject of their message.
If you are in fact a legitimate company and not some slimey spammer then you will have no problem with that. I, as an end-user, can configure my filters to filter the advertisements directly to the trash easily without using cycles to do complex error-prone analysis on the message. Therefore you are guaranteed to reach your target audience.. people who actually WANT to receive spam will not filter it. Of course, they are totally against this because just like the do not call lists, EVERYONE will sign up for it and their business model will be destroyed.
well watch soon the spammers will sue you for blocking their spam as it blocks legally protected interstate trade.
I wonder if I can sue my ISP for kicking me off for violating their terms of service. It's just free speech. It will be interesting to see how the legitimacy of spammers shakes out over the coming year. Maybe I can pickup a new side job sending bulk e-mail to bring in some extra income. I'd be too afraid the anti-spam nuts would attack me for just upholding my constitutionally protected rights to send out a billion messages a day.
His point was not specifically that RIAA artists succeed, but that a) you need top 10 hits to succeed at touring and b) you need airplay other than college radio to be successful.
And you're just referring to statistical outliers. For every Grateful Dead or Phish there are 5000 college radio station garage bands that don't make any money at all touring. If you compare the percentage of signed artists that make a lot of money touring and unsigned artists who make a lot of money touring, I think you'll notice a huge disparity in the numbers. For these purposes, I stand by my original assertion that being signed by an RIAA record company brings you a lot more intangible benefits than just CD sales. If it wasn't for the RIAA support, artists like Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera would never have been able to become major hits. Now they are hugely popular all because of the support of their recording companies. They may not make anything from CD sales, but the intangible benefits of being associated with the record companies for promotional effect are enormous.
Re:Are you an RIAA spokesperson?
on
Kazaa-lite Shut Down
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Bands make their money from touring- and the RIAA now wants a bigger piece of that pie too.
Does anyone have any hard conclusive proof that this is true or is it just another rumor perpetuated along the same lines as the "640k out to be enough for anybody" Bill Gates quote?
If bands didn't get any substantial income from CD sales, why would they work so hard to get signed? Could it be that the intangiable benefits of being a signed RIAA band far outweigh any monetary income they get from the CD sales?
Would anyone go to their concerts if they weren't featured on Billboard's top 10 list? How many fans would they have if the only airplay they got was by begging a college radio station to play their demo tape?
All the bands that make any significant revenue from touring are also some of the biggest names on the RIAA's artist list. Do you think that's just a coincidence? Record companies and CD sales are promotional tools for sure, but without them you're going to be playing an empty room in some dive bar in Kansas.
I have a better idea. How about linuxgazette.net, since they're the ones in the wrong by infringing on SSC's trademark, be civilized about this and change their name? SSC is totally justified in suing for trademark infringement. What, do you think you can just go start a company, register ibm.net, use their logo, and start marketing yourself as IBM.net just because you have 20 ex-IBM engineers on your staff? linuxgazette.net staffers are just being babies about this whole issue. If you don't like what SSC has done with the website, then go create your own site *with your own name*.
in addition, the IT admins for our 2000+ high school didnt know what puTTY was and kept removing it from my personal storage folder out of fear of what it was. not to mention they stored their win2k domain password as one of the usernames (in the format "adminPASSWORD") in case they happened to forget it somehow.
See the problem with these people though is that they are idiots. You get that in any field. They were probably ex-teachers who took 2 or 3 courses on learning Microsoft Office and suddenly got thrust into the job of being the network administrator. At least, that's how it was 15 years ago when I was in school. The Basic programming teacher was also the LAN admin. He wrote his passwords under the keyboard so we could conveniently install software without his knowledge.
Now fortunately, the company I was at gave developers full control of the test machines.
The finished product was given to folks like this guy who then ran it on whatever the hell port they want.
By giving us control of the hardware to get our jobs done, we didn't run into guys like him.
Of course, a problem with that is then you get the developers writing absolutely shitty insecure code using RPCs and god knows what else expecting you to duplicate their craptastic architecture in a production environment. No.. sorry, I'm NOT going to open NTLM authentication through the firewall asshat. You should've thought of that in your design when you were developing your security requirements. Oh, you didn't do that phase? Sorry, it doesn't go in then.
And before anyone calls ME a sysnazi, that'd be the CIO putting his ass on the line, not me.
Who cares if the graphics aren't amazing? The gameplay is what counts. It's fun and I'm willing to pay 50 cents for it.
