It's like asking Mazda to fit the engine from the RX-8 into your home-(re)built VW Beetle.
No it's not, it's like asking Mazda and VolksWagon to publish specifications for their cars so that someone can figure out if an RX 8 engine can be fitted. Car manufacturers do publish specifications of their engines and chassis.
I'm not saying that Microsoft should do anything except publish the format that they store my data in like most other professional companies.
As I said to the last person who said this, show me where in the EULA it said that my data would be stored in a secret file format that can't be opened in other software...
If the user doesn't have word but was sent it? How is this any different to me recieving any file I can't open, eg an AutoCAD or Photoshop file if I don't have either?
The difference is that both the Autocad and Photoshop formats are well documented, which makes it easy to create programs that can interoperate with both of these programs.
The file was created before they switched to Linux? Plan ahead, next time, or install OO.o which does an OK job with word docs.
OO does an OK job of importing word files, it does a crap job of exporting word files, insofar as some files from OO can cause crashes in Word, granted sometimes it seems like sneezing can cause that, making your customer's computer crash every time they try to open a document is not a way to endear them to you.
Considering that most OSS advocates are under the bizarre assumption that everyone can code, the macro/API solution is perfectly valid. You only need one person to do it and release it, anyway. You're saying there's not a single person out there both capable and willing to do this?
That's exactly what I'm saying. It's impossible -no doubt about it to create a perfectly compatible word processor, because Microsoft won't release the specifications to their file format.
Because of Microsoft's EULA it would be illegal for any other software to support an import filter based on information from reverse engineering Word, so the people making software are limited to trying to guess Word's obfuscated format.
How is this hurting you? If you were that concerned about it, you'd not have bought their software. You'd be writing PostScript code in VI...or text in EDLIN...or something.
How the fuck am I supposed to expect anyone to be able to open and edit postscript documents?
I communicate with people in the real world, those people use Microsoft Word, not fucking post script readers. Maybe when you grow up and have to communicate with other people you'll understand.
Then write your data in text form. Or save as RTF. Or write in PostScript...or whatever. If you create something in AutoCad, you expect to be able to open it in AutoCad - anything else that opens is is just a nicety. If you don't like it, too bad.
The thing is, you see that autocad have published their file format because they realise that it's better for their customers that way.
You're happy to pay for proprietary software that will do the things you want it to do. If Office doesn't do that for you, then get something else. You're not being forced to use it. If you have to use it at work as part of your job, well, that's your company's issue - you get to deal.
That's right, and MS Office does all that I need it to and more, the only thing I have an issue with is that my data is locked up in a proprietary format that it's not possible to export verbatim, which wouldn't be a problem if MS made like autodesk and released the specifications to their file format.
But in case you are, they provide a "Save As" feature where you can save it in an open format if you want.
Which open format? RTF? Word only suppports a pathetic subset of the RTF specification, which is itself a very weak format. All tables and even font specifications are stripped out of files saved in RTF format by word.
Word does not correctly interoperate with any other word processing software. It's a fact, and I challenge you to find me another word processor than can fully interoperate with Word. It's simply not possible because Microsoft won't release the specifications for their file format.
Just a little thing called the EULA you probably did not even break stride when agreeing to.
I don't recall reading in their license the part where they told me their formats were secret and that their product would not interoperate properly with other software or future versions of Office.
If you could kindly point out that clause I'd be very grateful.
It's not a free market when I'm compelled to use Word because the people I communicate with are using Word, and competing products can't correctly operate with Word because the file formats are closed.
I'm not going to complain about monopolies, it wouldn't matter if nobody else in the world except the people I need to communicate with used Word, the reality is that I need to be able to rely on my documents being able to be opened and read by a reciever using MS Word, and ONLY MS Word is capable of that.
The thing I find incomprehensible is that Microsoft have so little confidence in their product that they feel they have to behave in this way. Microsoft would probably have me as an Office customer even if they didn't play silly games like this. As it is, it undermines my confidence in their products.
Microsoft is free to change its upgrade policy and prices. It is free to stop supporting older operating systems.
They certainly are, I'm not sure what relevance this has to what I was talking about, but I wholeheartedly agree.
