It's how they report the lie. Most news outlets protect themselves from libel by saying things like this:
"Our source tells us that Senator Smith was going goatse with a Mini Cooper."
The correction, a month later on page 73, below the car ads, says that Senator Smith was actually on a farm when a goat ate the tail lamp off of his Mini Cooper.
The lawyer says, who can I sue for libel? And the paper says they have the right to protect their source.
Bottom line, an institution is only as credible as it's accuracy through yesterday. Every time they get it wrong, they loose credibility and they loose readership and advertisers.
On the other hand, the "Weekly World News" is still the nation's highest selling paper. But if they have something to say that's true nobody will believe it. They thrive on that in the opposite direction. But nobody likes it when you can't tell truth from bull-tar.
Another interesting tid-bit. When the National Enquirer actually breaks a real story (those damned cameras sometimes pick up real news), they usually sell it to the Miami Herald. Why? It's newsworthy - It's not about a relationship - no need to sully the reality of the news by putting it in the Enquirer.
I think it's interesting your take on that statement, but I see something different at work.
Slashdot does not produce or report news. So, just as the editorial section of a newspaper, by default, gets to say whatever the editor wants to say, regardless of fact or spin - the same is true for a blog.
If newsforge (slashdot's sister site) tries to run opinions and not facts - then we'd have a question to be had.
Is a newspaper the place to run opinion fodder? Well, that's up for debate. So far the only legal remedy to printed lies is to file a libel suit. And the criteria for libel is the same regardless of the medium (unless you are doing a parody).
I took it the other way. It is that the artist called himself out. In a way, after winning a Hugo (already recognized once) it's not out of the ordinary to imagine himself having won another award.
It's embarrassing enough that he thought that he could have won, but couldn't make it anyway. But to go as far as finding someone to read the acceptance speach by proxy...and then NOT win. My goodness. Well may as well tell the whole world himself.
The other way to take it? He thought his short speach to witty to deny the world it's creation.
While my original post was about a kid who Emails the entire internet about the lemonade stand he's putting up next week (or some other innocuous example), there's another issue I see as well...
So imagine when someone's Gramma, running a virus infected computer on (for argument's sake) Comcast, get's arrested and convicted for spamming.
She goes to Computer-Repair-Center and fixes her computer. But they don't put all the most recent Microsoft patches. 10 days later, she's arrested for spamming, again.
Is she the victim, or the perpetrator? Clearly the SPAM is being sent from her computer.
Any jury will see that she is not actively involved, but she is enabling the actions of the SPAMmers. Is CAN-SPAM written in a way to clearly differentiate gramma from a SPAM company?
p>Honestly an extra 1 to 3 years tacked
onto a felony conviction is nothing
compared to the sentance that is already
being faced. It seems to me that tacking
on SPAM sentancing to the sentace
will only expediate the parole process.
Any opinions out there on the felony
add-on side?
For plain advertising - Five
Years is actually a decent
sentance. It's really too bad that,
technically, it's so difficult to catch a
spammer. Especially if they route
through international hosts. Sadly, this
is likely to have the worst effect on
those that are not technologically savvy,
and know the least about how Email
works.
To me, those types of people are the
least of the SPAM problem.
Isn't this going to be a security problem (just like the UPNP network device stuff)? Of course, perhaps Bluetooth has the same problems, I really don;t know, but it seems - especially for the high speed products - that the 'it just works' functionality of USB would be a security issue once it's gone wireless.
Absolutely! Really it'll work. All we need to do is get all of these legitimate electronic marketing firms to cooperate with this plan.
Since they are legitimate electronic marketing firms, they will have no problem cooperating.
Anybody know the postal address of any of these legitimate electronic marketing firms so we can ask them nicely to cooperate?
...What do you mean you can't figure out what legitimate electronic marketing firm sent you that E-mail? Yeah, the one with the subject line of, "Bset P@R!N0 sevirice axldirlx". Yeah, just look at the header. Do a lookup for the IP address in the received line... See, it resolves to 'ftc.gov' - funny I didn't know the FTC was in the Email marketing business, Hmph - we'll just ask them to label their Emails... Problem solved
What are you saying. Of course the FTC sent it, the E-mail headers wouldn't lie. That's been illegal since January 1, 2004. Surely, you don't expect me to believe that these legitimate electronic marketing firms are breaking the law!
First off, some ISPs do this sort of scanning. Second, yes, they could be looking specifically for TCP Port 25 connections.
