There's also disproportionately more spam -in- Korean originating from Korean machines advertising for URLs hosted by servers in Korea with Korean content compared to their population or the speakers of their language.
I believe I've gotten more Korean-language spam than the combined count of every other non-English spam judging from character sets used.
I'm not sure that they can control what tech-security companies like eEye (sp?) and Symantec do. If they detect an intrusion in one of their client's systems, and trace it to a flaw in a Microsoft product, they do have an incentive to announce it and drum up more business for themselves.
It might be fair to wonder how "days of risk" took into account the occasional workaround (e.g. vulnerability announced, and it's not patched yet -- but you can secure yourself by shutting down this feature or service etc). In some cases this is possible and more acceptable than letting it run vulnerable.
Hmmmmm. Microsoft has its Patch Tuesday (although if there were something critical that was already widely known, I suspect they'd consider a quicker release), but it would surprise me if Red Hat did not release updates more frequently. Even if they have a regular release schedule (for more regression testing or whatever), it may still be faster to update the Linux box -if- an admin reads the relevant mailing lists and there's either a workaround (disable something until it's patched, for instance) or a patch for another distribution that can be adapted.
But if there were truly no faster reasonable way to update (which I do doubt for the above reasons), it actually would matter because people looking to exploit won't be waiting for your update to be rolled out.
A lot of them do seem to be running SMTP relays, however, judging from the sheer volume of spam that comes from 24.* machines and have 'dsl' in their names.
No; if the out-of-box setup is that vulnerable, it's Red Hat being irresponsible.
I would strongly favor Linux distro producers adopting more of a "shipped locked-down, let the admin open it up" philosophy than a "shipped with everything enabled and damn them for not locking it down if it gets r00ted the next day" philosophy.
...and it's talking about one specific distro, from Red Hat.
Now, I don't run Red Hat Server, and haven't used RH since the 3.0-ish days, but it wouldn't shock me too much if even RH Server's current editions came with significantly more services enabled than strictly necessary (rather than something more like an OpenBSD-style approach where it's shipped locked-down but you can open it up).
In that case, it might be argued that what you've made isn't a copy but a derivative; since your unprotected version clearly (and intentionally!) is different from the original, it's not a copy.
Bear in mind that stealing a TV series from a store is beyond the purview of Federal law -- unless perhaps the store is for whatever reason outside the jurisdiction of any particular state. Might be Federal on military bases for all I know. *shrug*
States have the latitude to set their criminal laws pretty strangely if they like, subject to the usual "cruel and unusual" guidelines and othe restrictions.
Given the popularity of expensive toys such as iPods, Xboxes, and PS2s on college campuses -- yes they can. Hell, it's what -- a few month's worth of a cell-phone plan?
More like offering a business card with contact information than a pushy redirection. After all, the advertisements are separate and only followed voluntarily -- the user need not even read them let alone click on them. There's no 'instead' here.
Criticism and comparison -- even those that make one product look inferior to another -- need not be defamation, nor is it necessarily unfair. To suggest otherwise is absurd.
I don't normally use bold, but the strangeness of your post practically demands it here.
Sure, it's not helpful or informative to run ads such as "Coca-Pepsi blows goats". But pointing out that one manufacturer's cars have a comprehensive warranty of ten years and statistically speaking retain far more of their resale value than a Trabant, or pointing out that somebody offers a hypoallergenic laundry detergent while you're forced to use perfume with everybody else's, or that their particular medication is currently under investigation by the FDA for increasing the risk of liver failure, is certainly more useful than running ads suggesting that they'll help you seduce Laetitia Casta.
Clashing egos / politics, lack of awareness of other projects, different priorities, difficulty.
You might as well ask why many OSS packages don't have particularly polished user interfaces or support for multiple languages. Just because it could be done doesn't mean that it does get done -- and if it's not something that volunteers don't find interesting, there's a good chance that it -won't- get done, because often there's no salary to lose with a boss ready to fire them if they don't.