If anything, there is too much backward compatibility in some Microsoft products to the point that the security and performance are affected, but that's a different story.
All of which is as it should be. As a consumer, I have no right to demand that Microsoft suit me, beyond taking my business elsewhere.
I am contending that Microsoft should release the documentation describing how they save my data, I realise that I have little hope of impacting them by myself, but I started out by debating with someone who claimed that people who want Microsoft to make their internal documentation about their file formats public. I felt compelled to put forth my point of view.
However, I think it is a bit much to say that I have to choose between a critical security patch and being able to read all my documents.
I'd agree, and it wouldn't be an issue if Microsoft would simply release the documentation about their file formats.
As mentioned above it's easy to export from one SQL database to another, so it's a bad example.
You seem to think I want microsoft to write a converter for me. I don't. I just want some microserf to release the documentation about the format.
Maybe the clerk would have to run it by legal first.
It's not going to cost a fortune, they just have to put the file up on their website somewhere, and then people will be able to read their file formats and export to them
No other word processor is going to use their format natively, why would they use Microsoft's closed, obfuscated file format when they could use a standard format like the one proposed by the OASIS consortium?
I made a choice to use MS Office as you say, because I wanted to be able to correspond with other people running MS Office.
I would have had other choices if I'd been able to rely on them to be able to produce legible documents when opened in MS Office.
As I live in the real world, a lot of people use Office, so I really had little choice, This wouldn't have been the case if Microsoft would just release what documentation they have on their formats. Not much to ask of the world's richest corporation, who I've already paid copious amounts of money to, surely?
I don't think you're quite 'getting it', I'd like to be able to retrieve my documents as I saved them, without losing formatting, and especially without losing the tables and illustrations.
Which format can you suggest that stores all of the formatting that word is capable of?
All the export formats are poor relations, and the original formatting is inaccessible due to Microsoft's restrictive practices.
Regardless of whether I'm using Microsoft's product voluntarily or not should not give them the right to restrict information that I have stored using their software.
I'm sure plenty of people have started using Microsoft's products without being aware that they are essentially chaining themselves to MS Office forever more, why should this be something that paying customers even have to consider?
It's true that I can access my data in the short term, but in the future I may wish to change to a different office suite or hardware platform or OS for a very good reason.
At that point I will no longer be able to access my data with all it's formatting, because Microsoft are keeping the standard secret, why should I have to worry about that? It benefits nobody except Microsoft to have the standards kept secret.
If you were talking about releasing Microsoft's source code, I could understand your viewpoint with regard to them doing all the work for someone else to reap all the benefits, but we're simply talking about Microsoft releasing information about whatever obfuscated format they're storing their customer's data in.
Why on earth should MS have to make it easy for someone else to rip off their work?
Why should Microsoft have the right to lock up my documents and not tell me how to get my document complete with formatting from their program?
What gives them the right to treat my work in that way after I have already paid them?
I believe that companies should be allowed to take whatever measures they deem neccessary to prevent piracy and reverse-engineering of their software as long as it doesn't hurt customers.
I'm happy to pay for, and use proprietary software, but that does not mean that I want some company to tell me with what software I can open my own data.
I guess you could blame this one on Google, who pretty much had the first desktop search out there. In fact, they'll even sell you a search appliance for your intranet.
You can probably lay the blame squarely at the feet of Dominic Giampaolo, file system guru and developer for the now defunct Be Inc, currently working in the File System and Spotlight groups at Apple. Giampaolo's work was hugely influential to a similar feature to spotlight in BeOS, which relied heavily on advanced features in Giampaolo's BFS filesystem.
In fact, Apple users probably have him to thank for the marked improvements in HFS since his hiring, including journalling and auto defragmentation.
It's actually an issue with firefox interpreting inadvertent horizontal scrolling (easy to do with iscroll2 or the new [USB] trackpads) as back/forward requests. Here's how to fix this intentionally broken behaviour...
