But we can only do that to spammers outside the US for now. Obviously, Ashcroft still has more work to do before we can apply Taliban tactics domestically without a veil of secrecy.
I register all my shareware, or uninstall it before the stated evaluation period ends. If you do otherwise, shame.
I do not install unlicensed software in production environments. My personal computer is different, but I still conform to the license requirements or remove the software.
You're talking to sysadmins here -- you'll find relatively few pirates in the bunch. You might rethink your accusations in light of your audience.
If the fuel cells are still in development, and the distribution infrastructure hasn't even been designed, let alone built yet, how can they defend the assumption that 10-20% of the hydrogen in the system would be vented into the atmosphere? In the fuel cells, isn't the hydrogen catalyzed into a solid?
This sounds like an attempt to discredit something that isn't even designed yet, based on bogus assumptions.
Why can't anyone get their terminology right in these articles? Pirates are illegal copies of legitimate works. Bootlegs are illegal original works sold by someone else. If I buy an illegitimate copy of a released album, like Michael Jackson's "Thriller", that is a pirate. If I buy a live concert recording of The Verve, which is officially unreleased, that is a bootleg.
These people are pirating the patterns, and the articles contain tacit admissions that they are breaking the law by copying patterns to avoid paying money for them. This is not bootlegging, this is piracy. Get the terms straight.
My sense is that this does happen, but not usually because of any flaw in the programmers or engineers. More often, it's the result of management not giving more information than is necessary to complete the task.
It's important to take the whole team, as a group, through the big picture. Even if it is just a short overview meeting, there is significant value in making sure that everyone knows that their assignment is part of a larger whole, showing how the pieces are intended to come together, and giving everyone a context for their individual bits.
My experience is that being given all the additional info doesn't take too much time, doesn't overwhelm anyone, and produces far more usable results. Letting everyone work in a vacuum, the other extreme, tends to cause integration nightmares and lots of wild tangents that make sense ONLY in the context of one little bit while working against the overall goals.
I thought that any conditions upon which employment was contingent had to be disclosed prior to hiring. Every time I've taken a job, the various invasions of privacy to which I'd be subject were known before I got there.
It might be worth checking with a lawyer -- not to see whether the requirement is illegal, it's not, but to see whether the requirement can be enforced when it was not disclosed prior to hiring.
One thing they never discuss is how they get wireless networking to work reliably inside shielded metal boxes. They don't address secure spaces, either, which function as tempest enclosures in their own right, and from which any RF emissions would be a violation of opsec. For example, outboard operations is usually at the bottom of the ship, a secure space, a tempest enclosure, and full of electronic warfare components. Just where you'd want a transmitter. Last I checked, AES or Triple-DES were not approved for classified data. Has that changed? If not, can you put an encrypted transmitter for unclassified data in a secure space?
I like the idea of cutting down a destroyer crew from 300 to 90. If they can do that effectively, it would make a huge difference in crew comfort. From this article, though, it sounds like the snipes would be most of those cut, and I wonder what that does to the crew's ability to respond to attacks, accidents, or disasters. On the ship I served on, Engineering was the backbone of shipboard firefighting at sea, and provided the bulk of the repair teams. If you take a missile hit, having a bunch of extra people to put out the fires, deal with the flooding, and so forth would be a real advantage.
Now, if they can get rid of most of Deck, they could really slim down. All that would take is finding paints or finishes that don't require constant maintenance to keep a steel ship from rusting in salt water. They've gone a long way with epoxy-based paints for the hull, but the decks and above-water surfaces didn't get the same treatment.
The government has an obligation to release the code it creates and data that it collects into the public domain. Corporations are not only allowed, but encouraged to commercialize government funded research. I think this is a good thing.
The bad thing I see is the interaction between the government's obligation to release code into the public domain and their ability to incorporate open source code, be it under GPL, BSD, or whatever. If you have to release your code into the public domain, incorporating GPL code can be an issue.
