I like the idea of a counter-suit. News like this should help prevent companies such as DirecTV from indiscriminately suing people because there's a small chance that they're guilty.
If people continue to fight these lawsuits and counter-sue, rather than just settle, then these companies will be discouraged from these rages in the future because it will end up costing them more in dollars & negative PR than it's worth.
I think it's about time the US caught up with the rest of the world and ditched these stupid and difficult-to-remember units once and for all.
Should we throw away everything with an English thread away?
We need to replace ALL of our sockets & drivers (yes, even the metric ones, because they're still 3/8", 1/2", or some other English drive size).
Want me to tear down my house because it's built to English specs too?
What about my water pump that's rated in psi?
My computer case needs to go because it's English dimension and has English threads.
I could go on a very long time, the fact is we can't just ditch these stupid and difficult-to-remember units. It will take a very long time.
Has anyone publicly released a report on SPF? I'd imagine AOL must have commissioned one to look at pros on cons of its use. Government agencies, among others, are probably doing the same.
You should use AOL's mail servers to send mail from an AOL account. Using your ISP's mail server is a retarded way to do it
My email provider is in the US. I'm visiting family in Australia and I want to send an email to them.
Method 1. Use my ISPs mailserver.
I send the mail to a mailserver 2 hops away, which gets sent to another mailserver 4 hops away, which is checked 2 hops away.
Method 2. Use my email provider's mailserver (the "retarded way", as you define it).
I send the mail to a mailserver 20 hops away, which gets sent to another mailserver 20 hops away, which is checked 2 hops away.
No big deal? I beg to differ.
What if I'm sending a 50mb attachment? My connection to the mailserver 2 hops away from me is almost assuredly better than the one 20 hops away. Less connection time = less resources = less money.
The solution here is to leave the From: header to match the ISP and the Reply-To: header to be where you want to receive mail. (or this Sender: header method discussed with SPF)
Your company is required by law to protect information about your customers and employees. If someone can sit there and crack a username/password as easily as you say, they may already have access to this sensitive information. If they don't, they're half way to rooting the machine now that they have local user access.
I'd be much more worried about this than someone sending spam through your relay.
Has anyone found an e-mail client that automatically signs all outgoing mail and decrypts all incoming mail? That way you just point your client at your private & public key, and use email as you do now (with the ability to filter unsigned mail, as ou mentioned).
Problem is this.
1) Spammers start signing mail with random keys. You now have to setup a whitelist anyway.
2) People change machines, harddrive failure, incompetence, etc. and lose their private key. They have to get a new one, and you need to reverify that this is actually them.
Most people will just hit ENTER on this "Security dialog" and read their mail as usual.
Please propose (or name) a solution that would prevent this trojan horse from sending spam. I think you'll have difficulty with that.
There are many possibilities for ISPs to detect these trojan horses as they appear.
1. See if specific ports are open (used by the TH author to command the machine)
2. Have an algorithm check email-sending patterns (especially many emails in a small period of time) and flag these accounts.
These detection possibilites have pros and cons, but even if none of this is used, the end result with SPF is better than the current result without SPF.
But SPF records don't prevent you from using your ISP's mail servers to send mail from anywhere, as long as you authenticate with them.
No. Imagine the following.
- I use my ISP's mailserver to send mail from thedillybar@aol.com.
- An SPF-aware mailserver receives it.
- It verifies aol.com's SPF record, and finds that smtp.myisp.com [1.2.3.4] isn't listed as the SPF record.
- Mailserver rejects the mail.
It doesn't just verify 'smtp.myisp.com' has a record with 'myisp.com'. If it did, spammers could keep registering domains and sending mail from them. Then we must deal with the issue of trusting a centralized system to define valid/invalid domains, something which I'd rather not do.
Good idea, but the default port for SMTP over SSL is still port 25. If your ISP blocks it, you're not going to be able to use your email providers authenticated SMTP.