From macosxhints.com: In Firefox, type about:config into the address bar and hit return. This gives you a list of all possible configuration options. The ones we want are those that start with mousewheel.horizscroll.withnokey. Make the following changes by double-clicking the appropriate option in the list:
Is that protected speech? And if not, why draw the line here and not at speech intended to protect a company from having information that will financially effect them via soliciting someone to break legal confidences. Both are encouraging someone else to break a law.
Firstly, no one is killed when someone publishes a rumor about the mighty Apple, for you not to be able to tell the difference between killing and violating the NDA shows your level of zealotry is hitting dangerous levels.
But more importantly, none of these sites were breaking any laws, they were publishing unconfirmed information given to them by third parties.
Those third parties were breaking an agreement, not a law, and again NO ONE WAS KILLED, so you can calm down about it.
There's no reason to support Apple or the slimy employees who run straight to the rumor sites every time they see something new. Neither are showing a great deal of ethics at the moment.
But the rumor sites are just publishing information they get from other people, which they should be entitled to do anywhere. They attempted to protect their sources and were told that they had no legal right to withhold that information.
That's the bit that should matter to the rest of us, because it tells normal US citizens that they have no ability to protect sources unless their work is published by a news company.
I, for one, think that political agendas that aim to benefit people at large (and have a track record of success at doing so) are less immoral than corporate agendas that seek to enrich their investors at the expense of unwitting customers.
So you think it's immoral to sell stuff?
Re:No, YOU get real (Was: Re:Get real)
on
Should You Trust MAPS?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
If I were unable to send email to a person because of an email server they operate, and they have personally chosen not to recieve email from my domain because of a blocklist, I'd simply return the favour and drop any return email from that person. Client or not, money or not, important or not.
However, the times when I have problems, there has been no-one anywhere willing to accept responsibility for the fact, and the intended recipient of my email has been an unwitting pawn in some stupid game being played out by people who refuse to accept any liability.
The scenario plays out like this; I try to send an email to a client, only to be informed by their ISPs email server that my IP is blocked by some blocklist or other.
I call the customer's ISP to find out why I'm blocked. I get told that it's blocked by FooList. I go to the FooList site and find my entire/19 has been blocked because one person spammed.
I look around the FooList site, and eventually find out that the entire/19 I'm on has been blocked because someone at FooList decided it was a/19 dialup range, even though everyone on that netblock has a routed static IP.
I call my ISP, who say "the whois information for that/19 is correct, and the customer has been removed, there's nothing more we can do"
I contact FooList, who tell me that I'm behaving exactly as a spammer would and that I'm shit out of luck, and have to wait for FooList's automatic scanning process to complete in two weeks.
I contact said customer by phone/fax and advise them to change ISPs if they want to recieve email, as their current provider is not committed to delivering email, I also advise them to tell any other customers of said ISP to move to a better one that is committed to delivering email.
The people affected by this are; Customer, Me, and customer's former ISP. The people not affected are FooList.
This is why I have a problem with RBLs, because it's rarely those who decide to use the lists that are affected by the outcome. The lists amount to little more than mass libel by people who refuse to take responsibility for how they're used.
I'm glad you got some amusement from my last post, at least it means you read it.:)
Why is it so damn hard to grasp? Realtime Blackhole Lists do not block spam . Administrators and their policies block spam, and they've every right to choose what arrives on their boxes and what doesn't!
You clowns always trot out the same argument when people complain about the so-called service. Hitler didn't actually kill any Jews either, he just enabled his soldiers to do it by giving them concentration camps and gas chambers, so I guess that makes him okay too.
You also totally avoided the point about collateral damage, and it's that blindness that I was trying to highlight with my inflammatory comment (as with the Hitler one above). You're not murdering people thankfully, but there's no way anyone should trust a list published by you as you consider the fact that thousands of IPs are blocked just because of one IPs activity to be acceptable.
Regardless of how you try to phrase things you know how your lists are used, and whether you personally accept responsibility or not, you are directly and personally accountable for the people blocked by your lists when you refuse to remove IPs that have never engaged in spamming.
Just because the people who use your lists are morons doesn't admonish you for your actions. If you can't handle people holding you accountable and calling you a terrorist or an extremist, then perhaps you need to examine your own conduct.
