Quite right. It's not Ubuntu. FreeBSD exhibited the same problem whilst on the AC adapter. I've disabled my countermeasures. Count was 33136 about ten minutes ago. It's now 33149. Yes, it really did take the 30,000+ tap-tap-tap sounds of the heads parking before I did something about it and this drive is a WD Scorpio less than a year old.
The solution on FreeBSD is sysutils/ataidle set up to change the profile of the drive at boot. There's bog-all in what passes for a CMOS setup utility on this box to make changes to APM. Of course, this also has the drawback of lowering battery life and also means that the heads will be spending more time hovering over my data with nothing but a few gas atoms between them and my couple of angstroms of magnetic material. Don't drop the lappy is my advice. Oh, hold on, I was supposed to be saying NOT to worry too much about Ubuntu eating hard drives, given that almost every OS I have here (not tried Solaris yet, give me a chance) does the same thing, not pointing out how bloody flimsy these things are and hinting at the ridiculousness of still being stuck with what basically amounts to a miniaturised Winchester disk despite all the other advances in IT...
I think someone has taken this idea that there's a problem with Ubuntu (OMG! Teh L1nuck5 SuX!!1!eleventy-one!) and run with it, though. This seems to be a problem with the default APM settings on certain hardware, not anything to do with the operating systems. In fact, both FreeBSD and [Ku|U]buntu seem to leave the settings alone until you enable a different profile with hdparm or ataidle. I can say this with confidence because I have both and neither alters the rate attribute 193 increments unless I specifically do something to change the APM level. Not only that but the drive on another portable still makes the little "tap-tap, lemme out" noises whilst running Windows (he's a kid, he plays games. What would you have me do, confiscate the thing?).
The only good thing that's come out of this silly "bash Ubuntu-fest" is that far more people now know to watch smartctl -a, Adenix SI or whatever floats one's boat to watch hard disk drives. I wager you (backed by surety of the contents of my keyboard - trust me, you don't want to win this bet) that this isn't isolated to Ubuntu or even *nix-alike operating systems, although I won't dare say that OS-X more than likely shares this issue. Take a real close listen to that shiny new Macbook, though. Hear that? That's not a secret message from the God of style praising you on your sense of aesthetics. It's probably just your hard drive heads parking. It really is just another computer, you know;-)
Therein lies another insight into the self-effacing brilliance of RMS. He doesn't need a suit. He's proved his worth by making his vision work, not by using the usual tricks of the trade and flim-flamming with long words, suits and "presence". Actually, that last he has in spades but it's a natural thing, not a put-on to cover up cluelessness. Whilst I don't fully agree with all of his ideals, I can't help admiring the man for his principles and ability to make things work against all odds.
It's just another part of his character: "Here I am, as asked. I'm not going to lie to you or try to make my ideals look appealing. I won't dress up the message or myself to try to divert your attention from the downsides of the issue. I'll just tell it like it is." He's 100% consistent in this and it's one of the reasons people respect the man. In my opinion this does more to help the movement than hinder it.
As for XKCD, how long until some misguided lawyer (yes, Thompson, I'm looking at you) starts to spout off about webcomics encouraging ninja attacks?
Indeed. You'll also note that some people value the choice to use the software that suits the purpose. What many of we OS agnostics without axes to grind have been saying for a while is that Vista is important in two ways: Firstly it shows that the dominant vendor of software is losing the plot, so we're watching for the likely successor (probably Google, IMHO. Whoa! A flying chair!) to the post of most evil IT corporation. Secondly, and most importantly, it's disappointing enough people to give ALL the alternatives, XP included, a few minutes under the microscope. That last point shows just how right Uncle Fester was: Vista has tremendous value. Just not the value he's looking for.
[Jones] We're not Nazis! We're the Grammar Home Guard! Now, you just come back over here, Mr. Raven, sir. They just don't like it up 'em, Mr. Raven, that's their trouble... [/Jones]
Actually, the BPI is the UK equivalent of the RIAA. The PRS should really be called the Public Performance Rights Society as they deal with things like taxing live groups doing cover songs for money in pubs, jukeboxes and anything entertainment related being used in a publicly accessible place. Yes, they're bastards, but these are not the bastards you're looking for.
