Your opinion is so strong, and yet so skewed that i felt compelled to respond to you here. At first glance, your arguments make sense, and appear sensible and thought out. However, the reason your argument is valid is your attitude. Let me explain.
If your goal is to PUNISH the open-relay mail server, then certainly don't tell them, don't give them any leway to change and most certainly don't go out of your way to correct them. If you are out to get the 'offending' servers, then block hard, block fast, and if it's inconvient or bad for people, well then, that's their problem. Your system, as described above, would work just fine. (ps, i loved how you threw in the greedy capitalist ideals at the bottom there, trying to make a quick buck of the poor saps once they corrected themselves).
HOWEVER, if your goal is CORRECT the offending mail server, then the 3 points that dboucher ask for are entirely resonable and good. If you consider the offending server admin your buddy, think of what you would do. 1) You'd give him warning. 2) You'd give hime time to change. 3) You'd point him in the right place for instructions on how to change (for the better).
So if you want to improve the email community by helping out your fellow man, you'd do all the things listed above, ESPECIALLY if he is not actually relaying spam, just having an open server. And if it's actually in a group like ORBS interest to improve things, then of COURSE they'd post a page of info (even links to pages) of how to lock down your mail server. Of course, if they're out to get the mail servers, then they'd punish first, tell them afterward.
So yes, fmaxwell, getting them hard and fast is good, but only if you intend to punish, not to improve. I, for one, would definately try the improve method first. (Unless the server is actually relaying spam, then i'd block first, inform later)
An air gun made of PVC pipe was used under closely-controlled conditions in a laboratory to accelerate the potato slices without endangering the experimenters.
It WASN'T a potato gun, that's for sure. Those things are DANGEROUS!!! We're SCIENTISTS, not high school kids! Geez you guys.
Since everyone is quoting figures that they, in most case, fail to remember accurately, i'll post the link to the CPCC (Canadian Private Copying Collective) website, to a FAQ, which points out in big red letters what the real rates are.
Well you know how Qwest (i think) and others had vounerable Cisco routers? And then because of that routers would go down, and service would go down as well. So in order to prevent this they would just kill all port 80 traffic, and there's your solution. Of course, this is only a good solution if it's temporary, and you fix your routers.
However, i could belive that we're running different routing equipment that was not compromised by Code Red. Perhaps our networks are less busy (or faster) as well, and that alleviated congestion. And due to better network equipment and conditions means we're not hit the same.
it does not take a fool to realize when they are being led by the nose.
Don't you mean that it doesn't take a genious or perhaps a geek to see when they're being led by the nose? Or maybe: Even a fool can see when they're being led by the nose. Something like that?
Of course, perhaps my grasp of english is slipping...
BTW, i totally agree with your post, and i could very well imagine my mom responding the same way
to those very annoying ads. Fortunately for her, she doesn't surf the web that much.
Ogg Vorbis (like MP3) doesn't support DRM, which is the new "must-have" for music playing.
Must have? For whom? I, for one, despise the DRM formats, like liquid, and avoid them like the plaugue. Can you honestly tell me that you enjoy songs that only work for a limited time, and all the other hassles DRM formats can give you?
Not only that, but including DRM would go against the whole philosophy of Ogg Vorbis, which is a free, open standard, suitable for use with any sound application you want to use it for. This is, of course, why I use it-- (along with MP3, though this appears to be infathomable to some people) because the format isn't owned by a greedy company that would screw me to make money.
Remember, only the Record Companies (and perhaps crazies like you:) like DRM. It's must have from thier viewpoint, but not the end users. Isn't that why the RIAA et all don't like digital music? And vice versa, why the populous loves it?
Anyway, for me, DRM is a must NOT have feature of digital music, which is why i'm fully behind Ogg Vorbis, and eagerly awaiting the 1.0 encoder, with its cool new features.:-D
This is offtopic, i know, but Hardware Manufacturers don't care about codecs, right? They only care about selling hardware, and making it the cheapes way.
Which is why i never understood why hard drive manufacturers would support embedded copy protection. How would that benefit the manufacturer? i bought an 80 GB drive that i never would have if there were really good (as in effectvie) copy protection systems in existence. You guys know what i mean.
