The users who didn't "sign up for this kind of thing" can quit themselves. I, for one, did sign up for it, and I'm more than a tad pissed that the one obviously functional way to thwart spammers has been removed from my arsenal.
I can think of four possibilities for the real reason Blue Security is offline now:
1) It's a ruse, perpetrated either by BlueSecurity for unknown purposes, or by someone posing as BlueSecurity. http://www.bluesecurity.com/ is still down, so I'm going to wait and see what shakes out.
2) Reshef received enough serious threats against his person, family, friends to be forced out. This is absolutely possible when someone is the spearhead of stopping a less than legitimate flow of money.
3) Reshef took a payoff from the spammer(s). One would hope this wasn't the case, but it has to be considered as a possibility.
4) BlueSecurity's business model wasn't profitable. It costs a lot of money for hosting and internet services, especially when you're the target of DDoS all the time. BlueSecurity could have run out of money.
In any event - someone with big cohones and a crapload of mon-ay, please pick up the ball and run with it.
I think part of the problem lies above the specifics of "phishing or not" and in the realm of "computers are made of magic and love."
For some reason, many people are more willing to believe something that comes to them over the internet than through the postal mail, telephone or in person. I wonder if the same has been true for new communications technology through the ages. When the printing press was invented, did people suddenly start handing over blind trust to ideas and requests just because they were printed on paper? I know that the first times that audio recording technology (crappy, muddy, crackly) replaced live orchestras at the movies, theatergoers thought it was a real orchestra. I don't know how that could be, with the horrible audio quality of wax cylinders, but I think it has something to do with human perception of expected reality.
Consider the classic following example. Read each sentence out loud, with emphasis on the bolded word.
And yet you, using only text, have been able to use the same five words in the same order in five different ways, delivering five different subtle meanings.
This points to the fact that the problem is not with writing vs. speaking, but (as I have said many times before to many people) with the way a message is written.
Too many people think that an email (or any written message) is simply "whatever I would say written down verbatim." This could not be farter from the truth. The syntax of written language is dramatically different than that of spoken language. One syntax should not be used in the other medium.
Part of the value of any technology is in knowing how to use it. When we're talking about Linux on the desktop for Joe/Jane Average - who are not technical people - the system needs to run out of the box with minimal configuration, be intuitive, and do what the user wants it to do.
Perhaps it's an unfair advantage, but it's an advantage nonetheless; Microsoft products have been in the market a long time and there are a lot of people who know how to use them and configure them. Linux, on the other hand, may have been around a long time, but not on desktops where people work every day.
I made a distinction between "using" and "configuring" above. Users operate fully configured computers; admins configure computers to do what users want them to do. In the case of home (or many small business) computers, the user and the admin are often the same person, and light on real technical admin skills. Microsoft operating systems are (on the small scale) easy to configure. User wants a wireless network card? Plug it in. User wants to share files and printers in a workgroup? Plenty of detailed help files and wizards available. In order to find the same support for Linux, the user would need to spend a great deal more time finding accurate support (and when I say "accurate" I mean step by step, button by button) and executing that support properly.
That additional time is costly. Maybe not for Single Instance X, where it only takes a few minutes to accomplish, but over the life of the system(s). For a small business with a file/print server and ten workstations, learning everything that needs to be learned in order to convert to and provide continuing support for Linux in place of Windows is extremely costly, and paying an outside consultant to do the same is also extremely costly.
When most small businesses run on tight finances, calling them lazy for not switching completely ignores the needs of those businesses.
Now, home users.
Not being bothered is a completely legitimate excuse. Individuals have every right to not be bothered by having to learn how to use a new operating system and all the applications that go with it. You may not feel it's a legitimate excuse for you, and that's fine. Jane/Joe Average have lots of things that demand their attention, and also have the freedom to prioritize those things as they see fit.
Computer systems don't exist in a vacuum. The world and all its machinations continue on, with computer use as a part. Computer administration is a much more minor part.
Just being an asshole isn't in and of itself illegal. People's ability to do legal things - even when those things are distasteful to most - should be protected.
This makes me think of this concept for a reality show: Pick a law-abiding person completely at random, then follow them around with cameras all the time, without asking their permission. I wonder if that person would get pissed or not.
That's basically what this camera show is, except that the cameras are fixed. All you have to do to fill in the gap is add more cameras.