I should point out though that most of these ISPs don't actually care about port 25. If your "upload" bandwidth stays high for a specific length of time, some ISPs will shut down your IP, pending investigation. The investigation would reveal if you are violating your Terms of Use.
Not that much
on
Paid To Spam
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
$840 a week sounds good, but let's break it down.
DSL/Cable Method:
Sounds good: $840 per week
First, Taxes: $500
DSL/Cable gets cut off after a week, weekly replacement, non refundable: $440
Two day wait for installation of new DSL provider (cuts funds by 2/7): $315
Give two months, and you have likely run out of providers.
T1 Method
Sounds good: $840 per week
First, Taxes: $500
Pay for T1: $375
Now were talking!
Oh, but wait - assuming you find a provider that offers a T1 that doesn't cut you off... then, within 6 to 12 months, you become a Co-Defendant in a CAN-SPAM law suit. Assuming the judge does not find you responsible... Good luck paying yourself and a lawyer on $375 per month.
There's another thing here as well. There's very little likelyhood that ANY computer can dedicate more than 95% CPU to a single task (unless you are running this program on DOS). It also assumes that they give you enough addresses to process to actually make this type of money (very doubtful).
However, assuming everything were to go your way, T1 provider that likes you and no law-suit...Yeah, you can live on that, but you'd probably want to steal candy from kids to suppliment your income.
Oh my goodness
on
Paid To Spam
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Since your post - it seems like this place is suffering under slashdot load. I'm afraid that some people have actually figured out number 2 in the 1, 2, 3: Profit! Scenario.
Bottom line though, good luck finding an ISP that will sell you a T1 without SPAM restrictions. Perhaps more importantly, you would be 1/2 or 1/3 responsible for any CAN-SPAM violation law-suits. That would put a hamper on your day. The lawyer fees alone would swallow your profits whole.
From the description there it appears that while this guy is bashing Linux's ability to cluster, they seem to have no problem with it's ability to SMP against a specialized chassis. It also appears that their system a half-breed between what clustering offers and what a single computer can offer. Honestly, pretty cool technology, but still no excuse to bash the capabilities of Linux clustered.
Too bad that they couldn't have released with the much faster (for SMP, especially) 2.6 Kernel.
I wonder where we can download their Kernel Patch sets.
That's a very good point, but for general computing (not a specialized application, where the vendor or programmer requests a specific type of hardware) knowing the price point as well as the technical specifications could be quite usefull in deciding what sort of installation to use.
As Clusters and Mainframe computers alike, in educational and general research environments usually do multiple classes of things with their computing power (including renting out CPU time) - the raw processing power is often more important than the views necessary for specialty computing.
In the end, most super-computing facilities will want to have both Clusters AND Super-Mainframes, but which to get first could be quite a price/performance question. Either way, once you've sunk how much?? money into purchasing one or the other - there's little chance that most computing needs will be custom written for that platform anyway. I don't see a lot of OSS for Cray-Frames, that's for sure.
Specifically, in the case of Diet Dr. Pepper - the Diet version was utterly horrible. So, really they are discussing the difference between Diet Dr. Pepper, version 1 and Diet Dr. Pepper, version 2.
Specifically, IIRC, I believe they dropped Saccarine (Sweet 'n Low) for Aspartame (Nutrisweet).
So, it was comparing itself with the old version of itself.
I'd be quite curious to see it (as I didn't get this interpretation out of the article). Though I, personally, make no claims to having intimate knowledge of Cray's offerings (which is why I'm honestly asking for info).
At what price point does the Cray XD1 come in? While huge clusters are (supposedly) cheap individual computers -- I would argue that G5s are not inherantly cheap -- how many G5s that make up the Virginia Tech cluster would you have to get to before you've paid for a Cray XD1?
I mention this because the article implies that Cray is planning on selling the XD1s at a price point cheaper than equivelant clusters. If they succeed at making the XD1 cheap enough, then it may be more cost effective to [[ effectively, cluster ]] a couple of these Crays, with less power consumption, heat dissipation and plain old real-estate.
It seems to me that TCO would be cheaper for the Cray, especially considering that the best clusters expect 5% of the member computers to be broken at any given time.
So, does anybody have Cray XD1 pricing? That, seems to me, to be the only way to rationally decide on the 'better' solution.
