I've already learned a few things in the blurb of this article, and in the discussion of the book, that I haven't learned combing iPodLounge. And yes, I read iPodLounge regularly.
You didn't have to buy the book to get it either. BTW...put your money where your mouth is. What did you learn that cannot be located via iPodLounge or google? If I cannot locate that information on the iPodLounge or via google within ten minutes after reading the post, I will concede. This, of course, will be done on the honor system.
I never said that publishing a book was morally reprehensible.
I said:
It doesn't matter what the issue is, how morally reprehensible it is, how disgusting, etc...there's always someone who disagrees with you. In this case, it doesn't make it less stupid.
In this case the issue is stupidity. I could put out a book describing a thorough examination of the smells of dog crap from different breeds of dog and someone will buy it. It's just the way it is.
1. Order the book and have it shipped or 2. Go to the store and pick up the book.
You could've easily googled the info and had it with no cost to you and considerably less of a time investment.
I'm not particularly interested in paying for the value add of somebody collating and editing the information presented on a single website. If you are, and know of other like minded individuals I can start work on a book of +5 moderated slashdot comments.
That's fine. What makes you think that there don't exist people who disagree with you?
That's the interesting thing. It doesn't matter what the issue is, how morally reprehensible it is, how disgusting, etc...there's always someone who disagrees with you. In this case, it doesn't make it less stupid.
Ephpod works fine under wine. Windows is not necessary.
Precisely what does she want the software to do? The device plays mp3s. The software transfers mp3s to the device and allows the creation of playlists.
It honestly isn't that complicated. If you find it difficult to use, you're doing something wrong.
Hint, it won't play video, open cans, drive your car, etc.
Yes, given enough time and effort programmers up at Microsoft could make their software bulletproof.
I say the software is inherently more insecure because Microsoft did not follow a methodology for their software that leads to secure products:
1. The user pretty much always runs as "root" 2. IE, Office, and OE are tied in directly with the OS, and provide functionality that should not be present with untrusted data (from the Internet/documents) 3. Microsoft does not view all security problems as a serious threat, or takes forever to release patches to certain vulnerabilities. Case in point, look at the number of unpatched IE vulnerabilities. Some of them have been around for many months. I understand that they have to do QA on patches and what not, but if the process honestly takes months then the products are inherently more insecure. 4. Microsoft didn't really take security all that seriously (supposedly they have now). Case in point the WinXP firewall. Not only is it very unconfigurable, but it starts -after- the network does. That's commitment to security. If the firewall wasn't crap, and it was enabled by default, much of this ugly worm business wouldn't be as big a deal.
It all adds up to being inherently insecure. Look at this recent issue. Why should users have to deal with getting infected automatically with no intervention when visiting a website? Can't blaim the users here either because there is no patch for this vulnerability. It's ridiculous that crap like this can happen through javascript anyway.
You didn't mention them, but the point is relevant nonetheless.
You claim that if Linux was as popular as Windows, you'd see a lot more widespread security issues with it.
He countered with a specific example of a Microsoft product against another OS product. The OS product is more widely deployed than IIS, yet has far less security problems.
What makes you think that Microsoft products aren't inherently more insecure? IIS certainly is. IE certainly is. OE certainly is.
Perhaps if Linux was more popular, we'd see far less problems.
I could just (and did) download the rpms here without any problems, Microsoft impose restrictions which limit my ability to download fixes for other people using rsync.
This has nothing to do with the size of the updates. That was my only comment. I in no way said Microsoft was better.
No-one blew me off the web within seconds when I started downloading, the SuSE firewall was adequate for the task...
Also irrelevant. Again, this has nothing to do with the size of the updates. Besides, you can enable the XP firewall and it will keep you from being "blown off the web". Just make sure to plugin the network cable -after- enabling the firewall.
and not many of the updates were security-related anyway. Saying that SuSE 9.1 has had less time to accumulate security problems would be very misleading though, WinXP is the newest version available so that is the one we measure. As for the XP update CD from Microsoft, the newest available for the German version is from October.
Aaah...now this is relevant. If you install the latest XP you can reasonably get...(i.e.) XP with SP1, you have no where near 313 megs of security updates to install. The total is around 30 - 50 megs I believe. Similar as with SuSE 9.1 probably.
