Also if you've ever pulled up at the traffic lights next to a car that's creeping forwards next to you, it can sometimes feel like your car is creeping backwards depending on where you're concentrating.
On the London Underground, if two trains are right next to each other and stationery, and the other train begins moving, it often feels like your train is the one actually moving. You usually figure it all out after a second or two when you realise you can't feel anything that you usually associate with movement, such as the feel of acceleration or the jolting of the carriage as it moves.
I would say that knowing the intersection would be a major breakthrough in the case compared to knowing nothing at all. Any information in a case like this is always useful, particularly in tracking the abductor's movements.
Phorm says that their activities do not break RIPA because hosting a publicly available website implies public monitoring (duh?) and that ISPs may include an acceptance of monitoring clause in their Ts & Cs.
RIPA is a criminal law, not a civil one... And contract law (ie. the Ts and Cs) can never override criminal law. If you enter into a contract that breaks criminal law that contract (or the portions of that contract) become irrelevant.
Just putting something like "monitoring" in the Ts and Cs doesn't give the ISP any LEGAL right to do it.
Hopefully there is enough law in place to help us already or hopefully we as users can get together with a class-action suit and make some law ourselves by setting precedence!
Remember what the original three TLDs really mean?
COMmercial NETwork ORGanisation
And these are supposed to be "global" TLDs. When the Internet was maturing it was fairly common to see.net/.org and even.com being used properly, with domains relating to their correct purpose. Internet infrastructure in.net, commercial entities in.org etc. What started happening next is that while other countries had operated within ccTLDs, (eg.com.au,.co.uk,.co.nz etc).com was adopted by the masses, particularly by the USA using it as their top level domain rather than residing beneath.us. This mass exposure during the boom eventually gave.com the household name it is today and made it the #1 target TLD to get almost no matter where your business was based. It was good security and it rolled off the tongue.
Now if your.com is taken you may consider.net, and you can register it too, even if you're not a network infrastructure provider, because it's completely deregulated.
Let's face it, the only reason.coms are so deregulated is because it encourages mass-registration and more volume at a lower price means a bigger cut for ICAAN. But perhaps regulation and organisation is important once again.
ICAAN have always been really slow at introducing new TLDs and there are many possibilities out there. Let's not forget,.museum,.jobs,.travel,.ws? These have all been created but what good has come of them? Good ideas but they really need to be adopted willingly or force-fed into the Internet community. It won't evolve otherwise. Perhaps the whole system needs a rethink and a revamp.
It sounds very defensive. Like Microsoft are trying to show off about how secure Vista is given the track record of their previous operating system releases. How can a company be proud of something like this? How can they say that Vista is great because they fixed less exploits than any other OS release on the market, INCLUDING their own? Let's just take a step back please, Microsoft. I think we'll find that you would have every right to boast if you actually had a good track record. Perhaps there are less known exploits because less people are using Vista.
It's basically the same idea that Apple did five years ago with Classic, the Mac OS 9 emulator that runs on Mac OS X.
It's also similar to the NTVDM (NT Virtual DOS Machine) which created a 16-bit environment allowing 16-bit applications (Windows 9x and prior) to execute on a 32-bit OS.
Theoretically the cookie set by/. when you read this is spyware, while the gator and 30 browserhijacks/toolbars/etc you volunteerly installed and accepted thru a 30 pages long eula isnt ?
No -- the cookies that are set on your computer are requested and accepted by you. The web site requests to place a cookie on your computer, and depending on your browser setting, it may be automatically set. In decent browsers you are given cookie handling options, allowing you to set up access-control lists saying which sites and which sites should/shouldn't be able to set cookies.
Not to mention various pieces of software that installs on windows machines when you try play a regular audio CD..
Might be interesting to see which browser is in use among the tech community vs the real world community. Searching for "created by awstats" on the web lets you get an inside view on the statistics of some websites, and you can tell how Microsoft do have a massive lead (aroud 73%).
But this is most likely because IE is presented to users on a silver platter, with their OS of choice also presented to them on a silver platter whenever they buy a new computer.
Some less computer literate people ask me what I'm running on my laptop, and say "Is this Windows?" and i say "No, it's KDE on FreeBSD" and they say "Wha?" One day, one day.
So, if the scumbags at "Foo Corp." decide to sell my email address, I simply delete the "foo@mydomain" entry from my aliases file and both the spammer and Foo Corp.
Doing this the other way around you could still use a catch-all and then put a manual override in your mailertable file. If you send back bounces to spammers you are still increasing the amount of overall email traffic on the Internet, so it's better for the Internet that you just accept all your mail. What you choose to do with it in the end is up to you; whether or not you block, filter, keep or dump it, it doesn't matter.
Honeypots were designed to do this but it seems to be a bit of a double standard. On the one hand you have a domain which is accepting of potentially thousands of emails per day, and so according to your spammer, these addresses are valid, and keep getting spammed and spammed (even if the honeypost are designed to waste time by not releasing TCP sessions).
