Perhaps there is some confusion here. You can't use SPEWS directly; it is only available to the public via relays.osirusoft.com, and their servers return information that categorizes the kind of spam source or facilitator.
See http://relays.osirusoft.com/faq.html#_Toc533558164
Wrong. Spews maintains multiple listings for various kinds of spam sources and facilitators. See their webpage at http://www.spews.org for more information.
I don't see the hypocrisy. If a neighbor of mine allows people to cross his property so they can dump garbage on my property, where do I get the obligation to accept the garbage? What's wrong with me putting up a fence and letting the garbage pile up on his side?
If someone wishes to run an open relay and be a conduit for spam, why should he be granted immunity from consequences?
"...demonstrated to a crowd of hackers at a hacker convention exactly how to strip the encryption from Adobe eBook files and redistribute an unlimited number of exact digital copies of any information contained in the files for free-as-in-beer over the Internet,..."
My goodness, there's a lot of presumtion in the way you said that. Are you a spin doctor for the RIAA or MPAA?
Just two threads ago was a discussion of how America is losing it's technological edge. I think idiocy like this, and PanIP, and others of their ilk is going to kill our tech edge faster than anything else.
I think quality has declined, and it's not just electronics. My mom has a fourty-year-old Frigidaire refrigerator in the garage that still works fine, but she's had to replace two newer units that were purchased more recently. The most
recently-replaced one failed after only 6 years of service.
The problem isn't the small number of people who vote, it's the large fraction of those people who vote the way the media tells them to. That's why those campaign dollars are so valuable, they buy the votes of the mindless couch potatos that do vote.
Pi is worse than irrational - it's trascendental.
Merely irrational numbers can be expressed as simple expressions with finite numbers of terms, but transcendentals require an infinite number of terms.
I'm sure FTD or Teleflora would be happy to deliver a nice little boquet for an appropriate fee. The nice part is that they ring the doorbell to deliver. I wonder if I can put "You can have a bigger penis" on the card?
No, I think the guy with the subwoofer-on-wheels would be the one that has to pay... Hey, you may be on to something here. Let's start reporting those jerks to the RIAA.
This guy Ralsky sends a billion spams a day, which has got to be costing the unwilling recipients a huge amount of money in wasted resources and time, but the FBI is busy busting a few people who uncap their cable modems in Toledo Ohio.
Of course the federal government is going after spammers. The Direct Marketing Assoc. just recently changed their position on spam because people were so sick of it that the DMA members' "legitimate" ads weren't getting through.
I think the DMA screwed themselves, though: By preventing legislation against sending spam, they forced the spam victims to invent better ways of avoiding it at the receiving end. Those methods are now doing a wonderful job of killing the DMA's crap.
Sure it can. All you need is a Palladium-aware web browser that won't display sites that lack an appropriate certificate, and a Palladium-aware OS that won't let you run any other browser.
They might not be sites that Joe User *wants* to go to, but it's easy to construct a webpage that will turn up in common search engine queries. Porn sites pull this crap all the time.
What happens if you visit a webpage that contains a reference to this special malformed URL? Since your browser is on the "inside" side, remote management would not need to be enable for the attack to work.
"...assuming the algorithm is known...".
Isn't this a great weakness of all codebreaking efforts? I think another weakness is the need for a quick way to recognize properly-decoded data. It doesn't matter how fast you can do test decryptions with candidate keys if you don't have a near-equally-fast way to test the results and recognize a success. If you have no idea what the decrypted data is supposed to look like, you're pretty much screwed.
I have a question about brute-force attacks on encryption: How do you know when you've found the right key?
Suppose I encrypted my data twice. A brute-force attacker could test *every* possible key (to the outer encryption) and get trash every time.
The first laser was built the '60s. I can't see how a unit powerful enough to do this sort of thing could have followed so quickly, or that it would have remained secret (and unused) for this long.
What I meant was that the patent office is granting patents that are too vague and too broad, creating numerous opportunities for claims of infringement (many of which can be frivolous). What's worse, it can be very difficult to find these vague and/or broad patents during a search because of their vagueness. It would be a monumental task to examine all of the patents that might possibly be construed as being infrigned by a new idea. New patents are awarded every day that make the problem worse, and the PanIP's of the world are just encouraging people to apply for more of these "IP grab" patents.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps there is some confusion here. You can't use SPEWS directly; it is only available to the public via relays.osirusoft.com, and their servers return information that categorizes the kind of spam source or facilitator.
4
See http://relays.osirusoft.com/faq.html#_Toc53355816
Wrong. Spews maintains multiple listings for various kinds of spam sources and facilitators. See their webpage at http://www.spews.org for more information.