"to protect the rights or property of the carrier, or to protect users of those services and other carriers from fraudulent, abusive, or unlawful use of, or subscription to, such services;"
It's unfortunate that politics plays such a big role in determining whether the above is true for a given request. I expect that when that was written in 1996, more concrete evidence of threat was intended to be required.
Now, it just depends on whether the person who makes the decision buys into the hype and fear-mongering the current administration has been delivering for five years.
Is the telecom companies' (except Qwest!) disclosure of telephone call data to the NSA considered a 'data breach?' Would that have to be disclosed as well? Or would the president simply sign a set aside for that law so that the NSA could ignore it?
Face it; it doesn't matter what laws are in place, the federal government can do whatever it wants. I'm actually to the point now where anytime I hear anyone associated with the government supporting A, or insisting that A is true, that I take it to mean that the government intends to do Not A or that Not A is true.
I don't have a college degree, but I'm going to encourage my children strongly to get their own. Not so that they can get better jobs in the US - so that they can take up legal residence in Canada.
Anything the President wants to be legal is legal, as GW Bush has signed set asides for ~750 laws, essentially nullifying those laws in a time of war. Yes, previous presidents have done this, for a total of about 350 times prior to GW Bush.
When the president comes out and says that all the surveillance they're doing is legal, it may just be because he set aside the law which makes it illegal. So technically he's right; all surveillance is legal, because GW Bush said it's okay to ignore the laws making said surveillance illegal.
Section 404 gives a vague couple of lines about "information security," with nothing describing what qualifies as such. So, PCAOB is supposed to offer guidance as to what that means. PCAOB effectively said that the auditing companies are the ones who get to make the determination as to what qualifies as adequate information security.
Furthermore, the auditing companies can give you a lower score, or fail you, if you are deemed (again, by the auditing company) to be "argumentative" or "difficult." They can also charge you more money for the same reason.
That makes it so the auditing company can come in and make you dance through a million hoops, and if you dare point out to them that the hoops they're throwing up have nothing to do with information security, they can call you difficult, fail you and make you pay more.
Which means that the auditing companies get to call all the shots.
This all boils down to SOX being turned into a financial prop for the auditing companies after the fall of Arthur Andersen, with publicly traded companies paying the bill.
Yes, execs tell regulators that SOX costs exceed benefits. Normally, I don't agree with execs, but this time I do. Unless you understand the benefit to the auditing companies, in which case the execs are wrong.
Make things more difficult for me when I transition.
Also, though it may be difficult, I know I am capable of adapting and succeeding. Others will not be, and they'll get weeded out of the IT field, thereby putting me in more demand. End users, who are used to the current "default installation is completely insecure, but you can do anything you want," will need my assistance more; any time a minor hoop needs to be jumped through to accomplish something (security), they'll throw up their arms and call me to fix it.
Note to Microsoft - make things as difficult as possible. It's my job to figure those things out and administer. For money.
Everything said about "The Internet" is just as true for "Not The Internet," because The Internet is not made of magic by the Good Witch of the West. The same people who lie in wait to take advantage of the naive on The Internet do so offline, too.
Conversely, the same people who are easily conned offline are keeping spammers in business.
Generally speaking, some people are out to get you, and some people will get taken. The medium is irrelevant.
Whether something is spam or not is a subjective judgement. Computers, so far as I know, are incapable of making subjective judgements, and only filter spam based on complex content and sender algorithms.
When you apply an objective assessment of something that needs subjective assessment, you will invariably make mistakes on one side, the other, or both. You can set the filters strict enough to ensure that all spam is caught, and some wanted email will also be caught. You can set the filters so that all wanted email is delivered, and some spam will also be delivered.
This is not a failure of spam filtering technology. This is reflective of the current incapability of computers to have opinions.
As in another comment, Sun may get OEMs to bundle Java with systems they sell that have Windows preinstalled, but it's unlikely that Sun and Microsoft will come together to bundle Java with Windows directly anytime soon. Remember, it was legal issues between the two parties over the now defunct and soon to be EOL'ed Microsoft Java Virtual Machine that forced Microsoft to ditch MSJVM in the first place (rightly so, I think).
Just because I enjoy content that I can acquire for free does not mean that I would buy it if the exact same content was not available for free.
However, if I am exposed to content that I can acquire for free - which I would not purchase were it not available for free - I may just be more likely to buy the legally distributed media for the same, and for the next from the same artist.