Absolutely. Just install the hotfixes that pertain to kernel vulnerabilities.
But it's the *RIGHT* thing to do from a security point of view. If you're file-server is running X & Gnome & KDE & Wine & Kazaa, you're *BEGGING* for trouble.
While you can't avoid installing the gui and what not in windows, you can turn off almost all of the running services. Technically, not that I'd advise it, you could avoid running IE, Outlook Express, etc...and forgo patching them in a server environment. Just don't run any apps either.
The hard part about microsoft is that it's really hard to do that, since (as the article pointed out) the default install has everything with all the holes pre-installed and running.
So does a default install of many distros...ones as old as XP even more so.
I'm not a Microsoft advocate, I dislike Microsoft products for multiple reasons, but the size of the patches isn't one of them. All I'm saying is that when comparing a default (normal size) linux distro install to a default windows one, the amount of patches you need to install are similar.
You're being awfully pedantic there. Yes, technically the updates to Linux (i.e. the kernel) are small. However, I'm sure if you just patch kernel32.exe or whatever the binaries for the kernel under windows are, the updates would be small too.
A system consisting of just the kernel and a few command line tools would be awfully boring and not a particularly fair comparison.
By "Linux" I'm referring to the kernel itself, along with X and the base applications that come along with gnome or KDE. Installing a distro with the base set of libraries, GUI, window manager, apps, etc that give a reasonable approximation of what you get with windows (no gimp, no koffice, etc) will require a considerable amount of downloading of patches if it's as old as XP.
That's not too different from the amount of patches you have to download after a fresh install of linux. Hell, when I loaded Suse 9.1, there were at least 100mb of updates already. If I installed a distro that was as old as XP I could very well see 300mb of updates.
I actually considered this as well. I'm very surprised the person in the original article didn't do this.
Divide up the port space into ranges and assign a tone to each one.
Another idea would be instead of changing the pitch, use a different instrument tone for various ranges. It could be like an orchestra instead of a wind chime.
That's normally how it works...or you have to hold it for 30 seconds or something.
As far as restoring the config...we're talking about a consumer level device here. If the consumer borked the config enough to need to call tech support, it's probably good not to restore it.
Besides configuring one of these guys takes all of like 1 minute or so.
On commercial devices one typically dumps the config to a file and backs it up.
Why not delete infected files and restore from backup? That's what backups are for.
I understand your point of view, but I think it's pretty silly to add features to a product that will only work 1% of the time.
If you get in a situation where you are relying on a 1% chance of saving your ass, you've done something wrong. It's unreasonable at that point to expect someone is going to bail you out.
The problem is apps have started making use of the middle mouse button for other things besides pasting. For example, middle clicking a link in firefox causes it to open in a new tab...now if you happen to miss the link you paste crap into the browser and get an annoying popup when it can't find the URL (yes I know this can be turned off, it's just an example).
Also since the middle mouse button is used to scroll, it's very easy to apply a bit too much pressure on it and click it. Doing this while scrolling the contents of a terminal window can have disasterous affects.
Well...when I highlight text, I'm saying select this text for replacement or deletion. When I click the middle mouse button, I'm telling Firefox to open a link in a new tab or issuing some other command that a middle click does in an app that isn't paste.
In windows I can select text, right click and hit copy if I want to do it one handed. Besides unless you're missing an arm or something, last I checked you should have two. Quit masterbating with the other and you can use the keyboard without taking your hand off the mouse.
I'm a Unix+X user, and I hate it. Pasting over a selection with this method isn't possible. Not too mention accidentally hitting the middle mouse button can have disasterous effects in a terminal.
It also sucks when applications make use of the middle mouse button...aka firefox for opening links in new tabs. Missclick a link and you paste crap into the browser which usually results in getting an annoying popup, "URL not found". Granted this behavior is configurable in Firefox, but this isn't always the case.
Configurable keyboard commands or right click menus make a lot more sense. It's hard to make an accident, and you can select text for deletion or replacement without screwing up the clipboard.
If you research the subject more thoroughly you wouldn't be all for it.