While Paul Terry makes some good points,
in his statements, including the partial
quote from the post, "Despite assertions
made by Linux vendors, a Linux cluster is not
a high performance computer, said Dr.
Paul Terry, CTO of Cray Canada. "At best,
clusters are a loose collection of unmanaged,
individual, microprocessor-based
computers."
Remember to take this with a grain
of salt.
The inflammatory nature of the comment
is nothing more than a marketing ploy
to increase visibility of, and sell,
the new Cray XD1
Easy to use:You want web services, simply put your files in the InetPub folder. Here's a tool that can help you design your web page.
Easily Exploitable:Windows 2000 IIS server is already running, out of the box.
--
Yet another example... if you want to watch a box get hacked very fast, Install RedHat 6.2 out of the box, and plug it into the Internet. I'll guarantee that a Win 98 box is not nearly as lethal. I give it two hours before it's attacking somebody.
Yet the much easier to use RedHat 7, 8 and 9 all came with Firewalling turned on as the default selection during install (something that would have saved the RedHat 6.2 box).
In the same category, many of us are not so patiently awaiting Windows XP Service Pack 2 - where the default firewalling will actually work. The "I don't know what I'm doing default settings on WinXP - will get a working firewall out of the box.
To my view (and I run a LOT of Linux/Solaris/HP-UX) everything that is more than 4 months out of patch is an open playground for hackers (and even more sad, script kiddies).
NONE of this accounts for the number of security flaws that are directly attributable to Outlook, Office and Internet Explorer (which are a category unto their own). To these, I would have to admit, the level of "ease of use" is attributed to "programming shortcuts" that lead to "security breaches" across software platforms. If each of these products were actually separate from eachother and the underlying Windows OS, then this wouldn't be as much of an issue either. Further, the interoperability of these things annoy many new users:
"I don't know how to save, it keeps opening the file, but I want to save it."
"I double-click on the mov file, and this WinAmp thing appears and says it can't open my file"
There's got to be a better way, and it doesn't have to be less secure.
Look, the reason why Macintosh is decent at security where other OSes fail is that 'root' is NOT required to run games, or record a DVD. RedHat 7, 8 or 9, start cdrecord (xCD-BURN), and it asks for the Root password. That's just plain nuts from a security standpoint.
That's why I'm very excited about the NSA Linux kernel extensions (there is no root, only levels of authority). This will give to Linux what Mac already has, and what all 'secure' Operating Systems need.
--
Even under NT, if someone doesn't need to belong to the 'Administrators' group, then this cuts the spyware, malware and virus installs my more than half. Cut PowerUser access and your down to a few percent of bad things that can happen.
But gamemanufacturers keep putting out games that won't run without Administrative access.
Yes, that's the fifth rule of hardware -- because of the limitations of IDE. SCSI has NEVER had that limitation, and SATA will not have that limitation either.
Well when you have two devices on the same bus, both competing for bandwidth, it's possible to run into the dreaded, buffer underrun. SATA, IIRC, doesn't have this problem.
Of course, for most of us the buffer underrun is a Max CPU utilization issue, but that's beside the point.
Slashdot Mirror
The correction, a month later on page 73, below the car ads, says that Senator Smith was actually on a farm when a goat ate the tail lamp off of his Mini Cooper.
The lawyer says, who can I sue for libel? And the paper says they have the right to protect their source.
Bottom line, an institution is only as credible as it's accuracy through yesterday. Every time they get it wrong, they loose credibility and they loose readership and advertisers.
On the other hand, the "Weekly World News" is still the nation's highest selling paper. But if they have something to say that's true nobody will believe it. They thrive on that in the opposite direction. But nobody likes it when you can't tell truth from bull-tar.
Another interesting tid-bit. When the National Enquirer actually breaks a real story (those damned cameras sometimes pick up real news), they usually sell it to the Miami Herald. Why? It's newsworthy - It's not about a relationship - no need to sully the reality of the news by putting it in the Enquirer.
I think it's interesting your take on that statement, but I see something different at work.
Slashdot does not produce or report news. So, just as the editorial section of a newspaper, by default, gets to say whatever the editor wants to say, regardless of fact or spin - the same is true for a blog.
If newsforge (slashdot's sister site) tries to run opinions and not facts - then we'd have a question to be had.
Is a newspaper the place to run opinion fodder? Well, that's up for debate. So far the only legal remedy to printed lies is to file a libel suit. And the criteria for libel is the same regardless of the medium (unless you are doing a parody).