Why don't you just get MAME and download the ROM for Space Invaders and play it on your computer? I have to agree with everyone else.. Space Invaders is definitely not worth $.50 In fact, None of those games from 20 years ago are even worth a quarter to play. Maybe if I was at some place that had free arcade machines I might play it, but why pay for something that you can play for free at home? What's next, people charging $5/round to play a game of Counter-Strike at an arcade?
I distinctly remember Microsoft doing something similar with their $400 rebate for signing up for three years of MSN.
Prodigy was doing the same thing at Best Buy. Despite my advice to the contrary by brother took the bait. A year later he got cable modem with 2 years of crappy Prodigy dialup service tax left to pay. I still give him shit for that to this day. It would've been cheaper to finance it on a credit card.
It's very easy to generate a key with Linus Torvalds as the name, but very difficult to get people in the strongly connected set to actually sign it...
So wouldn't it make more sense to go to a PKI system and use user certificates issued by a trusted name like Verisign? (giggle).
If I were a CTO or someone who was checking to make a switch, this would be very impressive.
Not really. As I've been told time and time again by my management, IF we are to deploy Linux then it must be by a company with wide "ISV" support. Apparently Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the only Linux that fits that bill. So, Debian, Gentoo, Slackware, Mandrake, etc. Those are all out even though they're great distros. Oh well, hey, who doesn't like paying $800 for their server OS?
I guess she's faded into insignificance, because all the teenagers who watched her with the hope of seeing her naked have grown up.
No, they've just watched the Internet evolve into the greatest pornography distribution system the world has ever known. In 1994 it was hard to find any good free porn sites.. 1995 brought the businesses who locked down their porn and blurred it out for guests. Eventually the race to compete for customers brought us to the point where you can now just type in random URLs and get to a hardcore pornography site. Who needs to sit around on Jennicam.com hoping some 30+ year old chick takes her shirt off? God bless the Interweb and smut peddlers.
So why don't you avail yourself of the "service" and switch to a carrier that doesn't charge you for it? Most don't; the only one I've heard of that does is Sprint.
There are several reasons why I stay with them:
1. Terminating my contract early would incur a penalty.. something like $150.
2. I like their service. They seem to have reasonable prices compared to other vendors. $45/month for 300 day minutes, unlimited nights and weekends after 7pm-7am, and unlimited Vision service and unlimited PCS-to-PCS calling
3. I'd have to toss my Sanyo 4900 PCS phone if I switched providers. It's basically everything I want in a phone. The only thing it's lacking is Bluetooth support, but you can't have it all.
4. Other members of my family have Sprint so it's free to call them and talk as long as I want even if they're long distance. Not to mention I don't incur any roaming charges when I visit my family in Massachusetts even though I live in the midwest.
Basically what I'm getting at is that their service is excellent and I'm more than happy with them as a provider, but this portability thing is useless for me and I don't see why I should have to pay a $1.10 tax for something I'm never going to use. I believe if you want to move your number then you should pay an extra per-month fee, but everyone else who doesn't care if they get a new number shouldn't pay any fee.
..is that Sprint is charging me $2.20/month for it.
They started charging that to me too last month or the month before. I didn't even realize I had used this "service" yet. Yet another tax passed on to the customer. When is the government going to learn it can impose all the idiotic mandates it wants on big businesses, but they'll just pass on the cost to the consumers? I frankly don't give a rat's ass if my number is portable or not. It should be an optional cost.
Man, are you sure? I know it supports video on the Mac...but not audio? Seems kind of strange...
When I looked at it earlier the audio codecs in question were only available for Windows and they had no plans on licensing it for Mac use. If this has changed I'd love to know so I can swap her machine out for an eMac or something. It'd make my life so much simpler.;-)
Please could some mods with functional brains actually recognise this for the bullshit it is?
Generally if you use at least 4 major buzzwords and can make your post more than a few sentences you will get moderated up as insightful. Basically most of the moderators seem to only glance at the posts without actually understanding the content before making their moderation decision. It's a sad state of affairs, but that's what you get when you use mob rule moderation.
Seriously, is there any reason why the clueless folks shouldn't just use apple? Isn't it still more user friendly? Isn't it reliable, with a good warantee?
