I use renattach and procmail. THis allows me to rename the attachments instead of deleting them. Then if you get an.exe or.zip that you really want you save it and rename it from myproggy.exe_bad to myproggy.exe before you can execute it. Works well, and its faster than all of the slow perl code out there for doing the same thing.
That is not what this is about, it is quit simply about Fyoder enforcing an already existing clause of the GPL (4). He's not ammending the thing to lock SCO out. He is just making it a little more clear that having violated section 4 they are no longer entiteled to make use of or distribute NMap.
Actually, yes it is still free software. They have violated the existing GPL license, he is simply pointing out that after having violated that license, they no longer have any right to make use of the software. He isn't ammending the GPL, he's jsut making it obvious that they are violating it.
I'm tired of all those coder-friendly excuses everyone keeps throwing around. End-User performance IS more important than code monkey development time (at least it should be for open source developers). The goals change,however, if money is more important than user satisfaction then it becomes clear that execution speed doesn't matter beyond the initial purchase.
If you consider the end result of a 1ms extra delay in performing a function times the (possibly) millions of users, times the number of times the function will be called in a year you will quickly realize that that 1 unimportant millisecond is costing alot of people alot more time than it would have taken the code monkey to just optimize the darn thing in the first place. Saying that modern CPU's are fast, and that 1Ms doesn't matter is just a cheap cop out to attempt and excuse your lazy coding practices.
Re:Maybe Yahoo is changing for a reason
on
Yahoo to Dump Google
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Or maybe Google's search results ARE accurate and simply reflect the increasingly commercial nature of the web. I for one think that the Internet is becoming soo hopelessly commercialized that it is becoming next to impossible to find USEFUL non-commercial content about anything, regardless of the search engine used. When 90% of the content on the web is commercial, it is hard to imagine 90% of the search results not being commercial. I think that the next 'killer app' will be a new anonymous file sharing protocol like Freenet,but faster and with an ability to 'deny' hosting to sites that you do not agree with. Freenet with a way to filter the content your node will host. Not because people want anonymity soo much, but because people want a new forum to voice their opinions without their voices being drowned out by the combined shouting of all the commercial interests that have taken control of our medium.
Jabber does file transfers just fine, at least for me. I'm using Exodus right now, and all I have to do is right click the contact and click on 'send file'. Pretty easy if you ask me.
Yeah, I just dont think that the level of 'pointless' routing and broadcasting that would be necessary to create a truly anonymous network infrastructure would be very efficient. It would by its very nature have to be. In order to hide the source of a request it would (at least occaisionally enough for plausible deniabilty purposes) have to be routed through several hops before being allowed to reach its destination. This would add overhead. Konspire is not 'anonymous' is it? I thought that konspire was just a new way of distributing and finding files, I didn't know they had a whole new protocol? Anyhow, the reason I mentioned freenet was too drive home the point of what happens to speed when you route, and reroute the traffic like mad to preserve 'anonymity', although you are really just getting plausible deniabilty, not anonimyity in the true sense of the word with freenet.
UDP packets with a spoofed source is the way to go. The only problem is flow control. I think that anonymous proxies, and P2P proxying, can allow for certain anonymity for the flow control packets, and the data can be sent via spoofed UDP packets (then the transfer itself can be reasonably fast, you may have to retry a few extra times for the packets that get dropped, but its faster than proxying the entire connection). The sender will know the receivers IP, but then No one has to know the senders IP, and the sender is the one getting screwed by the RIAA these days anyhow.
This isn't the way to do it. UDP packets with a spoofed source is. The only problem is flow control. I think that anonymous proxies, and P2P proxying, can allow for certain anonymity for the flow control packets, and the data can be sent via spoofed UDP packets (then the transfer itself can be reasonably fast, you may have to retry a few extra times for the packets that get dropped, but its faster than proxying the entire connection). The sender will know the receivers IP, but the No-one has to know the senders IP, and the sender is the one getting screwed by the RIAA these days anyhow.
I stand corrected. However the fact that SCO has a headline on the front page of their site that says: 'Pros, Priests and Zealots: The Three Faces of Linux' is in itself a telling fact, let alone that the first line of the linked article says 'I have a hard time seeing the Linux Zealots as any different from terrorists because of the nature of their threats.'. It is clear that SCO has declared an all out PR war, on not just the linux kernel, but the entire open source movement, and that the truth is irrelevant to them. All they care about is FUD. Killing open source wherever they find it seems to be a part of SCO's business plan.
