For my blog (which uses WordPress), I added in a redirect page. This page has noindex,nofollow on it - so no pagerank goes out.
Also, any comments containing more than X links or spammy terms (customizable) automatically requires moderator approval.
So far, no successful spam. Remove the incentive, nobody will bother.
"What happened to the nice internet we had in 1996? AOL. No really (although other "user-friendly ISPs hurt too"). Because of the influx of technically illeterate (or just incompetent) people, "Spammy" techniques work. PR manipulation, bulk mailings, etc. actually make money.
Where the suckers are, the people who exploit them go. A mandatory proficiency/IQ test to get on the 'net would go a long way towards helping alleviate these problems.
"I can't really see how this is going to work." Maybe it's because you are an idiot, or maybe you didn't RTFA.
The reason this is legal is because they are licensing the music. For every song that plays, they pay. For example, ASCAP is one of the big licensing groups. To play 1,000,000,000 (1 billion) songs, of which 1/3 are theirs, only costs $40,200 if you use fee schedule C.
The question remains, how do they plan on making money? Do they?
First off, the small print on the CD doesn't mean anything, it's Copyright Law that matters. The small print simply tries to explain it (while conveniently neglecting to mention fair use).
Second, the Mercora people have a contract with SoundExchange, AZCap (royalty clearing house), etc. Note: it says Unauthorized. They are paying royalties on it, so it's legal.
Blech - I misspoke (way too tired - stupid 32 hour coding sessions).
Anyhow, Mozilla uses XUL, which is syntactally similar to Java. XUL, by design, allows manipulation of the Document Object Model (DOM) of the browser, which is what allows form filling, ad blocking, etc.
Anyhow, the 2 non-IE spyware work by basically shoving an evil JavaScript (probably where I got java from) script into every html page that is loaded. As I didn't actually _run_ them, I have no clue what the javascript does.
"National Cable Television Association spokesman Brian Dietz said it is hardly in cable's interest to meddle with VoIP quality, because more VoIP users means more broadband customers."
This may be true, but even still that just means that they won't mess with VoIP unless they offer their own replacement service. Losing a few customers to DSL might be worth the added VoIP revenue.
"This may be an Internet first: a mainstream television show spawned from a genuine internet phenomenon"
I don't know how much it takes to be a "phenomenon", but Tripping the Rift certainly had a large number of people see the "FCC-Unfriendly" first episode (the one with the actual bared breasts, not just all the references to them).
Linux a 'waste of money', says top MS exec The latest approach in a campaign of misinformation in Asia.
By Geoffrey P. Ramos, Computerworld and Kieren McCarthy, Techworld
Microsoft has come out fighting in Asia, telling governments in the region that adopting open-source software will damage their own economies and is a "waste of money".
Chris Sharp, director for platform strategy for Microsoft in Asia-Pacific, said governments that standardise on open-source software are hurting their local software vendors as they can't make the money needed to invest in their own software products.
Sharp, who used to work for Red Hat before joining Microsoft, said building open-source software is a "waste of money" and that a company was in effect giving away its intellectual property, preventing it from getting future benefits. "If you are compelled to give back to the community, then you don't have the opportunity to benefit from that knowledge," he stressed.
Sharp added that there are several myths surrounding open source. People tend to believe it is free, he said, but even companies that support open source are just as motivated by commercial interests as any other commercial software vendor. Apparently undermining his initial assertion about open-source ruining local software efforts, he pointed out that open source giants such as Red Hat and IBM are still after a return on their investments. "They are not for the greater good of the community; they are also after the money," he said.
He then contradicted himself again, adding that without getting back any commercial returns, a software company will find it difficult to invest in developing new software products. Intellectual property rights fuel sustained innovation, was his point. "With open source, there is no way to make more software."
This aggressive if confused approach comes after months of determined effort by the software giant to prevent Linux taking over as the de facto operating system in the world's largest expanding software market.
Two months ago, Microsoft's Asia-Pacific CTO Paul Moore told a bemused audience that no Asian governments were going with Linux. "I believe there is no government that has a policy going beyond recommending open source," he said, immediately contradicting himself with, "If so, I believe that is not to their best interest."
Sharp tried the same thing, saying that announcements that certain governments are deploying open source software are untrue. In many cases, he said, it's just one branch or agency of the government making the announcement, and it is not a government-wide purchasing policy.
An earlier, also failed, tactic in September, saw Microsoft's director of government affairs in Asia, Tom Robertson, explain that a deal by the Japanese, Chinese and South Korean governments to build their own open-source software was anti-competitive. Bizarre in the extreme you would think for a company investigated across the globe for abusing its monopoly.