A government-wide source repository could address this issue, by allowing only the government-funded portions to be released into the public domain, rather than the entire system. That would allow the goverment to link the licensed components without having to redistribute the derivative works.
Instead of arguing GPL vs BSD, why not step back and release it to public domain without restriction. You can usually achieve this with enough time, patience, and FOIA requests. I'd rather see it codified as public domain explicitly, rather than debating which license is the least restrictive or most appropriate.
That way, both individuals and corporations are free to use it in any way they see fit.
I worked in a 50-user shop, and provided services and equipment to a 200-user shop under contract.
In our case, the only way to get decent specs and meet the client's budget was to roll our own. The other options were too few systems, or systems too cheesy to contemplate. Cheesy as in crap, not as in creamy goodness.
If you go down that path, my suggestion would be to make sure you have confidence in your component choices, and that all your component choices interoperate flawlessly. Any system you have to see again will blow the savings - your first callback or return could be fatal. Make sure you source quality components, and if you're trying to minimize the number of discrete configurations, buy all your components at once.
Spend money on decent cases with good power supplies. Don't yield to the urge to "cheap out" on components that "don't matter" - they all matter. Don't buy cadillac parts, but make sure everything you do buy is good quality, sound, and durable. Keep extra original parts on hand, especially a mobo or two.
Come up with a logo and have the stickers printed - it amazed us how many people would readily accept a brand they'd never heard of, but would never accept an unbranded system.
Your initial problem will be evaluating a number of different hardware options, then settling on those you want to standardize on. Once you get to that point, what do you do with the bastard love children of your prototype period? Don't deploy them to users, you'll water down any faith and confidence your production systems should inspire.
I believe the rules only apply to broadcast outlets. So two different local stations with the same program would be an issue, but a network feed probably wouldn't.
I know that FOX's network feed includes a fair amount of syndicated programming. But when a local cable system carries two different FOX affiliates, both stations' local programming airs, but the cable system blocks one of the two when network programming airs. With cable, this is usually a problem with adjacent markets, like Washington, DC, and Baltimore, MD. With satellite, you potentially multiply that problem by 200.
The point I'd like to make is that the mainstream entertainment companies represent a very small number of the artists and copyright holders, they simply represent those who ship in greatest volume. As a result, they also represent those who are most insulated from the financial impacts of piracy, although they won't admit that.
For the producers of independent films, or non-major-label recordings, this is a much different issue. Most would prefer to get their work to more consumers, not to artifically limit its distribution. In many cases, these are the ones who are most agressively taking advantage or new media, and would be the most directly hurt by the proposed legislation.
There are also bands who allow or encourage their fans to record their shows and allow trading, including electronic trading, as long as there is no commercial use or distribution. As I read it, these practices would be outlawed by this legislation, despite being expressly permitted by the copyright holders.
Not only do the rights of consumers need to be upheld, but the rights of copyright holders who are not part of the RIAA/MPAA axis of evil need to be upheld as well.
I'd love to see this, as my local ABC affiliate is unwilling to carry one of my favorite ABC programs. That was fine when I could get distant stations, but not fine after that loophole was closed. I do see two big problems, though.
First, what about syndication exclusivity? If you can drop non-local stations down in competition with a local station, how do the rules that give stations protection from others airing the same programming have to change?
Second, what about the performance contracts on the commercials? Doesn't this raise the same issue that currently requires stripping many local commercials from the national radio netcasts? Wouldn't the same problem exist with TV?
We've had problems with Earthlink, CWNet, and PacBell among others. These appeared to have been rolling their own solutions, and wrote amateurish scripts. Earthlink dragged on for almost a month, until I posted on/. and they contacted me directly. CWNet took two weeks and a minor threat (we're a law firm). PacBell is so heavily blocked themselves that I can't even get mail to them, we're still blocked six months later.
