Suckbusters.com sucks bad
on
Why Software Sucks
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Javascript is required for simple hyperlinks to work. That's some quality suckiness right there. You really have to go out of your way to make a plain old hyperlink non-functional.
Oops, some angle brackets got munched by the parser because I forgot to HTML-ise them.
mail from: <anyone@gmail.com> 250 OK rcpt to: <firebird-net-provider@lists.sourceforge.net> 451-Could not complete sender verify callout 451-Could not complete sender verify callout for <anyone@gmail.com> 451-The mail server(s) for the domain may be temporarily unreachable, or 451-they may be permanently unreachable from this server. In the latter case, 451-you need to change the address or create an MX record for its domain 451-if it is supposed to be generally accessible from the Internet. 451 Talk to your mail administrator for details. QUIT 221 mail.sourceforge.net closing connection Connection closed by foreign host.
Once again, this is Sourceforge's problem. They are delaying mail on account of a broken callback, they need to fix it, nothing is wrong with Gmail.
Sourceforge is posting the following message to bug reports about this problem.
Greetings,
We're aware of the difficulties in the interaction between our mailing list services and Gmail. Our network operations team is currently aware of the issue and is working with Gmail administration on a resolution.
-Jay Bonci Systems Programmer Analyst, Sourceforge.net
Somebody posted a SMTP dialog to one of the bug reports:
Example: telnet mail.sourceforge.net 25 Trying 66.35.250.206... Connected to mail.sourceforge.net. Escape character is '^]'. 220 mail.sourceforge.net ESMTP Exim 4.44 Sat, 30 Sep 2006 01:12:02 -0700 sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net HELO aisa.fi.muni.cz 250 mail.sourceforge.net Hello 14397 at aisa.fi.muni.cz [147.251.48.1] mail from: 250 OK rcpt to: 451-Could not complete sender verify callout 451-Could not complete sender verify callout for <anyone@gmail.com> 451-The mail server(s) for the domain may be temporarily unreachable, or 451-they may be permanently unreachable from this server. In the latter case, 451-you need to change the address or create an MX record for its domain 451-if it is supposed to be generally accessible from the Internet. 451 Talk to your mail administrator for details. QUIT 221 mail.sourceforge.net closing connection Connection closed by foreign host.
Sourceforge's mail server is doing a callback to gmail.com, to verify the sender address is accepted by gmail.com. This check is screwing up. It's Sourceforge's problem. Callback verify is not covered by any RFC, so SF has gone above and beyond the standards, it is their responsibility to make sure their SMTP service is interoperable with standard servers, not the other way around. Google can provide logs of the failed callbacks, but that's all the burden they should assume. It's SF's problem to fix.
Tax a business, their costs increase, they pass that charge onto their customers.
The authors of this bill know that, and have included language in it that attempts to prohibit passing on the costs to the customers. Whether it will work or not, I have no idea, but your objection misses an important feature of the bill.
Yeah, next thing you know, they'll be cramming view cameras in there, too.
My esteemed article author, do you know what a scanning back is? It's like a flatbed scanner, only it scans the projected image from a lens one line at a time. But like a flatbed, there is a moving sensor which captures one row of pixels at a time. Only someone ignorant of what this camera is would suggest putting one in a mobile phone. Yes, my irony meter works perfectly, so does my ignoramous meter.
And this is not the largest one you can buy. That honor goes to the BetterLight SUPER 8K-HS, which has 384 Mpixels at 12,000 x 15,990.
I just want to know, I don't want to be flamed. I want to understand how you would try to protect us from this threat?
In the five years since 9/11 there has been no terror attack on US soil. In the five years prior to 9/11, there were no terror attacks on US soil. What we were doing prior to 9/11 is at least as effective as what we have been doing since. So, keep doing those things. We don't need any new laws, and the ones passed since 9/11 should be repealed. They are unnecessary, and freedom lovers do not want unnecessary laws.
It either exists, or it does not exist. If it doesn't exist, the only correct answer is NXDOMAIN. Anything else is some protocol other than DNS. There is no DEAD_DOMAIN_REDIRECT_TO_AD answer defined in the protocol. If the domain is not in the TLD servers, any answer but NXDOMAIN is a lie.