Oh, very nice! I suppose a statistical 20% chance of even a partial reversal, without even considering the merit of the case, is "nearly two-thirds" - in an alternate universe. Thank you for an even longer laugh.
if you look inside that appeals process and you take a microscope and look at the record of Kimball's summary judgment rulings that have gone to appeals, he gets overturned the vast majority of the time. It's nearly two-thirds of the time.
Um, Darl, this isn't the sort of thing you say about someone holding the contents of your codpiece in his hands. He's already ruled that your company, of which you are CEO, with responsibility for the company's actions, has committed conversion and you may just have annoyed him a touch with that quote. I really do hope the Honourable Dale A. Kimball sees what you said. The result could be rather interesting.
Not to mention the ratio of appealed to non-appealed cases might have some bearing on the soundness of his judgments. Sometimes it helps to know just how many of these summary judgments have people "banged to rights" before we start looking at the appeal successes.
But best of British to you, old son. You really are quite, quite funny. Erm, is that a tank in the background?
Yeah but (dont you love those?), if the original work is BSD, the BSD camp should get at least the first iteration in their own license. I think its fair even if it sacrifices the GPL spirit a little.
No argument from me there. I'd love to see this happen. However, we're dealing with something akin to two different religions here; we both worship the same god but our doctrines are incompatible.
The pitfall is precisely what you point out, no doubt, but if a public arrangement can be made (as in, the next three versions of the derived work in linux will be dual licensed and after that, no more), I think they could reach an agreement that lets both camps take from the other without passing so much flame.
That is a nice ideal, but it probably leaves room for abuse because it requires absolute honesty to work. Hypothetically, one method of abuse: The GPL guys (folks, I'm not picking on you. This is the easiest example I could come up with in/. post time that would be easily understood) would take the source, fork it, dual licence the fork (which is a direct copy of the original at this point), make three minor changes to bump the version to release the code from the BSD licence (not possible at the moment without copyright holder consent) and only then make the significant changes to make it work with the GPL kernel, along with any major architectural changes they feel necessary. This is quite legitimate under the scheme you propose, keeps the GPL methods from the big, nasty corporates, leaves BSD out in the cold again and still leaves us with Theo and possibly others criticising the GPL movement for the fundamental principles of their licensing structure. As you can see, we're back to square one. Yes, I'm thinking like a sneaky bastard, but you can bet someone on either side would do the same, bringing the whole effort to a grinding halt.
What is really needed is a whole new licence structure for shared drivers. Quite how you would go about that is anyone's guess, especially with, on the one hand, the SFLC making proclamations on other people's code (without my objectivity chip switched in, this really pissed me off) and people taking that in the same way they would a landmark court decision and, on the other, a sense of immovability and inflexibility on the part of developers on both sides of the fence. How would one word a shared driver licence to fit with the BSD structure and still keep the corporations' hands off the GPL contributed code and the source open downstream, yet still allow BSD to take back changes without allowing the megacorps to Do What The Hell They Like [TM] with the code? Beats me. Welcome to open source cooperation. 'twas ever thus and, seemingly, ever shall be, simply due to these incompatibilities between the two camps' chosen licences.
In summary: BSD will not allow the BSD licence to be replaced by the GPL because it disqualifies them from using improvements in the GPL fork. GPL won't let BSD replace the GPL with ISC/BSD because that then leaves their code vulnerable to megacorps making changes and closing the source, freezing them out of their own creation. Both sides have the same problem, but the ideal resolutions for each make this divide larger.
It won't work. The BSD licence (I'm going to get modded down to oblivion and flamed from several directions for this) is completely open. Anyone, including large corporations, can take it and use it for whatever purpose they like providing they leave the copyright header and however many clauses of the license intact in the source, binary and documentation. The GPL, on the other hand, is open with the proviso that it does not end up in proprietary software. You can take BSD code and put it into Windows. You can't take GPL code and put it into Windows without opening and providing source for everything that it touches and everything that links with it [1].
