In my area at least, the router itself uses PPPoE to obtain an IP address, and all the machines within are routed through it, so the computers themselves don't have to deal with PPPoE.
No, it wouldn't help to stop spam in general, but I don't think that's the goal. The goal is to prevent forgery of email addresses, and pgp signatures can do that on an individual basis, which is what I believe the original poster asked.
If you want to sign your own mail, why not use PGP? Unlike this, it's already in widespread use, independent of the server providing service (unless you use webmail, in which case it would be a bit tougher).
There's no reason http can't be used in a similar way.. it just isn't. I'm always disappointed to see web pages becoming more and more difficult to navigate, all the while growing in byte count for the same amout of actual content. I've played around with a gopher server, and I would use it for real stuff if I thought anyone would actually use it.
people challenge the validity of intellectual property to the inverse degree that they have produced intellectual property. I'm not sure what I think of this. Many of those who have worked in creating valuable data may be in favor of "protecting" it, but what's the reasoning behind this? Greed? Fear of misuse? In any case, the reasons will not match those for protecting personal property.
I can pretty accurately surmise that you've never produced anything of value in the form of an intangible asset. Well, I'm not going to try to argue with that.
I'm wrong in that by denying the validity of so-called "intellectual property", I am making a statement that is not consistent with existing laws, and indeed, dictionary definitions. If everybody agreed with me, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.
Citing sources considered by many (probably yourself) to be fact is not necessary, as they are already well-known.
Unless we each have new information, let's end this here.
A typical argument is "You copy the CD, the original owner still has the CD! So, what am I stealing?".
I never attempted to claim that duplicating copyrighted material without permission is not illegal. It is. But it should be defined as the crime it is, not mislabelled for the purpose of gaining attention.
It's stealing because if unrestricted copying was made legal, you'd "steal" the earning potential of the works in question. I don't entirely disagree with the fact that earning potential is decreased when the work is duplicated and redistributed, but there are a couple problems here.. 1) It's still not stealing, regardless of indirect negative impacts on sales. It's a crime, but it's not the theft of an object. 2) There is no guarantee that everyone who downloads the file had been planning on purchasing a CD containing it. Otherwise,
Of course, it's convenient to bury your head in the sand, and come with with all kinds of (rediculous) arguments as to why this is not so, but that's the naked truth. My arguments here, properly interpreted, are likely to be agreed upon even by those whose opinions on the laws themselves vary.
just as a follow-up.. take the following two scenarios: Joe sells apples. I steal one of Joe's apples. Joe has lost one apple. OR Joe sells apples. I buy one apple, then use its seeds to grow an apple tree, giving my apples away to others.
The answer to this is fairly simple: it only requires payment because the laws are not based on material, but on information. Duplicating copyrighted information without permission is of course illegal, but it does not constitute stealing. More accurate terms may be "copyright infringement" or "illegal copying of data". The word "steal" implies a loss of some sort, while illegal duplication of data causes no direct loss to anyone, since the provider is in fact willingly giving it to others, and the copyright-holder doesn't lose their copy of it (as would be the case with physical items).
Every time the word "steal" in this context, it is demonstrated that the speaker is ignorantly trying to apply the definition of a crime in which a possession is taken from its rightful owner against his/her will to a completely different crime, based on artificial restrictions that at least some people believe to be unjust.
Ah, I wasn't aware of that option, but I guess it's no surprise that it exists. I wasn't really meaning to criticize tar so much as emphasize the value of such a feature.
Maybe I'm wrong on this one, but it seems to me like the resource fork is on the way out. How many of your applications/files actually use the resource fork in OS X? The primary exception seems to be OS 9 stuff.
For Linux/FreeBSD/etc.
on
Backups to CD-R?
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
I use cpio, tar, and/or pax to archive files into a big ball, then encrypt that ball and burn it to CD (suitable for storing in an untrusted location). tar has builtin date checking, to determine which files need to be backed up, but cpio and pax are much more flexible in that they take a list of files from stdin, so you can use a more advanced routine to determine which files have changed.
I wrote a little shell script to wrap this all into a convenient command, and I'm sure many others have as well.
ISPs can't and shouldn't be expected to police their customers,
I agreed with you until this point... Although holding ISP's legally responsible for their customer's actions is taking things way too far, there still needs to be some way to actually deal with abusive customers. I'm not talking specifically about copyright violators (that varies from person to person), but if the customer is in violation of the ISP's AUP, they should be taken care of by the provider. It's quite likely that illegally distributing copyrighted material violates most ISPs' acceptable use policies.