Did anyone else see this article linked from SCO's main page? It starts off saying 'I have a hard time seeing the Linux Zealots as any different from terrorists because of the nature of their threats.'. I knew Darl and Co. were a bunch of asshats, but this is ridiculous.
Normally I hate trolls, but if anything deserves to get trolled its this piece of shameless self-aggrandizing crap. So....
TROLL
TROLL
TROLL
Blah. The internet is too commercial. You bastards can have my karma.
Most of the pages in the robots.txt are actually 404's and dont exist anymore. Its that simple. Keeps the robots from constantly requesting content that doesn't exist anymore. A few are blocked because they are bandwidth intensive videos and things, and some others are blocked for more mundane reasons I assume.
Takes two days P2P over emule for a full DVD with all the features (downsampled a bit, but not noticeably). Probably would be a WHOLE lot faster straight from a studio with a fat pipe...
If I'd thought before I posted I would have realized that, but in order to even get my responses seen I have to post FAST:) Stupid internet. Its TOO fast.:)
If I wasn't so against encouraging the bastards with my money I would go buy the damn thing, and rip it just to prove it can be done, and that its not even hard. Hell, maybe I'll just take it home and rip it then return it to the store:) Watch for it on Kazaa tonite, baby....
When will SCO, and all of the other affected parties realize that press releases are not the same thing as email. They bicker back and forth in press release after press release, and everytime they do the media picks it up. I don't get it. It's like instead of talking to each other they just issue press releases and let the other side respond through their own press release to respond. Next thing you know SCO will issue a press release stating
"Hp SuxorZ!!!W00T"
And then HP will release one that says
"No They dont you SuzorZ!!!"
So then IBM will release one that's infected with a thought virus that kills anyone who reads it thusly killing all of the geeks who care, so that they won't have to issue (or read) anymore press releases. When will the madness end!
If this thing sits on each side and seamlessly encrypts/decrypts the mail without user intervention than what is the benefit of using this as opposed to using TLS? TLS provides seamless server-to-server encryption also, but its free if you are using an open source mail server that supports it, and TLS is already around and widely (albeit not widely enough) supported.
Because I have 200+ users, and pass almost 2.5 terabytes of data through my webserver every year.A
large percentage of which WAS Spam. Users site Spam as being one of (if not the biggest) reasons for not using email more frequently. My entire orginazation has seen there spam problem, basically 'dry-up' since implementing a few simple options on the mail server. I can't say for sure how much, but it is saving our company big money in lost time.
You know... All of these fancy 'spam-fighting' methods are just a waste of time, when all you really need is a properly configured smtp server and some good free realtime blackhole lists. After making simple changes, I went from receiving 5-6 spams a day down to 1 in a year and a half. With no complaints of 'false-positives'. There have been instances where the senders mail server was misconfigured, but after contacting them and explaining the situation they were invariably helpful. All I did was make sure that only mail sent from fqdn to valid local accounts, and such were allowed there is an ok tutorial on basic psotfix configurattion herehere.... and a great one Here.
Besides, it may be too late for dvdCCA to withhold anything. Many long term licenses have already been signed. You are most likely correct, and if that is the case than I dont think the movie industry tycoons have a leg to stand on or a hope in hell other than the one they are obviuosly taking. That is to tie them up in court, and cause them to burn through so much money on lawyers that they can no longer afford to remain in the DVD editing business. Thats just my guess... I guess what I'm saying is that you guys win. I have been shown the error of my ways.
So? It would be straightforward to make one. The point is that re-encoding the content isn't necessary. I suppose it would be. My point however was that they could just rescind or refuse to sell the the license to make DVD hardware if they wanted to stop them. I guess on the other hand I suppose that it would be just as illegal to re-encode it using software as it would be to build hardware. So ok. You win.:) I have been shown the error of my ways.:)
RTA. The manufacture and sale of such devices is exactly what this lawsuit is trying to prevent
Umm, no. If the movie industry doesn't want you to build DVD players (software or hardware) than the dvdCCA just wont sell you a CSS license to do it. Its that easy.
It is only legal to descamble DVD content for playback if the player has been properly licensed (whether it is hardware or software). Where does one purchase legally licensed computer controlled DVD hardware that can recognize DVDS? Nowhere. Than it must be done with commodity hardware and software in some kludgy and quasi-legal fashion. Perhaps by using an already licensed and scriptable software application? I dont really know as the site for MovieMask (The product in question) has already been (indirectly) slashdotted, but any way you look at it, the disk is getting descarmbled somehow, and the MPAA is probably getting cut out.
