To show appreciation for NY in light of 9/11, I went ahead and signed up for the free subscription to NYT the week after it happened, and stopped avoiding logging in. Just when I do that, Slashdot starts publishing the no-login links. Go figure.
This one has been superceded by many later RFCs (1123 comes to mine immediately). However, if you adhere to it, you'll be miles ahead of many commercial programs.
As we all know, "kit" is a british slang term for computer hardware.
No it isn't. That's just the only context in which you've heard it used (translation: you read too much Slashdot, and should get out more often). "Kit" is the British equivalent of the American "rig" when used in this context. It is not used specifically to refer to computers.
Oh yeah, great idea. Instead of delivering mail instantly via my own fully-capable MTA, throw all my email into the ISP's queue, where it can sit for hours before being processed. Yeah, right.
Mitchell continued "By reaching this settlement both sides avoid the very real risks associated with going to trial. Furthermore, neither side can take any action against the other without the permission of the Court, and there are substantial penalties provided for a breach of the agreement. And, of course, we are still free to choose to accept or reject email from them on our own personal networks."
They used to say they wanted to get sued, so they could establish precedent that MAPS activities are legal. But they keep settling. What gives? This is not how to establish precedent.
It's called "discovery". They don't need to know all the details about how it works before filing the lawsuit. During the course of the trial, the judge can order the defendants to hand over the source code as evidence.
Divx smelled like dogshit without any help from "DVD activists", who did little more than excite themselves (not that there's anything wrong with that...). Hardly anyone else noticed. But practically everyone noticed that Divx offered them less, for more. That's why it died.
They've obviously got a decent idea here (putting compressed digital copies of the CDDA tracks on the same disc as the music),...
Really? How is this a decent idea? There's already perfectly good high-quality digital audio tracks on the disk. So how is it a good idea, to reduce the number of minutes of music on a CD, so as to place redundant, lower quality computer-playable (but not copyable) tracks of the same stuff on the disk as well?
...but they've got their heads up their asses in the implementation.
No, dear. They have their heads up their asses. End of sentence. That the implementation is fucked is just a symptom of how fucked the creator of this scheme is. For the same price, you will get two or three fewer songs per disk, which can only increase margins for the labels. Such a deal.
InterTrust Technologies Corporation (NASDAQ: ITRU), the leading inventor of Digital Rights Management (DRM) technology, announced today that its second amended complaint in its lawsuit against Microsoft will add claims that Microsoft's "product activation"/anti-piracy technology infringes InterTrust patent claims.
This company's market cap is $97.8M (share price just above $1). MSFT can just buy them out and settle the case that way. Hell, AOL could buy them and use the patents and licensing as leverage to keep MSFT from doing to them what they did to CPQ and DELL.
I see little risk to anyone, except for InterTrust, of course. But then, they probably did this so someone would buy them out.
"I think this is a glimpse of the future," said P.J. McNealy, a digital-entertainment analyst with GartnerG2, a division of research company Gartner. "This meets both sides' needs. It gives people the compressed audio (to play on computers), and it protects copyrights."
It does not meet both sides' needs. People don't want to play compressed audio on their computers, specifically. They want to listen to the music they buy at their convenience, in whatever format that entails. Right now, MP3 is popular, and home computers are a prevalent playback platform. Next year, it might be Ogg Vorbis, or something that hasn't yet been invented. People most decidedly do NOT want to be told how and when they may listen to music they have bought. They just want to listen. The details of formats and platforms are unimportant in the long run. If the music can be coded into any digital format, then it can and will be transcoded into whatever format the listener needs at the moment for his convenience, either by resampling from the analog signal jack, or directly transcoding a digital music file.
In his response, Ashcroft said he believed "To:" and "From:" lines of e-mail could be intercepted without a court order, but "Subject:" lines would require a judge's signature. "We're not asking that we get content or the subject," he replied. "We want information on who sent it and to whom it was sent."
So if I wish to preserve the privacy of those with whom I communicate from the government, I need only insert fake To: and From: headers in the body of the email, and use the real addresses in the SMTP envelope. Just like spammers do. OK, not much trouble to do that, and no encryption needed.
What's a graduate gonna do at his job when he runs into a problem he doesn't know the answer to? Hop in IRC, send a IM to someone who might be able to help, search on Google, post to Usenet...
Why is this considered cheating? I don't get it. This is exactly how real people go about solving real problems in the real world.
Testifying before the House Judiciary Committee, Ashcroft defended the proposal's definition of terrorism. "I don't believe that our definition of terrorism is so broad," said Ashcroft. "It is broad enough to include things like assaults on computers, and assaults designed to change the purpose of government."
Seems like this bill needs to be broadened to include itself and John Ashcroft, both of whom seem hell-bent on changing the purpose of government.
Not a fair comparison. Of course it is easier to administrate* a NT system with no apps or services installed, than it is to administrate a Linux box that is actually does something useful.