There's a difference between being helpful/responsive and downright irresponsible. When I communicate with an ISP or other service provider regarding one of their customers, I expect them to fully investigate the matter, take whatever action is necessary, and send me a reply within a week or two. I'm sure they're quite busy handling all sorts of emails, and the fastest responder isn't necessarily the one who's doing the best job.
Although I am by no means in favor of requiring web designers to build their documents a certain way, there are plenty of good reasons to do so that will not only benefit the disabled, but also those using text-browsers or special clients that take advantage of the structure of a page to display only the parts of interest to the user.
If web designers focused more on the information they want to deliver rather than its appearance, this would be less of an issue.
I'm not sure how this would be an issue, since CNAME records at the domain name's (example.com) nameservers should be able to point to yourname.dyndns.org with no problem, regardless of what kinds of records the dynamic DNS service offers (or doesn't offer).
Well, this certainly sounds like a good thing for many people, but because it's been described as "firewall" and not a "server-side filter", I certainly hope it wouldn't be set up at major ISPs to intercept all smtp traffic going through.
I don't think anyone who would be interested in this kind of keyboard would be too lazy/stupid to flip a switch on the back of the keyboard. Additionally, I'm sure plenty of people (err, me) would refuse to install that sort of bundled software in the first place. Besides, if the OS is capable of running that software to control the keyboard, it's probably capable of re-mapping the keys on its own.
I currently have a pair of IBM Model M keyboards at my computer table, and they're basically what you said: ordinary keyboards, but without Windows keys... oh, and they're huge and clicky.:)
Anyway, there are lots of other, more normal keyboards without Windows keys. I'm looking at a "Compaq"-labelled one right now.
What, you're not satisfied with fortune and nethack?;)
Really, I suppose it's true that one of the few things left in the world that Windows is needed for (by some people) is games. Software like OpenOffice, GNOME, etc. would only take getting used to in a transition, but games are unique in that they are designed to entertain, not to perform a task.
Or you could try to distance yourself from modern-ish computer games. I play prboom and Maelstrom sometimes. Other times I use my operating systems as games.
Slashdot Mirror
There are actually many games that are either written for or will run on Linux. Just go to the sourceforge games section and see for yourself.
In my area at least, the router itself uses PPPoE to obtain an IP address, and all the machines within are routed through it, so the computers themselves don't have to deal with PPPoE.
No, it wouldn't help to stop spam in general, but I don't think that's the goal. The goal is to prevent forgery of email addresses, and pgp signatures can do that on an individual basis, which is what I believe the original poster asked.
If you want to sign your own mail, why not use PGP? Unlike this, it's already in widespread use, independent of the server providing service (unless you use webmail, in which case it would be a bit tougher).
Who do they think they are, not prepending "X-" to their weird headers?
There's no reason http can't be used in a similar way.. it just isn't.
I'm always disappointed to see web pages becoming more and more difficult to navigate, all the while growing in byte count for the same amout of actual content.
I've played around with a gopher server, and I would use it for real stuff if I thought anyone would actually use it.
people challenge the validity of intellectual property to the inverse degree that they have produced intellectual property.
I'm not sure what I think of this. Many of those who have worked in creating valuable data may be in favor of "protecting" it, but what's the reasoning behind this? Greed? Fear of misuse? In any case, the reasons will not match those for protecting personal property.
I can pretty accurately surmise that you've never produced anything of value in the form of an intangible asset.
Well, I'm not going to try to argue with that.
Wrong again
I'm wrong in that by denying the validity of so-called "intellectual property", I am making a statement that is not consistent with existing laws, and indeed, dictionary definitions. If everybody agreed with me, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.
Citing sources considered by many (probably yourself) to be fact is not necessary, as they are already well-known.
Unless we each have new information, let's end this here.
A typical argument is "You copy the CD, the original owner still has the CD! So, what am I stealing?".
I never attempted to claim that duplicating copyrighted material without permission is not illegal. It is. But it should be defined as the crime it is, not mislabelled for the purpose of gaining attention.
It's stealing because if unrestricted copying was made legal, you'd "steal" the earning potential of the works in question.
I don't entirely disagree with the fact that earning potential is decreased when the work is duplicated and redistributed, but there are a couple problems here.. 1) It's still not stealing, regardless of indirect negative impacts on sales. It's a crime, but it's not the theft of an object. 2) There is no guarantee that everyone who downloads the file had been planning on purchasing a CD containing it.
Otherwise,
Of course, it's convenient to bury your head in the sand, and come with with all kinds of (rediculous) arguments as to why this is not so, but that's the naked truth.