Slashdot Mirror
I use renattach and procmail. THis allows me to rename the attachments instead of deleting them. Then if you get an .exe or .zip that you really want you save it and rename it from myproggy.exe_bad to myproggy.exe before you can execute it. Works well, and its faster than all of the slow perl code out there for doing the same thing.
That is not what this is about, it is quit simply about Fyoder enforcing an already existing clause of the GPL (4). He's not ammending the thing to lock SCO out. He is just making it a little more clear that having violated section 4 they are no longer entiteled to make use of or distribute NMap.
Actually, yes it is still free software. They have violated the existing GPL license, he is simply pointing out that after having violated that license, they no longer have any right to make use of the software. He isn't ammending the GPL, he's jsut making it obvious that they are violating it.
I'm tired of all those coder-friendly excuses everyone keeps throwing around. End-User performance IS more important than code monkey development time (at least it should be for open source developers). The goals change ,however, if money is more important than user satisfaction then it becomes clear that execution speed doesn't matter beyond the initial purchase.
If you consider the end result of a 1ms extra delay in performing a function times the (possibly) millions of users, times the number of times the function will be called in a year you will quickly realize that that 1 unimportant millisecond is costing alot of people alot more time than it would have taken the code monkey to just optimize the darn thing in the first place. Saying that modern CPU's are fast, and that 1Ms doesn't matter is just a cheap cop out to attempt and excuse your lazy coding practices.
Or maybe Google's search results ARE accurate and simply reflect the increasingly commercial nature of the web. I for one think that the Internet is becoming soo hopelessly commercialized that it is becoming next to impossible to find USEFUL non-commercial content about anything, regardless of the search engine used. When 90% of the content on the web is commercial, it is hard to imagine 90% of the search results not being commercial. I think that the next 'killer app' will be a new anonymous file sharing protocol like Freenet ,but faster and with an ability to 'deny' hosting to sites that you do not agree with. Freenet with a way to filter the content your node will host. Not because people want anonymity soo much, but because people want a new forum to voice their opinions without their voices being drowned out by the combined shouting of all the commercial interests that have taken control of our medium.
Jabber does file transfers just fine, at least for me. I'm using Exodus right now, and all I have to do is right click the contact and click on 'send file'. Pretty easy if you ask me.
Yeah, I just dont think that the level of 'pointless' routing and broadcasting that would be necessary to create a truly anonymous network infrastructure would be very efficient. It would by its very nature have to be. In order to hide the source of a request it would (at least occaisionally enough for plausible deniabilty purposes) have to be routed through several hops before being allowed to reach its destination. This would add overhead. Konspire is not 'anonymous' is it? I thought that konspire was just a new way of distributing and finding files, I didn't know they had a whole new protocol? Anyhow, the reason I mentioned freenet was too drive home the point of what happens to speed when you route, and reroute the traffic like mad to preserve 'anonymity', although you are really just getting plausible deniabilty, not anonimyity in the true sense of the word with freenet.
All that routing and broadcasting is expensive though. Slow. Thats why freenet sux. (That and the whole java thing.)
UDP packets with a spoofed source is the way to go. The only problem is flow control. I think that anonymous proxies, and P2P proxying, can allow for certain anonymity for the flow control packets, and the data can be sent via spoofed UDP packets (then the transfer itself can be reasonably fast, you may have to retry a few extra times for the packets that get dropped, but its faster than proxying the entire connection). The sender will know the receivers IP, but then No one has to know the senders IP, and the sender is the one getting screwed by the RIAA these days anyhow.
This isn't the way to do it. UDP packets with a spoofed source is. The only problem is flow control. I think that anonymous proxies, and P2P proxying, can allow for certain anonymity for the flow control packets, and the data can be sent via spoofed UDP packets (then the transfer itself can be reasonably fast, you may have to retry a few extra times for the packets that get dropped, but its faster than proxying the entire connection). The sender will know the receivers IP, but the No-one has to know the senders IP, and the sender is the one getting screwed by the RIAA these days anyhow.
I stand corrected. However the fact that SCO has a headline on the front page of their site that says: 'Pros, Priests and Zealots: The Three Faces of Linux' is in itself a telling fact, let alone that the first line of the linked article says 'I have a hard time seeing the Linux Zealots as any different from terrorists because of the nature of their threats.'. It is clear that SCO has declared an all out PR war, on not just the linux kernel, but the entire open source movement, and that the truth is irrelevant to them. All they care about is FUD. Killing open source wherever they find it seems to be a part of SCO's business plan.