(* one administers an enema; one administrates a computer system, though sometimes, I know, it is hard to tell the difference)
I consider myself a staunch libertarian when it comes to the Bill of Rights, and to personal freedoms in general. So I can hardly believe I'm saying this! But hear me out.
Famous last words - of the sellout!
I propose a few rules for a national identity card system that would provide us with all the benefits of nearly unforgeable proof-of-identity without compromising our right to privacy or any other right which we currently enjoy.
Why not first explain what these benefits are? How will a national ID card prevent what happened on 9/11? How will it make us more secure? Explain that before you go off on a tangent about how to make it less objectionable.
...completely ignoring their reasonable call for proof.
Microsoft to this day maintains it is innocent of abusing it's monopoly. The guilty can be counted on to file appeal after appeal after appeal after appeal. At some point, those who have rendered the judgment must enforce it over any further objections, or lose credibility, and hence the authority to act.
That said, something should have been done about bin Laden long ago.
Then why bitch about inadequate proof! Go get the bastard for his past transgressions, for gods' sakes! Geezus how hard is this to understand?? Everybody KNOWS he is a terrorist responsible for many acts of violence, not the least of which was the attack on the USS Cole. Even the Taliban know it ("But he hasn't done any of that stuff while he's been our guest").
Fuck the objections, fuck the chit chat. It's time to act. Now if we could only figure out WHAT to do. I have ideas what to do, but I don't know if they'd be workable or effective. I just hope our leaders do know what the fuck to do, and that we all have the brass balls to allow them to do it. I don't think that - in addition to nabbing bin Laden - anything short of unseating the Taliban government would satisfy my sense of justice.
I like NAT/Masquerading etc. It really can give eg. a company good LAN side security.
But then you go on to detail how many ways it is inadequate. NAT was not invented to solve a security problem, it was invented to solve a connectivity problem. By design, NAT enables communication where it was otherwise not possible. This is the opposite of what a firewall does.
Repeat after me: NAT is not a security technology, NAT is not a security technology, NAT is not a security technology. Repeat it until you believe it. It's the truth.
Slashdot Mirror
To show appreciation for NY in light of 9/11, I went ahead and signed up for the free subscription to NYT the week after it happened, and stopped avoiding logging in. Just when I do that, Slashdot starts publishing the no-login links. Go figure.
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc0821.txt SMTP Spec
This one has been superceded by many later RFCs (1123 comes to mine immediately). However, if you adhere to it, you'll be miles ahead of many commercial programs.
No, it isn't. Yahoo! News is repeating a story which, if you'd bother to read the byline they wrote, was
The article on CNET's site should be getting the Slashdot treatment, don't you think?
I hear 1gig NICs will be falling in price to under $100 US retail soon...
I hear Gigabit switches won't be...
As we all know, "kit" is a british slang term for computer hardware.
No it isn't. That's just the only context in which you've heard it used (translation: you read too much Slashdot, and should get out more often). "Kit" is the British equivalent of the American "rig" when used in this context. It is not used specifically to refer to computers.
Smarthost instead.
Oh yeah, great idea. Instead of delivering mail instantly via my own fully-capable MTA, throw all my email into the ISP's queue, where it can sit for hours before being processed. Yeah, right.
Mitchell continued "By reaching this settlement both sides avoid the very real risks associated with going to trial. Furthermore, neither side can take any action against the other without the permission of the Court, and there are substantial penalties provided for a breach of the agreement. And, of course, we are still free to choose to accept or reject email from them on our own personal networks."
They used to say they wanted to get sued, so they could establish precedent that MAPS activities are legal. But they keep settling. What gives? This is not how to establish precedent.
It's called "discovery". They don't need to know all the details about how it works before filing the lawsuit. During the course of the trial, the judge can order the defendants to hand over the source code as evidence.
Divx smelled like dogshit without any help from "DVD activists", who did little more than excite themselves (not that there's anything wrong with that...). Hardly anyone else noticed. But practically everyone noticed that Divx offered them less, for more. That's why it died.
more wasted seconds, don't mind me
They've obviously got a decent idea here (putting compressed digital copies of the CDDA tracks on the same disc as the music), ...
...but they've got their heads up their asses in the implementation.
Really? How is this a decent idea? There's already perfectly good high-quality digital audio tracks on the disk. So how is it a good idea, to reduce the number of minutes of music on a CD, so as to place redundant, lower quality computer-playable (but not copyable) tracks of the same stuff on the disk as well?
No, dear. They have their heads up their asses. End of sentence. That the implementation is fucked is just a symptom of how fucked the creator of this scheme is. For the same price, you will get two or three fewer songs per disk, which can only increase margins for the labels. Such a deal.
InterTrust Technologies Corporation (NASDAQ: ITRU), the leading inventor of Digital Rights Management (DRM) technology, announced today that its second amended complaint in its lawsuit against Microsoft will add claims that Microsoft's "product activation"/anti-piracy technology infringes InterTrust patent claims.
