No, they don't. Please cite their business address in Illinois. You can't because they have no offices in Illinois at all. Now if an ISP in Illinois decides to use their list, that does not mean they are "in Illinois doing business". All of the Spamhaus servers are located OUTSIDE the US.
What you are essentially saying is "The BBC does business in the USA because I can access their web site from the USA" or "Apple is based in Sweden, because I used my iPod there"
What, there is a world outside of the US?? But my map just has the US in the middle of the map, with water all around that leads to the edges of the earth, where you then fall off. HERE THERE BE SERPENTS!
Influence, yes. Legal rights, no. All they could do was plead their case and hope the Swedish authorities did what they wanted them to do. If the Swedish authorities would have just told them to bugger off, nothing would have happened.
"that may not always be an option - and won't be one for many in corporate, domain run environments especially if the ability to disable it could be controlled via domain policies, which I can see as very likely happening."
So you are complaining that an individual can't hand develop drivers on his locked down work machine?? (and wouldn't that be the fault of the corporation locking him out, not Microsoft?) Why would he need to? If the company is a software developer, and his job is writing drivers, why would the company lock it up to make doing so impossible? And if not, why doesn't he have a machine that he has control over, like at home, to do so??
Considering e360 lied and claimed that Spamhaus has a place of business in Illinois, and they are based in the UK with NO US offices, I hardly think an Illinois judge has the right to strip them of their domain. And even if it does happen, big whoop. In under 5 minutes, Spamhaus.co.uk will be up and running - lets see a US judge take that domain away....
Spamhaus is a service you need to sign up for - only their customers will be emailed. Do you really think an anti-SPAM organization would start sending out unsolicited emails??
All it would really need is for one of the big boys (Dell, HP, Sony, etc.) to start offering "safer" systems - the rest would have to follow suit in order to compete.
Wiring and plumbing yourself?? Sweet. I can handle a little light electrical stuff, but never take on the big plumbing jobs myself. Faucets, sinks, tubs, no problem, but I don't mess with the big pipes. Of course the plumbing in my house is also over 75 years old - if it was newer I would consider doing more myself...
"My point is not that Clinton was a fool nor was it that Bush is a hero, but that both of them, and most of the rest of the world's leaders, missed the point."
Well said. I agree, and while my political leanings are more liberal than conservative, I am neither a Democrat, nor Republican. Both president's policies may not have succeeded 100%, but I still am of the opinion that offers of financial aid will produce more allies than threats ever will. (with the possible exceptions of Poland and France)
To be honest, i am way more concerned about the amount of nuclear weapons already out there, and in some cases, laying around in unprotected areas in the former Soviet Union. I don't really think that any country wants a full scale nuclear exchange, and in that respect they are deterrents. But I do fear a smaller terrorist group with the aim of spreading terror (after all that is what terrorists want - not to kill or blow up things, but to strike fear in the population) may get their hands on enough nuclear material to build a small weapon. NK may or may not have had the same capabilities in the 90s as they do now, but I doubt it. And I really doubt that then would have been the time to "show their hand". Instead they waited until Bush puffed out his chest and made hollow threats, then called his bluff.
Yep, I would trust the people at Dell to make sure the system is electronically sound and isn't going to start any fires, or knock out the circuit breakers. I would trust the people at Microsoft that their product would run if the system meets their requirements(cue the flames). However, it isn't Dell's or Microsoft's responsibility to make sure you don't use it incorrectly, or ignore their recommendations. I have been using a Dell with Windows at work for over 5 years, and haven't been "pwned" yet - but I do follow Microsoft's security recommendations and patch my machine frequently, use a firewall, etc. So yes, I can safely say I do trust Dell and Microsoft, in that respect. How about you?? Did you hand write the kernel for your own operating system you developed, out of fear of MS?? Or do you irrationally think that you can trust the pros at Apple or Red Hat, or {fill in OS here}, simply because they aren't Microsoft?? If so, please remove your tin foil hat and go get some sun and fresh air....
North Korea's nuclear program has been a problem for US presidents going back to Reagan, and the conflict between North and South has been a key issue for US presidents going back to Truman. As recently as 1994, the US came far closer to war with North Korea than most Americans realize.
