"it isn't an author's job to wade into the fray, and they'd certainly lose authority if they did so. In these days of personal attacks, the artist becomes just another shlub when they defend themselves; they prove that they're capable of sinking to the lowest levels of discourse as well.
So are you saying that the feedback that comes to Jon should only come privately? Isn't that kind of goofy? Slashdot has this whole new paradigm of discussion and Jon is supposed to be emailed if we want to interact with him? That doesn't work for me. I don't think his job description is "Jon, step down from your throne for a moment and stir up the ants." If he's going to promote discussion, he should promote it, steer it, participate in it, speak, listen, interact. Not make long-winded, vague pronouncements and leave it to us to talk about. If he's going to expect any respect at all he's gotta learn to be involved with us like Carmack, Perens, Cox, and ESR are. Slum with us and stoop to our level. Get down in it and participate. If what you said was particularly good, you'll get recognition for it by the moderators. Is that not worth it?
Isn't it nice the the MPAA that they can lock everyone else out of their market? Shouldn't the DoJ be looking into this? I think the barrier to entry into the record business is much higher than the barrier of entry to the software business.
This is actually the most interesting Katz article I've read thus far. Most of them are bland musings of a person who seems to think of himself as an intellectual. They're usually very boring to me, so I just skip them (though I sometimes see what the replies to them are because the flames are funny more often than not). This one is fairly decent, though Katz has no sense of humor and has a hard time getting over himself and his perception of himself as a writer. The most annoying thing about the whole thing are the superscript ones. Even though I'm reading this using Internet Exploder I'm still seeing them. No matter how many times people get onto Katz about the non-standard characters he still insists on using them. You'd think he'd listen and smarten up, but he keeps posting the same drivel in the same format. Dammit! The whole rambling thing must be contagious. I'll try to keep it brief. F' Katz!
Remember that many cable modem providers were freaking out just recently because Windows systems hadn't disabled file and printer sharing and spammers were putting files in their startup group that would allow them to use the system as an smtp proxy and send spam. I recieved a message from Road Runner advising me of the issue. Of course, I have a Linux firewall so I'm not exactly vulnerable.
CmdrTaco didn't suggest that Microsoft had a hand in the attack. The person who submitted the story did. Pay attention to the italics. CmdrTaco didn't comment at all.
I've finally found something that I think works for this. At least from tests I've run it seems to work fine. There may be side effects that I haven't forseen or come across, so please help me out. I issued the following command: ipchains -A input -p TCP -d 24.28.0.0/255.0.0.0:25 -j DENY I can not not telnet in from my Unix shell account on another system on either the default telnet port or on the SMTP port, but I can telnet out to my smtp server on port 25. SSH2 works just fine, which suits my purposes. Of course, to get it around our firewall here at work I use port 1080 for ssh2, so that doesn't tell me too much. Since this box is mainly a firewall that basically masquerades all outgoing connections and should only deny port 25. Do y'all think that's what I've done, or have I messed something up?
I sure hope you see this... Anyway, I tried sendmail in queue processing mode only, and fetchmail wouldn't work. Fetchmail (as I'm sure you know) tries to connect to localhost on port 25 and forward incoming mail to it. The problem with that is that there's nothing running on port 25. Do you know how to run Sendmail so that it is only "bound" to the lo interface? Or even how to specify which interface it's bound to? This Linux box is running ipmasq and it'd be okay to run sendmail on both lo and eth1, but it isn't needed for eth0 as far as I know. I might be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that all fetchmail is doing is recieving mail from fetchmail and putting it in my spool. Other than that I don't think I'd need it for anything else.
All the ideas above make fetchmail not work. I think to do what I want to do I'm going to have to set fetchmail to only listen on localhost. That will probably do it. Any ideas?
Since it appears you're familiar with this, I thought I'd ask you about it. I've searched the howtos on how to configure sendmail to not allow certain IP addresses to use it, but allow the localhost to use it. Do have a fairly comprehendable reference on how to disable sendmail to all but the person on the local machine?
Speaking of which, are you concerned that this is perhaps not the best forum for you writing and that your apparent unpopularity cannot be explained by the "quite vocal minority" defense? Is there a possibility that you are Slashdot's token pundit? Consider that you are the only Slashdot Author and that your stories are usually much longer than the other items posted, and usually not something that your average Slashdot reader wants to slag through. When you get right down to it, we're more about Legos and Kernel patches than the ramifications of Disney's dream on blah blah blah.
Actually, at work I'm "lucky" enough to be behind a proxy server. I set IE to not use a proxy for doubleclick addresses. I see many fewer ads that way.