My arguments here, properly interpreted, are likely to be agreed upon even by those whose opinions on the laws themselves vary.
just as a follow-up..
take the following two scenarios:
Joe sells apples. I steal one of Joe's apples. Joe has lost one apple.
OR
Joe sells apples. I buy one apple, then use its seeds to grow an apple tree, giving my apples away to others.
The answer to this is fairly simple: it only requires payment because the laws are not based on material, but on information. Duplicating copyrighted information without permission is of course illegal, but it does not constitute stealing. More accurate terms may be "copyright infringement" or "illegal copying of data".
The word "steal" implies a loss of some sort, while illegal duplication of data causes no direct loss to anyone, since the provider is in fact willingly giving it to others, and the copyright-holder doesn't lose their copy of it (as would be the case with physical items).
Every time the word "steal" in this context, it is demonstrated that the speaker is ignorantly trying to apply the definition of a crime in which a possession is taken from its rightful owner against his/her will to a completely different crime, based on artificial restrictions that at least some people believe to be unjust.
Ah, I wasn't aware of that option, but I guess it's no surprise that it exists. I wasn't really meaning to criticize tar so much as emphasize the value of such a feature.
Maybe I'm wrong on this one, but it seems to me like the resource fork is on the way out. How many of your applications/files actually use the resource fork in OS X?
The primary exception seems to be OS 9 stuff.
I use cpio, tar, and/or pax to archive files into a big ball, then encrypt that ball and burn it to CD (suitable for storing in an untrusted location). tar has builtin date checking, to determine which files need to be backed up, but cpio and pax are much more flexible in that they take a list of files from stdin, so you can use a more advanced routine to determine which files have changed.
I wrote a little shell script to wrap this all into a convenient command, and I'm sure many others have as well.
ISPs can't and shouldn't be expected to police their customers,
I agreed with you until this point... Although holding ISP's legally responsible for their customer's actions is taking things way too far, there still needs to be some way to actually deal with abusive customers. I'm not talking specifically about copyright violators (that varies from person to person), but if the customer is in violation of the ISP's AUP, they should be taken care of by the provider. It's quite likely that illegally distributing copyrighted material violates most ISPs' acceptable use policies.
There's a difference between being helpful/responsive and downright irresponsible.
When I communicate with an ISP or other service provider regarding one of their customers, I expect them to fully investigate the matter, take whatever action is necessary, and send me a reply within a week or two. I'm sure they're quite busy handling all sorts of emails, and the fastest responder isn't necessarily the one who's doing the best job.
When you're too busy trying to avoid getting sued, you don't have time to check up on the minor details, like whether a claim is actually valid.
Although I am by no means in favor of requiring web designers to build their documents a certain way, there are plenty of good reasons to do so that will not only benefit the disabled, but also those using text-browsers or special clients that take advantage of the structure of a page to display only the parts of interest to the user.
If web designers focused more on the information they want to deliver rather than its appearance, this would be less of an issue.
I'm not sure how this would be an issue, since CNAME records at the domain name's (example.com) nameservers should be able to point to yourname.dyndns.org with no problem, regardless of what kinds of records the dynamic DNS service offers (or doesn't offer).
Isn't "spam firewall" just a marketing term for "filter"?
Isn't "revolutionary" just a marketing term for any stupid new product?
Well, this certainly sounds like a good thing for many people, but because it's been described as "firewall" and not a "server-side filter", I certainly hope it wouldn't be set up at major ISPs to intercept all smtp traffic going through.
I don't think anyone who would be interested in this kind of keyboard would be too lazy/stupid to flip a switch on the back of the keyboard. Additionally, I'm sure plenty of people (err, me) would refuse to install that sort of bundled software in the first place. Besides, if the OS is capable of running that software to control the keyboard, it's probably capable of re-mapping the keys on its own.
I currently have a pair of IBM Model M keyboards at my computer table, and they're basically what you said: ordinary keyboards, but without Windows keys... oh, and they're huge and clicky. :)
Anyway, there are lots of other, more normal keyboards without Windows keys. I'm looking at a "Compaq"-labelled one right now.
What, you're not satisfied with fortune and nethack? ;)
Really, I suppose it's true that one of the few things left in the world that Windows is needed for (by some people) is games. Software like OpenOffice, GNOME, etc. would only take getting used to in a transition, but games are unique in that they are designed to entertain, not to perform a task.
Or you could try to distance yourself from modern-ish computer games. I play prboom and Maelstrom sometimes. Other times I use my operating systems as games.