I would've bought my mother (who is clueless, although I love her anyway) a Mac except for some reason her list of requirements included Yahoo Instant Messenger voice chat. Alas, there is no voice chat support for Macs so now she has a home built PC running Windows2000 which I need to keep fully loaded with anti-virus software, automatic windows updates, and spyware removal tools. Also, since I built it I'm now her tech support for life when she doesn't know how to move a desktop icon around. *sigh*
Anyway, I realize now iChat probably supports voice and video on some networks, but I don't see Yahoo listed so I could go buy her a $3k powermac and she'd still be disappointed because she couldn't use that piece of shit Yahoo Messenger (which is always breaking anyway.. guess who she calls?).
The problem with even this is when you're in an environment where all of the passwords expire, but not on the same schedule.
Expiring passwords is just about the stupidest way to increase security. Like you said, it just urges users to write their passwords down. On the other hand, if a user picks a strong password and ensures it is only used over a cryptographically strong channel (ssh, ssl, whatever) then it's rather pointless to force such a short rotation. Maybe once a year perhaps, but if you're that concerned about password security you'd be better off implementing a token based system like SecurID which makes the point moot. Another point you made that is even a bigger problem is multiple passwords. Most of us probably have at least 2 dozen passwords we have to memorize... I know I personally can't do that without some type of scheme or writing them down which is why I prefer securid where possible. Single sign-on systems or combining authentication into a single LDAP or RADIUS server for all the machines are also better than having 20 different passwords.
Slashdot Mirror
You Red Hat apologists are worse than the Mac fanatics. Can you possibly come up with a worse analogy than that? Red Hat 9 is less than 1 year old and will cease to receive security updates as of the end of April! That's like announcing you'll no longer be able to get parts or service for your 2003 Ford Explorer after April. Oh, and your support warranty? Sorry, that's going to be discontinued, but we'll give you a discount on upgrading to one of our new 2004 Ford Expeditions with the extended warranty coverage for your trouble. People that actually buy into Red Hat Enterprise Linux are morons if they think Red Hat won't do this to them again. How will you like your shiny new copy of RHEL 3 when you find out it'll be EOL'd in a year and you'll be forced to upgrade to RHEL 4 if you want to continue to get basic security updates? Even Microsoft is a LOT better than that. Windows 2000 came out in 1999 and still is updated quite frequently. I have some serious decisions I need to make within the next few months. Do I want to continue with this Linux experiment or go back to a tried and proven company that respects their customers like Microsoft. I can't afford to reinstall my OS every year... Sorry Red Hat, but you lose my business.
I don't have a problem with legal music downloading as long as the music is free or close to free. I'm not going to pay nearly $1 per track to get songs. Why not offer something for $20/month that lets you download all the music you want? You've got your continuous revenue stream of subscribers and the subscribers are paying a fair price for entertainment. Why do customers always have to be ripped off?
The US Postal System would disagree with you on that one. No, my problem isn't with unsolicted mail in so much as it's their thinly veiled attempts to disguise the origins, circumvent my spamassassin analysis engine, and generally prove to be annoying asswipes. I do not want their spam, but if they are a legitimate business they have as much right to market via e-mail as others do via snail mail. All I ask is that they clearly label their spam as commercial advertisements using a standard keyword and non-forged return addresses so that people who wish to not receive it can easily filter it out. I know that's probably as naive as expecting Congress to pass a law saying hackers must set the evil bit on their traffic, but we're fighting a losing battle here. The battle against spam is akin to the war on drugs. There's no way to eliminate it, so you have to tolerate it and find ways to control it.
My response to a company sending unsolicited advertising to me via email is a series of complaints to them and their hosting ISP, maintained until I get some kind of response
And I suppose you do the same thing for every snail mail marketer that sends you a catalog or credit card application or exciting opportunity to get a lower interest rate on your mortgage? Unless you're seriously getting screwed by your ISP you're not paying per email message or even byte transferred anymore so it's a moot point. Add in server-side filtering and a legitimate subject header spammers have to add that you can filter on and the problem that you as a user have goes away overnight. Sure, the ISP has their own issues with spam, but as an end-user they do not concern me. For all I care they can setup their mail servers to dump any message with the ADV keyword in it and put that in their terms of service if they hate spam that much. Spam loving users would just go elsewhere.
As an end-user I would've been satisfied if this bill only contained one requirement:
Marketers must insert "[ADV]" into the beginning of the subject of their message.