So, Microsoft is not at all worried about open-source software destroying its market control because they are damaging themselves and no one is using open source anyway. It is so unconcerned in fact that the software giant has produced two cut-down versions of XP in very specific local languages and attempted to charge less than Linux, and failed to do so.
It is so unconcerned that it has rewritten its cardinal rule about one price for Windows across the globe. And is so unconcerned that its execs have been touring the region's governments non-stop for three months telling them why they should buy Microsoft. Yep, Microsoft is very relaxed about open source in Asia.
I've made this comment before, but it seems relevant. This will be just another failed attempt to excercise control over digital services. It's to be expected - they are convinced it will make them more money in the end, and as such they feel compelled to stop it.
This technology, like Macrovision (that's not technically digital, but it fits), DVD's CSS, Adobe PDF, Zip File Passwords, iTunes, SDMI, Microsoft Reader, DirecTV, those silly self-destructing DVDs, faulty CD Toc's, autorun-based protection, SecuRom, Game Consoles, LaserLok, and any other number of protection technologies, it will be defeated, broken, or bypassed).
Hundreds of man-hours, hundreds of millions of dollars in development and marketing, and the only real protection still lying around is simple cryptography (and only when the keys aren't given to users at all, instead of this "hide it in the box, but don't tell anyone" crap).
The only real reason to be concerned is the "stifiling innovation" issue. What devices, technologies, or uses will I lose because of this? To some extent, it benefits open-source, as open-source software can address markets made smaller by the fact that the only way to use the services the way you want is to break the law.
However, how many cool gizmos, gadgets, and whatnots haven't been made, thanks to the DMCA etc.?
This is just another failed attempt to excercise control over digital services. It's to be expected - they are convinced it will make them more money in the end, and as such they feel compelled to stop it.
This technology, like Macrovision (that's not technically digital, but it fits), DVD's CSS, Adobe PDF, Zip File Passwords, iTunes, SDMI, Microsoft Reader, DirecTV, those silly self-destructing DVDs, faulty CD Toc's, autorun-based protection, SecuRom, Game Consoles, LaserLok, and any other number of protection technologies, it will be defeated, broken, or bypassed).
Hundreds of man-hours, hundreds of millions of dollars in development and marketing, and the only real protection still lying around is simple cryptography (and only when the keys aren't given to users at all, instead of this "hide it in the box, but don't tell anyone" crap).
The only real reason to be concerned is the "stifiling innovation" issue. What devices, technologies, or uses will I lose because of this? To some extent, it benefits open-source, as open-source software can address markets made smaller by the fact that the only way to use the services the way you want is to break the law.
However, how many cool gizmos, gadgets, and whatnots haven't been made, thanks to the DMCA etc.?
So they should set up a web page (perhaps with a capcha) where users can do it themselves. Enter your e-mail username and password (or whatever), pass a captcha, and wham you have a mail server.
The "Why Licensing is Needed" mirror is genuinely slow - Here's a mirror Note: The first couple to use it will be slow, but it will speed up really fast afterwards.
This mainly says who has jurisdiction in the case, with the judge not ruling on the actual issue of whether "Windows" is generic or not. That will be left up to another court.
I don't know how well linspire can handle this, so Here's a mirror.
Site's a little slow already (darn subscribers), so here's a Mirror.
Note: This doesn't mean I agree with this crap. As a coder, I can certainly understand their wanting to write code more than document everything. Really, shouldn't CVS logs be as much "proof" you wrote it as you need? It's far more work to try to fake writing it by changing other's code, than it is to just do the work itself.
Of course, that only works if the attacker has the firewall password/snmp info anyway. And if the attacker has the password in the first place, he won't need snort anyway.
"But what if he _installs_ a firewal?" If he has access to the cabling, all he has to do is cut it. Perfect internal DoS.
Besides, if you really want to do that, go grab a copy of FIRE (no, I won't find the URL for you). Give ettercap a go. A couple of ARP packets, and you can take any windows machine off the local network (provided they aren't more than one router away).
Slashdot Mirror
For my blog (which uses WordPress), I added in a redirect page. This page has noindex,nofollow on it - so no pagerank goes out.
Also, any comments containing more than X links or spammy terms (customizable) automatically requires moderator approval.
So far, no successful spam. Remove the incentive, nobody will bother.
"What happened to the nice internet we had in 1996?
AOL. No really (although other "user-friendly ISPs hurt too"). Because of the influx of technically illeterate (or just incompetent) people, "Spammy" techniques work. PR manipulation, bulk mailings, etc. actually make money.