Providing searches for users is NOT Google's business. Users are not Google's customers, because the users -- unless they pay for subscription services of the sort I'm not sure they even offer yet -- they provide no revenue. For Google, the value of a user is primarily as somebody who might click on an advertisement. If you greatly devalue the value of advertisements by eliminating competition for trademarked terms, and force Google to constantly monitor international trademark lists, you have drastically slashed the value of the customer base.
Eh. Just block connections from.fr, and open up a subscription-only service for France. Google's not a charity; they're not obligated to provide searching for free.
Not telling the difference between regular results and the ads is a very, very different confusion from not telling who placed the ad.
If you got an ad for Toyotas when searching for Ford, would you think that Ford placed the ad? Or that the dealership advertising "Toyota Prius on sale" was trying to sell you a Ford? Unless it's a deliberately misleading ad that -doesn't- identify its placer and purpose, or there was prior confusion in the reader's mind (such as thinking that Toyota were a subsidiary of Ford) the placement itself shouldn't be a problem.
It wouldn't surprise me if Google, Yahoo! / Overture, MSN and others offering keyword-ads all had policies regarding misleading ads.
At least some material has been released for free downloading with the proviso of no unauthorized redistribution. Some software downloads are this way -- if you read the license for a package you may find that the original distributor wants to be the only one permitted to distribute it even if he's not getting paid. Perhaps he's benefiting from bringing users to the site (e.g. for ads and non-free content), perhaps he wants to reduce the risk of somebody releasing bogus/Trojaned versions by casting doubt on anybody else offering the download; other motives are possible, too.
Even in the US, where freedom of speech has a rather prominent place in the law, it's not necessarily 'free speech' just because somebody thinks it is. What you're expressing, if anything at all, does. The Miller test for "is this possibly obscene material protected", for instance, includes both intent (was it prurient?) and artistic merit. Likewise, "free speech" doesn't necessarily cover harassment, or slander, or libel, or public masturbation (no, it's not "performance art"), or the right to force somebody else to listen, and so forth.
You can't really argue that your speech is being suppressed if your page consists primarily of simple factual pointers to other people's content. If you -mentioned- the URL as an important example in an editorial piece along with commentary about the modern legal system and how lawmakers attempt to cope with the Internet society (such as citing this particular case and resolution), you might have better grounds, because it's actually an example that's important to your own article.
One could implement checking against a database of checksums for some of the most commonly shared files; it obviously would not be comprehensive, however.
I'd be more curious as to what they intend to do with all the IPs of users that downloaded the program or perhaps even browsed the site.
You can benefit from this protection during your lifetime. For instance, a publisher might be more willing to market and distribute your work if they're assured that their investment won't become suddenly pointless just because some maniacal ex decided to run over you with her Ford Expedition. If you spend years the Great American Novel and then succumb to a heart attack, your heirs have a chance to be compensated for your pre-mortem efforts. And so forth.
(a) Complete e-commerce shutdown. No connections, no customers, no revenue. Businesses would either pressure the ISP to comply or split if they couldn't break the blacklist.
(b) Other customers pissed off that they can't hit their favorite URLs etc. Again, mass subscriber loss.
One thing that ISPs do understand is bankruptcy. A Korean ISP may shred your complaints and cease-and-desist letters, but losing all their customers is another matter. Violate once, get blacklisted for a while; continue being antisocial, and the blacklist should be permanent until elimination of present management.
Complete blacklist. By "complete", I don't mean merely blocking SMTP traffic; I mean complete. Mere complaints don't hurt them in the pocketbook, but cutting off their entire customer base and driving them away would. Drive one into bankruptcy if necessary. Sooner or later, the message would sink in and the accountants would decide it's economically preferable to act more reasonably.
Slashdot Mirror
There's also disproportionately more spam -in- Korean originating from Korean machines advertising for URLs hosted by servers in Korea with Korean content compared to their population or the speakers of their language.