President Clinton eventually concluded a complicated and multipart agreement in which the North Koreans would suspend their production of plutonium in exchange for fuel oil, help building light water nuclear reactors (the kind that don't help making bombs) and a vague promise of diplomatic normalization.
President Bush came to office believing that Clinton's policy amounted to appeasement. Force and strength were the way to deal with North Korea, not a mix of force, diplomacy and aide. And with that premise, President Bush went about scuttling the 1994 agreement, using evidence that the North Koreans were pursuing uranium enrichment (another path to the bomb) as the final straw.
All diplomatic niceties aside, President Bush's idea was that the North Koreans would respond better to threats than Clinton's mix of carrots and sticks.
Then in the winter of 2002-3, as the US was preparing to invade Iraq, the North called Bush's bluff. And the president folded. Abjectly, utterly, even hilariously if the consequences weren't so grave and vast.
Threats are a potent force if you're willing to follow through on them. But he wasn't. The plutonium production plant, which had been shuttered since 1994, got unshuttered.
You even said as much yourself - "I firmly believe that if NK could have exploded a bomb while Clinton was in office, they would have." They simply didn't have the ability then, but they do now. Why do you think it became so important to them again, after shutting down (well, scaling back - I am not that naive)their previous nuclear programs? If they had been so hard at work on them when Clinton was in charge, why did it take them so long to test one?
"his might have something to do with how "giving money away" is less politically popular in the U.S. than defense spending is."
Isn't that the truth... Any politician is more concerned about ratings and reelection than actually protecting the people.
"But when it was non-stop "watch Arabs get the shit bombed out of them" on Fox News, there was close to 80% support for it."
Don't forget that people were actually taking Bush's lies at face value then, and many have been been proved as lies since then. Also Rummy's assement that it may take "hours, days, weeks....maybe months (said with his trademark smirk)" to finish the job in Iraq seems to be a little optomistic in hindsight. Start showing some burned civillian corpses or dead US soldiers on the news and watch how fast popular support will drop. If there is one thing the government learned from Vietnam it is control the press 100% if you want to to maintain popular support at home.
Really? Please cite all of the nuclear testing that happened while he was in office. And yes, I do realize that NK was working on some of this when he was in office, but I also believe the timing of their testing nukes now is in direct correaltion with how we are handling Iraq and the middle east, and is meant to send a message to the current administration.
"As for the money bit, well, I don't agree that we give very little, but on the other hand, I think we could certainly give a lot more.
I guess "very little" is open to inerpretation, but as a percentage of our GNP, the aid we do give is much less than some other countries that have a lower GNP than the US. We like to spend our money on guns, not butter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_versus_butter_th eory
"Do you drive you own car instead of hiring a professional driver to do so?" Nope, I take the bus. I can and do on occasion drive myself. There is a difference however, between operating a car, and assembling one yourself. I never claimed newbs shouldn't use a computer, just that they shouldn't be the ones that set up the security features.
"Why do you think you have a god-given right to do so?" I don't, I have a state given right to drive a car. I got the right by demonstrating that I have sufficient knowledge to do so.
"When you buy a new toaster or microwave, do you plug it in yourself, or hire an electrician to do it for you?" I feel competent operating such a device, because the professionals are the ones that set it up and assembled it, not me. That's is why I buy brands that I know and trust, and make sure they have the Underwriter's Labs sticker on it somewhere.
"What makes you think you have the god-given right and education necessary to handle such a dangerous task on your own? It is a risk I take by operating the device. I know this before operating it, and also take steps to decrease the risk involved - like not trying to use it in a bathtub, or a room filled with explosive gasses. I do realize that even if small, there is still the potential for misuse that may lead to negative consequences.
"And no, for the record, I don't believe any of my rights are derived from God."
Me neither, I'll leave that to the harcore religious neo-cons.
However, I am sure you are aware of the engine break-in period right? No, well than just buy your brand new car, get it out on the freeway, and really "open it up to see what it can do" - especailly when you have under a few hundred miles on it. You shouldn't need any other knowledge of operating a car besides where to put the key in. How could something that you don't know ever hurt you, right?? Why would you assume just because something is new, it couldn't possibly have anything wrong with it? New cars are a little different, due to the fact they have warranties (unless you violate the terms due to your own ignorance). But would you ever fork out thousands of dollars on a used car without getting it checked out by a mechanic?? If not, I have a few really awesome used cars to sell you at a premium price...