So, yeah, I agree not to be exposed to your content without paying for it. And nobody make any lame comments about radio, because radio sucks.
I'm pretty sure that the/. powers-that-be only approve Dvorak stories to elicit the knee-jerk "Dvorak sucks" responses simply to amuse themselves, utterly independent of whether Dvorak sucks or not.
I just got the following NDR email (which GMail flagged as spam, but I read anyway). Looks like the pissy spammer is using email addresses from his list in the From field, and generating false spam for BlueSecurity.
I have deleted contact information at the end, for the sanity of those involved.
Begin
Subject: FW:Automaticly send 1000s of DDOS complaints for each spam you recieve
Bringing spammers to Their Knees: Bluesecurity.com hopes you'll join thousands of others in an army capable of crippling spammers' Web sites.
A few thousand spammers have ruined our internet. They've clogged our mailboxes with filth. Already, 90% of email traffic is made up of spam. Let us no longer blind ourselves to the irrefutable facts: current measures have failed to stop spammers. The experience of the past several years has proven that passive measures are just not the answer.
Retribution is the only real answer to spam. We must punish spammers ourselves to prevent them from taking over cyberspace. We must reclaim our territory. We need direct action to eliminate spammers for good.
The magnitude of the task which lies before us is great. We are fighting for the future of the Internet. What we need to do now is get as many users as possible into our community. We already have a botnet with hundreds of thousands of computers working together to induce commercial loss on spammers and their ISPs. We have launched numerous Denial-of-Service Attacks on Chinese spam networks with great success, and plan many more!
We have excellent financiers who allow us continued success with our botnet growth and Denial-of-Service Attacks. We thank the government agencies involved for their continued cooperation. We thank our leader, Eran Reshef, for continued strategies of DoS attack operations. Also, US-based Rembrandt
Ventures & Skybox Security for their extensive funding & continued support. And a very special thanks to Douglas Schrier who has helped our botnet come to life.
If you haven't signed up with the registry and installed a blue frog yet, please sign up now. If your friends have not yet joined us, we will convince them to do so.
Let's stop filtering spam and start eliminating spammers. Together, we will reclaim the Internet, One ddos at a time.
Please Contact Us for any questions on signup via the following info:
address and phone deleted
Israel HQ: address and phone deleted
Current and potential investor relations: Rembrandt Venture Partners address and phone deleted
So basically they are running a service for spammers, showing them which addresses are valid...
Why do I bother? I am compelled.
Twit: This article is a great description of how it works. Most specifically, from that article:
"In The FTC's report on the feasibility of a national do not email registry,[1] they conclude that a registry would be a greater detriment to the Internet community than it would be a benefit. The report even considers the possibility of using a hashing algorithm to make it impossible for the "harvester" to directly use the registry as a recipient list, and concludes that hashing would not help because the harvester could use the same hashing approach to validate addresses from their existing email recipient list, thereby defeating the purpose of the hash. In fact, this is poor logic because there is no evidence that bulk emailers care about the accuracy of their lists - since it costs them nothing to send the messages in the first place, there is no reason for them to concern themselves with ensuring that their lists are accurate."
Would it help you to STFU if I put your tinfoil hat in your mouth?
I see what the guy is saying - dynamically assigned IPs at clients mean that one person can view a site from multiple source IPs over a period of time. Both DSL and cable use dynamic IPs - but they are not often disconnected/reconnected, and when they are, DHCP is likely to pull the same IP address back anyway.
Besides that, think of all the people at work on internal LANs, each presenting the same public IP source address to the same web server. This effect more than makes up for the dynamic IP nonsense the blogger spouted off.
Maybe he's just mad about the size of his epenis, and is trying to compensate with illogic.
Slashdot Mirror
The users who didn't "sign up for this kind of thing" can quit themselves. I, for one, did sign up for it, and I'm more than a tad pissed that the one obviously functional way to thwart spammers has been removed from my arsenal.
I can think of four possibilities for the real reason Blue Security is offline now:
1) It's a ruse, perpetrated either by BlueSecurity for unknown purposes, or by someone posing as BlueSecurity. http://www.bluesecurity.com/ is still down, so I'm going to wait and see what shakes out.
2) Reshef received enough serious threats against his person, family, friends to be forced out. This is absolutely possible when someone is the spearhead of stopping a less than legitimate flow of money.