I believe I've gotten more Korean-language spam than the combined count of every other non-English spam judging from character sets used.
I'm not sure that they can control what tech-security companies like eEye (sp?) and Symantec do. If they detect an intrusion in one of their client's systems, and trace it to a flaw in a Microsoft product, they do have an incentive to announce it and drum up more business for themselves.
It might be fair to wonder how "days of risk" took into account the occasional workaround (e.g. vulnerability announced, and it's not patched yet -- but you can secure yourself by shutting down this feature or service etc). In some cases this is possible and more acceptable than letting it run vulnerable.
Hmmmmm. Microsoft has its Patch Tuesday (although if there were something critical that was already widely known, I suspect they'd consider a quicker release), but it would surprise me if Red Hat did not release updates more frequently. Even if they have a regular release schedule (for more regression testing or whatever), it may still be faster to update the Linux box -if- an admin reads the relevant mailing lists and there's either a workaround (disable something until it's patched, for instance) or a patch for another distribution that can be adapted.
But if there were truly no faster reasonable way to update (which I do doubt for the above reasons), it actually would matter because people looking to exploit won't be waiting for your update to be rolled out.
Ahhhh, your time must be worthless and you work for free, yes?
A lot of them do seem to be running SMTP relays, however, judging from the sheer volume of spam that comes from 24.* machines and have 'dsl' in their names.
Bing. Didn't the NSA look at a particular version?
No; if the out-of-box setup is that vulnerable, it's Red Hat being irresponsible. I would strongly favor Linux distro producers adopting more of a "shipped locked-down, let the admin open it up" philosophy than a "shipped with everything enabled and damn them for not locking it down if it gets r00ted the next day" philosophy.
...and it's talking about one specific distro, from Red Hat.
Now, I don't run Red Hat Server, and haven't used RH since the 3.0-ish days, but it wouldn't shock me too much if even RH Server's current editions came with significantly more services enabled than strictly necessary (rather than something more like an OpenBSD-style approach where it's shipped locked-down but you can open it up).
In that case, it might be argued that what you've made isn't a copy but a derivative; since your unprotected version clearly (and intentionally!) is different from the original, it's not a copy.
Bear in mind that stealing a TV series from a store is beyond the purview of Federal law -- unless perhaps the store is for whatever reason outside the jurisdiction of any particular state. Might be Federal on military bases for all I know. *shrug*
States have the latitude to set their criminal laws pretty strangely if they like, subject to the usual "cruel and unusual" guidelines and othe restrictions.
Given the popularity of expensive toys such as iPods, Xboxes, and PS2s on college campuses -- yes they can. Hell, it's what -- a few month's worth of a cell-phone plan?
More like offering a business card with contact information than a pushy redirection. After all, the advertisements are separate and only followed voluntarily -- the user need not even read them let alone click on them. There's no 'instead' here.
I don't normally use bold, but the strangeness of your post practically demands it here.
Sure, it's not helpful or informative to run ads such as "Coca-Pepsi blows goats". But pointing out that one manufacturer's cars have a comprehensive warranty of ten years and statistically speaking retain far more of their resale value than a Trabant, or pointing out that somebody offers a hypoallergenic laundry detergent while you're forced to use perfume with everybody else's, or that their particular medication is currently under investigation by the FDA for increasing the risk of liver failure, is certainly more useful than running ads suggesting that they'll help you seduce Laetitia Casta.
Wrong.
(1) Ads are separate from search results. They're not replacing them.
(2) They're not hiding the identity of the advertiser or claiming that the advertiser is selling the original product. There's no confusion here.
Clashing egos / politics, lack of awareness of other projects, different priorities, difficulty.
You might as well ask why many OSS packages don't have particularly polished user interfaces or support for multiple languages. Just because it could be done doesn't mean that it does get done -- and if it's not something that volunteers don't find interesting, there's a good chance that it -won't- get done, because often there's no salary to lose with a boss ready to fire them if they don't.