But on the other hand, if you send back a '550 No Such User' error, you're sending back another 10k of smtp traffic that is otherwise unnecessary, for every single bounced email.
The only other ways around it seem to be by firewalling -- deny everything from Korea, China, and any other Asian countries. They make up 80% of spam, and unless you deal with these parts of the world regularly, blocking them frmo the router (at least on port 25) will surely mean that you will reduce your spam greatly.
Why would you use it in the first place? It's one of the most useless search engines I've ever seen. Out of all of them, I've found the results to be far, far less than acceptably accurate!
Well in this case, "you shouldn't have gotten rear-ended" is not a good analogy. A better analogy would be the front door on your house. If you leave it unlocked, well that's pretty stupid. It's not the lock manufacturer's fault you didn't lock it.
I'm sure we could use analagy after analagy on this. Here's another. Suppose you are driving down a highway and someone hits your car. Not your fault, but as a protective measure your airbags are supposed to inflate. They don't! And they don't inflate because the manufacturer realized there was a bug in their code which stopped them inflating, and issued a product recall. A recall is kind of similar to applying a service pack.
The question is, once the bug has been discovered and patched, who's responsibility is it? Is it Microsoft's responsibility to announce a large-scale product bug-fix? YES. And they do. Is it the customer's obligation to ensure their product is repaired? YES. The blame goes both ways.
Re:Move the onus from the recipient to the sender.
on
IETF to Look at Spam
·
· Score: 0
What about a mailing list?
Suppose you're responsible for sending out a legitimate weekly newsletter, and you have 500,000 recipients. Currently, you send out that email address to newsletter@mydomain.com, and your list software then sends it out to those 500,000 recipients.
With what you're suggesting, at let's say, 10k per newsletter, we're talking a lot of bytes that are being queued on the server. And what of those users who never pick up their email? Does your email expire? That's extremely dangerous, especially with important email.
Discussion lists are even worse, because you have to store possibly hundreds of messages per day, for possibly hundreds of recipients! It is definitely a system that encourages a *lot* of wasted disk space at the sender's end.
If I was setting up a server that was setting up a large volume mailing list (or series of them!) I would definitely prefer the current version of SMTP, because I already know my server isn't going to be used to send out spam, unless there's an exploit.
Slashdot Mirror
Also if you've ever pulled up at the traffic lights next to a car that's creeping forwards next to you, it can sometimes feel like your car is creeping backwards depending on where you're concentrating.
On the London Underground, if two trains are right next to each other and stationery, and the other train begins moving, it often feels like your train is the one actually moving. You usually figure it all out after a second or two when you realise you can't feel anything that you usually associate with movement, such as the feel of acceleration or the jolting of the carriage as it moves.
I would say that knowing the intersection would be a major breakthrough in the case compared to knowing nothing at all. Any information in a case like this is always useful, particularly in tracking the abductor's movements.
RIPA is a criminal law, not a civil one... And contract law (ie. the Ts and Cs) can never override criminal law. If you enter into a contract that breaks criminal law that contract (or the portions of that contract) become irrelevant.
Just putting something like "monitoring" in the Ts and Cs doesn't give the ISP any LEGAL right to do it.
Hopefully there is enough law in place to help us already or hopefully we as users can get together with a class-action suit and make some law ourselves by setting precedence!
The big get bigger and the small get smaller!
Mind you, they've already paid RIAA tax on the blank CDs, so theoretically they're forcibly giving money away to their own competitors!
I'd like to see somebody who uses a large amount of CDRs for legitimate purposes write to the RIAA for a refund.
These links apparently work.
Windows XP SP2: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=110324
Windows Vista: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=110325
Remember what the original three TLDs really mean?
.net/.org and even .com being used properly, with domains relating to their correct purpose. Internet infrastructure in .net, commercial entities in .org etc. What started happening next is that while other countries had operated within ccTLDs, (eg .com.au, .co.uk, .co.nz etc) .com was adopted by the masses, particularly by the USA using it as their top level domain rather than residing beneath .us. This mass exposure during the boom eventually gave .com the household name it is today and made it the #1 target TLD to get almost no matter where your business was based. It was good security and it rolled off the tongue.
.com is taken you may consider .net, and you can register it too, even if you're not a network infrastructure provider, because it's completely deregulated.
.coms are so deregulated is because it encourages mass-registration and more volume at a lower price means a bigger cut for ICAAN. But perhaps regulation and organisation is important once again.
.museum, .jobs, .travel, .ws? These have all been created but what good has come of them? Good ideas but they really need to be adopted willingly or force-fed into the Internet community. It won't evolve otherwise. Perhaps the whole system needs a rethink and a revamp.
COMmercial
NETwork
ORGanisation
And these are supposed to be "global" TLDs. When the Internet was maturing it was fairly common to see
Now if your
Let's face it, the only reason
ICAAN have always been really slow at introducing new TLDs and there are many possibilities out there. Let's not forget,
And it certainly ain't faster than Safari.