BUT, you can:
1) Complain to your ISP about opening port 25 (which will have some success once SPF widely adopted).
2) Use AOL's webmail interface (or telnet, ssh, etc. for other email providers)
ISPs already control who sends mail from where. I know of ISPs who block port 25 incoming & outgoing (except to their SMTP server).
How is this any different?
You can work-around either by using VPN or something similar.
If you don't like the way your ISP handles it, complain or switch ISPs, just like you would now. ISPs aren't regulated. And if they were you'd be complaining about something else. Deal with it.
SPF should work very well for the time being, much more effective than any algorithm that looks at a message and tries to determine whether or not it's spam.
If you're employed by the IT industry, you should support taxpayer money being spent in the IT industry.
After all, the government isn't just taking taxpayers money and spending it. They're taking our money and then giving it back to us (once we work for it).
Either they spend it on cool reports like this, or they spend it on something else and it goes to somebody else. Not only is it financially supporting the industry, it's also providing us with some useful information.
However, I don't understand why they kept saying that moving the rover off the lander was "dangerous"...
but why was that more dangerous than just driving over the surface?
I don't recall them saying it was more dangerous. I think they just said that it was dangerous.
I, for one, would consider almost any maneuver by the rover to be dangerous. After all, this is the first time those components have experienced leaving the Earth's atmosphere, existing in Mars' atmosphere, and everything in between.
Many things could go wrong, let's hope they take their time and do it right. To consider any of this to be routine would be a blunder.
I noticed this happening yesterday on my WinXP machine. After clicking Start->Programs and right-clicking on any icon, c:\windows\explorer.exe attempts to connect to crl.verisign.com [198.49.161.200], port 80.
As the article states, this also resolves to some unroutable IPs:
198.49.161.205
198.49.161.206
10.0.0.1
10.0.0.2
10.0.0.3
64.94.110.11
198.49.161.200
Windows Explorer also appears to freeze (at least temporarily) if a firewall (or presumably a lack of Internet connection) prevents this from being made. It's possible, however, that if crl.verisign.com will not resolve, it will not freeze as it will if it resolves but cannot connect. Unfortunately, this is still a problem even if you have an Internet connection because of the stability (or lack thereof) of the Verisign site.
Already I have seen DVD rips of an entire set of DVDs, making it more than 10 GB. Even with 10mbps it will take some time to download.
How does this justify your first statement? It seems that say, a bandwidth of 10 GB/s would be feasible...
I don't think it's fair to say that movies will keep increasing in size as bandwidth and storage increases. The current quality of DVD is so good, it's almost limited as much by the TV (even if it's HD) than the DVD. And how much more image quality can they get from the cameras anyway?
If NASA had hi-res images of the Columbia after it reached outer space, they may have been able to prevent the disaster upon re-entry.
Maybe they're taking pictures of the robot to verify the functionality of its various components. And I would imagine they DID take hi-res images of it prior to launch, for comparison among other reasons.
I live in Michigan and it'd really be nice if you let all of us know what in the hell you are talking about.
I've seen plenty of movies in and out of state and I think you're crazy. Go to a better theater.
Re:OK maybe I'm just stupid...
on
Equine Speedometers
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Due to the human error presented by stopwatches, the interval size must be large. This means that an average speed can be determined, but instantaneous speeds and accelerations at a given point are EXTREMELY difficult to monitor with a stopwatch.
However, a GPS can determine the horse's position on Earth accurately on very small intervals (say, 0.1 seconds). This data can be analyzed to determine the horse's near-instantaneous speed and acceleration at many points throughout the horse's workout.
Furthermore, this allows training to occur in places where the distances aren't already known. For example, off the track. This helps the horses mentally, just like it helps human athletes. Not many people want to run 40 laps on a track everyday. I doubt horses do either...
While taking a physics class at the University of Michigan, I was required to sign up for an "online homework" website. It was 30 some dollars, and was considered homework for the class (i.e. you take the class, you sign up and pay).