Now, here's the problem: The proponents of the GPL, quite rightly and legitimately, want to keep their software and source both available and out of closed source software, which is their right as copyright holders. Under no circumstances will a binary based on GPL source be distributed in a form that is unalterable and without source. However, if the developers of, say, the Broadcom driver allow one of the BSDs to relicense under the BSD two or three clause licence, this protection no longer applies. Broadcom could then quite legitimately drag any changes they think are more elegant or effective than their in-house methods and use them without a thought to giving back to the community that wrote them. This is why it is a one-way street. I don't necessarily agree with it, being a BSD user, but I certainly understand the objections of the GPL developers.
[1] The LGPL is slightly different in this respect.
it's not just the idiots who respond to spam who are protected by technical anti-spam measures. in fact, the vast majority of spam recipients don't respond, have never responded and have no intention of ever responding to spam. most are just as annoyed/disgusted/sickened by the spam as we are.
Quite right. Please note that I wasn't suggesting technical methods won't work on a subnet or as an opt-in for ISP customers, at least for a while. I want to make that very clear right now if I haven't already. Quite the contrary; I use a combination of firewall rules, logging and log extraction, Bayesian filtering and rules-based filtering on my servers. I'm not going to explain exactly what I do (yes, it's security by obscurity which works for some small period of time) but, suffice to say, I haven't seen an unflagged spam for quite some time. My maillog makes interesting reading, as does my security log.
the sad fact is that there will ALWAYS be people stupid enough or greedy enough or lacking in sufficient confidence (or penis length) to respond to spam. ALWAYS. they will never, ever be eliminated. people are stupid (worse, the stupid ones breed more than the smart ones so expect the problem to get worse, not better in future). unavoidable fact of the universe, don't waste your time wishing it weren't so, just deal with it and move on.
Exactly my point. No amount of technical wizardry will stop the problem at source. It's just temporarily relieving the symptoms. Thinking up new, complex and possibly harmful (to the little remaining usefulness of e-mail) ways to relieve the symptoms is, in my opinion, counter-productive. As I said before, I have the utmost confidence in nature coming up with a superior idiot that makes all this pointless and I have never dwelt on a wish that it were otherwise. Spam is and always shall be. I quite agree that we should deal with it, move on and concentrate on more important matters.
...only they're not so innocent, are they? Let's face it, most spams centre on something at least a little grey in its legality. If the users weren't gullible, greedy, shady and stupid enough to be drawn, spam would have no value. Let Darwinism run its course, please. Trying to protect people who really don't want to be protected is just prolonging the agony - for all of us.
And, yes, anyone who really thinks "love you long time" is all you'll get for ten dollah deserves every card life's dealer hands them.
I agree, it isn't constructive. The form was mentioned and I posted it. However, it does highlight a very critical issue that people just keep ignoring: Why does there have to be a technical solution to a social problem? Spam is a social problem: On the one hand you have the greed of the spammer and on the other is the stupidity of the user responding to it. No amount of blocking techniques, block|white|black|greylists, Bayesian filtering or even vigilante-type fightback is going to stop it whilst the users keep responding.
I haven't seen an unflagged spam from my server for about 18 months. Of course, I'm the admin of said server and I have quite a complex set of tools in place to filter, block and flag spam. That said, others may have just as effective but different methods of dealing with this crapflood. Regardless, outside of my domain, the spammers keep spamming and the users keep responding. In fact, a more effective method of dealing with spam would be a reply blocklist a-la phishing filters, where spam URLs and e-mail addresses (Joe job DoS coming right up) are collected and gateways employ a filter to block the idiot users trying to respond. Spam then becomes a liability to whatever site is hawking fake Viagra placebos, pyramid schemes, offshore your money to Nigeria or penis extensions. You can also bet serious money that as soon as anyone tries this, people will be up in arms over it. This is a battle where there are no winners. Except, of course, the spammers' wallets. The one thing that we can all be absolutely sure Einstein was correct about is that human stupidity is infinite. While there are humans on the Internet, they will reply to spam.