What the original poster was probably referring to is the tendancy of RBLs to misrepresent their accuracy, importance, and popularity to system administrators. Many of whom are too lazy or incompetent to use the lists as a 'greylist' or check that they don't cause more problems than they solve.
Every one of these RBLs should be advising admins not to block according to their rules. People have to remember that the people running these lists are effectively terrorists, using collateral damage as leverage to change the behaviour of organisations that they have no bargaining power with (ISPs).
When Al Qaeda flew 737s into the world trade towers, they didn't care whether any of the people involved were actively involved in harming muslims or the islamic faith, they were trying to influence the government, and bring attention to their cause by causing massive amounts of collateral damage to innocents.
More people should support and endorse any effort to have these blocklists removed from circulation and have the organizations shut down. I for one, would rather recieve spam if the alternative means not recieving emails or not being able to send them.
The ISPs that use these blocklists are not the same ones that are actually affected, most ISPs stop using them once they realise how difficult to get off these lists once they have been added.
I'd be interested to hear from anyone who's been blocked as part of a netblock by one of these lists and fought to be removed, but is still happy to use them.
Remember that you're talking about criminal activity here.
I was lead to believe that the key to being a successful criminal is discretion. To me, that seems somewhat at odds with the idea of recognition for your achievements.
",i>Does anyone know a termial app for the Mac that supports copy to pasteboard on select?
I've tried iTerm which kinda works, you can cut and paste inside the same window but you can't paste to another iTerm window."
I'm still using iTerm 0.7.8, and it's working fine in that version. I can copy and paste between any number of iTerm windows using the X11 method, it also works fine between terminal tabs.
As stated in the article OS X's drag and drop support for text selections is a very handy thing once you come to terms with it.
It provides another method of copy and paste without keyboard interaction, leaving your other hand free to CMD-TAB (but curiously not exposé) to the correct application to drop the text selection into the correct window. Almost as nice as X11:)
Slashdot Mirror
It's like asking Mazda to fit the engine from the RX-8 into your home-(re)built VW Beetle.
No it's not, it's like asking Mazda and VolksWagon to publish specifications for their cars so that someone can figure out if an RX 8 engine can be fitted. Car manufacturers do publish specifications of their engines and chassis.
I'm not saying that Microsoft should do anything except publish the format that they store my data in like most other professional companies.
As I said to the last person who said this, show me where in the EULA it said that my data would be stored in a secret file format that can't be opened in other software...
Except then everyone I know has to buy adobe acrobat or they won't be able to edit the documents I send them.
You're also assuming that everyone has Adobe Reader installed, or has the permissions to install it.
If the user doesn't have word but was sent it? How is this any different to me recieving any file I can't open, eg an AutoCAD or Photoshop file if I don't have either?
The difference is that both the Autocad and Photoshop formats are well documented, which makes it easy to create programs that can interoperate with both of these programs.
The file was created before they switched to Linux? Plan ahead, next time, or install OO.o which does an OK job with word docs.
OO does an OK job of importing word files, it does a crap job of exporting word files, insofar as some files from OO can cause crashes in Word, granted sometimes it seems like sneezing can cause that, making your customer's computer crash every time they try to open a document is not a way to endear them to you.
Considering that most OSS advocates are under the bizarre assumption that everyone can code, the macro/API solution is perfectly valid. You only need one person to do it and release it, anyway. You're saying there's not a single person out there both capable and willing to do this?
That's exactly what I'm saying. It's impossible -no doubt about it to create a perfectly compatible word processor, because Microsoft won't release the specifications to their file format.
Because of Microsoft's EULA it would be illegal for any other software to support an import filter based on information from reverse engineering Word, so the people making software are limited to trying to guess Word's obfuscated format.
No, it's like asking Ford to publish complete specifications to their engines, which they already do.
How is this hurting you? If you were that concerned about it, you'd not have bought their software. You'd be writing PostScript code in VI...or text in EDLIN...or something.
How the fuck am I supposed to expect anyone to be able to open and edit postscript documents?
I communicate with people in the real world, those people use Microsoft Word, not fucking post script readers. Maybe when you grow up and have to communicate with other people you'll understand.