Sure enough, their Terms of Service require me to prevent others from obtaining my login/password. It goes on to say that if someone steals it, there is basically no way to reverse their actions.
Fine. Except for the fact that after signing up, they immediately e-mail me my password in plaintext. There's no SSL whatsoever on the site, and no way whatsoever to change my password.
After e-mailing the company involved, I was simply informed that the site will not be changed. I complained to both the professor and the University. Apparently no one pays attention to this, or they just don't care enough to do something about it. What else can I do? (besides leave the University, obviously)
To this day, I can not figure out how to change your eBay password over an SSL connection. Sure, you can login via SSL, but you can't send you new password over SSL.
This kind of defeats the purpose of using SSL. Once it's sent in plaintext, it's not secure.
Slashdot Mirror
If people continue to fight these lawsuits and counter-sue, rather than just settle, then these companies will be discouraged from these rages in the future because it will end up costing them more in dollars & negative PR than it's worth.
As far as I can tell, this virus is not licensed under the GPL, and I can't find the source for it anywhere...
Should we throw away everything with an English thread away?
We need to replace ALL of our sockets & drivers (yes, even the metric ones, because they're still 3/8", 1/2", or some other English drive size).
Want me to tear down my house because it's built to English specs too?
What about my water pump that's rated in psi?
My computer case needs to go because it's English dimension and has English threads.
I could go on a very long time, the fact is we can't just ditch these stupid and difficult-to-remember units. It will take a very long time.
Anyone that can provide us with a link?
My email provider is in the US. I'm visiting family in Australia and I want to send an email to them.
Method 1. Use my ISPs mailserver.
I send the mail to a mailserver 2 hops away, which gets sent to another mailserver 4 hops away, which is checked 2 hops away.
Method 2. Use my email provider's mailserver (the "retarded way", as you define it).
I send the mail to a mailserver 20 hops away, which gets sent to another mailserver 20 hops away, which is checked 2 hops away.
No big deal? I beg to differ.
What if I'm sending a 50mb attachment? My connection to the mailserver 2 hops away from me is almost assuredly better than the one 20 hops away. Less connection time = less resources = less money.
The solution here is to leave the From: header to match the ISP and the Reply-To: header to be where you want to receive mail. (or this Sender: header method discussed with SPF)
Your company is required by law to protect information about your customers and employees. If someone can sit there and crack a username/password as easily as you say, they may already have access to this sensitive information. If they don't, they're half way to rooting the machine now that they have local user access.
I'd be much more worried about this than someone sending spam through your relay.
Has anyone found an e-mail client that automatically signs all outgoing mail and decrypts all incoming mail? That way you just point your client at your private & public key, and use email as you do now (with the ability to filter unsigned mail, as ou mentioned).
Problem is this.
1) Spammers start signing mail with random keys. You now have to setup a whitelist anyway.
2) People change machines, harddrive failure, incompetence, etc. and lose their private key. They have to get a new one, and you need to reverify that this is actually them.
Most people will just hit ENTER on this "Security dialog" and read their mail as usual.
There are many possibilities for ISPs to detect these trojan horses as they appear.
1. See if specific ports are open (used by the TH author to command the machine)
2. Have an algorithm check email-sending patterns (especially many emails in a small period of time) and flag these accounts.
These detection possibilites have pros and cons, but even if none of this is used, the end result with SPF is better than the current result without SPF.
No. Imagine the following.
- I use my ISP's mailserver to send mail from thedillybar@aol.com.
- An SPF-aware mailserver receives it.
- It verifies aol.com's SPF record, and finds that smtp.myisp.com [1.2.3.4] isn't listed as the SPF record.
- Mailserver rejects the mail.
It doesn't just verify 'smtp.myisp.com' has a record with 'myisp.com'. If it did, spammers could keep registering domains and sending mail from them. Then we must deal with the issue of trusting a centralized system to define valid/invalid domains, something which I'd rather not do.