So if mp3's really do become scarce because of liscensing, manufaturers should readily embrace ogg, just to sell more units.
If you're an audiophile freak, then i'd say that to you (if you've got the right equipement) it would be really easy to hear the shortcomings in compressed music. Heck, i hear artifacts in half the songs i have if i listen hard enoough.
However, you said: I gave it a fair shake a while ago... Well, if it was indeed while ago, then you were probably using one of the early betas (which i have not listened to) which were probably worse than the current, Beta 4. From my listening tests, Ogg Vorbis sounds closer to the original than MP3 in almost every test i've given it. The highs (like cybals) are much truer to the orginal with OV than MP3, with MP3 sounding hot to me.
However, IAAWA (I Am A Wannabe Audiophile) so i could be just talking out my ass. But a couple friends of mine seem to agree when i force them to listen, to back up my findings:)
(tests conducted on with LAME b3.88 and OggEnc b4, using Harman/Kardon HK-595 speakers)
I'm sorry, i'm not really going to say anything fresh or new in this message here, but you just kinda got my goat with this post.
I'm not going to contend the errors you speak of, since every piece of software i've ever used has had errors.
>I hate to say it, but Mozilla is the poster child for abject failures of the open source model.
This is wrong. Justification? Well, how can you explain that this "abject failure" of a browser is able to post this very comment, and view yours? Perhaps by "abject failure" you mean something something other than complete and utter failure, which is what i took it to mean.
> However, I don't understand when Slashdot went communist.
Hey, Americans. The Cold war is over. Know why? Cause you realized that Communism wasn't inherently evil. Or else, that was what you were supposed to realize...
Remember, Communism != Evil.
But by my account, screwing me out of money as much as is possilbe is evil. It's just the flip side of the coin.
Re:Copyright? Copywrong? - wonderful!
on
Digital Copyright
·
· Score: 2
Wonderful!
This post is one of the best i've ever read here on slashdot, and even more so in the copyright debate. It's well written and thought out, and a genuine comment of what SlippyToad thinks, not just a heated rant. My only fear is that a reader with little time will notice the length, and the 2 (currently) rating of the comment, and not read it.
Being a casual musician myself, and having a vague hope of someday creating something myself, with a couple of friends in a band, i have no idea what i would want to do if i created something i could sell. The typical way is to sign to a record label, and subsequently have your works now owned by the company, who's sole objective is to make as much money as they possible can on it. That's too far reaching for my apparently humble aspirations. I think it would be amazing to be a musician, full time, and make a comfortable living. Earning the most money i possibly can is not my goal in life. I find joy in a great many things, and look at money as only a vehicle to get some of the things we all like. Toys, mainly.
However, to have my name and my works associated with one of the most heartless compainies that exists would disgrace me personally. This company that would 'protect' me, has no qualms about charging people, indefinately, for every time they listen to my song. Their actions remind me of tax collectors from children's stories. They tax people for no reason, except living happily.
The point is, i would never want to be a professional musician, simply because there is, at the moment, no fair way for me to distribute my music. As i understand it, the RIAA, while 'acting on behalf of the artists' really acts on behalf of myself, and i could not even copy my own cd for a personal friend, without paying them, so that the funds can get distributed to the proper people.
SlippyToad's romanticised view of what music should be is exactly what i would like it to be. It seems like he's taking too nice of a view, but i like it. I like it a lot. I hope someday that we can return to this ideal of music as art.
Isn't this just the old addage : 'a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link' ?
Since the sound (in whatever form) has to pass through ever component (or speaker) along the way, every part of the whole setup affects the ultimate output. From the source (mp3, cd, vinyl) to the reciever, to the speakers. If any part of that path is really horrible (even the wires) the final output will reflect it. Or so i've thought for quite a while. Basically, you can't neglect any part of your system if you really want good sound.
Slashdot Mirror
Your opinion is so strong, and yet so skewed that i felt compelled to respond to you here. At first glance, your arguments make sense, and appear sensible and thought out. However, the reason your argument is valid is your attitude. Let me explain.