Then write your data in text form. Or save as RTF. Or write in PostScript...or whatever. If you create something in AutoCad, you expect to be able to open it in AutoCad - anything else that opens is is just a nicety. If you don't like it, too bad.
The thing is, you see that autocad have published their file format because they realise that it's better for their customers that way.
You're happy to pay for proprietary software that will do the things you want it to do. If Office doesn't do that for you, then get something else. You're not being forced to use it. If you have to use it at work as part of your job, well, that's your company's issue - you get to deal.
That's right, and MS Office does all that I need it to and more, the only thing I have an issue with is that my data is locked up in a proprietary format that it's not possible to export verbatim, which wouldn't be a problem if MS made like autodesk and released the specifications to their file format.
But in case you are, they provide a "Save As" feature where you can save it in an open format if you want.
Which open format? RTF? Word only suppports a pathetic subset of the RTF specification, which is itself a very weak format. All tables and even font specifications are stripped out of files saved in RTF format by word.
Word does not correctly interoperate with any other word processing software. It's a fact, and I challenge you to find me another word processor than can fully interoperate with Word. It's simply not possible because Microsoft won't release the specifications for their file format.
Just a little thing called the EULA you probably did not even break stride when agreeing to.
I don't recall reading in their license the part where they told me their formats were secret and that their product would not interoperate properly with other software or future versions of Office.
If you could kindly point out that clause I'd be very grateful.
It's not a free market when I'm compelled to use Word because the people I communicate with are using Word, and competing products can't correctly operate with Word because the file formats are closed.
I'm not going to complain about monopolies, it wouldn't matter if nobody else in the world except the people I need to communicate with used Word, the reality is that I need to be able to rely on my documents being able to be opened and read by a reciever using MS Word, and ONLY MS Word is capable of that.
The thing I find incomprehensible is that Microsoft have so little confidence in their product that they feel they have to behave in this way. Microsoft would probably have me as an Office customer even if they didn't play silly games like this. As it is, it undermines my confidence in their products.
Microsoft is free to change its upgrade policy and prices. It is free to stop supporting older operating systems.
They certainly are, I'm not sure what relevance this has to what I was talking about, but I wholeheartedly agree.
If anything, there is too much backward compatibility in some Microsoft products to the point that the security and performance are affected, but that's a different story.
All of which is as it should be. As a consumer, I have no right to demand that Microsoft suit me, beyond taking my business elsewhere.
I am contending that Microsoft should release the documentation describing how they save my data, I realise that I have little hope of impacting them by myself, but I started out by debating with someone who claimed that people who want Microsoft to make their internal documentation about their file formats public. I felt compelled to put forth my point of view.
However, I think it is a bit much to say that I have to choose between a critical security patch and being able to read all my documents.
I'd agree, and it wouldn't be an issue if Microsoft would simply release the documentation about their file formats.
As mentioned above it's easy to export from one SQL database to another, so it's a bad example.
You seem to think I want microsoft to write a converter for me. I don't. I just want some microserf to release the documentation about the format.
Maybe the clerk would have to run it by legal first.
It's not going to cost a fortune, they just have to put the file up on their website somewhere, and then people will be able to read their file formats and export to them
No other word processor is going to use their format natively, why would they use Microsoft's closed, obfuscated file format when they could use a standard format like the one proposed by the OASIS consortium?
I made a choice to use MS Office as you say, because I wanted to be able to correspond with other people running MS Office.
I would have had other choices if I'd been able to rely on them to be able to produce legible documents when opened in MS Office.
As I live in the real world, a lot of people use Office, so I really had little choice, This wouldn't have been the case if Microsoft would just release what documentation they have on their formats. Not much to ask of the world's richest corporation, who I've already paid copious amounts of money to, surely?
I don't think you're quite 'getting it', I'd like to be able to retrieve my documents as I saved them, without losing formatting, and especially without losing the tables and illustrations.
Which format can you suggest that stores all of the formatting that word is capable of?
All the export formats are poor relations, and the original formatting is inaccessible due to Microsoft's restrictive practices.
Regardless of whether I'm using Microsoft's product voluntarily or not should not give them the right to restrict information that I have stored using their software.
