And how is this different, than say, banning the sale of pornography to minors? Why is sex, a pleasant thing, shunned in favour of violence? I'd say it's a measure of a sick society. This is a logical move, though I think it would make more sense to lower the porn buying age.
Why not keep a second RAID array of the same size? Simply copy over difference using rsync now and then. Or keep two extra RAID arrays, and rotate them in and out of offsite storage. Yes, it's expensive, but it's quick and painless.
It was originally intended for comment spam, but just add the same rel="nofollow" to your referrer lists. Read about it. Granted, this won't prevent it, but if everyone starts doing this, this technique will become useless for spammers.
I specifically say it's a province, because I've had Americans thinking I was talking about Columbia, the South American country before. It's better to prevent confusion than to assume knowledge.
If you're a member of a government body, and you vote FOR a piece of legislation, you damned well take FULL responsibility for its powers and AGREE with its intent. I don't care if you didn't bother to read it. It's entirely irresponsible to pass something without a thorough comprehension of the content.
Why? Because it's cheaper to outsource. And it's not just outsourcing -- for instance, some forms of specialised data recovery are only performed in the US -- and the US government would then be at liberty to snatch any and all information without telling anyone, and under a gag order. This nearly happened when the Government of British Columbia (a province) held a practice data recovery exercise, and real data was sent to an IBM lab in the US. The government is legitimately concerned.
I don't see how this applies here. First, the US wasn't being paranoid when they implemented the USA Patriot act -- it was simply a police-state power grab.
Canada, on the other hand, has every right to be concerned. Perhaps our "paranoia" will bring more attention to the issue in the us, helping our friends to the south out.
But I'm talking about protecting the users of uninfected machines who now have to login to the SMTP server. I'm certain I'm not the only one who has sniffed credentials flying down the wire in plaintext...
The reason I suggested SSL is because all chat-style authentication should not be done over plain text -- there's no sense having someone else sniff a user's login in formation, then using that for nefarious purposes, either.
Yes, I've seen major ISP's that filter solely on whether or not you're in their IP blocks -- and that's how these spam bots are exploiting the ISP's SMTP servers.
However, using authentication, ISP's can easily block users who begin to send out too many emails (most likely spam), forcing them to deal with the problem (or get the ISP to allow them to send large volumes), or at least stopping the spread of spam.
There's a very simple solution that many webhosting companies already use -- the ISP should force their users to authenticate with the server, using secure SSL. It's good practice any way, and doing so would make even more work for the spam bots (they would have to find the user's login and password for the SMTP server).
5.0Mb/s is actually pretty slow. That's only 600 KB/s -- and an easy speed to reach. I've downloaded at over 2 MB/s (16Mb/s) from a public server before...
Slashdot Mirror
And how is this different, than say, banning the sale of pornography to minors? Why is sex, a pleasant thing, shunned in favour of violence? I'd say it's a measure of a sick society. This is a logical move, though I think it would make more sense to lower the porn buying age.
You can have a cheap car that's reliable, and the same applies to rockets.
Or you can have a cheap car that is also a rocket!
Why not keep a second RAID array of the same size? Simply copy over difference using rsync now and then. Or keep two extra RAID arrays, and rotate them in and out of offsite storage. Yes, it's expensive, but it's quick and painless.
That was the funniest thing I read all week! Thank you! :D
Can you tell me what it says? I'm not seeing anything funny, though it could be because I'm in Canada.
It was originally intended for comment spam, but just add the same rel="nofollow" to your referrer lists. Read about it. Granted, this won't prevent it, but if everyone starts doing this, this technique will become useless for spammers.
Hosehead is also used. That's what we called a guy at my last place of employment. I'm proudly Canadian.
I specifically say it's a province, because I've had Americans thinking I was talking about Columbia, the South American country before. It's better to prevent confusion than to assume knowledge.
Myself, I setup Mandrake (usually detects all hardware on install), then configure it to do nightly updates. Worked well for my dad. =)
If you're a member of a government body, and you vote FOR a piece of legislation, you damned well take FULL responsibility for its powers and AGREE with its intent. I don't care if you didn't bother to read it. It's entirely irresponsible to pass something without a thorough comprehension of the content.
They're just too weary to be wary about nary a nitpick.
Why? Because it's cheaper to outsource. And it's not just outsourcing -- for instance, some forms of specialised data recovery are only performed in the US -- and the US government would then be at liberty to snatch any and all information without telling anyone, and under a gag order. This nearly happened when the Government of British Columbia (a province) held a practice data recovery exercise, and real data was sent to an IBM lab in the US. The government is legitimately concerned.
What are you talking aboot? We don't talk like that, eh! So take off, ya hosehead!
I don't see how this applies here. First, the US wasn't being paranoid when they implemented the USA Patriot act -- it was simply a police-state power grab.
Canada, on the other hand, has every right to be concerned. Perhaps our "paranoia" will bring more attention to the issue in the us, helping our friends to the south out.
And how would that help?
Very true. I understand that perfectly well.
But I'm talking about protecting the users of uninfected machines who now have to login to the SMTP server. I'm certain I'm not the only one who has sniffed credentials flying down the wire in plaintext...
The reason I suggested SSL is because all chat-style authentication should not be done over plain text -- there's no sense having someone else sniff a user's login in formation, then using that for nefarious purposes, either.
Yeah, I have allergies to tree pollen, so I can't use Pine. *rubs so eyes* Or Elm for that matter, even though Pine is not Elm. *sniff*
Yes, I've seen major ISP's that filter solely on whether or not you're in their IP blocks -- and that's how these spam bots are exploiting the ISP's SMTP servers.
Absolutely. I think the general idea is that ISP's aren't doing all they should, and I hope we both agree on that.
However, using authentication, ISP's can easily block users who begin to send out too many emails (most likely spam), forcing them to deal with the problem (or get the ISP to allow them to send large volumes), or at least stopping the spread of spam.
There's a very simple solution that many webhosting companies already use -- the ISP should force their users to authenticate with the server, using secure SSL. It's good practice any way, and doing so would make even more work for the spam bots (they would have to find the user's login and password for the SMTP server).
Does Linux even have pf yet? Until it does, Linux will continue to be a niche OS.
Pico-farad? No way man. Linux is way tighter than that. Linux uses femtofarads!
5.0Mb/s is actually pretty slow. That's only 600 KB/s -- and an easy speed to reach. I've downloaded at over 2 MB/s (16Mb/s) from a public server before...
I had a girlfriend once, but she was more maintenance than a Windows XP box, so I got rid of her.