Where the suckers are, the people who exploit them go. A mandatory proficiency/IQ test to get on the 'net would go a long way towards helping alleviate these problems.
"I can't really see how this is going to work."
Maybe it's because you are an idiot, or maybe you didn't RTFA.
The reason this is legal is because they are licensing the music. For every song that plays, they pay. For example, ASCAP is one of the big licensing groups. To play 1,000,000,000 (1 billion) songs, of which 1/3 are theirs, only costs $40,200 if you use fee schedule C.
The question remains, how do they plan on making money? Do they?
First off, the small print on the CD doesn't mean anything, it's Copyright Law that matters. The small print simply tries to explain it (while conveniently neglecting to mention fair use).
Second, the Mercora people have a contract with SoundExchange, AZCap (royalty clearing house), etc. Note: it says Unauthorized. They are paying royalties on it, so it's legal.
Blech - I misspoke (way too tired - stupid 32 hour coding sessions).
Anyhow, Mozilla uses XUL, which is syntactally similar to Java. XUL, by design, allows manipulation of the Document Object Model (DOM) of the browser, which is what allows form filling, ad blocking, etc.
Anyhow, the 2 non-IE spyware work by basically shoving an evil JavaScript (probably where I got java from) script into every html page that is loaded. As I didn't actually _run_ them, I have no clue what the javascript does.
Actually, I've come across 3 spyware XPIs so far. One of them simply downloaded their .exe, ran it, and installed their IE spyware on your system.
The other 2 actually manipulated the Mozilla DOM, and as they were written in java, they can work just fine in OS X, or Linux.
"National Cable Television Association spokesman Brian Dietz said it is hardly in cable's interest to meddle with VoIP quality, because more VoIP users means more broadband customers."
This may be true, but even still that just means that they won't mess with VoIP unless they offer their own replacement service. Losing a few customers to DSL might be worth the added VoIP revenue.
"This may be an Internet first: a mainstream television show spawned from a genuine internet phenomenon"
I don't know how much it takes to be a "phenomenon", but Tripping the Rift certainly had a large number of people see the "FCC-Unfriendly" first episode (the one with the actual bared breasts, not just all the references to them).
That's the idea behind bankrupcy - massive amount of debt or loss of money should not deprive one of food, shelter, life, or liberty.
Of course, pretty much everything else is fair game.
Linux a 'waste of money', says top MS exec
The latest approach in a campaign of misinformation in Asia.
By Geoffrey P. Ramos, Computerworld and Kieren McCarthy, Techworld
Microsoft has come out fighting in Asia, telling governments in the region that adopting open-source software will damage their own economies and is a "waste of money".
Chris Sharp, director for platform strategy for Microsoft in Asia-Pacific, said governments that standardise on open-source software are hurting their local software vendors as they can't make the money needed to invest in their own software products.
Sharp, who used to work for Red Hat before joining Microsoft, said building open-source software is a "waste of money" and that a company was in effect giving away its intellectual property, preventing it from getting future benefits. "If you are compelled to give back to the community, then you don't have the opportunity to benefit from that knowledge," he stressed.
Sharp added that there are several myths surrounding open source. People tend to believe it is free, he said, but even companies that support open source are just as motivated by commercial interests as any other commercial software vendor. Apparently undermining his initial assertion about open-source ruining local software efforts, he pointed out that open source giants such as Red Hat and IBM are still after a return on their investments. "They are not for the greater good of the community; they are also after the money," he said.
He then contradicted himself again, adding that without getting back any commercial returns, a software company will find it difficult to invest in developing new software products. Intellectual property rights fuel sustained innovation, was his point. "With open source, there is no way to make more software."
This aggressive if confused approach comes after months of determined effort by the software giant to prevent Linux taking over as the de facto operating system in the world's largest expanding software market.
Two months ago, Microsoft's Asia-Pacific CTO Paul Moore told a bemused audience that no Asian governments were going with Linux. "I believe there is no government that has a policy going beyond recommending open source," he said, immediately contradicting himself with, "If so, I believe that is not to their best interest."
Sharp tried the same thing, saying that announcements that certain governments are deploying open source software are untrue. In many cases, he said, it's just one branch or agency of the government making the announcement, and it is not a government-wide purchasing policy.
An earlier, also failed, tactic in September, saw Microsoft's director of government affairs in Asia, Tom Robertson, explain that a deal by the Japanese, Chinese and South Korean governments to build their own open-source software was anti-competitive. Bizarre in the extreme you would think for a company investigated across the globe for abusing its monopoly.
So, Microsoft is not at all worried about open-source software destroying its market control because they are damaging themselves and no one is using open source anyway. It is so unconcerned in fact that the software giant has produced two cut-down versions of XP in very specific local languages and attempted to charge less than Linux, and failed to do so.