We've had problems with ORDB, ORBL, DorkSlayers, OsiruSoft, and Selward/XBL. The last was the weirdest, most difficult to contact, and most beligerent. They blacklisted based on accepting the messages, and wouldn't delist until a week passed without receiving the messages - retesting only served to extend the delays. They don't recommend using their list for blackholing, and admit that it would block much legitimate email. Most of the others were straightened out within a week or so, though making initial contact with a human is always the most difficult step.
I will rail against all of them as a class, based on my experiences with the bad ones. I feel justified calling them ALL vigilantes, because the term fits precisely. "One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands."
Even with the ones that don't falesly list us, I'm annoyed at the number ot bounced test messages I have to wade through. I didn't give anyone permission to test my mail server's capabilities or configuration, and view this as a form of harassment. Those test messages are worse than spam in my opinion, as they indicate a negative presumption on the part of the sender. Given that I work for a law firm, that kind of thing doesn't sit well.
Our server is running Novell GroupWise 5.5. GW55 has a bit of an oddity - it will accept relay messages even with relaying disabled. If relaying is disabled, these messgages *will* be bounced. They don't check when receiving, they check during a subsequent routing cycle. This is known and documented behavior (both by Novell and some of the black hole lists), and should at most result in the server being flagged as "suspicious".
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Novell or GroupWise. It is at best a woefully inefficient way to handle it. But it's within the rfc, fully disclosed and documented, and specifically accommodated by several of the black hole lists. Others (including ISPs who are attempting to do this themselves) ignore this and implement seriously flawed testing methods, and we get (falsely) branded as an open relay.
The problems arise when the testing scripts assume that if a message is accepted, that the relay is open. Instead of waiting to see if the relayed message is received, we get blacklisted as soon as they succeed in dropping it on our server. Then we have to contact them, explain life to them in intricate detail, and most of the time, they just don't get it. The error is on their part, but the self-righteousness of these people can be astounding.
Damn the vigilantes
on
ORBZ Shuts Down
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I understand the problems caused by spam. I understand how to configure a mail server. I don't understand why so many people line up behind this type of solution - it seems to me to be a case of the cure being worse than the disease.
What gives anyone the right to send any mail to my domain for any reason? Regardless of how poor my software may be, and how poorly configured, why should an outfit like ORBZ not be held responsible for what happens when they probe my system without my knowledge or consent?
My mail system is not an open relay. I'm frequently targeted as being an open relay because many of these vigilantes don't use competent and effective testing procedures. As soon as I end up on the list, I have to explain things that shouldn't need explaining, and we suffer an avalanche as the spammers pick up on the "open relay" list and attempt to route their traffic through our server. I eventually get the blacklisters straightened out, but it usually takes at least 7-10 days per occurrence. In the meantime, I'm getting as many as 2000-3000 pieces of spam per hour.
I'm leaving out technical details here. If anyone cares, I'll be glad to provide them. There are some of these groups that we've never had problems with because their testing methods are better. But the incompetents seem to outnumber them.
I agree that it will be ineffective in terms of its stated purpose. But it allows the state to dictate a list of sites that state residents cannot access. That opens the door.
Hard to believe China is only two states away...he says from DC, on his way home to Virginia.
Isn't this just the standard case of "If you want to use this system as a server, the client systems need licenses."? It seems like what they've always said in the Client Access License department. They didn't say it was prohibited, only that it required a license.
There has been a lot of attention paid to things that look like banks but aren't regulated as such. If they've decided PayPal isn't a bank, how long before someone attempts to link PayPal to terrorism?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/grap hi cs/attack/investigation_45.html
Slashdot Mirror
But we can only do that to spammers outside the US for now. Obviously, Ashcroft still has more work to do before we can apply Taliban tactics domestically without a veil of secrecy.
Amen, brother.
Though there are aids, devices, and treatments, it doesn't appear anyone has patented masturbation yet. I'll get busy on the paperwork...