I'm sure plenty of people have started using Microsoft's products without being aware that they are essentially chaining themselves to MS Office forever more, why should this be something that paying customers even have to consider?
It's true that I can access my data in the short term, but in the future I may wish to change to a different office suite or hardware platform or OS for a very good reason.
At that point I will no longer be able to access my data with all it's formatting, because Microsoft are keeping the standard secret, why should I have to worry about that? It benefits nobody except Microsoft to have the standards kept secret.
If you were talking about releasing Microsoft's source code, I could understand your viewpoint with regard to them doing all the work for someone else to reap all the benefits, but we're simply talking about Microsoft releasing information about whatever obfuscated format they're storing their customer's data in.
Is that really too much to ask?
Why on earth should MS have to make it easy for someone else to rip off their work?
Why should Microsoft have the right to lock up my documents and not tell me how to get my document complete with formatting from their program?
What gives them the right to treat my work in that way after I have already paid them?
I believe that companies should be allowed to take whatever measures they deem neccessary to prevent piracy and reverse-engineering of their software as long as it doesn't hurt customers.
I'm happy to pay for, and use proprietary software, but that does not mean that I want some company to tell me with what software I can open my own data.
you bastard.
I guess you could blame this one on Google, who pretty much had the first desktop search out there. In fact, they'll even sell you a search appliance for your intranet.
You can probably lay the blame squarely at the feet of Dominic Giampaolo, file system guru and developer for the now defunct Be Inc, currently working in the File System and Spotlight groups at Apple. Giampaolo's work was hugely influential to a similar feature to spotlight in BeOS, which relied heavily on advanced features in Giampaolo's BFS filesystem.
In fact, Apple users probably have him to thank for the marked improvements in HFS since his hiring, including journalling and auto defragmentation.
It's actually an issue with firefox interpreting inadvertent horizontal scrolling (easy to do with iscroll2 or the new [USB] trackpads) as back/forward requests. Here's how to fix this intentionally broken behaviour...
From macosxhints.com:
In Firefox, type about:config into the address bar and hit return. This gives you a list of all possible configuration options. The ones we want are those that start with mousewheel.horizscroll.withnokey. Make the following changes by double-clicking the appropriate option in the list:
* mousewheel.horizscroll.withnokey.action => 0
* mousewheel.horizscroll.withnokey.sysnumlines => true
Is that protected speech? And if not, why draw the line here and not at speech intended to protect a company from having information that will financially effect them via soliciting someone to break legal confidences. Both are encouraging someone else to break a law.
Firstly, no one is killed when someone publishes a rumor about the mighty Apple, for you not to be able to tell the difference between killing and violating the NDA shows your level of zealotry is hitting dangerous levels.
But more importantly, none of these sites were breaking any laws, they were publishing unconfirmed information given to them by third parties.
Those third parties were breaking an agreement, not a law, and again NO ONE WAS KILLED, so you can calm down about it.
There's no reason to support Apple or the slimy employees who run straight to the rumor sites every time they see something new. Neither are showing a great deal of ethics at the moment.
But the rumor sites are just publishing information they get from other people, which they should be entitled to do anywhere. They attempted to protect their sources and were told that they had no legal right to withhold that information.
That's the bit that should matter to the rest of us, because it tells normal US citizens that they have no ability to protect sources unless their work is published by a news company.
I, for one, think that political agendas that aim to benefit people at large (and have a track record of success at doing so) are less immoral than corporate agendas that seek to enrich their investors at the expense of unwitting customers.
So you think it's immoral to sell stuff?
If I were unable to send email to a person because of an email server they operate, and they have personally chosen not to recieve email from my domain because of a blocklist, I'd simply return the favour and drop any return email from that person. Client or not, money or not, important or not.
/19 has been blocked because one person spammed.
/19 I'm on has been blocked because someone at FooList decided it was a /19 dialup range, even though everyone on that netblock has a routed static IP.
/19 is correct, and the customer has been removed, there's nothing more we can do"
:)
However, the times when I have problems, there has been no-one anywhere willing to accept responsibility for the fact, and the intended recipient of my email has been an unwitting pawn in some stupid game being played out by people who refuse to accept any liability.