If your goal is to PUNISH the open-relay mail server, then certainly don't tell them, don't give them any leway to change and most certainly don't go out of your way to correct them. If you are out to get the 'offending' servers, then block hard, block fast, and if it's inconvient or bad for people, well then, that's their problem. Your system, as described above, would work just fine. (ps, i loved how you threw in the greedy capitalist ideals at the bottom there, trying to make a quick buck of the poor saps once they corrected themselves).
HOWEVER, if your goal is CORRECT the offending mail server, then the 3 points that dboucher ask for are entirely resonable and good. If you consider the offending server admin your buddy, think of what you would do. 1) You'd give him warning. 2) You'd give hime time to change. 3) You'd point him in the right place for instructions on how to change (for the better).
So if you want to improve the email community by helping out your fellow man, you'd do all the things listed above, ESPECIALLY if he is not actually relaying spam, just having an open server. And if it's actually in a group like ORBS interest to improve things, then of COURSE they'd post a page of info (even links to pages) of how to lock down your mail server. Of course, if they're out to get the mail servers, then they'd punish first, tell them afterward.
So yes, fmaxwell, getting them hard and fast is good, but only if you intend to punish, not to improve. I, for one, would definately try the improve method first. (Unless the server is actually relaying spam, then i'd block first, inform later)
An air gun made of PVC pipe was used under closely-controlled conditions in a laboratory to accelerate the potato slices without endangering the experimenters.
It WASN'T a potato gun, that's for sure. Those things are DANGEROUS!!! We're SCIENTISTS, not high school kids! Geez you guys.
Since everyone is quoting figures that they, in most case, fail to remember accurately, i'll post the link to the CPCC (Canadian Private Copying Collective) website, to a FAQ, which points out in big red letters what the real rates are.
http://www.cpcc.ca/English/FAQ/faq.html
If you don't want to follow the link, here are the correct figures (if you'll believe me)
Audio Cassettes (40 minutes or more in length): 29
CD-R or CD-RW: 21
CD-R Audio, CD-RW Audio or MiniDisc: 77
Hope that clarifies things.
Well you know how Qwest (i think) and others had vounerable Cisco routers? And then because of that routers would go down, and service would go down as well. So in order to prevent this they would just kill all port 80 traffic, and there's your solution. Of course, this is only a good solution if it's temporary, and you fix your routers.
However, i could belive that we're running different routing equipment that was not compromised by Code Red. Perhaps our networks are less busy (or faster) as well, and that alleviated congestion. And due to better network equipment and conditions means we're not hit the same.
Yes i'm nitpicking, i know :-)
it does not take a fool to realize when they are being led by the nose.
Don't you mean that it doesn't take a genious or perhaps a geek to see when they're being led by the nose? Or maybe: Even a fool can see when they're being led by the nose. Something like that?
Of course, perhaps my grasp of english is slipping...
BTW, i totally agree with your post, and i could very well imagine my mom responding the same way
to those very annoying ads. Fortunately for her, she doesn't surf the web that much.
You're shallow, and superficial!
Ogg Vorbis (like MP3) doesn't support DRM, which is the new "must-have" for music playing.
:) like DRM. It's must have from thier viewpoint, but not the end users. Isn't that why the RIAA et all don't like digital music? And vice versa, why the populous loves it?
:-D
Must have? For whom? I, for one, despise the DRM formats, like liquid, and avoid them like the plaugue. Can you honestly tell me that you enjoy songs that only work for a limited time, and all the other hassles DRM formats can give you?
Not only that, but including DRM would go against the whole philosophy of Ogg Vorbis, which is a free, open standard, suitable for use with any sound application you want to use it for. This is, of course, why I use it-- (along with MP3, though this appears to be infathomable to some people) because the format isn't owned by a greedy company that would screw me to make money.
Remember, only the Record Companies (and perhaps crazies like you
Anyway, for me, DRM is a must NOT have feature of digital music, which is why i'm fully behind Ogg Vorbis, and eagerly awaiting the 1.0 encoder, with its cool new features.