We don't have to run out of oil in order to have energy problems. We just have to run out of cheap oil. Production (really a misnomer because oil isn't produced) of oil from an oil field follows a bell curve. It's much cheaper to get the first 50% of oil in a field then it is to get the last 50%. Hitting the top of the curve is called "peaking".
It is widely thought that we are a generation or less away from the point where the entire world "peaks".
To better illustrate. Lets say world production peaked at the year 2000. This would roughly mean that at 2020 world oil production would be the same as 1980. However, the world's population will be double that of 1980 and much more industrialized.
It's easy to see that when oil peaks, it will quickly become much more expensive because demand will quickly exceed supply.
The end of easily available cheap oil represents the end of industrialized society. Every process of our industrialized economy is linked to oil. Once the cost of oil goes up, the cost of everything goes up. At this point it will be far too late to invest in alternative energy sources. We'll need what oil we can afford just to eat.
We need oil to make plastics, grow food, provide electicity, transportation, produce medical products, etc...
No currently known form of renewable energy can come close to providing energy as cost effectively as oil. Nor can it be used for all the functions oil is used for.
When you consider a renewable energy source, consider the following factors:
1. Is it as efficient as oil? Efficiency of a resource can be defined as how much of that resource is required to extract a certain amount of that resource. For example, oil has an efficiency of 1:10...meaning that it requires 1 barrel of oil get 10. A viable renewable energy source has to approach this level of efficiency in order to be used as a replacement for oil.
2. Does it require a large investment of oil to produce? (i.e. solar panels, hydrogen, nuclear power plants...also don't forget uranium used in nuclear plants is also non-renewable, biomass in the form of fertilization)
3. Can you make plastic from it?
4. Can you fertilize crops with it?
5. Can you use it for reliable transportation? Not just cars, but also planes, boats, construction equipment, mining equipment, etc...
6. Can you make pharmaceuticals from it?
7. Is it site limited? (i.e. geothermal, wind, hydroelectric present problems because there is a limited area where you can apply them, ethanol is a no go for this reason too. According to Exxon, to meet the US need for oil by 2020 33% of the entire US land area would have to be devoted to growing corn for ethanol...oh and don't forget the fertilizer)
Make no mistake...running out of oil is a death sentence for most of us. On a very basic level, we need it for modern farming techniques. Without it, we starve.
Even worse, what do you think happens when the population of nuclear armed states such as China or the US decide that war is preferable to starvation and attempt to grab what little oil is left?
Think of the monumental hurdles we'd have to overcome within 30 years in order to avoid disaster:
1. We'd have to reduce our oil consumption to almost nothing.
2. At the same time as #1 we'd have to ramp up our use of renewable sources to 1000s of times more than we currently use.
3. We have to address the natural gas crises...it's pretty much the same as the oil one.
4. Address the coal crises which is also similar to the oil one.
5. We'll have to do 1-4 while dealing with conflict as a result of resource shortages and a general ignorance and apathy on the part of the general population, and massive resistence from government and industry.
Unfortunately we currently use fossil fuels to produce fertilizer. So biodeisel is not a viable replacement.
Re:My ISP blocks ALL port 25 traffic.
on
NYT on Spam Cops
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Filtering port 25 keeps users from using their own machines to send spam, or from spammers using the machines that have been infected with some worm to send spam.
The SMTP server doesn't need to require authentication because your ISP (should) only allow relaying from IP addresses administered by your ISP. It would be nice if they offered it though, but it's not necessary from their point of view.
All of your Internet traffic goes through your ISP. This means they can monitor ALL your traffic, not just mail...if you're concerned that your ISP is reading your mail, encrypt it before you send it. Even if your ISP supported authentication, since they control the server they could still monitor your email.
That goes for any of your other traffic too...if you don't want them to view it, encrypt it.
( ) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based (*) vigilante ( ) lack of an
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 ( ) 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 ( ) No-lists 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!
Slashdot Mirror
I've already learned a few things in the blurb of this article, and in the discussion of the book, that I haven't learned combing iPodLounge. And yes, I read iPodLounge regularly.
You didn't have to buy the book to get it either. BTW...put your money where your mouth is. What did you learn that cannot be located via iPodLounge or google? If I cannot locate that information on the iPodLounge or via google within ten minutes after reading the post, I will concede. This, of course, will be done on the honor system.