That's silly.
Providing searches for users is NOT Google's business. Users are not Google's customers, because the users -- unless they pay for subscription services of the sort I'm not sure they even offer yet -- they provide no revenue. For Google, the value of a user is primarily as somebody who might click on an advertisement. If you greatly devalue the value of advertisements by eliminating competition for trademarked terms, and force Google to constantly monitor international trademark lists, you have drastically slashed the value of the customer base.
Eh. Just block connections from .fr, and open up a subscription-only service for France. Google's not a charity; they're not obligated to provide searching for free.
Not telling the difference between regular results and the ads is a very, very different confusion from not telling who placed the ad.
If you got an ad for Toyotas when searching for Ford, would you think that Ford placed the ad? Or that the dealership advertising "Toyota Prius on sale" was trying to sell you a Ford? Unless it's a deliberately misleading ad that -doesn't- identify its placer and purpose, or there was prior confusion in the reader's mind (such as thinking that Toyota were a subsidiary of Ford) the placement itself shouldn't be a problem.
It wouldn't surprise me if Google, Yahoo! / Overture, MSN and others offering keyword-ads all had policies regarding misleading ads.
Depends on the license.
At least some material has been released for free downloading with the proviso of no unauthorized redistribution. Some software downloads are this way -- if you read the license for a package you may find that the original distributor wants to be the only one permitted to distribute it even if he's not getting paid. Perhaps he's benefiting from bringing users to the site (e.g. for ads and non-free content), perhaps he wants to reduce the risk of somebody releasing bogus/Trojaned versions by casting doubt on anybody else offering the download; other motives are possible, too.
Even in the US, where freedom of speech has a rather prominent place in the law, it's not necessarily 'free speech' just because somebody thinks it is. What you're expressing, if anything at all, does. The Miller test for "is this possibly obscene material protected", for instance, includes both intent (was it prurient?) and artistic merit. Likewise, "free speech" doesn't necessarily cover harassment, or slander, or libel, or public masturbation (no, it's not "performance art"), or the right to force somebody else to listen, and so forth.
You can't really argue that your speech is being suppressed if your page consists primarily of simple factual pointers to other people's content. If you -mentioned- the URL as an important example in an editorial piece along with commentary about the modern legal system and how lawmakers attempt to cope with the Internet society (such as citing this particular case and resolution), you might have better grounds, because it's actually an example that's important to your own article.
One could implement checking against a database of checksums for some of the most commonly shared files; it obviously would not be comprehensive, however.
I'd be more curious as to what they intend to do with all the IPs of users that downloaded the program or perhaps even browsed the site.
You can benefit from this protection during your lifetime. For instance, a publisher might be more willing to market and distribute your work if they're assured that their investment won't become suddenly pointless just because some maniacal ex decided to run over you with her Ford Expedition. If you spend years the Great American Novel and then succumb to a heart attack, your heirs have a chance to be compensated for your pre-mortem efforts. And so forth.
Ding.
Dropping ALL packets will mean such things as
(a) Complete e-commerce shutdown. No connections, no customers, no revenue. Businesses would either pressure the ISP to comply or split if they couldn't break the blacklist.
(b) Other customers pissed off that they can't hit their favorite URLs etc. Again, mass subscriber loss.
One thing that ISPs do understand is bankruptcy. A Korean ISP may shred your complaints and cease-and-desist letters, but losing all their customers is another matter. Violate once, get blacklisted for a while; continue being antisocial, and the blacklist should be permanent until elimination of present management.
Complete blacklist. By "complete", I don't mean merely blocking SMTP traffic; I mean complete. Mere complaints don't hurt them in the pocketbook, but cutting off their entire customer base and driving them away would. Drive one into bankruptcy if necessary. Sooner or later, the message would sink in and the accountants would decide it's economically preferable to act more reasonably.
Finally, I'll be able to have a copy of the Necronomicon bound the way Abdul Alhazred intended.