The scenario plays out like this; I try to send an email to a client, only to be informed by their ISPs email server that my IP is blocked by some blocklist or other.
I call the customer's ISP to find out why I'm blocked. I get told that it's blocked by FooList. I go to the FooList site and find my entire
I look around the FooList site, and eventually find out that the entire
I call my ISP, who say "the whois information for that
I contact FooList, who tell me that I'm behaving exactly as a spammer would and that I'm shit out of luck, and have to wait for FooList's automatic scanning process to complete in two weeks.
I contact said customer by phone/fax and advise them to change ISPs if they want to recieve email, as their current provider is not committed to delivering email, I also advise them to tell any other customers of said ISP to move to a better one that is committed to delivering email.
The people affected by this are; Customer, Me, and customer's former ISP. The people not affected are FooList.
This is why I have a problem with RBLs, because it's rarely those who decide to use the lists that are affected by the outcome. The lists amount to little more than mass libel by people who refuse to take responsibility for how they're used.
I'm glad you got some amusement from my last post, at least it means you read it.
Why is it so damn hard to grasp? Realtime Blackhole Lists do not block spam . Administrators and their policies block spam, and they've every right to choose what arrives on their boxes and what doesn't!
You clowns always trot out the same argument when people complain about the so-called service. Hitler didn't actually kill any Jews either, he just enabled his soldiers to do it by giving them concentration camps and gas chambers, so I guess that makes him okay too.
You also totally avoided the point about collateral damage, and it's that blindness that I was trying to highlight with my inflammatory comment (as with the Hitler one above). You're not murdering people thankfully, but there's no way anyone should trust a list published by you as you consider the fact that thousands of IPs are blocked just because of one IPs activity to be acceptable.
Regardless of how you try to phrase things you know how your lists are used, and whether you personally accept responsibility or not, you are directly and personally accountable for the people blocked by your lists when you refuse to remove IPs that have never engaged in spamming.
Just because the people who use your lists are morons doesn't admonish you for your actions. If you can't handle people holding you accountable and calling you a terrorist or an extremist, then perhaps you need to examine your own conduct.
What the original poster was probably referring to is the tendancy of RBLs to misrepresent their accuracy, importance, and popularity to system administrators. Many of whom are too lazy or incompetent to use the lists as a 'greylist' or check that they don't cause more problems than they solve.
Every one of these RBLs should be advising admins not to block according to their rules. People have to remember that the people running these lists are effectively terrorists, using collateral damage as leverage to change the behaviour of organisations that they have no bargaining power with (ISPs).
When Al Qaeda flew 737s into the world trade towers, they didn't care whether any of the people involved were actively involved in harming muslims or the islamic faith, they were trying to influence the government, and bring attention to their cause by causing massive amounts of collateral damage to innocents.
More people should support and endorse any effort to have these blocklists removed from circulation and have the organizations shut down. I for one, would rather recieve spam if the alternative means not recieving emails or not being able to send them.
The ISPs that use these blocklists are not the same ones that are actually affected, most ISPs stop using them once they realise how difficult to get off these lists once they have been added.
I'd be interested to hear from anyone who's been blocked as part of a netblock by one of these lists and fought to be removed, but is still happy to use them.
Remember that you're talking about criminal activity here.
I was lead to believe that the key to being a successful criminal is discretion. To me, that seems somewhat at odds with the idea of recognition for your achievements.
",i>Does anyone know a termial app for the Mac that supports copy to pasteboard on select?
:)
I've tried iTerm which kinda works, you can cut and paste inside the same window but you can't paste to another iTerm window."
I'm still using iTerm 0.7.8, and it's working fine in that version. I can copy and paste between any number of iTerm windows using the X11 method, it also works fine between terminal tabs.
As stated in the article OS X's drag and drop support for text selections is a very handy thing once you come to terms with it.
It provides another method of copy and paste without keyboard interaction, leaving your other hand free to CMD-TAB (but curiously not exposé) to the correct application to drop the text selection into the correct window. Almost as nice as X11