The only "better ideas" I have is live with it, deal with it, counter it on your subnet, but don't expect to be able to force your methods on everyone else. "The Internet" belongs to its participants, the owners of the nodes and networks that make it up. We, the admins of the subnets, decide what gets through or doesn't. It's not up to anyone else to dictate terms. Don't like SMTP[S]? Don't use it. Have your own protocol. With blackjack. And hookers.
I'm not really surprised. Would you trust someone who plonks an open relay on the net (1c) and then wonders why he ends up in an ORBL? I can understand if it was a mistake but, to further incriminate himself, he goes on to say he then set up SMTP_AUTH (which should have been done in the first place and also proves he could have done it correctly) and moans about "blacklist operators and ISPs... intentionally sabotag[ing]" his poor mail server. I would laugh if it wasn't so tragically typical.
Rearrange: Himself. Blame. Got. Only. To. And shit happens.
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
(*) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(*) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
(*) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
(*) Open relays in foreign countries
(*) Features in MTA software that can be disabled, such as MDNs
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( ) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
(*) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
(*) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
(*) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
(*) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(*) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
(*) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(*) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
I didn't spend too much time looking through the options, so go easy if I got it wrong. Will that do?
Thanks. That's exactly what I thought the situation should be. "The hack changed everyone's IMEI" as an explanation simply doesn't look right. Since the IMEI is the only piece of identification showing, I would imagine Apple are using this "lockdown" number to detect returns of unlocked iPhones to allow them to differentiate between bodged 'phones and genuinely failed firmware updates.
I'm not saying any of this is right but consumers walked into this trap with eyes wide open. Reality distortion field aside, what did they expect?
IANAL, but I'm willing to bet that the software is licensed under a non-alteration clause. It's proprietary software, it requires a licence to use. The hardware is owned by the customer but the software is licensed. Since the unlock alters the proprietary code, they've breached the licence and Apple are quite within their rights to withdraw permission to use. And you can bet they (Apple) will use this in any class action suit brought about by this little fiasco. Whether that trumps the "fit for purpose" sales regulations or not I have no idea. One for the courts to decide, if it ever gets that far, but it really does prove quite nicely what RMS has been trying to tell us for years.
This is the problem. THe free sim unlock changed everyone's IMEI to 004999010640000 - so they are now checking the IMEI to when it was first activated to the SIM to ensure a match, and if you look on the back of your box, you'll notice your original IMEI #.
If this is true, you're doubly iScrewed. It is quite legal to unlock a 'phone, but it is very, very illegal, at least here in the UK, to change the IMEI. There's some stiff penalties, including time inside, for changing IMEIs or even producing software that is able to change an IMEI on a GSM handset.
That is, if this quote is accurate. Anyone with a hacked iPhone in the UK had better ensure it isn't (*#06# is the standard GSM code for display IMEI on most handsets). The other angle, if US law is so very different to ours, is what stops AT&T from putting 004999010640000 on the stolen handset blocklist, thereby denying service to anyone on any network nationwide? The IMEI and IMSI (the phone and SIM serial respectively - IMEI is International Mobile Equipment Identity and IMSI is International Mobile Subscriber Identity) are transmitted to the BTS (cellular Base Transceiver Station) when logging on to the network. There's no way you could hide the IMEI from a network operator.
Gut feeling tells me this report of IMEI cloning is mistaken. If it isn't it's a very crude kludge, not a true simlock release, and is easily defeated without resorting to nasty surprises in firmware.
Ah you might not mean Inertial Compensator, but rather Heisenberg Compensator.