This is offtopic, i know, but Hardware Manufacturers don't care about codecs, right? They only care about selling hardware, and making it the cheapes way.
Which is why i never understood why hard drive manufacturers would support embedded copy protection. How would that benefit the manufacturer? i bought an 80 GB drive that i never would have if there were really good (as in effectvie) copy protection systems in existence. You guys know what i mean.
So if mp3's really do become scarce because of liscensing, manufaturers should readily embrace ogg, just to sell more units.
If you're an audiophile freak, then i'd say that to you (if you've got the right equipement) it would be really easy to hear the shortcomings in compressed music. Heck, i hear artifacts in half the songs i have if i listen hard enoough.
However, you said: I gave it a fair shake a while ago... Well, if it was indeed while ago, then you were probably using one of the early betas (which i have not listened to) which were probably worse than the current, Beta 4. From my listening tests, Ogg Vorbis sounds closer to the original than MP3 in almost every test i've given it. The highs (like cybals) are much truer to the orginal with OV than MP3, with MP3 sounding hot to me.
However, IAAWA (I Am A Wannabe Audiophile) so i could be just talking out my ass. But a couple friends of mine seem to agree when i force them to listen, to back up my findings :)
(tests conducted on with LAME b3.88 and OggEnc b4, using Harman/Kardon HK-595 speakers)I'm sorry, i'm not really going to say anything fresh or new in this message here, but you just kinda got my goat with this post.
I'm not going to contend the errors you speak of, since every piece of software i've ever used has had errors.
>I hate to say it, but Mozilla is the poster child for abject failures of the open source model.
This is wrong. Justification? Well, how can you explain that this "abject failure" of a browser is able to post this very comment, and view yours? Perhaps by "abject failure" you mean something something other than complete and utter failure, which is what i took it to mean.
> However, I don't understand when Slashdot went communist.
Hey, Americans. The Cold war is over. Know why? Cause you realized that Communism wasn't inherently evil. Or else, that was what you were supposed to realize...
Remember, Communism != Evil.
But by my account, screwing me out of money as much as is possilbe is evil. It's just the flip side of the coin.
Wonderful!
This post is one of the best i've ever read here on slashdot, and even more so in the copyright debate. It's well written and thought out, and a genuine comment of what SlippyToad thinks, not just a heated rant. My only fear is that a reader with little time will notice the length, and the 2 (currently) rating of the comment, and not read it.
Being a casual musician myself, and having a vague hope of someday creating something myself, with a couple of friends in a band, i have no idea what i would want to do if i created something i could sell. The typical way is to sign to a record label, and subsequently have your works now owned by the company, who's sole objective is to make as much money as they possible can on it. That's too far reaching for my apparently humble aspirations. I think it would be amazing to be a musician, full time, and make a comfortable living. Earning the most money i possibly can is not my goal in life. I find joy in a great many things, and look at money as only a vehicle to get some of the things we all like. Toys, mainly.
However, to have my name and my works associated with one of the most heartless compainies that exists would disgrace me personally. This company that would 'protect' me, has no qualms about charging people, indefinately, for every time they listen to my song. Their actions remind me of tax collectors from children's stories. They tax people for no reason, except living happily.
The point is, i would never want to be a professional musician, simply because there is, at the moment, no fair way for me to distribute my music. As i understand it, the RIAA, while 'acting on behalf of the artists' really acts on behalf of myself, and i could not even copy my own cd for a personal friend, without paying them, so that the funds can get distributed to the proper people.
SlippyToad's romanticised view of what music should be is exactly what i would like it to be. It seems like he's taking too nice of a view, but i like it. I like it a lot. I hope someday that we can return to this ideal of music as art.
Reaper
Isn't this just the old addage : 'a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link' ?
Since the sound (in whatever form) has to pass through ever component (or speaker) along the way, every part of the whole setup affects the ultimate output. From the source (mp3, cd, vinyl) to the reciever, to the speakers. If any part of that path is really horrible (even the wires) the final output will reflect it. Or so i've thought for quite a while. Basically, you can't neglect any part of your system if you really want good sound.
-Reaper