3) Reshef took a payoff from the spammer(s). One would hope this wasn't the case, but it has to be considered as a possibility.
4) BlueSecurity's business model wasn't profitable. It costs a lot of money for hosting and internet services, especially when you're the target of DDoS all the time. BlueSecurity could have run out of money.
In any event - someone with big cohones and a crapload of mon-ay, please pick up the ball and run with it.
People think he cut off his ear because he was insane. Really, he was just trying to keep the RIAA from suing him. Can't listen to music without ears.
... as long as nobody puts baby in a corner.
Good thread.
I think part of the problem lies above the specifics of "phishing or not" and in the realm of "computers are made of magic and love."
For some reason, many people are more willing to believe something that comes to them over the internet than through the postal mail, telephone or in person. I wonder if the same has been true for new communications technology through the ages. When the printing press was invented, did people suddenly start handing over blind trust to ideas and requests just because they were printed on paper? I know that the first times that audio recording technology (crappy, muddy, crackly) replaced live orchestras at the movies, theatergoers thought it was a real orchestra. I don't know how that could be, with the horrible audio quality of wax cylinders, but I think it has something to do with human perception of expected reality.
Men! Our patented Molecular Traffic Formula can add inches to your P3N1$ by directing molecules to build your length and girth!!!!!
Consider the classic following example. Read each sentence out loud, with emphasis on the bolded word.
And yet you, using only text, have been able to use the same five words in the same order in five different ways, delivering five different subtle meanings.
This points to the fact that the problem is not with writing vs. speaking, but (as I have said many times before to many people) with the way a message is written.
Too many people think that an email (or any written message) is simply "whatever I would say written down verbatim." This could not be farter from the truth. The syntax of written language is dramatically different than that of spoken language. One syntax should not be used in the other medium.
Part of the value of any technology is in knowing how to use it. When we're talking about Linux on the desktop for Joe/Jane Average - who are not technical people - the system needs to run out of the box with minimal configuration, be intuitive, and do what the user wants it to do.
Perhaps it's an unfair advantage, but it's an advantage nonetheless; Microsoft products have been in the market a long time and there are a lot of people who know how to use them and configure them. Linux, on the other hand, may have been around a long time, but not on desktops where people work every day.
I made a distinction between "using" and "configuring" above. Users operate fully configured computers; admins configure computers to do what users want them to do. In the case of home (or many small business) computers, the user and the admin are often the same person, and light on real technical admin skills. Microsoft operating systems are (on the small scale) easy to configure. User wants a wireless network card? Plug it in. User wants to share files and printers in a workgroup? Plenty of detailed help files and wizards available. In order to find the same support for Linux, the user would need to spend a great deal more time finding accurate support (and when I say "accurate" I mean step by step, button by button) and executing that support properly.
That additional time is costly. Maybe not for Single Instance X, where it only takes a few minutes to accomplish, but over the life of the system(s). For a small business with a file/print server and ten workstations, learning everything that needs to be learned in order to convert to and provide continuing support for Linux in place of Windows is extremely costly, and paying an outside consultant to do the same is also extremely costly.
When most small businesses run on tight finances, calling them lazy for not switching completely ignores the needs of those businesses.
Now, home users.
Not being bothered is a completely legitimate excuse. Individuals have every right to not be bothered by having to learn how to use a new operating system and all the applications that go with it. You may not feel it's a legitimate excuse for you, and that's fine. Jane/Joe Average have lots of things that demand their attention, and also have the freedom to prioritize those things as they see fit.
Computer systems don't exist in a vacuum. The world and all its machinations continue on, with computer use as a part. Computer administration is a much more minor part.
Just being an asshole isn't in and of itself illegal. People's ability to do legal things - even when those things are distasteful to most - should be protected.
This makes me think of this concept for a reality show: Pick a law-abiding person completely at random, then follow them around with cameras all the time, without asking their permission. I wonder if that person would get pissed or not.
That's basically what this camera show is, except that the cameras are fixed. All you have to do to fill in the gap is add more cameras.
"to protect the rights or property of the carrier, or to protect users of those services and other carriers from fraudulent, abusive, or unlawful use of, or subscription to, such services;"
It's unfortunate that politics plays such a big role in determining whether the above is true for a given request. I expect that when that was written in 1996, more concrete evidence of threat was intended to be required.