He (?) means inertial damper system, which is supposedly tied in with the ship's propulsion systems and the internal gravity generators but can't keep up with being hit by the Klingons on the starboard bow, allowing much hammy acting to take place, especially in TOS. The Heisenberg Compensator is a fictional part of the transporter system to counter Heisenberg's uncertainty principle that the transporter cannot extract certain pairs of full precision observable data simultaneously, including location and momentum of particles, precluding the energising and rematerialisation of matter in the manner postulated by the Trek universe.
They theoretically work in this manner: The annular confinement beam is established around the subject and a pattern is mapped, through the HC which compensates for the imprecision in observable data, to a pattern buffer as the matter is energised. This energy is then transferred through another externally generated ACB to the distant endpoint, where it is again converted to matter from the pattern stored in the buffer. The Heisenberg Compensator was included to stop comments like "It will never work" from pedants.
Unfortunately, it doesn't stop pedants like me from shouting at the screen when they beam Scotty and LaForge off the Jenolan (which is holding the exit hatch of a Dyson Sphere open) with the Jenolan's shields up in "Relics" and then proceed to destroy the Jenolan, still with its shields up, with a single photon torpedo. According to Trek canon, one cannot establish an ACB and pattern lock through a defensive shield with Federation technology, although it is conceivable that they dropped the (if I remember which way around the thing was facing) port side generators leaving fore and aft up. A possible case of SNAFU in an otherwise entertaining episode ("It is... it is... it is green" - Data, on Aldeberon Whisky. "N C C 1 7 0 1, no bloody A, B, C or D!" - Scotty, trying to get a copy of the old bridge running on the holodeck.)
Now I've been trolled into revealing my Trek geekiness and being a sad git, I'll go away;-)
..and there are laws everyone breaks, especially here in the UK, that are simply not enforced. Been practicing your archery lately? No? Get the swabs out.
I might be talking nonsense, but isn't that what anycast is for?
It is discussed in RFC 1546, although notice that it says
The idea is that the Internet might establish that a particular anycast address is the logical address of the DNS server. Then host software could be configured at the manufacturer to always send DNS queries to the DNS anycast address. In other words, anycasting could be used to support autoconfiguration of DNS resolvers.
"Could" being the operative word. Right now, either I don't know how to implement it (VERY likely) or the OS doesn't support it. I don't see getaddrinfo() doing this or, at least, man 3 getaddrinfo on 6.2-RELEASE-p7 doesn't mention anycast, nor does man 5 nsswitch.conf refer to anycast over IPv6. Am I looking in the wrong places? It would certainly make it easier to deploy IPv6.
Slashdot Mirror
Quite right. It's not Ubuntu. FreeBSD exhibited the same problem whilst on the AC adapter. I've disabled my countermeasures. Count was 33136 about ten minutes ago. It's now 33149. Yes, it really did take the 30,000+ tap-tap-tap sounds of the heads parking before I did something about it and this drive is a WD Scorpio less than a year old.
;-)
The solution on FreeBSD is sysutils/ataidle set up to change the profile of the drive at boot. There's bog-all in what passes for a CMOS setup utility on this box to make changes to APM. Of course, this also has the drawback of lowering battery life and also means that the heads will be spending more time hovering over my data with nothing but a few gas atoms between them and my couple of angstroms of magnetic material. Don't drop the lappy is my advice. Oh, hold on, I was supposed to be saying NOT to worry too much about Ubuntu eating hard drives, given that almost every OS I have here (not tried Solaris yet, give me a chance) does the same thing, not pointing out how bloody flimsy these things are and hinting at the ridiculousness of still being stuck with what basically amounts to a miniaturised Winchester disk despite all the other advances in IT...
I think someone has taken this idea that there's a problem with Ubuntu (OMG! Teh L1nuck5 SuX!!1!eleventy-one!) and run with it, though. This seems to be a problem with the default APM settings on certain hardware, not anything to do with the operating systems. In fact, both FreeBSD and [Ku|U]buntu seem to leave the settings alone until you enable a different profile with hdparm or ataidle. I can say this with confidence because I have both and neither alters the rate attribute 193 increments unless I specifically do something to change the APM level. Not only that but the drive on another portable still makes the little "tap-tap, lemme out" noises whilst running Windows (he's a kid, he plays games. What would you have me do, confiscate the thing?).