Remember, Orin Hatch is one of those who "just don't get it" -- or is your memory that short?
I register all my shareware, or uninstall it before the stated evaluation period ends. If you do otherwise, shame.
I do not install unlicensed software in production environments. My personal computer is different, but I still conform to the license requirements or remove the software.
You're talking to sysadmins here -- you'll find relatively few pirates in the bunch. You might rethink your accusations in light of your audience.
If the fuel cells are still in development, and the distribution infrastructure hasn't even been designed, let alone built yet, how can they defend the assumption that 10-20% of the hydrogen in the system would be vented into the atmosphere? In the fuel cells, isn't the hydrogen catalyzed into a solid?
This sounds like an attempt to discredit something that isn't even designed yet, based on bogus assumptions.
Why can't anyone get their terminology right in these articles? Pirates are illegal copies of legitimate works. Bootlegs are illegal original works sold by someone else. If I buy an illegitimate copy of a released album, like Michael Jackson's "Thriller", that is a pirate. If I buy a live concert recording of The Verve, which is officially unreleased, that is a bootleg.
These people are pirating the patterns, and the articles contain tacit admissions that they are breaking the law by copying patterns to avoid paying money for them. This is not bootlegging, this is piracy. Get the terms straight.
My sense is that this does happen, but not usually because of any flaw in the programmers or engineers. More often, it's the result of management not giving more information than is necessary to complete the task.
It's important to take the whole team, as a group, through the big picture. Even if it is just a short overview meeting, there is significant value in making sure that everyone knows that their assignment is part of a larger whole, showing how the pieces are intended to come together, and giving everyone a context for their individual bits.
My experience is that being given all the additional info doesn't take too much time, doesn't overwhelm anyone, and produces far more usable results. Letting everyone work in a vacuum, the other extreme, tends to cause integration nightmares and lots of wild tangents that make sense ONLY in the context of one little bit while working against the overall goals.
I thought that any conditions upon which employment was contingent had to be disclosed prior to hiring. Every time I've taken a job, the various invasions of privacy to which I'd be subject were known before I got there.
It might be worth checking with a lawyer -- not to see whether the requirement is illegal, it's not, but to see whether the requirement can be enforced when it was not disclosed prior to hiring.
One thing they never discuss is how they get wireless networking to work reliably inside shielded metal boxes. They don't address secure spaces, either, which function as tempest enclosures in their own right, and from which any RF emissions would be a violation of opsec. For example, outboard operations is usually at the bottom of the ship, a secure space, a tempest enclosure, and full of electronic warfare components. Just where you'd want a transmitter. Last I checked, AES or Triple-DES were not approved for classified data. Has that changed? If not, can you put an encrypted transmitter for unclassified data in a secure space?
I like the idea of cutting down a destroyer crew from 300 to 90. If they can do that effectively, it would make a huge difference in crew comfort. From this article, though, it sounds like the snipes would be most of those cut, and I wonder what that does to the crew's ability to respond to attacks, accidents, or disasters. On the ship I served on, Engineering was the backbone of shipboard firefighting at sea, and provided the bulk of the repair teams. If you take a missile hit, having a bunch of extra people to put out the fires, deal with the flooding, and so forth would be a real advantage.
Now, if they can get rid of most of Deck, they could really slim down. All that would take is finding paints or finishes that don't require constant maintenance to keep a steel ship from rusting in salt water. They've gone a long way with epoxy-based paints for the hull, but the decks and above-water surfaces didn't get the same treatment.
"Microsoft Windows Operating System"
I'm not sure I want to ride a Windows rollercoaster.
The government has an obligation to release the code it creates and data that it collects into the public domain. Corporations are not only allowed, but encouraged to commercialize government funded research. I think this is a good thing.
The bad thing I see is the interaction between the government's obligation to release code into the public domain and their ability to incorporate open source code, be it under GPL, BSD, or whatever. If you have to release your code into the public domain, incorporating GPL code can be an issue.