I don't see the hypocrisy. If a neighbor of mine allows people to cross his property so they can dump garbage on my property, where do I get the obligation to accept the garbage? What's wrong with me putting up a fence and letting the garbage pile up on his side?
If someone wishes to run an open relay and be a conduit for spam, why should he be granted immunity from consequences?
"...demonstrated to a crowd of hackers at a hacker convention exactly how to strip the encryption from Adobe eBook files and redistribute an unlimited number of exact digital copies of any information contained in the files for free-as-in-beer over the Internet, ..."
My goodness, there's a lot of presumtion in the way you said that. Are you a spin doctor for the RIAA or MPAA?
Just two threads ago was a discussion of how America is losing it's technological edge. I think idiocy like this, and PanIP, and others of their ilk is going to kill our tech edge faster than anything else.
So give Lance a ride up to the station for free, then present the bill when it's time to go back home. If he doesn't pay, let him walk.
I think quality has declined, and it's not just electronics. My mom has a fourty-year-old Frigidaire refrigerator in the garage that still works fine, but she's had to replace two newer units that were purchased more recently. The most recently-replaced one failed after only 6 years of service.
Oh, wonderful: Inter will include Wifi in everything, and Micro$oft will enable it by default. Malicious hackers will have a field day.
The problem isn't the small number of people who vote, it's the large fraction of those people who vote the way the media tells them to. That's why those campaign dollars are so valuable, they buy the votes of the mindless couch potatos that do vote.
No, they'll have to take second place. First place is reserved for Sirian Cybernetics.
Pi is worse than irrational - it's trascendental. Merely irrational numbers can be expressed as simple expressions with finite numbers of terms, but transcendentals require an infinite number of terms.
I'm sure FTD or Teleflora would be happy to deliver a nice little boquet for an appropriate fee. The nice part is that they ring the doorbell to deliver. I wonder if I can put "You can have a bigger penis" on the card?
No, I think the guy with the subwoofer-on-wheels would be the one that has to pay... Hey, you may be on to something here. Let's start reporting those jerks to the RIAA.
Only one criminal case in four years, but how much intimidation? And how many websites, etc, taken down without anything resembling due process?
The shuttle can't reach geosynchronous orbit, which is where the satellite is supposed to be.
This guy Ralsky sends a billion spams a day, which has got to be costing the unwilling recipients a huge amount of money in wasted resources and time, but the FBI is busy busting a few people who uncap their cable modems in Toledo Ohio.
Of course the federal government is going after spammers. The Direct Marketing Assoc. just recently changed their position on spam because people were so sick of it that the DMA members' "legitimate" ads weren't getting through. I think the DMA screwed themselves, though: By preventing legislation against sending spam, they forced the spam victims to invent better ways of avoiding it at the receiving end. Those methods are now doing a wonderful job of killing the DMA's crap.
Sure it can. All you need is a Palladium-aware web browser that won't display sites that lack an appropriate certificate, and a Palladium-aware OS that won't let you run any other browser.
They might not be sites that Joe User *wants* to go to, but it's easy to construct a webpage that will turn up in common search engine queries. Porn sites pull this crap all the time.
What happens if you visit a webpage that contains a reference to this special malformed URL? Since your browser is on the "inside" side, remote management would not need to be enable for the attack to work.
"...assuming the algorithm is known...". Isn't this a great weakness of all codebreaking efforts? I think another weakness is the need for a quick way to recognize properly-decoded data. It doesn't matter how fast you can do test decryptions with candidate keys if you don't have a near-equally-fast way to test the results and recognize a success. If you have no idea what the decrypted data is supposed to look like, you're pretty much screwed.
I have a question about brute-force attacks on encryption: How do you know when you've found the right key? Suppose I encrypted my data twice. A brute-force attacker could test *every* possible key (to the outer encryption) and get trash every time.
The first laser was built the '60s. I can't see how a unit powerful enough to do this sort of thing could have followed so quickly, or that it would have remained secret (and unused) for this long.
What I meant was that the patent office is granting patents that are too vague and too broad, creating numerous opportunities for claims of infringement (many of which can be frivolous). What's worse, it can be very difficult to find these vague and/or broad patents during a search because of their vagueness. It would be a monumental task to examine all of the patents that might possibly be construed as being infrigned by a new idea. New patents are awarded every day that make the problem worse, and the PanIP's of the world are just encouraging people to apply for more of these "IP grab" patents.
I wonder how long it will be until it's impossible to complete the intellectual property patent checks on *any* innovation before it's obsolete?