I took it the other way. It is that the artist called himself out. In a way, after winning a Hugo (already recognized once) it's not out of the ordinary to imagine himself having won another award.
It's embarrassing enough that he thought that he could have won, but couldn't make it anyway. But to go as far as finding someone to read the acceptance speach by proxy...and then NOT win. My goodness. Well may as well tell the whole world himself.
The other way to take it? He thought his short speach to witty to deny the world it's creation.
So imagine when someone's Gramma, running a virus infected computer on (for argument's sake) Comcast, get's arrested and convicted for spamming.
She goes to Computer-Repair-Center and fixes her computer. But they don't put all the most recent Microsoft patches. 10 days later, she's arrested for spamming, again.
Is she the victim, or the perpetrator? Clearly the SPAM is being sent from her computer.
Any jury will see that she is not actively involved, but she is enabling the actions of the SPAMmers. Is CAN-SPAM written in a way to clearly differentiate gramma from a SPAM company?
For plain advertising - Five Years is actually a decent sentance. It's really too bad that, technically, it's so difficult to catch a spammer. Especially if they route through international hosts. Sadly, this is likely to have the worst effect on those that are not technologically savvy, and know the least about how Email works.
To me, those types of people are the least of the SPAM problem.
Taxes: $840 - $340 = $500
T1: $500 - $125 = $375
The last paragraph goes on to say, "Yeah, you can live on that, ..."
Isn't this going to be a security problem (just like the UPNP network device stuff)? Of course, perhaps Bluetooth has the same problems, I really don;t know, but it seems - especially for the high speed products - that the 'it just works' functionality of USB would be a security issue once it's gone wireless.
Well the intent was to show what's left (not to show what is taken out). But you are right, 340 is a little too much.
I really don't think the point is diluted by the poorly chosen tax figures though.
Since they are legitimate electronic marketing firms, they will have no problem cooperating.
Anybody know the postal address of any of these legitimate electronic marketing firms so we can ask them nicely to cooperate?
Problem solved
What are you saying. Of course the FTC sent it, the E-mail headers wouldn't lie. That's been illegal since January 1, 2004. Surely, you don't expect me to believe that these legitimate electronic marketing firms are breaking the law!
I should point out though that most of these ISPs don't actually care about port 25. If your "upload" bandwidth stays high for a specific length of time, some ISPs will shut down your IP, pending investigation. The investigation would reveal if you are violating your Terms of Use.
DSL/Cable Method:
Sounds good: $840 per week
First, Taxes: $500
DSL/Cable gets cut off after a week, weekly replacement, non refundable: $440
Two day wait for installation of new DSL provider (cuts funds by 2/7): $315
Give two months, and you have likely run out of providers.
T1 Method
Sounds good: $840 per week
First, Taxes: $500
Pay for T1: $375
Now were talking!
Oh, but wait - assuming you find a provider that offers a T1 that doesn't cut you off... then, within 6 to 12 months, you become a Co-Defendant in a CAN-SPAM law suit. Assuming the judge does not find you responsible... Good luck paying yourself and a lawyer on $375 per month.
There's another thing here as well. There's very little likelyhood that ANY computer can dedicate more than 95% CPU to a single task (unless you are running this program on DOS). It also assumes that they give you enough addresses to process to actually make this type of money (very doubtful).
However, assuming everything were to go your way, T1 provider that likes you and no law-suit...Yeah, you can live on that, but you'd probably want to steal candy from kids to suppliment your income.
Bottom line though, good luck finding an ISP that will sell you a T1 without SPAM restrictions. Perhaps more importantly, you would be 1/2 or 1/3 responsible for any CAN-SPAM violation law-suits. That would put a hamper on your day. The lawyer fees alone would swallow your profits whole.
From the description there it appears that while this guy is bashing Linux's ability to cluster, they seem to have no problem with it's ability to SMP against a specialized chassis. It also appears that their system a half-breed between what clustering offers and what a single computer can offer. Honestly, pretty cool technology, but still no excuse to bash the capabilities of Linux clustered.
Too bad that they couldn't have released with the much faster (for SMP, especially) 2.6 Kernel.
I wonder where we can download their Kernel Patch sets.
As Clusters and Mainframe computers alike, in educational and general research environments usually do multiple classes of things with their computing power (including renting out CPU time) - the raw processing power is often more important than the views necessary for specialty computing.