That's like replacing Boris Yeltsin's head with Brad Pitt's and reporting it as news. Their version of actual events was inaccurate to say the least. I wonder if all ugly people could be replaced with good-looking people with this same technique. That way the mother of the septuplets wouldn't have to worry about her bad teeth. Her face could just be replaced with Pam Dauber's.
I think they're talking about the old version of Wingate that was setup by default to allow anyone to connect to anyone else. The perpetrators are probably just bouncing their messages off of a bunch of known Win9x machines running Wingate.
This will be moderated down, but is it not true that the most effective tool against negative moderation is saying "This will moderated down, but...". ESR could be answering questions in the forum and a poster with a login could ask him what the fsck he was thinking when he wrote that piece of crap "Cathedral and Bazaar" and he wouldn't get moderated down if he used the special "This will be moderated down, but..." This will be moderated down, but keep that in mind next time you want to post about Natalie Portman.
They've been hyping this for a long time. Wasn't it supposed to slow the processor when the system was running low on power? There've been laptops that do this for quite a while now. In fact, there was a discussion on the kernel mailing list about it a while back. Here's a link to the discussion. Personally, I don't see it being that big of a deal. My take on it is that it's just an excuse to charge more for portable processors again now that they've been forced to lower prices by competition by AMD.
Actually, if eToys had the trademark, their trademark could be used to bully Etoy because the trademark was applied for in the early '90s. They'd still be in the wrong, but their legal asses would be covered rather than hanging out in the wind like they are now. IANASM, but I'd have made sure I couldn't be caught so undeniably and indefensibly in the wrong if I were involved in a court case like this. Especially considering the way all these "little guys" are banding together and getting all upset when the "big guys" fsck with them. I would have double and triple checked the facts of this case to avoid a countersuit with much more merit than the suit I filed.
Etoy is in a position of strength. eToys' trademark application was overturned, Etoy was there first, eToys is backing down, it's time to fight the hell out of this in many ways. This should go to court, and eToys will almost definitely lose. Then Etoy could proceed with their lawsuit and have eToys by the short hairs. Imagine the dive Etoys' stock would take then. Etoy needs to fight this one to the extent possible. Many good things could come of it. Other corporations may reconsider bullying the little guys, a precedent just might be set, and Etoys would learn that they can't throw their little weight.com around just becaused they've IPO'd.
Slashdot Mirror
What would you do with Blondie and Meat Loaf?
I would call that Bob'sCatNet
So are you saying that the feedback that comes to Jon should only come privately? Isn't that kind of goofy? Slashdot has this whole new paradigm of discussion and Jon is supposed to be emailed if we want to interact with him? That doesn't work for me. I don't think his job description is "Jon, step down from your throne for a moment and stir up the ants." If he's going to promote discussion, he should promote it, steer it, participate in it, speak, listen, interact. Not make long-winded, vague pronouncements and leave it to us to talk about. If he's going to expect any respect at all he's gotta learn to be involved with us like Carmack, Perens, Cox, and ESR are. Slum with us and stoop to our level. Get down in it and participate. If what you said was particularly good, you'll get recognition for it by the moderators. Is that not worth it?
Isn't it nice the the MPAA that they can lock everyone else out of their market? Shouldn't the DoJ be looking into this? I think the barrier to entry into the record business is much higher than the barrier of entry to the software business.
This is actually the most interesting Katz article I've read thus far. Most of them are bland musings of a person who seems to think of himself as an intellectual. They're usually very boring to me, so I just skip them (though I sometimes see what the replies to them are because the flames are funny more often than not). This one is fairly decent, though Katz has no sense of humor and has a hard time getting over himself and his perception of himself as a writer. The most annoying thing about the whole thing are the superscript ones. Even though I'm reading this using Internet Exploder I'm still seeing them. No matter how many times people get onto Katz about the non-standard characters he still insists on using them. You'd think he'd listen and smarten up, but he keeps posting the same drivel in the same format. Dammit! The whole rambling thing must be contagious. I'll try to keep it brief. F' Katz!
Remember that many cable modem providers were freaking out just recently because Windows systems hadn't disabled file and printer sharing and spammers were putting files in their startup group that would allow them to use the system as an smtp proxy and send spam. I recieved a message from Road Runner advising me of the issue. Of course, I have a Linux firewall so I'm not exactly vulnerable.
CmdrTaco didn't suggest that Microsoft had a hand in the attack. The person who submitted the story did. Pay attention to the italics. CmdrTaco didn't comment at all.
I've finally found something that I think works for this. At least from tests I've run it seems to work fine. There may be side effects that I haven't forseen or come across, so please help me out. I issued the following command: ipchains -A input -p TCP -d 24.28.0.0/255.0.0.0 :25 -j DENY I can not not telnet in from my Unix shell account on another system on either the default telnet port or on the SMTP port, but I can telnet out to my smtp server on port 25. SSH2 works just fine, which suits my purposes. Of course, to get it around our firewall here at work I use port 1080 for ssh2, so that doesn't tell me too much. Since this box is mainly a firewall that basically masquerades all outgoing connections and should only deny port 25. Do y'all think that's what I've done, or have I messed something up?