A government-wide source repository could address this issue, by allowing only the government-funded portions to be released into the public domain, rather than the entire system. That would allow the goverment to link the licensed components without having to redistribute the derivative works.
Instead of arguing GPL vs BSD, why not step back and release it to public domain without restriction. You can usually achieve this with enough time, patience, and FOIA requests. I'd rather see it codified as public domain explicitly, rather than debating which license is the least restrictive or most appropriate.
That way, both individuals and corporations are free to use it in any way they see fit.
>and it still has, for lack of a better term, a
>metric assload of capacity.
Can someone provide a conversion factor? I live in the US -- and I'm ashamed to admit I don't know the capacity of my own ass.
They say they're going paperless, then they say that students pay for printing after 20 pages.
If they were really going paperless, they'd be outlawing printers, too.
...and I can't really recommend it.
I worked in a 50-user shop, and provided services and equipment to a 200-user shop under contract.
In our case, the only way to get decent specs and meet the client's budget was to roll our own. The other options were too few systems, or systems too cheesy to contemplate. Cheesy as in crap, not as in creamy goodness.
If you go down that path, my suggestion would be to make sure you have confidence in your component choices, and that all your component choices interoperate flawlessly. Any system you have to see again will blow the savings - your first callback or return could be fatal. Make sure you source quality components, and if you're trying to minimize the number of discrete configurations, buy all your components at once.
Spend money on decent cases with good power supplies. Don't yield to the urge to "cheap out" on components that "don't matter" - they all matter. Don't buy cadillac parts, but make sure everything you do buy is good quality, sound, and durable. Keep extra original parts on hand, especially a mobo or two.
Come up with a logo and have the stickers printed - it amazed us how many people would readily accept a brand they'd never heard of, but would never accept an unbranded system.
Your initial problem will be evaluating a number of different hardware options, then settling on those you want to standardize on. Once you get to that point, what do you do with the bastard love children of your prototype period? Don't deploy them to users, you'll water down any faith and confidence your production systems should inspire.
I believe the rules only apply to broadcast outlets. So two different local stations with the same program would be an issue, but a network feed probably wouldn't.
I know that FOX's network feed includes a fair amount of syndicated programming. But when a local cable system carries two different FOX affiliates, both stations' local programming airs, but the cable system blocks one of the two when network programming airs. With cable, this is usually a problem with adjacent markets, like Washington, DC, and Baltimore, MD. With satellite, you potentially multiply that problem by 200.
The point I'd like to make is that the mainstream entertainment companies represent a very small number of the artists and copyright holders, they simply represent those who ship in greatest volume. As a result, they also represent those who are most insulated from the financial impacts of piracy, although they won't admit that.
For the producers of independent films, or non-major-label recordings, this is a much different issue. Most would prefer to get their work to more consumers, not to artifically limit its distribution. In many cases, these are the ones who are most agressively taking advantage or new media, and would be the most directly hurt by the proposed legislation.
There are also bands who allow or encourage their fans to record their shows and allow trading, including electronic trading, as long as there is no commercial use or distribution. As I read it, these practices would be outlawed by this legislation, despite being expressly permitted by the copyright holders.
Not only do the rights of consumers need to be upheld, but the rights of copyright holders who are not part of the RIAA/MPAA axis of evil need to be upheld as well.
I'd love to see this, as my local ABC affiliate is unwilling to carry one of my favorite ABC programs. That was fine when I could get distant stations, but not fine after that loophole was closed. I do see two big problems, though.
First, what about syndication exclusivity? If you can drop non-local stations down in competition with a local station, how do the rules that give stations protection from others airing the same programming have to change?
Second, what about the performance contracts on the commercials? Doesn't this raise the same issue that currently requires stripping many local commercials from the national radio netcasts? Wouldn't the same problem exist with TV?