BUT, you can:
1) Complain to your ISP about opening port 25 (which will have some success once SPF widely adopted).
2) Use AOL's webmail interface (or telnet, ssh, etc. for other email providers)
How is this any different?
You can work-around either by using VPN or something similar.
If you don't like the way your ISP handles it, complain or switch ISPs, just like you would now. ISPs aren't regulated. And if they were you'd be complaining about something else. Deal with it.
SPF should work very well for the time being, much more effective than any algorithm that looks at a message and tries to determine whether or not it's spam.
Sounds a lot like safe mode to me. Let's hope it works a hell of a let better than safe mode or we're screwed.
That's why you're not an engineer for NASA. You worry about the little things or you stand on the sideline and watch.
After all, the government isn't just taking taxpayers money and spending it. They're taking our money and then giving it back to us (once we work for it).
Either they spend it on cool reports like this, or they spend it on something else and it goes to somebody else. Not only is it financially supporting the industry, it's also providing us with some useful information.
but why was that more dangerous than just driving over the surface?
I don't recall them saying it was more dangerous. I think they just said that it was dangerous.
I, for one, would consider almost any maneuver by the rover to be dangerous. After all, this is the first time those components have experienced leaving the Earth's atmosphere, existing in Mars' atmosphere, and everything in between.
Many things could go wrong, let's hope they take their time and do it right. To consider any of this to be routine would be a blunder.
maybe...
Already I have seen DVD rips of an entire set of DVDs, making it more than 10 GB. Even with 10mbps it will take some time to download.
How does this justify your first statement? It seems that say, a bandwidth of 10 GB/s would be feasible...
I don't think it's fair to say that movies will keep increasing in size as bandwidth and storage increases. The current quality of DVD is so good, it's almost limited as much by the TV (even if it's HD) than the DVD. And how much more image quality can they get from the cameras anyway?
By the time it starts loading, the damage is already done.
If your Exchange client automatically attempts to fetch the image, you prevent it from doing so with a firewall.
The decision is still yours to make, it just takes a little more work.
Who knows what Verisign will do when someone scans an "unregistered" barcode...
If NASA had hi-res images of the Columbia after it reached outer space, they may have been able to prevent the disaster upon re-entry.
Maybe they're taking pictures of the robot to verify the functionality of its various components. And I would imagine they DID take hi-res images of it prior to launch, for comparison among other reasons.
I've seen plenty of movies in and out of state and I think you're crazy. Go to a better theater.
However, a GPS can determine the horse's position on Earth accurately on very small intervals (say, 0.1 seconds). This data can be analyzed to determine the horse's near-instantaneous speed and acceleration at many points throughout the horse's workout.
Furthermore, this allows training to occur in places where the distances aren't already known. For example, off the track. This helps the horses mentally, just like it helps human athletes. Not many people want to run 40 laps on a track everyday. I doubt horses do either...
While taking a physics class at the University of Michigan, I was required to sign up for an "online homework" website. It was 30 some dollars, and was considered homework for the class (i.e. you take the class, you sign up and pay).
Sure enough, their Terms of Service require me to prevent others from obtaining my login/password. It goes on to say that if someone steals it, there is basically no way to reverse their actions.
Fine. Except for the fact that after signing up, they immediately e-mail me my password in plaintext. There's no SSL whatsoever on the site, and no way whatsoever to change my password.
After e-mailing the company involved, I was simply informed that the site will not be changed. I complained to both the professor and the University. Apparently no one pays attention to this, or they just don't care enough to do something about it. What else can I do? (besides leave the University, obviously)
To this day, I can not figure out how to change your eBay password over an SSL connection. Sure, you can login via SSL, but you can't send you new password over SSL.
This kind of defeats the purpose of using SSL. Once it's sent in plaintext, it's not secure.