No, I am not in favor of laws that protect us from ourselves. Why do you think it is a god-given right that every amateur be able to set up their own computer? Did you build your own house? Did you wire and plum it yourself? No? Why not, it's your right?? Because professionals do it better, that's why. I'm not saying you couldn't build/wire/plum your own house, or that it should be illegal if you do. But if you decide to do it yourself, and refuse to educate yourself before attempting, you should be prepared to accept the consequences of your own actions.
The first thing I do with a new system is - remove any network and wireless cards, remove the power supply, place computer in a safe, put safe in container underground and fill to the top with concrete. Presto, the most secured system you will ever see. No script kiddie is going to get MY personal information!
Use your computer all you want. Just don't set it up yourself if you don't have a clue what you are doing. Simple. (I realize it was a pseudo-attempt at humor, but fell way short. Until you can prove that you are a stand up comedian with at least 50,000 DVD sales, don't attempt to make jokes. You're endangering the rest of society by doing so.)
If the above post doesn't get a +5 Funny, I'm sure that the poster, the spokesperson for Fox News Network, may be a little upset. It is so ridiculously off base I won't even dignify it with a real reply.
So you argee that the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 were "playing nice"? They only killed 5,000 and I don't believe the Twin Towers were "sacred" excpet maybe to yuppies worshipping the almighty dollar. Seems a little different when the shoe is on the other foot. Even Bush Sr. knew we could never occupy Iraq, that's why he didn't attempt to in the first Gulf War. He even warned Dubya not to do a full scale land invasion - it wasn't necessary or particularly smart. He took out Saddam's military, hence ending any immediate threat (to OUR oil, which somehow ended up under the desert in Kuwait). Wading into another country's civil war is a dangerous thing. See "Vietnam" for reference. Being smart and cautious is not necessarily "pansy ass". See "Gulf War 1" for reference.
"When you buy a car, most people expect to insert the key in the ignition and put their foot on the accelerator. They don't expect to be handed the components and a 900 page manual and be expected to assemble it themselves."
Yet when the same people are handed computer components and manuals that they don't understand, they somehow think that they CAN assemble it themsleves. That is where the problem lies...
"Why can't the average user go into a shop, buy a computer, bring it home and expect it to work - out of the box."
Most of the time they can, given it is a shop of reliable reputation. Most new Windows boxes sold today come with SP2 installed - with included firewall set on by default. If you bought a car, would you assume there is engine coolant, air pressure in tires, working brakes, airbags, fuel, etc. or would you ask the person selling it if these things are at proper levels, or even check for yourself before driving it?? Assumptions can sometimes be costly...
"My grandmother has no way of knowing she's supposed to be running a firewall, or going to get a Microsoft Security update before doing anything else."
Then Granny has no business trying to set up her own system. It isn't a god-given right to be able to set up your own system. When I needed some wiring done in my house, sure I probably could have done it myself. I may have even been able to do it right. But I am smart enough to know that it isn't my area of expertise, so I called an electrician. Computers are no different than any other thing you don't have knowledge with. And XP with SP2 ships with a firewall installed and on by default. Time to replace Granny's imaged install disc with a slipstreamed SP2 version, just in case she decides to "give it a go" herself.
And this is why they should be letting a professional set their stuff up. If you knew nothing about cars, would you try to put an engine together and then drop it in by yourself, or would you take it to a mechanic? Most people seem to understand that, why should it be different just because we are talking about computers? Nothing like having your system owned as a way to hammer this point home. I certainly don't take the crass view of "well they get what they deserved for being ignorant" - but how do you combat naiveté among people? Especially with a technical subject that most people's eyes just glaze over when you start talking patches and firewalls? I think most folks just figure they can save $100 by setting it up themselves....Big mistake....
Slashdot Mirror
No, they don't. Please cite their business address in Illinois. You can't because they have no offices in Illinois at all. Now if an ISP in Illinois decides to use their list, that does not mean they are "in Illinois doing business". All of the Spamhaus servers are located OUTSIDE the US.