The only good thing that's come out of this silly "bash Ubuntu-fest" is that far more people now know to watch smartctl -a, Adenix SI or whatever floats one's boat to watch hard disk drives. I wager you (backed by surety of the contents of my keyboard - trust me, you don't want to win this bet) that this isn't isolated to Ubuntu or even *nix-alike operating systems, although I won't dare say that OS-X more than likely shares this issue. Take a real close listen to that shiny new Macbook, though. Hear that? That's not a secret message from the God of style praising you on your sense of aesthetics. It's probably just your hard drive heads parking. It really is just another computer, you know
Someone used "over analyse."
Critical hit! The thread (along with any possibility of ignoring the trolling) fainted.
Therein lies another insight into the self-effacing brilliance of RMS. He doesn't need a suit. He's proved his worth by making his vision work, not by using the usual tricks of the trade and flim-flamming with long words, suits and "presence". Actually, that last he has in spades but it's a natural thing, not a put-on to cover up cluelessness. Whilst I don't fully agree with all of his ideals, I can't help admiring the man for his principles and ability to make things work against all odds.
It's just another part of his character: "Here I am, as asked. I'm not going to lie to you or try to make my ideals look appealing. I won't dress up the message or myself to try to divert your attention from the downsides of the issue. I'll just tell it like it is." He's 100% consistent in this and it's one of the reasons people respect the man. In my opinion this does more to help the movement than hinder it.
As for XKCD, how long until some misguided lawyer (yes, Thompson, I'm looking at you) starts to spout off about webcomics encouraging ninja attacks?
Indeed. You'll also note that some people value the choice to use the software that suits the purpose. What many of we OS agnostics without axes to grind have been saying for a while is that Vista is important in two ways: Firstly it shows that the dominant vendor of software is losing the plot, so we're watching for the likely successor (probably Google, IMHO. Whoa! A flying chair!) to the post of most evil IT corporation. Secondly, and most importantly, it's disappointing enough people to give ALL the alternatives, XP included, a few minutes under the microscope. That last point shows just how right Uncle Fester was: Vista has tremendous value. Just not the value he's looking for.
[Jones] We're not Nazis! We're the Grammar Home Guard! Now, you just come back over here, Mr. Raven, sir. They just don't like it up 'em, Mr. Raven, that's their trouble... [/Jones]
Actually, the BPI is the UK equivalent of the RIAA. The PRS should really be called the Public Performance Rights Society as they deal with things like taxing live groups doing cover songs for money in pubs, jukeboxes and anything entertainment related being used in a publicly accessible place. Yes, they're bastards, but these are not the bastards you're looking for.
Oh, very nice! I suppose a statistical 20% chance of even a partial reversal, without even considering the merit of the case, is "nearly two-thirds" - in an alternate universe. Thank you for an even longer laugh.
Damn it! Quote your sources, man! (page 2) We really need an "edit this half-arsed post" button.
Not to mention the ratio of appealed to non-appealed cases might have some bearing on the soundness of his judgments. Sometimes it helps to know just how many of these summary judgments have people "banged to rights" before we start looking at the appeal successes.
But best of British to you, old son. You really are quite, quite funny. Erm, is that a tank in the background?
What is really needed is a whole new licence structure for shared drivers. Quite how you would go about that is anyone's guess, especially with, on the one hand, the SFLC making proclamations on other people's code (without my objectivity chip switched in, this really pissed me off) and people taking that in the same way they would a landmark court decision and, on the other, a sense of immovability and inflexibility on the part of developers on both sides of the fence. How would one word a shared driver licence to fit with the BSD structure and still keep the corporations' hands off the GPL contributed code and the source open downstream, yet still allow BSD to take back changes without allowing the megacorps to Do What The Hell They Like [TM] with the code? Beats me. Welcome to open source cooperation. 'twas ever thus and, seemingly, ever shall be, simply due to these incompatibilities between the two camps' chosen licences.