I never said that publishing a book was morally reprehensible.
I said:
It doesn't matter what the issue is, how morally reprehensible it is, how disgusting, etc...there's always someone who disagrees with you. In this case, it doesn't make it less stupid.
In this case the issue is stupidity. I could put out a book describing a thorough examination of the smells of dog crap from different breeds of dog and someone will buy it. It's just the way it is.
So, you're not interested in paying for the value add of somebody collating and editing the information presented in this book.
Most of the information presented in the book can probably be found at: http://www.ipodlounge.com/
In the time it takes you to:
1. Order the book and have it shipped
or
2. Go to the store and pick up the book.
You could've easily googled the info and had it with no cost to you and considerably less of a time investment.
I'm not particularly interested in paying for the value add of somebody collating and editing the information presented on a single website. If you are, and know of other like minded individuals I can start work on a book of +5 moderated slashdot comments.
That's fine. What makes you think that there don't exist people who disagree with you?
That's the interesting thing. It doesn't matter what the issue is, how morally reprehensible it is, how disgusting, etc...there's always someone who disagrees with you. In this case, it doesn't make it less stupid.
iPod & Ephpod & wine: The works just fine on Linux Version.
Ephpod works fine under wine. Windows is not necessary.
Precisely what does she want the software to do? The device plays mp3s. The software transfers mp3s to the device and allows the creation of playlists.
It honestly isn't that complicated. If you find it difficult to use, you're doing something wrong.
Hint, it won't play video, open cans, drive your car, etc.
Yes, given enough time and effort programmers up at Microsoft could make their software bulletproof.
I say the software is inherently more insecure because Microsoft did not follow a methodology for their software that leads to secure products:
1. The user pretty much always runs as "root"
2. IE, Office, and OE are tied in directly with the OS, and provide functionality that should not be present with untrusted data (from the Internet/documents)
3. Microsoft does not view all security problems as a serious threat, or takes forever to release patches to certain vulnerabilities. Case in point, look at the number of unpatched IE vulnerabilities. Some of them have been around for many months. I understand that they have to do QA on patches and what not, but if the process honestly takes months then the products are inherently more insecure.
4. Microsoft didn't really take security all that seriously (supposedly they have now). Case in point the WinXP firewall. Not only is it very unconfigurable, but it starts -after- the network does. That's commitment to security. If the firewall wasn't crap, and it was enabled by default, much of this ugly worm business wouldn't be as big a deal.
It all adds up to being inherently insecure. Look at this recent issue. Why should users have to deal with getting infected automatically with no intervention when visiting a website? Can't blaim the users here either because there is no patch for this vulnerability. It's ridiculous that crap like this can happen through javascript anyway.
You didn't mention them, but the point is relevant nonetheless.
You claim that if Linux was as popular as Windows, you'd see a lot more widespread security issues with it.
He countered with a specific example of a Microsoft product against another OS product. The OS product is more widely deployed than IIS, yet has far less security problems.
What makes you think that Microsoft products aren't inherently more insecure? IIS certainly is. IE certainly is. OE certainly is.
Perhaps if Linux was more popular, we'd see far less problems.
Well I borked that up...guess I should've used preview...oh well.
Those points are not relevant to my argument.
I could just (and did) download the rpms here without any problems, Microsoft impose restrictions which limit my ability to download fixes for other people using rsync.
This has nothing to do with the size of the updates. That was my only comment. I in no way said Microsoft was better.
No-one blew me off the web within seconds when I started downloading, the SuSE firewall was adequate for the task...
Also irrelevant. Again, this has nothing to do with the size of the updates. Besides, you can enable the XP firewall and it will keep you from being "blown off the web". Just make sure to plugin the network cable -after- enabling the firewall.
and not many of the updates were security-related anyway.
Saying that SuSE 9.1 has had less time to accumulate security problems would be very misleading though, WinXP is the newest version available so that is the one we measure. As for the XP update CD from Microsoft, the newest available for the German version is from October.