What you are essentially saying is "The BBC does business in the USA because I can access their web site from the USA" or "Apple is based in Sweden, because I used my iPod there"
"most Americans don't realise anywhere else exists anyway"
What, there is a world outside of the US?? But my map just has the US in the middle of the map, with water all around that leads to the edges of the earth, where you then fall off. HERE THERE BE SERPENTS!
Which would seem perfectly reasonable if they have
a)never even been to Illinois
b)have no place of business in Illinois.
Influence, yes. Legal rights, no. All they could do was plead their case and hope the Swedish authorities did what they wanted them to do. If the Swedish authorities would have just told them to bugger off, nothing would have happened.
"that may not always be an option - and won't be one for many in corporate, domain run environments especially if the ability to disable it could be controlled via domain policies, which I can see as very likely happening."
So you are complaining that an individual can't hand develop drivers on his locked down work machine?? (and wouldn't that be the fault of the corporation locking him out, not Microsoft?) Why would he need to? If the company is a software developer, and his job is writing drivers, why would the company lock it up to make doing so impossible? And if not, why doesn't he have a machine that he has control over, like at home, to do so??
You are still opting to query the DNS server. My point is that they don't send unsolicited emails- otherwise they would have to blacklist themselves.
Considering e360 lied and claimed that Spamhaus has a place of business in Illinois, and they are based in the UK with NO US offices, I hardly think an Illinois judge has the right to strip them of their domain. And even if it does happen, big whoop. In under 5 minutes, Spamhaus.co.uk will be up and running - lets see a US judge take that domain away....
Spamhaus is a service you need to sign up for - only their customers will be emailed. Do you really think an anti-SPAM organization would start sending out unsolicited emails??
All it would really need is for one of the big boys (Dell, HP, Sony, etc.) to start offering "safer" systems - the rest would have to follow suit in order to compete.
Wiring and plumbing yourself?? Sweet. I can handle a little light electrical stuff, but never take on the big plumbing jobs myself. Faucets, sinks, tubs, no problem, but I don't mess with the big pipes. Of course the plumbing in my house is also over 75 years old - if it was newer I would consider doing more myself...
"My point is not that Clinton was a fool nor was it that Bush is a hero, but that both of them, and most of the rest of the world's leaders, missed the point."
Well said. I agree, and while my political leanings are more liberal than conservative, I am neither a Democrat, nor Republican. Both president's policies may not have succeeded 100%, but I still am of the opinion that offers of financial aid will produce more allies than threats ever will. (with the possible exceptions of Poland and France)
To be honest, i am way more concerned about the amount of nuclear weapons already out there, and in some cases, laying around in unprotected areas in the former Soviet Union. I don't really think that any country wants a full scale nuclear exchange, and in that respect they are deterrents. But I do fear a smaller terrorist group with the aim of spreading terror (after all that is what terrorists want - not to kill or blow up things, but to strike fear in the population) may get their hands on enough nuclear material to build a small weapon. NK may or may not have had the same capabilities in the 90s as they do now, but I doubt it. And I really doubt that then would have been the time to "show their hand". Instead they waited until Bush puffed out his chest and made hollow threats, then called his bluff.
Yep, I would trust the people at Dell to make sure the system is electronically sound and isn't going to start any fires, or knock out the circuit breakers. I would trust the people at Microsoft that their product would run if the system meets their requirements(cue the flames). However, it isn't Dell's or Microsoft's responsibility to make sure you don't use it incorrectly, or ignore their recommendations. I have been using a Dell with Windows at work for over 5 years, and haven't been "pwned" yet - but I do follow Microsoft's security recommendations and patch my machine frequently, use a firewall, etc. So yes, I can safely say I do trust Dell and Microsoft, in that respect. How about you?? Did you hand write the kernel for your own operating system you developed, out of fear of MS?? Or do you irrationally think that you can trust the pros at Apple or Red Hat, or {fill in OS here}, simply because they aren't Microsoft?? If so, please remove your tin foil hat and go get some sun and fresh air....
North Korea's nuclear program has been a problem for US presidents going back to Reagan, and the conflict between North and South has been a key issue for US presidents going back to Truman. As recently as 1994, the US came far closer to war with North Korea than most Americans realize.
p hp
President Clinton eventually concluded a complicated and multipart agreement in which the North Koreans would suspend their production of plutonium in exchange for fuel oil, help building light water nuclear reactors (the kind that don't help making bombs) and a vague promise of diplomatic normalization.