In summary: BSD will not allow the BSD licence to be replaced by the GPL because it disqualifies them from using improvements in the GPL fork. GPL won't let BSD replace the GPL with ISC/BSD because that then leaves their code vulnerable to megacorps making changes and closing the source, freezing them out of their own creation. Both sides have the same problem, but the ideal resolutions for each make this divide larger.
You're just trolling for the obligatory "In Soviet Russia, IPs log you!" post, aren't you? I know your game. Well, I ain't gonna do it ;-)
It won't work. The BSD licence (I'm going to get modded down to oblivion and flamed from several directions for this) is completely open. Anyone, including large corporations, can take it and use it for whatever purpose they like providing they leave the copyright header and however many clauses of the license intact in the source, binary and documentation. The GPL, on the other hand, is open with the proviso that it does not end up in proprietary software. You can take BSD code and put it into Windows. You can't take GPL code and put it into Windows without opening and providing source for everything that it touches and everything that links with it [1].
Now, here's the problem: The proponents of the GPL, quite rightly and legitimately, want to keep their software and source both available and out of closed source software, which is their right as copyright holders. Under no circumstances will a binary based on GPL source be distributed in a form that is unalterable and without source. However, if the developers of, say, the Broadcom driver allow one of the BSDs to relicense under the BSD two or three clause licence, this protection no longer applies. Broadcom could then quite legitimately drag any changes they think are more elegant or effective than their in-house methods and use them without a thought to giving back to the community that wrote them. This is why it is a one-way street. I don't necessarily agree with it, being a BSD user, but I certainly understand the objections of the GPL developers.
[1] The LGPL is slightly different in this respect.
Am I the only one whose brain is interpreting the header as "Slashclot" in 1337?
...only they're not so innocent, are they? Let's face it, most spams centre on something at least a little grey in its legality. If the users weren't gullible, greedy, shady and stupid enough to be drawn, spam would have no value. Let Darwinism run its course, please. Trying to protect people who really don't want to be protected is just prolonging the agony - for all of us.
And, yes, anyone who really thinks "love you long time" is all you'll get for ten dollah deserves every card life's dealer hands them.
I agree, it isn't constructive. The form was mentioned and I posted it. However, it does highlight a very critical issue that people just keep ignoring: Why does there have to be a technical solution to a social problem? Spam is a social problem: On the one hand you have the greed of the spammer and on the other is the stupidity of the user responding to it. No amount of blocking techniques, block|white|black|greylists, Bayesian filtering or even vigilante-type fightback is going to stop it whilst the users keep responding.
I haven't seen an unflagged spam from my server for about 18 months. Of course, I'm the admin of said server and I have quite a complex set of tools in place to filter, block and flag spam. That said, others may have just as effective but different methods of dealing with this crapflood. Regardless, outside of my domain, the spammers keep spamming and the users keep responding. In fact, a more effective method of dealing with spam would be a reply blocklist a-la phishing filters, where spam URLs and e-mail addresses (Joe job DoS coming right up) are collected and gateways employ a filter to block the idiot users trying to respond. Spam then becomes a liability to whatever site is hawking fake Viagra placebos, pyramid schemes, offshore your money to Nigeria or penis extensions. You can also bet serious money that as soon as anyone tries this, people will be up in arms over it. This is a battle where there are no winners. Except, of course, the spammers' wallets. The one thing that we can all be absolutely sure Einstein was correct about is that human stupidity is infinite. While there are humans on the Internet, they will reply to spam.
The only "better ideas" I have is live with it, deal with it, counter it on your subnet, but don't expect to be able to force your methods on everyone else. "The Internet" belongs to its participants, the owners of the nodes and networks that make it up. We, the admins of the subnets, decide what gets through or doesn't. It's not up to anyone else to dictate terms. Don't like SMTP[S]? Don't use it. Have your own protocol. With blackjack. And hookers.