Now, it just depends on whether the person who makes the decision buys into the hype and fear-mongering the current administration has been delivering for five years.
Is the telecom companies' (except Qwest!) disclosure of telephone call data to the NSA considered a 'data breach?' Would that have to be disclosed as well? Or would the president simply sign a set aside for that law so that the NSA could ignore it?
Face it; it doesn't matter what laws are in place, the federal government can do whatever it wants. I'm actually to the point now where anytime I hear anyone associated with the government supporting A, or insisting that A is true, that I take it to mean that the government intends to do Not A or that Not A is true.
I don't have a college degree, but I'm going to encourage my children strongly to get their own. Not so that they can get better jobs in the US - so that they can take up legal residence in Canada.
Lazlo Hollyfeld in Real Genius.
Might be, if it's legal.
Anything the President wants to be legal is legal, as GW Bush has signed set asides for ~750 laws, essentially nullifying those laws in a time of war. Yes, previous presidents have done this, for a total of about 350 times prior to GW Bush.
When the president comes out and says that all the surveillance they're doing is legal, it may just be because he set aside the law which makes it illegal. So technically he's right; all surveillance is legal, because GW Bush said it's okay to ignore the laws making said surveillance illegal.
Sarbanes-Oxley is a *very good thing* ...
And its implementation is horrible.
Section 404 gives a vague couple of lines about "information security," with nothing describing what qualifies as such. So, PCAOB is supposed to offer guidance as to what that means. PCAOB effectively said that the auditing companies are the ones who get to make the determination as to what qualifies as adequate information security.
Furthermore, the auditing companies can give you a lower score, or fail you, if you are deemed (again, by the auditing company) to be "argumentative" or "difficult." They can also charge you more money for the same reason.
That makes it so the auditing company can come in and make you dance through a million hoops, and if you dare point out to them that the hoops they're throwing up have nothing to do with information security, they can call you difficult, fail you and make you pay more.
Which means that the auditing companies get to call all the shots.
This all boils down to SOX being turned into a financial prop for the auditing companies after the fall of Arthur Andersen, with publicly traded companies paying the bill.
Yes, execs tell regulators that SOX costs exceed benefits. Normally, I don't agree with execs, but this time I do. Unless you understand the benefit to the auditing companies, in which case the execs are wrong.
Make things more difficult for me when I transition.
Also, though it may be difficult, I know I am capable of adapting and succeeding. Others will not be, and they'll get weeded out of the IT field, thereby putting me in more demand. End users, who are used to the current "default installation is completely insecure, but you can do anything you want," will need my assistance more; any time a minor hoop needs to be jumped through to accomplish something (security), they'll throw up their arms and call me to fix it.
Note to Microsoft - make things as difficult as possible. It's my job to figure those things out and administer. For money.
(Windows) ping www.specialham.com -l 65000 -t -w 0
Everything said about "The Internet" is just as true for "Not The Internet," because The Internet is not made of magic by the Good Witch of the West. The same people who lie in wait to take advantage of the naive on The Internet do so offline, too.
Conversely, the same people who are easily conned offline are keeping spammers in business.
Generally speaking, some people are out to get you, and some people will get taken. The medium is irrelevant.
Whether something is spam or not is a subjective judgement. Computers, so far as I know, are incapable of making subjective judgements, and only filter spam based on complex content and sender algorithms.
When you apply an objective assessment of something that needs subjective assessment, you will invariably make mistakes on one side, the other, or both. You can set the filters strict enough to ensure that all spam is caught, and some wanted email will also be caught. You can set the filters so that all wanted email is delivered, and some spam will also be delivered.
This is not a failure of spam filtering technology. This is reflective of the current incapability of computers to have opinions.
As in another comment, Sun may get OEMs to bundle Java with systems they sell that have Windows preinstalled, but it's unlikely that Sun and Microsoft will come together to bundle Java with Windows directly anytime soon. Remember, it was legal issues between the two parties over the now defunct and soon to be EOL'ed Microsoft Java Virtual Machine that forced Microsoft to ditch MSJVM in the first place (rightly so, I think).
Just because I enjoy content that I can acquire for free does not mean that I would buy it if the exact same content was not available for free.
However, if I am exposed to content that I can acquire for free - which I would not purchase were it not available for free - I may just be more likely to buy the legally distributed media for the same, and for the next from the same artist.