That includes when it comes from OpenDNS nameservers, which is just another service that lies to you about DNS query results.
Excessive government interference can deter innovation and encourage rival companies to "devote their resources to legal challenges rather than business innovation," he (Barnett) added.
Exactly. When the DMCA was passed, it open a floodgate of lawsuits by the recorded music manufacturing industry against its own consumers. This consumed valuable resources, and stifled the market's ability to force the recorded music vendors to innovate and come up with new products that their consumers wanted to buy.
I can't find any fault with this statement of his.
Is that really a basis for completely throwing out both of the points raised originally?
It seems that it is, at this point in the case. It seems that the Defendant must come to trial, and only then can he proceed to argue that the screenshots do not link him to the infringement, but link only to an IP address that cannot realitically be associated with a person.
If the computer industry doesn't get into the fight of helping the RIAA victims, the copyright law is going to be expanded and twisted to such an extent that the internet as we know it will cease to exist.
First of all, thanks to the computer industry, the internet as we know it ceases to exist all the time. There used to be no home connections to the internet. There used to be no world wide web, instead, there was gopher and veronica. There used to be no SMTP, instead there was UUCP. Just because the recorded music manufacturers won't allow just anyone connected to the internet to distribute their product, doesn't mean the rest of it will fall apart. The Internet is not song downloading. If song downloading goes away, that just leaves more bandwidth for more interesting things, like VOIP and distributed computing.
If you go read the documents he links to in that answer, where he says "We tried, we tried..." you'll find that it was in the discovery process where the screenshots were being shown to the court. At this point in the case, the plaintiffs had only a list of John Does, associated with an IP address. Each IP address had a list of songs that the plaintiffs - the RIAA - had downloaded from the host at that address. The court ruled that for discovery to proceed, all the RIAA had to do was show prima facie evidence that a case could be made. The statures say that prima facie evidence consists of (a) proof of the plaintiffs rights to the song downloaded and (b) the infringing copies of the songs. Boom, that's prima facie evidence that there is a case. Now all that needs to be discovered is who is the defendant. But making the argument during discovery that the evidence of IP address is insufficient to prove infringment on the part of the John Doe misses the point, according to the judge. The court at this point is just trying to identify the defendant, but the attorney for the defense is arguing that the case should be dismissed before the plaintiff learns who he is suing.
Wrong argument, wrong point in the case. This needs to be argued after an identified someone gets to court to defend themselves against the suit.
I am disappointed in the answer he gave, and the case he cited to support his contention that "the court won't listen."
There is no "fair use law." There is a fair use doctrine, which has evolved from legal rulings. But it is not embodied in any statute. Stare decisis is all that holds it up.
They need to stop worrying about being authoritative or credible. Wikipedia is useful for discovering links and keywords to use in a subsequent search for authoritative material. It's a place to start, not a place to finish. The more people that give a shit about a topic on Wikipedia - whichever side of a controversy they are on - the more useful the content posted to that topic becomes for the purpose of getting more research leads.
The topics on Wiki that are least useful are the obscure, non-controversial topics dealing with facts, where Wiki contributors would just be copy/pasting stuff from somewhere else. That's boring, so few people do it, so topics like that are usually absent or just a stub on Wiki.
If they lied to protect themselves, then why was telling the truth a less attractive option?
You're not really this naive, troll. Under threat of lawsuit, the RIAA got people who would otherwise have plead innocent, to sign a statement vowing not to do something again they didn't believe they had done once. It's called a settlement. You can sign the paper and get off with $2000 or more out of pocket in damages, or you can contest it and be out many thousands more in attorney fees.
So many people have perjured themselves, admitting on a legal document to deeds they believe they never committed, in order to avoid a RIAA lawsuit.
The loss in customer service is irreparable to one major client, and three unbelievably important emails were lost forever...
If it was unbelieveably important, a courier should have been hired to deliver a CD or hard drive. That's what professionals do. Email is designed to be a "best effort" service. It's perfectly fine for routine day-to-day communications, but not for "unbelievably important" things. If it's really that bad, the people who sent the material by email should be reprimanded or fired.