We've had problems with Earthlink, CWNet, and PacBell among others. These appeared to have been rolling their own solutions, and wrote amateurish scripts. Earthlink dragged on for almost a month, until I posted on /. and they contacted me directly. CWNet took two weeks and a minor threat (we're a law firm). PacBell is so heavily blocked themselves that I can't even get mail to them, we're still blocked six months later.
We've had problems with ORDB, ORBL, DorkSlayers, OsiruSoft, and Selward/XBL. The last was the weirdest, most difficult to contact, and most beligerent. They blacklisted based on accepting the messages, and wouldn't delist until a week passed without receiving the messages - retesting only served to extend the delays. They don't recommend using their list for blackholing, and admit that it would block much legitimate email. Most of the others were straightened out within a week or so, though making initial contact with a human is always the most difficult step.
I will rail against all of them as a class, based on my experiences with the bad ones. I feel justified calling them ALL vigilantes, because the term fits precisely. "One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands."
Even with the ones that don't falesly list us, I'm annoyed at the number ot bounced test messages I have to wade through. I didn't give anyone permission to test my mail server's capabilities or configuration, and view this as a form of harassment. Those test messages are worse than spam in my opinion, as they indicate a negative presumption on the part of the sender. Given that I work for a law firm, that kind of thing doesn't sit well.
Our server is running Novell GroupWise 5.5. GW55 has a bit of an oddity - it will accept relay messages even with relaying disabled. If relaying is disabled, these messgages *will* be bounced. They don't check when receiving, they check during a subsequent routing cycle. This is known and documented behavior (both by Novell and some of the black hole lists), and should at most result in the server being flagged as "suspicious".
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Novell or GroupWise. It is at best a woefully inefficient way to handle it. But it's within the rfc, fully disclosed and documented, and specifically accommodated by several of the black hole lists. Others (including ISPs who are attempting to do this themselves) ignore this and implement seriously flawed testing methods, and we get (falsely) branded as an open relay.
The problems arise when the testing scripts assume that if a message is accepted, that the relay is open. Instead of waiting to see if the relayed message is received, we get blacklisted as soon as they succeed in dropping it on our server. Then we have to contact them, explain life to them in intricate detail, and most of the time, they just don't get it. The error is on their part, but the self-righteousness of these people can be astounding.
I understand the problems caused by spam. I understand how to configure a mail server. I don't understand why so many people line up behind this type of solution - it seems to me to be a case of the cure being worse than the disease.
What gives anyone the right to send any mail to my domain for any reason? Regardless of how poor my software may be, and how poorly configured, why should an outfit like ORBZ not be held responsible for what happens when they probe my system without my knowledge or consent?
My mail system is not an open relay. I'm frequently targeted as being an open relay because many of these vigilantes don't use competent and effective testing procedures. As soon as I end up on the list, I have to explain things that shouldn't need explaining, and we suffer an avalanche as the spammers pick up on the "open relay" list and attempt to route their traffic through our server. I eventually get the blacklisters straightened out, but it usually takes at least 7-10 days per occurrence. In the meantime, I'm getting as many as 2000-3000 pieces of spam per hour.
I'm leaving out technical details here. If anyone cares, I'll be glad to provide them. There are some of these groups that we've never had problems with because their testing methods are better. But the incompetents seem to outnumber them.
I agree that it will be ineffective in terms of its stated purpose. But it allows the state to dictate a list of sites that state residents cannot access. That opens the door.
Hard to believe China is only two states away...he says from DC, on his way home to Virginia.
Isn't this just the standard case of "If you want to use this system as a server, the client systems need licenses."? It seems like what they've always said in the Client Access License department. They didn't say it was prohibited, only that it required a license.
There has been a lot of attention paid to things that look like banks but aren't regulated as such. If they've decided PayPal isn't a bank, how long before someone attempts to link PayPal to terrorism?
p hi cs/attack/investigation_45.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/gra
http://samvak.tripod.com/nm104.html