It sounds very defensive. Like Microsoft are trying to show off about how secure Vista is given the track record of their previous operating system releases. How can a company be proud of something like this? How can they say that Vista is great because they fixed less exploits than any other OS release on the market, INCLUDING their own? Let's just take a step back please, Microsoft. I think we'll find that you would have every right to boast if you actually had a good track record. Perhaps there are less known exploits because less people are using Vista.
It's also similar to the NTVDM (NT Virtual DOS Machine) which created a 16-bit environment allowing 16-bit applications (Windows 9x and prior) to execute on a 32-bit OS.
If these guys ever traveled to the USA, they'd probably be arrested
But for what? They didn't violate any US laws. They provided a torrent tracker site from another country. The Internet is open to all.
No, because Fosters is what we export to those unsuspecting Americans
No -- the cookies that are set on your computer are requested and accepted by you. The web site requests to place a cookie on your computer, and depending on your browser setting, it may be automatically set. In decent browsers you are given cookie handling options, allowing you to set up access-control lists saying which sites and which sites should/shouldn't be able to set cookies.
What, audio codecs? Please.
http://www.googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=a dbar&q2=adblock&B1=Make+a+fight%21&compare=1&langu e=us
adbar ( 9 830 results) versus adblock ( 15 700 results)
Might be interesting to see which browser is in use among the tech community vs the real world community. Searching for "created by awstats" on the web lets you get an inside view on the statistics of some websites, and you can tell how Microsoft do have a massive lead (aroud 73%).
But this is most likely because IE is presented to users on a silver platter, with their OS of choice also presented to them on a silver platter whenever they buy a new computer.
Some less computer literate people ask me what I'm running on my laptop, and say "Is this Windows?" and i say "No, it's KDE on FreeBSD" and they say "Wha?" One day, one day.
Tunguska!
This is because the average age of an MCP is five years old. It's easier to become an MCP than it is to get into the Grade 1 spelling club.
Doing this the other way around you could still use a catch-all and then put a manual override in your mailertable file. If you send back bounces to spammers you are still increasing the amount of overall email traffic on the Internet, so it's better for the Internet that you just accept all your mail. What you choose to do with it in the end is up to you; whether or not you block, filter, keep or dump it, it doesn't matter.
Honeypots were designed to do this but it seems to be a bit of a double standard. On the one hand you have a domain which is accepting of potentially thousands of emails per day, and so according to your spammer, these addresses are valid, and keep getting spammed and spammed (even if the honeypost are designed to waste time by not releasing TCP sessions).
But on the other hand, if you send back a '550 No Such User' error, you're sending back another 10k of smtp traffic that is otherwise unnecessary, for every single bounced email.
The only other ways around it seem to be by firewalling -- deny everything from Korea, China, and any other Asian countries. They make up 80% of spam, and unless you deal with these parts of the world regularly, blocking them frmo the router (at least on port 25) will surely mean that you will reduce your spam greatly.
Terrorism.
Why would you use it in the first place? It's one of the most useless search engines I've ever seen. Out of all of them, I've found the results to be far, far less than acceptably accurate!
I don't know why this got marked as +5 Funny. It's clearly un-funny.
I'm sure we could use analagy after analagy on this. Here's another. Suppose you are driving down a highway and someone hits your car. Not your fault, but as a protective measure your airbags are supposed to inflate. They don't! And they don't inflate because the manufacturer realized there was a bug in their code which stopped them inflating, and issued a product recall. A recall is kind of similar to applying a service pack.
The question is, once the bug has been discovered and patched, who's responsibility is it? Is it Microsoft's responsibility to announce a large-scale product bug-fix? YES. And they do. Is it the customer's obligation to ensure their product is repaired? YES. The blame goes both ways.
What about a mailing list?
Suppose you're responsible for sending out a legitimate weekly newsletter, and you have 500,000 recipients. Currently, you send out that email address to newsletter@mydomain.com, and your list software then sends it out to those 500,000 recipients.
With what you're suggesting, at let's say, 10k per newsletter, we're talking a lot of bytes that are being queued on the server. And what of those users who never pick up their email? Does your email expire? That's extremely dangerous, especially with important email.
Discussion lists are even worse, because you have to store possibly hundreds of messages per day, for possibly hundreds of recipients! It is definitely a system that encourages a *lot* of wasted disk space at the sender's end.
If I was setting up a server that was setting up a large volume mailing list (or series of them!) I would definitely prefer the current version of SMTP, because I already know my server isn't going to be used to send out spam, unless there's an exploit.
"This information includes" can be interpreted as being a complete list. You will find that most legal documents will read:
"This information includes, but is not limited to: [items...]"
But when's the last time you heard about the latest and greatest offering from AltaVista?
t a. com
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.altavis