In the end, most super-computing facilities will want to have both Clusters AND Super-Mainframes, but which to get first could be quite a price/performance question. Either way, once you've sunk how much?? money into purchasing one or the other - there's little chance that most computing needs will be custom written for that platform anyway. I don't see a lot of OSS for Cray-Frames, that's for sure.
Specifically, IIRC, I believe they dropped Saccarine (Sweet 'n Low) for Aspartame (Nutrisweet).
So, it was comparing itself with the old version of itself.
Does anybody actually know the price on the new XD1? Not the X1, but the new machine that Cray is pushing here.
Having a comparison price point would really help a lot of us feel more informed.
Sorry - but since this is all a reply to my first post... I figured I could interject some valid direction back into this thread.
Speaking of that... I thought that Cray was still owned by Silicon Graphics Inc. Technically a sub-company of SGI
I'd be quite curious to see it (as I didn't get this interpretation out of the article). Though I, personally, make no claims to having intimate knowledge of Cray's offerings (which is why I'm honestly asking for info).
At what price point does the Cray XD1 come in? While huge clusters are (supposedly) cheap individual computers -- I would argue that G5s are not inherantly cheap -- how many G5s that make up the Virginia Tech cluster would you have to get to before you've paid for a Cray XD1?
I mention this because the article implies that Cray is planning on selling the XD1s at a price point cheaper than equivelant clusters. If they succeed at making the XD1 cheap enough, then it may be more cost effective to [[ effectively, cluster ]] a couple of these Crays, with less power consumption, heat dissipation and plain old real-estate.
It seems to me that TCO would be cheaper for the Cray, especially considering that the best clusters expect 5% of the member computers to be broken at any given time.
So, does anybody have Cray XD1 pricing? That, seems to me, to be the only way to rationally decide on the 'better' solution.
While Paul Terry makes some good points, in his statements, including the partial quote from the post, "Despite assertions made by Linux vendors, a Linux cluster is not a high performance computer, said Dr. Paul Terry, CTO of Cray Canada. "At best, clusters are a loose collection of unmanaged, individual, microprocessor-based computers."
Remember to take this with a grain of salt. The inflammatory nature of the comment is nothing more than a marketing ploy to increase visibility of, and sell, the new Cray XD1
Easily Exploitable: Windows 2000 IIS server is already running, out of the box.
--
Yet another example... if you want to watch a box get hacked very fast, Install RedHat 6.2 out of the box, and plug it into the Internet. I'll guarantee that a Win 98 box is not nearly as lethal. I give it two hours before it's attacking somebody.
Yet the much easier to use RedHat 7, 8 and 9 all came with Firewalling turned on as the default selection during install (something that would have saved the RedHat 6.2 box).
In the same category, many of us are not so patiently awaiting Windows XP Service Pack 2 - where the default firewalling will actually work. The "I don't know what I'm doing default settings on WinXP - will get a working firewall out of the box.
To my view (and I run a LOT of Linux/Solaris/HP-UX) everything that is more than 4 months out of patch is an open playground for hackers (and even more sad, script kiddies).
NONE of this accounts for the number of security flaws that are directly attributable to Outlook, Office and Internet Explorer (which are a category unto their own). To these, I would have to admit, the level of "ease of use" is attributed to "programming shortcuts" that lead to "security breaches" across software platforms. If each of these products were actually separate from eachother and the underlying Windows OS, then this wouldn't be as much of an issue either. Further, the interoperability of these things annoy many new users:
There's got to be a better way, and it doesn't have to be less secure.
Look, the reason why Macintosh is decent at security where other OSes fail is that 'root' is NOT required to run games, or record a DVD. RedHat 7, 8 or 9, start cdrecord (xCD-BURN), and it asks for the Root password. That's just plain nuts from a security standpoint.
That's why I'm very excited about the NSA Linux kernel extensions (there is no root, only levels of authority). This will give to Linux what Mac already has, and what all 'secure' Operating Systems need.
--
Even under NT, if someone doesn't need to belong to the 'Administrators' group, then this cuts the spyware, malware and virus installs my more than half. Cut PowerUser access and your down to a few percent of bad things that can happen.
But game manufacturers keep putting out games that won't run without Administrative access.
Yes, that's the fifth rule of hardware -- because of the limitations of IDE. SCSI has NEVER had that limitation, and SATA will not have that limitation either.
Of course, for most of us the buffer underrun is a Max CPU utilization issue, but that's beside the point.