Imagine if you could have a stealth enabled caster who could equip heavy armor and knows the strongest magic in the game?
Give me a stealth any-character that isn't completely revealed to the entire zone by a n00b mage casting his first level spell "Reveal Invisible." It was that way in EQ, it's that way in WoW. What is the point of having a Rogue who can hide and backstab if the lowliest of n00bs can defeat his advantage with a starter spell?
I think the most famous example would be the loss of the trademark for the "Monopoly" board game by Parker brothers back in the 80's. They got the trademark back by legislation.
So they didn't lose it. I asked for examples where companies lost their mark to "hair trigger willingness" to rule them into the public domain. The only specific example you could cite is that of a company that got to keep theirs. The rest was hand waving.
I do not see any problem here. There is no evidence of any "hair trigger willingness" to take marks away from companies. There is no reason to believe this is happening.
Yes, they should. You learn by doing, not by being told what to do as if you were child.
The network will work just fine with or without DNS, by the way. DNS is just another directory application, like LDAP. It isn't integral to anything but DNS clients. In fact, it pretty much sucks in its role as master hostname directory. Let something else replace it. Killing it would be an act of mercy.
The sad truth is that unless a trademark holder defends their trademark to a near insane degree courts in the last 30 years have shown a hair trigger willingness to rule that the trademark has moved into the public domain.
Please cite an example that we haven't heard of before. Obviously, Xerox lost theirs within the last 30 years, we all know that. Kleenex lost theirs much longer before that. So what are some of the other cases of companies losing their trademarks due to "hair trigger willingness" to rule them in the public domain?
Slashdot Mirror
Javascript is required for simple hyperlinks to work. That's some quality suckiness right there. You really have to go out of your way to make a plain old hyperlink non-functional.
Oops, some angle brackets got munched by the parser because I forgot to HTML-ise them.
mail from: <anyone@gmail.com>
250 OK
rcpt to: <firebird-net-provider@lists.sourceforge.net>
451-Could not complete sender verify callout
451-Could not complete sender verify callout for <anyone@gmail.com>
451-The mail server(s) for the domain may be temporarily unreachable, or
451-they may be permanently unreachable from this server. In the latter case,
451-you need to change the address or create an MX record for its domain
451-if it is supposed to be generally accessible from the Internet.
451 Talk to your mail administrator for details.
QUIT
221 mail.sourceforge.net closing connection
Connection closed by foreign host.
Once again, this is Sourceforge's problem. They are delaying mail on account of a broken callback, they need to fix it, nothing is wrong with Gmail.
Sourceforge is posting the following message to bug reports about this problem.
Greetings,
We're aware of the difficulties in the interaction
between
our mailing list services and Gmail. Our network operations
team
is currently aware of the issue and is working with Gmail
administration on a resolution.
-Jay Bonci
Systems Programmer Analyst,
Sourceforge.net
Somebody posted a SMTP dialog to one of the bug reports:
Example:
telnet mail.sourceforge.net 25
Trying 66.35.250.206...
Connected to mail.sourceforge.net.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 mail.sourceforge.net ESMTP Exim 4.44 Sat, 30 Sep
2006 01:12:02 -0700 sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net
HELO aisa.fi.muni.cz
250 mail.sourceforge.net Hello 14397 at aisa.fi.muni.cz [147.251.48.1]
mail from:
250 OK
rcpt to:
451-Could not complete sender verify callout
451-Could not complete sender verify callout for <anyone@gmail.com>
451-The mail server(s) for the domain may be temporarily unreachable, or
451-they may be permanently unreachable from this server. In the latter case,
451-you need to change the address or create an MX record for its domain
451-if it is supposed to be generally accessible from the Internet.
451 Talk to your mail administrator for details.
QUIT
221 mail.sourceforge.net closing connection
Connection closed by foreign host.