If you are in fact a legitimate company and not some slimey spammer then you will have no problem with that. I, as an end-user, can configure my filters to filter the advertisements directly to the trash easily without using cycles to do complex error-prone analysis on the message. Therefore you are guaranteed to reach your target audience.. people who actually WANT to receive spam will not filter it. Of course, they are totally against this because just like the do not call lists, EVERYONE will sign up for it and their business model will be destroyed.
I wonder if I can sue my ISP for kicking me off for violating their terms of service. It's just free speech. It will be interesting to see how the legitimacy of spammers shakes out over the coming year. Maybe I can pickup a new side job sending bulk e-mail to bring in some extra income. I'd be too afraid the anti-spam nuts would attack me for just upholding my constitutionally protected rights to send out a billion messages a day.
That'd be an interesting way to trade mp3s. Honest to god officer, I was just trading gay porn, take a look!
And you're just referring to statistical outliers. For every Grateful Dead or Phish there are 5000 college radio station garage bands that don't make any money at all touring. If you compare the percentage of signed artists that make a lot of money touring and unsigned artists who make a lot of money touring, I think you'll notice a huge disparity in the numbers. For these purposes, I stand by my original assertion that being signed by an RIAA record company brings you a lot more intangible benefits than just CD sales. If it wasn't for the RIAA support, artists like Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera would never have been able to become major hits. Now they are hugely popular all because of the support of their recording companies. They may not make anything from CD sales, but the intangible benefits of being associated with the record companies for promotional effect are enormous.
Does anyone have any hard conclusive proof that this is true or is it just another rumor perpetuated along the same lines as the "640k out to be enough for anybody" Bill Gates quote?
If bands didn't get any substantial income from CD sales, why would they work so hard to get signed? Could it be that the intangiable benefits of being a signed RIAA band far outweigh any monetary income they get from the CD sales?
Would anyone go to their concerts if they weren't featured on Billboard's top 10 list? How many fans would they have if the only airplay they got was by begging a college radio station to play their demo tape?
All the bands that make any significant revenue from touring are also some of the biggest names on the RIAA's artist list. Do you think that's just a coincidence? Record companies and CD sales are promotional tools for sure, but without them you're going to be playing an empty room in some dive bar in Kansas.
I have a better idea. How about linuxgazette.net, since they're the ones in the wrong by infringing on SSC's trademark, be civilized about this and change their name? SSC is totally justified in suing for trademark infringement. What, do you think you can just go start a company, register ibm.net, use their logo, and start marketing yourself as IBM.net just because you have 20 ex-IBM engineers on your staff? linuxgazette.net staffers are just being babies about this whole issue. If you don't like what SSC has done with the website, then go create your own site *with your own name*.
See the problem with these people though is that they are idiots. You get that in any field. They were probably ex-teachers who took 2 or 3 courses on learning Microsoft Office and suddenly got thrust into the job of being the network administrator. At least, that's how it was 15 years ago when I was in school. The Basic programming teacher was also the LAN admin. He wrote his passwords under the keyboard so we could conveniently install software without his knowledge.
The finished product was given to folks like this guy who then ran it on whatever the hell port they want.
By giving us control of the hardware to get our jobs done, we didn't run into guys like him.
Of course, a problem with that is then you get the developers writing absolutely shitty insecure code using RPCs and god knows what else expecting you to duplicate their craptastic architecture in a production environment. No.. sorry, I'm NOT going to open NTLM authentication through the firewall asshat. You should've thought of that in your design when you were developing your security requirements. Oh, you didn't do that phase? Sorry, it doesn't go in then.
And before anyone calls ME a sysnazi, that'd be the CIO putting his ass on the line, not me.
Why don't you just get MAME and download the ROM for Space Invaders and play it on your computer? I have to agree with everyone else.. Space Invaders is definitely not worth $.50 In fact, None of those games from 20 years ago are even worth a quarter to play. Maybe if I was at some place that had free arcade machines I might play it, but why pay for something that you can play for free at home? What's next, people charging $5/round to play a game of Counter-Strike at an arcade?
Oh no, most games are much more expensive. 50 cents is a bargain game!
I really miss the days when you could put images links in your Slashdot comments. Slashdot was a lot more fun back then.
Prodigy was doing the same thing at Best Buy. Despite my advice to the contrary by brother took the bait. A year later he got cable modem with 2 years of crappy Prodigy dialup service tax left to pay. I still give him shit for that to this day. It would've been cheaper to finance it on a credit card.