I'm not really surprised. Would you trust someone who plonks an open relay on the net (1c) and then wonders why he ends up in an ORBL? I can understand if it was a mistake but, to further incriminate himself, he goes on to say he then set up SMTP_AUTH (which should have been done in the first place and also proves he could have done it correctly) and moans about "blacklist operators and ISPs... intentionally sabotag[ing]" his poor mail server. I would laugh if it wasn't so tragically typical.
Rearrange: Himself. Blame. Got. Only. To. And shit happens.
Your post advocates a
(*) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
(*) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(*) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
(*) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
(*) Open relays in foreign countries
(*) Features in MTA software that can be disabled, such as MDNs
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( ) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
(*) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
(*) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
(*) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
(*) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(*) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
(*) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(*) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
I didn't spend too much time looking through the options, so go easy if I got it wrong. Will that do?
I said I was going away. I don't want to talk about it. Coat>card>reception>door>taxi :-)
Thanks. That's exactly what I thought the situation should be. "The hack changed everyone's IMEI" as an explanation simply doesn't look right. Since the IMEI is the only piece of identification showing, I would imagine Apple are using this "lockdown" number to detect returns of unlocked iPhones to allow them to differentiate between bodged 'phones and genuinely failed firmware updates.
I'm not saying any of this is right but consumers walked into this trap with eyes wide open. Reality distortion field aside, what did they expect?
IANAL, but I'm willing to bet that the software is licensed under a non-alteration clause. It's proprietary software, it requires a licence to use. The hardware is owned by the customer but the software is licensed. Since the unlock alters the proprietary code, they've breached the licence and Apple are quite within their rights to withdraw permission to use. And you can bet they (Apple) will use this in any class action suit brought about by this little fiasco. Whether that trumps the "fit for purpose" sales regulations or not I have no idea. One for the courts to decide, if it ever gets that far, but it really does prove quite nicely what RMS has been trying to tell us for years.
That is, if this quote is accurate. Anyone with a hacked iPhone in the UK had better ensure it isn't (*#06# is the standard GSM code for display IMEI on most handsets). The other angle, if US law is so very different to ours, is what stops AT&T from putting 004999010640000 on the stolen handset blocklist, thereby denying service to anyone on any network nationwide? The IMEI and IMSI (the phone and SIM serial respectively - IMEI is International Mobile Equipment Identity and IMSI is International Mobile Subscriber Identity) are transmitted to the BTS (cellular Base Transceiver Station) when logging on to the network. There's no way you could hide the IMEI from a network operator.
Gut feeling tells me this report of IMEI cloning is mistaken. If it isn't it's a very crude kludge, not a true simlock release, and is easily defeated without resorting to nasty surprises in firmware.
They theoretically work in this manner: The annular confinement beam is established around the subject and a pattern is mapped, through the HC which compensates for the imprecision in observable data, to a pattern buffer as the matter is energised. This energy is then transferred through another externally generated ACB to the distant endpoint, where it is again converted to matter from the pattern stored in the buffer. The Heisenberg Compensator was included to stop comments like "It will never work" from pedants.
Unfortunately, it doesn't stop pedants like me from shouting at the screen when they beam Scotty and LaForge off the Jenolan (which is holding the exit hatch of a Dyson Sphere open) with the Jenolan's shields up in "Relics" and then proceed to destroy the Jenolan, still with its shields up, with a single photon torpedo. According to Trek canon, one cannot establish an ACB and pattern lock through a defensive shield with Federation technology, although it is conceivable that they dropped the (if I remember which way around the thing was facing) port side generators leaving fore and aft up. A possible case of SNAFU in an otherwise entertaining episode ("It is... it is... it is green" - Data, on Aldeberon Whisky. "N C C 1 7 0 1, no bloody A, B, C or D!" - Scotty, trying to get a copy of the old bridge running on the holodeck.)
Now I've been trolled into revealing my Trek geekiness and being a sad git, I'll go away
..and there are laws everyone breaks, especially here in the UK, that are simply not enforced. Been practicing your archery lately? No? Get the swabs out.