It is so unconcerned that it has rewritten its cardinal rule about one price for Windows across the globe. And is so unconcerned that its execs have been touring the region's governments non-stop for three months telling them why they should buy Microsoft. Yep, Microsoft is very relaxed about open source in Asia.
I've made this comment before, but it seems relevant. This will be just another failed attempt to excercise control over digital services. It's to be expected - they are convinced it will make them more money in the end, and as such they feel compelled to stop it.
This technology, like Macrovision (that's not technically digital, but it fits), DVD's CSS, Adobe PDF, Zip File Passwords, iTunes, SDMI, Microsoft Reader, DirecTV, those silly self-destructing DVDs, faulty CD Toc's, autorun-based protection, SecuRom, Game Consoles, LaserLok, and any other number of protection technologies, it will be defeated, broken, or bypassed).
Hundreds of man-hours, hundreds of millions of dollars in development and marketing, and the only real protection still lying around is simple cryptography (and only when the keys aren't given to users at all, instead of this "hide it in the box, but don't tell anyone" crap).
The only real reason to be concerned is the "stifiling innovation" issue. What devices, technologies, or uses will I lose because of this? To some extent, it benefits open-source, as open-source software can address markets made smaller by the fact that the only way to use the services the way you want is to break the law.
However, how many cool gizmos, gadgets, and whatnots haven't been made, thanks to the DMCA etc.?
Just a little something to think about.
This is just another failed attempt to excercise control over digital services. It's to be expected - they are convinced it will make them more money in the end, and as such they feel compelled to stop it.
This technology, like Macrovision (that's not technically digital, but it fits), DVD's CSS, Adobe PDF, Zip File Passwords, iTunes, SDMI, Microsoft Reader, DirecTV, those silly self-destructing DVDs, faulty CD Toc's, autorun-based protection, SecuRom, Game Consoles, LaserLok, and any other number of protection technologies, it will be defeated, broken, or bypassed).
Hundreds of man-hours, hundreds of millions of dollars in development and marketing, and the only real protection still lying around is simple cryptography (and only when the keys aren't given to users at all, instead of this "hide it in the box, but don't tell anyone" crap).
The only real reason to be concerned is the "stifiling innovation" issue. What devices, technologies, or uses will I lose because of this? To some extent, it benefits open-source, as open-source software can address markets made smaller by the fact that the only way to use the services the way you want is to break the law.
However, how many cool gizmos, gadgets, and whatnots haven't been made, thanks to the DMCA etc.?
Just a little something to think about.
Here.
It's not supposed to be unbeatable - it's simply supposed to be hard enough that a virus will probably not be written specifically for that purpose.
If a virus did abuse it, they could simply make it harder, then un-do all the activations done after the virus came out.
So they should set up a web page (perhaps with a capcha) where users can do it themselves. Enter your e-mail username and password (or whatever), pass a captcha, and wham you have a mail server.
The "Why Licensing is Needed" mirror is genuinely slow - Here's a mirror
Note: The first couple to use it will be slow, but it will speed up really fast afterwards.
Although there aren't any big images, here is a mirror in case something should happen to the site:
Mirror.
Persionally, I like Serendipity - the BSD License is about as permissive as you can get.
I do some work for an ISP, and I get a couple of servers hosted for free, including bandwidth.
I also have a nice thing going where I host his users (on my servers), and he sends people needing web design to me.
It works out nicely.
Yes
Here's a mirror.
Google doesn't index the sigs, as they aren't sent to non-logged-in users.
This mainly says who has jurisdiction in the case, with the judge not ruling on the actual issue of whether "Windows" is generic or not. That will be left up to another court.
I don't know how well linspire can handle this, so Here's a mirror.
Site's a little slow already (darn subscribers), so here's a Mirror.
Note: This doesn't mean I agree with this crap. As a coder, I can certainly understand their wanting to write code more than document everything. Really, shouldn't CVS logs be as much "proof" you wrote it as you need? It's far more work to try to fake writing it by changing other's code, than it is to just do the work itself.
Here and Here.
It's not slow yet - oh well.
Here.
Of course, that only works if the attacker has the firewall password/snmp info anyway. And if the attacker has the password in the first place, he won't need snort anyway.
"But what if he _installs_ a firewal?" If he has access to the cabling, all he has to do is cut it. Perfect internal DoS.
Besides, if you really want to do that, go grab a copy of FIRE (no, I won't find the URL for you). Give ettercap a go. A couple of ARP packets, and you can take any windows machine off the local network (provided they aren't more than one router away).