President Bush came to office believing that Clinton's policy amounted to appeasement. Force and strength were the way to deal with North Korea, not a mix of force, diplomacy and aide. And with that premise, President Bush went about scuttling the 1994 agreement, using evidence that the North Koreans were pursuing uranium enrichment (another path to the bomb) as the final straw.
All diplomatic niceties aside, President Bush's idea was that the North Koreans would respond better to threats than Clinton's mix of carrots and sticks.
Then in the winter of 2002-3, as the US was preparing to invade Iraq, the North called Bush's bluff. And the president folded. Abjectly, utterly, even hilariously if the consequences weren't so grave and vast.
Threats are a potent force if you're willing to follow through on them. But he wasn't. The plutonium production plant, which had been shuttered since 1994, got unshuttered.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/010275.
I didn't write it, but it states pretty much what I believe. Did either of the presidents solve the problem?? No, but I think Clinton's approach was better.
You even said as much yourself - "I firmly believe that if NK could have exploded a bomb while Clinton was in office, they would have." They simply didn't have the ability then, but they do now. Why do you think it became so important to them again, after shutting down (well, scaling back - I am not that naive)their previous nuclear programs? If they had been so hard at work on them when Clinton was in charge, why did it take them so long to test one?
"his might have something to do with how "giving money away" is less politically popular in the U.S. than defense spending is."
Isn't that the truth... Any politician is more concerned about ratings and reelection than actually protecting the people.
"But when it was non-stop "watch Arabs get the shit bombed out of them" on Fox News, there was close to 80% support for it."
Don't forget that people were actually taking Bush's lies at face value then, and many have been been proved as lies since then. Also Rummy's assement that it may take "hours, days, weeks....maybe months (said with his trademark smirk)" to finish the job in Iraq seems to be a little optomistic in hindsight. Start showing some burned civillian corpses or dead US soldiers on the news and watch how fast popular support will drop. If there is one thing the government learned from Vietnam it is control the press 100% if you want to to maintain popular support at home.
"Clinton tried that, and it didn't work."
h eory
Really? Please cite all of the nuclear testing that happened while he was in office. And yes, I do realize that NK was working on some of this when he was in office, but I also believe the timing of their testing nukes now is in direct correaltion with how we are handling Iraq and the middle east, and is meant to send a message to the current administration.
"As for the money bit, well, I don't agree that we give very little, but on the other hand, I think we could certainly give a lot more.
I guess "very little" is open to inerpretation, but as a percentage of our GNP, the aid we do give is much less than some other countries that have a lower GNP than the US. We like to spend our money on guns, not butter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_versus_butter_t
"Do you drive you own car instead of hiring a professional driver to do so?"
Nope, I take the bus. I can and do on occasion drive myself. There is a difference however, between operating a car, and assembling one yourself. I never claimed newbs shouldn't use a computer, just that they shouldn't be the ones that set up the security features.
"Why do you think you have a god-given right to do so?"
I don't, I have a state given right to drive a car. I got the right by demonstrating that I have sufficient knowledge to do so.
"When you buy a new toaster or microwave, do you plug it in yourself, or hire an electrician to do it for you?"
I feel competent operating such a device, because the professionals are the ones that set it up and assembled it, not me. That's is why I buy brands that I know and trust, and make sure they have the Underwriter's Labs sticker on it somewhere.
"What makes you think you have the god-given right and education necessary to handle such a dangerous task on your own?
It is a risk I take by operating the device. I know this before operating it, and also take steps to decrease the risk involved - like not trying to use it in a bathtub, or a room filled with explosive gasses. I do realize that even if small, there is still the potential for misuse that may lead to negative consequences.
"And no, for the record, I don't believe any of my rights are derived from God."
Me neither, I'll leave that to the harcore religious neo-cons.
Thanks.
You are welcome.