This company's market cap is $97.8M (share price just above $1). MSFT can just buy them out and settle the case that way. Hell, AOL could buy them and use the patents and licensing as leverage to keep MSFT from doing to them what they did to CPQ and DELL.
I see little risk to anyone, except for InterTrust, of course. But then, they probably did this so someone would buy them out.
"I think this is a glimpse of the future," said P.J. McNealy, a digital-entertainment analyst with GartnerG2, a division of research company Gartner. "This meets both sides' needs. It gives people the compressed audio (to play on computers), and it protects copyrights."
It does not meet both sides' needs. People don't want to play compressed audio on their computers, specifically. They want to listen to the music they buy at their convenience, in whatever format that entails. Right now, MP3 is popular, and home computers are a prevalent playback platform. Next year, it might be Ogg Vorbis, or something that hasn't yet been invented. People most decidedly do NOT want to be told how and when they may listen to music they have bought. They just want to listen. The details of formats and platforms are unimportant in the long run. If the music can be coded into any digital format, then it can and will be transcoded into whatever format the listener needs at the moment for his convenience, either by resampling from the analog signal jack, or directly transcoding a digital music file.
In his response, Ashcroft said he believed "To:" and "From:" lines of e-mail could be intercepted without a court order, but "Subject:" lines would require a judge's signature. "We're not asking that we get content or the subject," he replied. "We want information on who sent it and to whom it was sent."
So if I wish to preserve the privacy of those with whom I communicate from the government, I need only insert fake To: and From: headers in the body of the email, and use the real addresses in the SMTP envelope. Just like spammers do. OK, not much trouble to do that, and no encryption needed.
...Roddenberry penned lyrics for the original them, although they were not used.
For good reason.
The lyrics are as follows:
The Vogons may have something to worry about.
It should be named Infinite Enduring Hubris.
What's a graduate gonna do at his job when he runs into a problem he doesn't know the answer to? Hop in IRC, send a IM to someone who might be able to help, search on Google, post to Usenet...
Why is this considered cheating? I don't get it. This is exactly how real people go about solving real problems in the real world.
Testifying before the House Judiciary Committee, Ashcroft defended the proposal's definition of terrorism. "I don't believe that our definition of terrorism is so broad," said Ashcroft. "It is broad enough to include things like assaults on computers, and assaults designed to change the purpose of government."
Seems like this bill needs to be broadened to include itself and John Ashcroft, both of whom seem hell-bent on changing the purpose of government.
I conduct Penetration Testing and Vulnerability assesments for a living.
That's why John Ashcroft will be needing a DNA sample from you.
Not a fair comparison. Of course it is easier to administrate* a NT system with no apps or services installed, than it is to administrate a Linux box that is actually does something useful.
(* one administers an enema; one administrates a computer system, though sometimes, I know, it is hard to tell the difference)
Nice try.
(wait 20 seconds)
*click*
I consider myself a staunch libertarian when it comes to the Bill of Rights, and to personal freedoms in general. So I can hardly believe I'm saying this! But hear me out.
Famous last words - of the sellout!
I propose a few rules for a national identity card system that would provide us with all the benefits of nearly unforgeable proof-of-identity without compromising our right to privacy or any other right which we currently enjoy.
Why not first explain what these benefits are? How will a national ID card prevent what happened on 9/11? How will it make us more secure? Explain that before you go off on a tangent about how to make it less objectionable.
Did you know that I don't give a flying fuck how the karma system works?
...completely ignoring their reasonable call for proof.
Microsoft to this day maintains it is innocent of abusing it's monopoly. The guilty can be counted on to file appeal after appeal after appeal after appeal. At some point, those who have rendered the judgment must enforce it over any further objections, or lose credibility, and hence the authority to act.
That said, something should have been done about bin Laden long ago.
Then why bitch about inadequate proof! Go get the bastard for his past transgressions, for gods' sakes! Geezus how hard is this to understand?? Everybody KNOWS he is a terrorist responsible for many acts of violence, not the least of which was the attack on the USS Cole. Even the Taliban know it ("But he hasn't done any of that stuff while he's been our guest").
Fuck the objections, fuck the chit chat. It's time to act. Now if we could only figure out WHAT to do. I have ideas what to do, but I don't know if they'd be workable or effective. I just hope our leaders do know what the fuck to do, and that we all have the brass balls to allow them to do it. I don't think that - in addition to nabbing bin Laden - anything short of unseating the Taliban government would satisfy my sense of justice.
I like NAT /Masquerading etc. It really can give eg. a company good LAN side security.
But then you go on to detail how many ways it is inadequate. NAT was not invented to solve a security problem, it was invented to solve a connectivity problem. By design, NAT enables communication where it was otherwise not possible. This is the opposite of what a firewall does.
Repeat after me: NAT is not a security technology, NAT is not a security technology, NAT is not a security technology. Repeat it until you believe it. It's the truth.