Sourceforge's mail server is doing a callback to gmail.com, to verify the sender address is accepted by gmail.com. This check is screwing up. It's Sourceforge's problem. Callback verify is not covered by any RFC, so SF has gone above and beyond the standards, it is their responsibility to make sure their SMTP service is interoperable with standard servers, not the other way around. Google can provide logs of the failed callbacks, but that's all the burden they should assume. It's SF's problem to fix.
Tax a business, their costs increase, they pass that charge onto their customers.
The authors of this bill know that, and have included language in it that attempts to prohibit passing on the costs to the customers. Whether it will work or not, I have no idea, but your objection misses an important feature of the bill.
Yeah, next thing you know, they'll be cramming view cameras in there, too.
My esteemed article author, do you know what a scanning back is? It's like a flatbed scanner, only it scans the projected image from a lens one line at a time. But like a flatbed, there is a moving sensor which captures one row of pixels at a time. Only someone ignorant of what this camera is would suggest putting one in a mobile phone. Yes, my irony meter works perfectly, so does my ignoramous meter.
And this is not the largest one you can buy. That honor goes to the BetterLight SUPER 8K-HS, which has 384 Mpixels at 12,000 x 15,990.
http://www.betterlight.com/
You should get out more. People have been distrusting government for centuries. If you'd met one or two of them, you'd know that.
I just want to know, I don't want to be flamed. I want to understand how you would try to protect us from this threat?
In the five years since 9/11 there has been no terror attack on US soil. In the five years prior to 9/11, there were no terror attacks on US soil. What we were doing prior to 9/11 is at least as effective as what we have been doing since. So, keep doing those things. We don't need any new laws, and the ones passed since 9/11 should be repealed. They are unnecessary, and freedom lovers do not want unnecessary laws.
The law the automakers are trying to avoid is a civil law. Suing them for not complying with it is how you go about enforcing it.
Posting without a clue ftl...
It either exists, or it does not exist. If it doesn't exist, the only correct answer is NXDOMAIN. Anything else is some protocol other than DNS. There is no DEAD_DOMAIN_REDIRECT_TO_AD answer defined in the protocol. If the domain is not in the TLD servers, any answer but NXDOMAIN is a lie.
That includes when it comes from OpenDNS nameservers, which is just another service that lies to you about DNS query results.
Then copyright will become as respected a law as speeding limits. They can't take us all to court.
Excessive government interference can deter innovation and encourage rival companies to "devote their resources to legal challenges rather than business innovation," he (Barnett) added.
Exactly. When the DMCA was passed, it open a floodgate of lawsuits by the recorded music manufacturing industry against its own consumers. This consumed valuable resources, and stifled the market's ability to force the recorded music vendors to innovate and come up with new products that their consumers wanted to buy.
I can't find any fault with this statement of his.
Is that really a basis for completely throwing out both of the points raised originally?
It seems that it is, at this point in the case. It seems that the Defendant must come to trial, and only then can he proceed to argue that the screenshots do not link him to the infringement, but link only to an IP address that cannot realitically be associated with a person.
If the computer industry doesn't get into the fight of helping the RIAA victims, the copyright law is going to be expanded and twisted to such an extent that the internet as we know it will cease to exist.
First of all, thanks to the computer industry, the internet as we know it ceases to exist all the time. There used to be no home connections to the internet. There used to be no world wide web, instead, there was gopher and veronica. There used to be no SMTP, instead there was UUCP. Just because the recorded music manufacturers won't allow just anyone connected to the internet to distribute their product, doesn't mean the rest of it will fall apart. The Internet is not song downloading. If song downloading goes away, that just leaves more bandwidth for more interesting things, like VOIP and distributed computing.
If you go read the documents he links to in that answer, where he says "We tried, we tried..." you'll find that it was in the discovery process where the screenshots were being shown to the court. At this point in the case, the plaintiffs had only a list of John Does, associated with an IP address. Each IP address had a list of songs that the plaintiffs - the RIAA - had downloaded from the host at that address. The court ruled that for discovery to proceed, all the RIAA had to do was show prima facie evidence that a case could be made. The statures say that prima facie evidence consists of (a) proof of the plaintiffs rights to the song downloaded and (b) the infringing copies of the songs. Boom, that's prima facie evidence that there is a case. Now all that needs to be discovered is who is the defendant. But making the argument during discovery that the evidence of IP address is insufficient to prove infringment on the part of the John Doe misses the point, according to the judge. The court at this point is just trying to identify the defendant, but the attorney for the defense is arguing that the case should be dismissed before the plaintiff learns who he is suing.