Did anyone else see this article linked from SCO's main page? It starts off saying 'I have a hard time seeing the Linux Zealots as any different from terrorists because of the nature of their threats.'. I knew Darl and Co. were a bunch of asshats, but this is ridiculous.
Normally I hate trolls, but if anything deserves to get trolled its this piece of shameless self-aggrandizing crap. So.... TROLL TROLL TROLL Blah. The internet is too commercial. You bastards can have my karma.
Most of the pages in the robots.txt are actually 404's and dont exist anymore. Its that simple. Keeps the robots from constantly requesting content that doesn't exist anymore. A few are blocked because they are bandwidth intensive videos and things, and some others are blocked for more mundane reasons I assume.
Takes two days P2P over emule for a full DVD with all the features (downsampled a bit, but not noticeably). Probably would be a WHOLE lot faster straight from a studio with a fat pipe...
If I'd thought before I posted I would have realized that, but in order to even get my responses seen I have to post FAST :) Stupid internet. Its TOO fast. :)
If I wasn't so against encouraging the bastards with my money I would go buy the damn thing, and rip it just to prove it can be done, and that its not even hard. Hell, maybe I'll just take it home and rip it then return it to the store :) Watch for it on Kazaa tonite, baby....
When will SCO, and all of the other affected parties realize that press releases are not the same thing as email. They bicker back and forth in press release after press release, and everytime they do the media picks it up. I don't get it. It's like instead of talking to each other they just issue press releases and let the other side respond through their own press release to respond. Next thing you know SCO will issue a press release stating "Hp SuxorZ!!!W00T" And then HP will release one that says "No They dont you SuzorZ!!!" So then IBM will release one that's infected with a thought virus that kills anyone who reads it thusly killing all of the geeks who care, so that they won't have to issue (or read) anymore press releases. When will the madness end!
If this thing sits on each side and seamlessly encrypts/decrypts the mail without user intervention than what is the benefit of using this as opposed to using TLS? TLS provides seamless server-to-server encryption also, but its free if you are using an open source mail server that supports it, and TLS is already around and widely (albeit not widely enough) supported.
Because I have 200+ users, and pass almost 2.5 terabytes of data through my webserver every year.A large percentage of which WAS Spam. Users site Spam as being one of (if not the biggest) reasons for not using email more frequently. My entire orginazation has seen there spam problem, basically 'dry-up' since implementing a few simple options on the mail server. I can't say for sure how much, but it is saving our company big money in lost time.
You know... All of these fancy 'spam-fighting' methods are just a waste of time, when all you really need is a properly configured smtp server and some good free realtime blackhole lists. After making simple changes, I went from receiving 5-6 spams a day down to 1 in a year and a half. With no complaints of 'false-positives'. There have been instances where the senders mail server was misconfigured, but after contacting them and explaining the situation they were invariably helpful. All I did was make sure that only mail sent from fqdn to valid local accounts, and such were allowed there is an ok tutorial on basic psotfix configurattion herehere.... and a great one Here.
Besides, it may be too late for dvdCCA to withhold anything. Many long term licenses have already been signed.
You are most likely correct, and if that is the case than I dont think the movie industry tycoons have a leg to stand on or a hope in hell other than the one they are obviuosly taking. That is to tie them up in court, and cause them to burn through so much money on lawyers that they can no longer afford to remain in the DVD editing business. Thats just my guess...
I guess what I'm saying is that you guys win. I have been shown the error of my ways.
So? It would be straightforward to make one. The point is that re-encoding the content isn't necessary. :) I have been shown the error of my ways. :)
I suppose it would be. My point however was that they could just rescind or refuse to sell the the license to make DVD hardware if they wanted to stop them. I guess on the other hand I suppose that it would be just as illegal to re-encode it using software as it would be to build hardware. So ok. You win.
RTA. The manufacture and sale of such devices is exactly what this lawsuit is trying to prevent
Umm, no. If the movie industry doesn't want you to build DVD players (software or hardware) than the dvdCCA just wont sell you a CSS license to do it. Its that easy.
It is only legal to descamble DVD content for playback if the player has been properly licensed (whether it is hardware or software). Where does one purchase legally licensed computer controlled DVD hardware that can recognize DVDS? Nowhere. Than it must be done with commodity hardware and software in some kludgy and quasi-legal fashion. Perhaps by using an already licensed and scriptable software application? I dont really know as the site for MovieMask (The product in question) has already been (indirectly) slashdotted, but any way you look at it, the disk is getting descarmbled somehow, and the MPAA is probably getting cut out.