However, I am sure you are aware of the engine break-in period right? No, well than just buy your brand new car, get it out on the freeway, and really "open it up to see what it can do" - especailly when you have under a few hundred miles on it. You shouldn't need any other knowledge of operating a car besides where to put the key in. How could something that you don't know ever hurt you, right?? Why would you assume just because something is new, it couldn't possibly have anything wrong with it? New cars are a little different, due to the fact they have warranties (unless you violate the terms due to your own ignorance). But would you ever fork out thousands of dollars on a used car without getting it checked out by a mechanic?? If not, I have a few really awesome used cars to sell you at a premium price...
No, I am not in favor of laws that protect us from ourselves. Why do you think it is a god-given right that every amateur be able to set up their own computer? Did you build your own house? Did you wire and plum it yourself? No? Why not, it's your right?? Because professionals do it better, that's why. I'm not saying you couldn't build/wire/plum your own house, or that it should be illegal if you do. But if you decide to do it yourself, and refuse to educate yourself before attempting, you should be prepared to accept the consequences of your own actions.
The first thing I do with a new system is - remove any network and wireless cards, remove the power supply, place computer in a safe, put safe in container underground and fill to the top with concrete. Presto, the most secured system you will ever see. No script kiddie is going to get MY personal information!
I believe you may mean "Non sequitur" - unless "Non sequiter" means - "I don't understand this myself, so it must be wrong!"
Use your computer all you want. Just don't set it up yourself if you don't have a clue what you are doing. Simple. (I realize it was a pseudo-attempt at humor, but fell way short. Until you can prove that you are a stand up comedian with at least 50,000 DVD sales, don't attempt to make jokes. You're endangering the rest of society by doing so.)
If the above post doesn't get a +5 Funny, I'm sure that the poster, the spokesperson for Fox News Network, may be a little upset. It is so ridiculously off base I won't even dignify it with a real reply.
So you argee that the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 were "playing nice"? They only killed 5,000 and I don't believe the Twin Towers were "sacred" excpet maybe to yuppies worshipping the almighty dollar. Seems a little different when the shoe is on the other foot.
Even Bush Sr. knew we could never occupy Iraq, that's why he didn't attempt to in the first Gulf War. He even warned Dubya not to do a full scale land invasion - it wasn't necessary or particularly smart. He took out Saddam's military, hence ending any immediate threat (to OUR oil, which somehow ended up under the desert in Kuwait).
Wading into another country's civil war is a dangerous thing. See "Vietnam" for reference. Being smart and cautious is not necessarily "pansy ass". See "Gulf War 1" for reference.
"When you buy a car, most people expect to insert the key in the ignition and put their foot on the accelerator. They don't expect to be handed the components and a 900 page manual and be expected to assemble it themselves."
Yet when the same people are handed computer components and manuals that they don't understand, they somehow think that they CAN assemble it themsleves. That is where the problem lies...
"Why can't the average user go into a shop, buy a computer, bring it home and expect it to work - out of the box."
Most of the time they can, given it is a shop of reliable reputation. Most new Windows boxes sold today come with SP2 installed - with included firewall set on by default. If you bought a car, would you assume there is engine coolant, air pressure in tires, working brakes, airbags, fuel, etc. or would you ask the person selling it if these things are at proper levels, or even check for yourself before driving it?? Assumptions can sometimes be costly...
"My grandmother has no way of knowing she's supposed to be running a firewall, or going to get a Microsoft Security update before doing anything else."
Then Granny has no business trying to set up her own system. It isn't a god-given right to be able to set up your own system. When I needed some wiring done in my house, sure I probably could have done it myself. I may have even been able to do it right. But I am smart enough to know that it isn't my area of expertise, so I called an electrician. Computers are no different than any other thing you don't have knowledge with. And XP with SP2 ships with a firewall installed and on by default. Time to replace Granny's imaged install disc with a slipstreamed SP2 version, just in case she decides to "give it a go" herself.
And this is why they should be letting a professional set their stuff up. If you knew nothing about cars, would you try to put an engine together and then drop it in by yourself, or would you take it to a mechanic? Most people seem to understand that, why should it be different just because we are talking about computers? Nothing like having your system owned as a way to hammer this point home. I certainly don't take the crass view of "well they get what they deserved for being ignorant" - but how do you combat naiveté among people? Especially with a technical subject that most people's eyes just glaze over when you start talking patches and firewalls? I think most folks just figure they can save $100 by setting it up themselves....Big mistake....