Wrong argument, wrong point in the case. This needs to be argued after an identified someone gets to court to defend themselves against the suit.
I am disappointed in the answer he gave, and the case he cited to support his contention that "the court won't listen."
There is no "fair use law." There is a fair use doctrine, which has evolved from legal rulings. But it is not embodied in any statute. Stare decisis is all that holds it up.
They need to stop worrying about being authoritative or credible. Wikipedia is useful for discovering links and keywords to use in a subsequent search for authoritative material. It's a place to start, not a place to finish. The more people that give a shit about a topic on Wikipedia - whichever side of a controversy they are on - the more useful the content posted to that topic becomes for the purpose of getting more research leads.
The topics on Wiki that are least useful are the obscure, non-controversial topics dealing with facts, where Wiki contributors would just be copy/pasting stuff from somewhere else. That's boring, so few people do it, so topics like that are usually absent or just a stub on Wiki.
If they lied to protect themselves, then why was telling the truth a less attractive option?
You're not really this naive, troll. Under threat of lawsuit, the RIAA got people who would otherwise have plead innocent, to sign a statement vowing not to do something again they didn't believe they had done once. It's called a settlement. You can sign the paper and get off with $2000 or more out of pocket in damages, or you can contest it and be out many thousands more in attorney fees.
So many people have perjured themselves, admitting on a legal document to deeds they believe they never committed, in order to avoid a RIAA lawsuit.
Eat it, troll.
The loss in customer service is irreparable to one major client, and three unbelievably important emails were lost forever ...
If it was unbelieveably important, a courier should have been hired to deliver a CD or hard drive. That's what professionals do. Email is designed to be a "best effort" service. It's perfectly fine for routine day-to-day communications, but not for "unbelievably important" things. If it's really that bad, the people who sent the material by email should be reprimanded or fired.
It's Lowell. The man's name was Percival Lowell.
Imagine if you could have a stealth enabled caster who could equip heavy armor and knows the strongest magic in the game?
Give me a stealth any-character that isn't completely revealed to the entire zone by a n00b mage casting his first level spell "Reveal Invisible." It was that way in EQ, it's that way in WoW. What is the point of having a Rogue who can hide and backstab if the lowliest of n00bs can defeat his advantage with a starter spell?
It makes no sense at all.
I think the most famous example would be the loss of the trademark for the "Monopoly" board game by Parker brothers back in the 80's. They got the trademark back by legislation.
So they didn't lose it. I asked for examples where companies lost their mark to "hair trigger willingness" to rule them into the public domain. The only specific example you could cite is that of a company that got to keep theirs. The rest was hand waving.
I do not see any problem here. There is no evidence of any "hair trigger willingness" to take marks away from companies. There is no reason to believe this is happening.
Yes, they should. You learn by doing, not by being told what to do as if you were child.
The network will work just fine with or without DNS, by the way. DNS is just another directory application, like LDAP. It isn't integral to anything but DNS clients. In fact, it pretty much sucks in its role as master hostname directory. Let something else replace it. Killing it would be an act of mercy.
The sad truth is that unless a trademark holder defends their trademark to a near insane degree courts in the last 30 years have shown a hair trigger willingness to rule that the trademark has moved into the public domain.
Please cite an example that we haven't heard of before. Obviously, Xerox lost theirs within the last 30 years, we all know that. Kleenex lost theirs much longer before that. So what are some of the other cases of companies losing their trademarks due to "hair trigger willingness" to rule them in the public domain?
Educate us. Thanks.
It's a fucking text file on a server in a data center, not the freaking Magna Carta!
Get a grip!
Do you really want the committee-chairman-of-the-week in some back corner of the UN having influence over this vital area?
Fine by me.
Me neither.
Oh! I didn't realize you were an ass.