Aaah...now this is relevant. If you install the latest XP you can reasonably get...(i.e.) XP with SP1, you have no where near 313 megs of security updates to install. The total is around 30 - 50 megs I believe. Similar as with SuSE 9.1 probably.
Sure. But *CAN* you do this?
Absolutely. Just install the hotfixes that pertain to kernel vulnerabilities.
But it's the *RIGHT* thing to do from a security point of view. If you're file-server is running X & Gnome & KDE & Wine & Kazaa, you're *BEGGING* for trouble.
While you can't avoid installing the gui and what not in windows, you can turn off almost all of the running services. Technically, not that I'd advise it, you could avoid running IE, Outlook Express, etc...and forgo patching them in a server environment. Just don't run any apps either.
The hard part about microsoft is that it's really hard to do that, since (as the article pointed out) the default install has everything with all the holes pre-installed and running.
So does a default install of many distros...ones as old as XP even more so.
I'm not a Microsoft advocate, I dislike Microsoft products for multiple reasons, but the size of the patches isn't one of them. All I'm saying is that when comparing a default (normal size) linux distro install to a default windows one, the amount of patches you need to install are similar.
You're being awfully pedantic there. Yes, technically the updates to Linux (i.e. the kernel) are small. However, I'm sure if you just patch kernel32.exe or whatever the binaries for the kernel under windows are, the updates would be small too.
A system consisting of just the kernel and a few command line tools would be awfully boring and not a particularly fair comparison.
By "Linux" I'm referring to the kernel itself, along with X and the base applications that come along with gnome or KDE. Installing a distro with the base set of libraries, GUI, window manager, apps, etc that give a reasonable approximation of what you get with windows (no gimp, no koffice, etc) will require a considerable amount of downloading of patches if it's as old as XP.
That's not too different from the amount of patches you have to download after a fresh install of linux. Hell, when I loaded Suse 9.1, there were at least 100mb of updates already. If I installed a distro that was as old as XP I could very well see 300mb of updates.
I actually considered this as well. I'm very surprised the person in the original article didn't do this.
Divide up the port space into ranges and assign a tone to each one.
Another idea would be instead of changing the pitch, use a different instrument tone for various ranges. It could be like an orchestra instead of a wind chime.
That's normally how it works...or you have to hold it for 30 seconds or something.
As far as restoring the config...we're talking about a consumer level device here. If the consumer borked the config enough to need to call tech support, it's probably good not to restore it.
Besides configuring one of these guys takes all of like 1 minute or so.
On commercial devices one typically dumps the config to a file and backs it up.
That's what a reset button on the device and a default password is for. Have customer hit reset button and then guide them through setup.
It must be a troll's dream.
Why not delete infected files and restore from backup? That's what backups are for.
I understand your point of view, but I think it's pretty silly to add features to a product that will only work 1% of the time.
If you get in a situation where you are relying on a 1% chance of saving your ass, you've done something wrong. It's unreasonable at that point to expect someone is going to bail you out.
The problem is apps have started making use of the middle mouse button for other things besides pasting. For example, middle clicking a link in firefox causes it to open in a new tab...now if you happen to miss the link you paste crap into the browser and get an annoying popup when it can't find the URL (yes I know this can be turned off, it's just an example).
Also since the middle mouse button is used to scroll, it's very easy to apply a bit too much pressure on it and click it. Doing this while scrolling the contents of a terminal window can have disasterous affects.
That's great until the something you want to do with it involves replacing it with text currently on the clipboard.
Well...when I highlight text, I'm saying select this text for replacement or deletion. When I click the middle mouse button, I'm telling Firefox to open a link in a new tab or issuing some other command that a middle click does in an app that isn't paste.
In windows I can select text, right click and hit copy if I want to do it one handed. Besides unless you're missing an arm or something, last I checked you should have two. Quit masterbating with the other and you can use the keyboard without taking your hand off the mouse.
I'm a Unix+X user, and I hate it. Pasting over a selection with this method isn't possible. Not too mention accidentally hitting the middle mouse button can have disasterous effects in a terminal.
It also sucks when applications make use of the middle mouse button...aka firefox for opening links in new tabs. Missclick a link and you paste crap into the browser which usually results in getting an annoying popup, "URL not found". Granted this behavior is configurable in Firefox, but this isn't always the case.