This has been possible in every OS (except windows) I've ever used (except for old versions of sunos)
Doesn't work on Solaris unless you've installed GNU tar. On Solaris you're stuck with:
gunzip -c packet.tar.gz | tar -xvf -
Or just install GNU tar and replace Sun's version.
So wouldn't it make more sense to go to a PKI system and use user certificates issued by a trusted name like Verisign? (giggle).
Not really. As I've been told time and time again by my management, IF we are to deploy Linux then it must be by a company with wide "ISV" support. Apparently Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the only Linux that fits that bill. So, Debian, Gentoo, Slackware, Mandrake, etc. Those are all out even though they're great distros. Oh well, hey, who doesn't like paying $800 for their server OS?
No, they've just watched the Internet evolve into the greatest pornography distribution system the world has ever known. In 1994 it was hard to find any good free porn sites.. 1995 brought the businesses who locked down their porn and blurred it out for guests. Eventually the race to compete for customers brought us to the point where you can now just type in random URLs and get to a hardcore pornography site. Who needs to sit around on Jennicam.com hoping some 30+ year old chick takes her shirt off? God bless the Interweb and smut peddlers.
There are several reasons why I stay with them:
1. Terminating my contract early would incur a penalty.. something like $150.
2. I like their service. They seem to have reasonable prices compared to other vendors. $45/month for 300 day minutes, unlimited nights and weekends after 7pm-7am, and unlimited Vision service and unlimited PCS-to-PCS calling
3. I'd have to toss my Sanyo 4900 PCS phone if I switched providers. It's basically everything I want in a phone. The only thing it's lacking is Bluetooth support, but you can't have it all.
4. Other members of my family have Sprint so it's free to call them and talk as long as I want even if they're long distance. Not to mention I don't incur any roaming charges when I visit my family in Massachusetts even though I live in the midwest.
Basically what I'm getting at is that their service is excellent and I'm more than happy with them as a provider, but this portability thing is useless for me and I don't see why I should have to pay a $1.10 tax for something I'm never going to use. I believe if you want to move your number then you should pay an extra per-month fee, but everyone else who doesn't care if they get a new number shouldn't pay any fee.
They started charging that to me too last month or the month before. I didn't even realize I had used this "service" yet. Yet another tax passed on to the customer. When is the government going to learn it can impose all the idiotic mandates it wants on big businesses, but they'll just pass on the cost to the consumers? I frankly don't give a rat's ass if my number is portable or not. It should be an optional cost.
When I looked at it earlier the audio codecs in question were only available for Windows and they had no plans on licensing it for Mac use. If this has changed I'd love to know so I can swap her machine out for an eMac or something. It'd make my life so much simpler. ;-)
Generally if you use at least 4 major buzzwords and can make your post more than a few sentences you will get moderated up as insightful. Basically most of the moderators seem to only glance at the posts without actually understanding the content before making their moderation decision. It's a sad state of affairs, but that's what you get when you use mob rule moderation.
I would've bought my mother (who is clueless, although I love her anyway) a Mac except for some reason her list of requirements included Yahoo Instant Messenger voice chat. Alas, there is no voice chat support for Macs so now she has a home built PC running Windows2000 which I need to keep fully loaded with anti-virus software, automatic windows updates, and spyware removal tools. Also, since I built it I'm now her tech support for life when she doesn't know how to move a desktop icon around. *sigh*
Anyway, I realize now iChat probably supports voice and video on some networks, but I don't see Yahoo listed so I could go buy her a $3k powermac and she'd still be disappointed because she couldn't use that piece of shit Yahoo Messenger (which is always breaking anyway.. guess who she calls?).
Expiring passwords is just about the stupidest way to increase security. Like you said, it just urges users to write their passwords down. On the other hand, if a user picks a strong password and ensures it is only used over a cryptographically strong channel (ssh, ssl, whatever) then it's rather pointless to force such a short rotation. Maybe once a year perhaps, but if you're that concerned about password security you'd be better off implementing a token based system like SecurID which makes the point moot. Another point you made that is even a bigger problem is multiple passwords. Most of us probably have at least 2 dozen passwords we have to memorize... I know I personally can't do that without some type of scheme or writing them down which is why I prefer securid where possible. Single sign-on systems or combining authentication into a single LDAP or RADIUS server for all the machines are also better than having 20 different passwords.