You know, at this point, I think I'm going to try to find an MDA that allows easier configuration and won't take over everything.
I sure hope you see this... Anyway, I tried sendmail in queue processing mode only, and fetchmail wouldn't work. Fetchmail (as I'm sure you know) tries to connect to localhost on port 25 and forward incoming mail to it. The problem with that is that there's nothing running on port 25. Do you know how to run Sendmail so that it is only "bound" to the lo interface? Or even how to specify which interface it's bound to? This Linux box is running ipmasq and it'd be okay to run sendmail on both lo and eth1, but it isn't needed for eth0 as far as I know. I might be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that all fetchmail is doing is recieving mail from fetchmail and putting it in my spool. Other than that I don't think I'd need it for anything else.
All the ideas above make fetchmail not work. I think to do what I want to do I'm going to have to set fetchmail to only listen on localhost. That will probably do it. Any ideas?
Okay, I'm completely down with that. How would one do it?
Since it appears you're familiar with this, I thought I'd ask you about it. I've searched the howtos on how to configure sendmail to not allow certain IP addresses to use it, but allow the localhost to use it. Do have a fairly comprehendable reference on how to disable sendmail to all but the person on the local machine?
Speaking of which, are you concerned that this is perhaps not the best forum for you writing and that your apparent unpopularity cannot be explained by the "quite vocal minority" defense? Is there a possibility that you are Slashdot's token pundit? Consider that you are the only Slashdot Author and that your stories are usually much longer than the other items posted, and usually not something that your average Slashdot reader wants to slag through. When you get right down to it, we're more about Legos and Kernel patches than the ramifications of Disney's dream on blah blah blah.
If I did something better than 99.44 of the population, I'd not get married if I thought my marriage would seriously detract from my work.
The most inspired thing about the poll is that Signal11 is a choice and that he's actually winning!
Actually, at work I'm "lucky" enough to be behind a proxy server. I set IE to not use a proxy for doubleclick addresses. I see many fewer ads that way.
That's like replacing Boris Yeltsin's head with Brad Pitt's and reporting it as news. Their version of actual events was inaccurate to say the least. I wonder if all ugly people could be replaced with good-looking people with this same technique. That way the mother of the septuplets wouldn't have to worry about her bad teeth. Her face could just be replaced with Pam Dauber's.
I think they're talking about the old version of Wingate that was setup by default to allow anyone to connect to anyone else. The perpetrators are probably just bouncing their messages off of a bunch of known Win9x machines running Wingate.
Quake. No doubt about it. One of the best interfaces for any game I've ever seen.
this may be the only way for Mozilla to survive. Having some heavyweight put behind it Like AOL?
This will be moderated down, but is it not true that the most effective tool against negative moderation is saying "This will moderated down, but...". ESR could be answering questions in the forum and a poster with a login could ask him what the fsck he was thinking when he wrote that piece of crap "Cathedral and Bazaar" and he wouldn't get moderated down if he used the special "This will be moderated down, but..." This will be moderated down, but keep that in mind next time you want to post about Natalie Portman.
They've been hyping this for a long time. Wasn't it supposed to slow the processor when the system was running low on power? There've been laptops that do this for quite a while now. In fact, there was a discussion on the kernel mailing list about it a while back. Here's a link to the discussion. Personally, I don't see it being that big of a deal. My take on it is that it's just an excuse to charge more for portable processors again now that they've been forced to lower prices by competition by AMD.
Actually, if eToys had the trademark, their trademark could be used to bully Etoy because the trademark was applied for in the early '90s. They'd still be in the wrong, but their legal asses would be covered rather than hanging out in the wind like they are now. IANASM, but I'd have made sure I couldn't be caught so undeniably and indefensibly in the wrong if I were involved in a court case like this. Especially considering the way all these "little guys" are banding together and getting all upset when the "big guys" fsck with them. I would have double and triple checked the facts of this case to avoid a countersuit with much more merit than the suit I filed.
Etoy is in a position of strength. eToys' trademark application was overturned, Etoy was there first, eToys is backing down, it's time to fight the hell out of this in many ways. This should go to court, and eToys will almost definitely lose. Then Etoy could proceed with their lawsuit and have eToys by the short hairs. Imagine the dive Etoys' stock would take then. Etoy needs to fight this one to the extent possible. Many good things could come of it. Other corporations may reconsider bullying the little guys, a precedent just might be set, and Etoys would learn that they can't throw their little weight.com around just becaused they've IPO'd.