Configurable keyboard commands or right click menus make a lot more sense. It's hard to make an accident, and you can select text for deletion or replacement without screwing up the clipboard.
If you research the subject more thoroughly you wouldn't be all for it.
We don't have to run out of oil in order to have energy problems. We just have to run out of cheap oil. Production (really a misnomer because oil isn't produced) of oil from an oil field follows a bell curve. It's much cheaper to get the first 50% of oil in a field then it is to get the last 50%. Hitting the top of the curve is called "peaking".
It is widely thought that we are a generation or less away from the point where the entire world "peaks".
To better illustrate. Lets say world production peaked at the year 2000. This would roughly mean that at 2020 world oil production would be the same as 1980. However, the world's population will be double that of 1980 and much more industrialized.
It's easy to see that when oil peaks, it will quickly become much more expensive because demand will quickly exceed supply.
The end of easily available cheap oil represents the end of industrialized society. Every process of our industrialized economy is linked to oil. Once the cost of oil goes up, the cost of everything goes up. At this point it will be far too late to invest in alternative energy sources. We'll need what oil we can afford just to eat.
We need oil to make plastics, grow food, provide electicity, transportation, produce medical products, etc...
No currently known form of renewable energy can come close to providing energy as cost effectively as oil. Nor can it be used for all the functions oil is used for.
When you consider a renewable energy source, consider the following factors:
1. Is it as efficient as oil? Efficiency of a resource can be defined as how much of that resource is required to extract a certain amount of that resource. For example, oil has an efficiency of 1:10...meaning that it requires 1 barrel of oil get 10. A viable renewable energy source has to approach this level of efficiency in order to be used as a replacement for oil.
2. Does it require a large investment of oil to produce? (i.e. solar panels, hydrogen, nuclear power plants...also don't forget uranium used in nuclear plants is also non-renewable, biomass in the form of fertilization)
3. Can you make plastic from it?
4. Can you fertilize crops with it?
5. Can you use it for reliable transportation? Not just cars, but also planes, boats, construction equipment, mining equipment, etc...
6. Can you make pharmaceuticals from it?
7. Is it site limited? (i.e. geothermal, wind, hydroelectric present problems because there is a limited area where you can apply them, ethanol is a no go for this reason too. According to Exxon, to meet the US need for oil by 2020 33% of the entire US land area would have to be devoted to growing corn for ethanol...oh and don't forget the fertilizer)
Make no mistake...running out of oil is a death sentence for most of us. On a very basic level, we need it for modern farming techniques. Without it, we starve.
Even worse, what do you think happens when the population of nuclear armed states such as China or the US decide that war is preferable to starvation and attempt to grab what little oil is left?
Think of the monumental hurdles we'd have to overcome within 30 years in order to avoid disaster:
1. We'd have to reduce our oil consumption to almost nothing.
2. At the same time as #1 we'd have to ramp up our use of renewable sources to 1000s of times more than we currently use.
3. We have to address the natural gas crises...it's pretty much the same as the oil one.
4. Address the coal crises which is also similar to the oil one.
5. We'll have to do 1-4 while dealing with conflict as a result of resource shortages and a general ignorance and apathy on the part of the general population, and massive resistence from government and industry.
The funny thing is there is a serious threat of running out.
Do a google search for the term "Peak Oil".
Unfortunately we currently use fossil fuels to produce fertilizer. So biodeisel is not a viable replacement.
Filtering port 25 keeps users from using their own machines to send spam, or from spammers using the machines that have been infected with some worm to send spam.
The SMTP server doesn't need to require authentication because your ISP (should) only allow relaying from IP addresses administered by your ISP. It would be nice if they offered it though, but it's not necessary from their point of view.
All of your Internet traffic goes through your ISP. This means they can monitor ALL your traffic, not just mail...if you're concerned that your ISP is reading your mail, encrypt it before you send it. Even if your ISP supported authentication, since they control the server they could still monitor your email.
That goes for any of your other traffic too...if you don't want them to view it, encrypt it.
Your post advocates a
( ) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based (*) vigilante ( ) lack of an
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
( ) 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
( ) No-lists 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!