So, yeah, I agree not to be exposed to your content without paying for it. And nobody make any lame comments about radio, because radio sucks.
I'm pretty sure that the /. powers-that-be only approve Dvorak stories to elicit the knee-jerk "Dvorak sucks" responses simply to amuse themselves, utterly independent of whether Dvorak sucks or not.
Next Dvorak article here - don't post anything.
Pets.com, and Webvan.
Priceline almost went bust - remember how they used to sell all sorts of stuff, including groceries at Jewel grocery stores.
(Side note: I wonder what the going rate for jewel.com is. But I digress.)
And frankly, I can't believe Peapod is still running.
I just got the following NDR email (which GMail flagged as spam, but I read anyway). Looks like the pissy spammer is using email addresses from his list in the From field, and generating false spam for BlueSecurity.
.EXE here: http:/// www.bluesecurity.com/ blue-frog/
I have deleted contact information at the end, for the sanity of those involved.
Begin
Subject: FW:Automaticly send 1000s of DDOS complaints for each spam you recieve
The trackback URL for this blog entry is:
http://community.bluesecurity.com/
Bringing spammers to Their Knees:
Bluesecurity.com hopes you'll join thousands of others in an army capable
of crippling spammers' Web sites.
A few thousand spammers have ruined our internet. They've clogged our
mailboxes with filth. Already, 90% of email traffic is made up of
spam. Let us no longer blind ourselves to the irrefutable facts:
current measures have failed to stop spammers. The experience of the
past several years has proven that passive measures are just not the
answer.
Retribution is the only real answer to spam. We must punish spammers
ourselves to prevent them from taking over cyberspace. We must reclaim
our territory. We need direct action to eliminate spammers for good.
The magnitude of the task which lies before us is great. We are fighting
for the future of the Internet. What we need to do now is get as many
users as possible into our community. We already have a botnet with
hundreds of thousands of computers working together to induce commercial
loss on spammers and their ISPs. We have launched numerous
Denial-of-Service Attacks on Chinese spam networks with great success,
and plan many more!
We have excellent financiers who allow us continued success with our botnet
growth and Denial-of-Service Attacks. We thank the government agencies
involved
for their continued cooperation. We thank our leader, Eran Reshef,
for continued strategies of DoS attack operations. Also, US-based Rembrandt
Ventures & Skybox Security for their extensive funding & continued support.
And a
very special thanks to Douglas Schrier who has helped our botnet come to
life.
If you haven't signed up with the registry and installed a blue frog yet,
please sign up now.
If your friends have not yet joined us, we will convince them to do so.
Let's stop filtering spam and start eliminating spammers.
Together, we will reclaim the Internet, One ddos at a time.
Please Contact Us for any questions on signup via the following info:
address and phone deleted
Israel HQ: address and phone deleted
Current and potential investor relations:
Rembrandt Venture Partners address and phone deleted
Fight back spam! Join our Botnet today.
Download our
They RESPOND to the spammer?
So basically they are running a service for spammers, showing them which addresses are valid...
Why do I bother? I am compelled.
Twit: This article is a great description of how it works. Most specifically, from that article:
"In The FTC's report on the feasibility of a national do not email registry,[1] they conclude that a registry would be a greater detriment to the Internet community than it would be a benefit. The report even considers the possibility of using a hashing algorithm to make it impossible for the "harvester" to directly use the registry as a recipient list, and concludes that hashing would not help because the harvester could use the same hashing approach to validate addresses from their existing email recipient list, thereby defeating the purpose of the hash. In fact, this is poor logic because there is no evidence that bulk emailers care about the accuracy of their lists - since it costs them nothing to send the messages in the first place, there is no reason for them to concern themselves with ensuring that their lists are accurate."
Would it help you to STFU if I put your tinfoil hat in your mouth?
Yes, the only visitors to your site are midgets.
I see what the guy is saying - dynamically assigned IPs at clients mean that one person can view a site from multiple source IPs over a period of time. Both DSL and cable use dynamic IPs - but they are not often disconnected/reconnected, and when they are, DHCP is likely to pull the same IP address back anyway.
Besides that, think of all the people at work on internal LANs, each presenting the same public IP source address to the same web server. This effect more than makes up for the dynamic IP nonsense the blogger spouted off.
Maybe he's just mad about the size of his epenis, and is trying to compensate with illogic.