> But Mandrake is a different animal altogether -- it is intended for less advanced users.
Say what? What a load of wannabe-elitist crap.
Mandrake is intended for people who appreciate a distro which simply works.
What are you, so advanced you do your Linux installations with a magnet and a steady hand directly onto your harddrive platters?
Instant clue for you, sonny-boy: There are people out there who have been managing Linux installations since you were in diapers who prefer Mandrake because of its (quite advanced) features which allow everyone, even sysadmins and weary techs, to get on with the job.
> Given a good administrator, there should be no real difference
> between a Linux and a BSD server, since most of the stuff past
> the kernel level is exactly the same anyway.
Insightful? In-fscking-sightful??!?
No it isn't. Most Linux distros are full of the same creature feep as Windows, while the *BSDs are minimalist in comparison. This is by design on the part of the *BSDs, not by accident.
If you insist on throwing everything including the kitchen sink into a distro, in order to bow down to the level of the least common denominator of users, 13K breakins is what happens.
> I keep hearing horror stories about people
> getting 100+ spam emails per day. This leaves me
> with the question, HOW IS YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS
> GETTING INTO THEIR HANDS!?!?
I was going to say "you must be a young'un and new here", but then I noticed your low/. id. Go figure.
100 a day? I wish. On my domain there is only the one user: Me. I currently block ~5000 spams every day with DNSBLs. Granted, quite a few of those spams are dictionary attacks so would never reach my inbox anyway, but still.
My domain and my email address have been the same for over 10 years now. Back in the day I used to post to USENET with this address, without obfuscating it. There was no reason to, we hadn't even heard of Canter & Siegel yet. I put my email address on web pages too. Heck, I still do, it's too late now in any case. My email address must have been sold and resold over and over again for close to a decade.
Besides, I shouldn't need to hide my email address in the first place. I'm not at fault here, the dim-witted lowlifes who couldn't even get a job as telemarketers and who are clogging the 'net with sewage in the imbecile hope of peddling worthless crap to retards are.
I have never, ever replied to spam (D-oh!) and I have never used an email program that previews HTML and loads images automatically.
I guess I could change my email address and do my best to hide it from the world, but that wouldn't help for long in the first place (first person who has me in their address book to get hit with a virus and ka-blam!...) and more importantly: That would be giving in and letting the braindead scum-sucking felonious numbskulls win. Never, I say!
I'd just like to say thanks to all who replied to my "Internet Death Penalty" comment.
Some say I must be on the verge of losing my sanity, some say the IDP wouldn't work, most of you say that there would simply be too much collateral damage.
You're all correct, of course (except the guy who threatened with a lawsuit. He can go play in traffic). My point still stands though, we have to come up with something new as nothing so far has worked. The worthless and scumsucking social rejects commonly known as spammers are ruining email and costing the rest of us a lot of money.
I run several email servers, for various sites and companies, but let me use my own server as an example here. I host about 20 domains on it, mostly vanity domains for friends, but also a couple of small mom-and-pop type businesses. That server is currently rejecting close to 100,000 SPAM messages per month on the frontend (through the use of DNSBLs). On the backend SpamAssassin identifies another 3,000 or so per month.
Anyone see a problem with this picture? A small server like this having to fight off over 100K SPAM messages every month? This is insane and yes, I am losing both patience and sanity. The problem is only getting worse too, only back in October the rate was 75K messages per month. That's a 33% increase in SPAM in two months! A look at my daily logs since the new year tells me it's still increasing. This means I'm going to have to upgrade the hardware on my email gateway yet again in not too long.
I. Have. Had. Enough.
Note: I've been patient. I've been constantly upgrading defenses for years, keeping track of which DNSBLs work and which have closed down, tuning SpamAssassin and trying out various bayesian filters etc. All the while I've been waiting for lawmakers to realize that this is a big problem and that it is a global problem. I've been thinking that technology probably isn't the best way to deal with this, as at its core it's a social (or is that sociological?) problem.
As many have said before me, this is a classic case of the tragedy of the commons. A small group of socially irresponsible people are abusing a common good, in the process ruining it, all in the name of making a quick buck.
How does society protect itself from people like that in other contexts? With laws. We reject, we ostracize and we punish. In civilized society we leave the punishment to law enforcement. In the case of SPAM many countries have passed laws against it, but there are really only a handful of countries that "count" and those countries have been less than vigilant in their fight against SPAM so far. I'm talking about China and Korea of course, as well as Brazil and Argentina. These countries may not originate all the SPAM out there, but they sure do host a lot of spammers and relay a lot of SPAM.
But most of all I'm talking about the US of A, simply because a whole lot of the SPAM relayed through those other countries originates in the US. I've held on to my sanity, clutching at the hopes of impending legislation with teeth. For a while there really was hope, several states passed good laws. And then came CAN-SPAM.
Now what? The volume of SPAM is not going down, even if CAN-SPAM was enforced to the letter. I'd still have scumbags out there trying to steal my bandwidth and server resources. To all of you complaining that blacklists (and the IDP) are evil, why is this so hard to understand? The spammers are stealing my resources, period! Yes, I have voluntarily connected my network to the Internet, but I have never asked for this deluge of electronic sewage!
I want these anti-social misfits punished by society, I want the common good to prevail over the stupidity and greed of a few scam artists and I want this to happen in a civilized way (through laws and law enforcement).
If that doesn't happen we will have no recourse but to fall back on technology and in that case we
Methinks we have to get a little more drastic in order to have any effect on spam. I mean, everything else seems to fail.
Let's get extreme and start dropping packets from entire/24s from which spam is originating. In extreme cases, let's drop entire spam friendly ISPs. This is the only way to get rid of pink contracts, if all the customers of an ISP suddenly find that large parts of the Internet become unreachable to them.
If an ISP finds itself dropped from routing tables and unable to reach most/all of the rest of the 'net, I have a feeling they will get tough on spam and on clueless customers with open relays/proxies real fast. They'll have to, or they'll be out of business.
Yeah, I know this is extreme and drastic, but what else is there? SPF records won't be effective, laws don't do squat (a: because this is a global problem and b: because law enforcement haven't got the resources/motivation/whatever to enforce the laws anyway).
I'm just getting so sick and tired of these antisocial scumbags ruining email for the rest of us.
This has far-reaching implications
on
Feds Want to Tap VoIP
·
· Score: 4, Informative
First, please allow me to plug a site I help run:
IAXprovider.net, a community site for people running VoIP services on Asterisk, the open source Linux PBX. We follow this issue closely. Thank you.
BTW, this same article is also available over on news.com.com. Anyway, lemme quote:
"The agencies have asked the Federal Communications Commission to order companies offering voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service to rewire their networks to guarantee police the ability to eavesdrop on subscribers' conversations."
Think about that one for a minute. How is a VoIP provider going to ensure that? There is only one way, turn off and disable all use of encryption in their VoIP network, unless the provider has access to the keys used.
Now think of IM networks, email servers, or just about any other Internet service. What are they going to do, outlaw all "non-sanctioned" client software using encryption? Are we gearing up for another Clipper Chip fiasco here?
"Rapidly expanding voice communications over the Internet should be protected from excessive government regulation and from being pigeonholed as simple phone service". He goes on to say
"harm from misregulation of VoIP could take "decades to fix."
"You [can] create a very hostile regulatory environment for voice-over-IP providers in the United States," Powell said.
He added "there is nothing to stop" the companies from moving to other countries and setting up computer systems to serve U.S. customers.
Pardon my suspicious nature, but this sudden interest for the Moon and Mars by Bush wouldn't by any chance have anything to do with the Chinese announcement of their intentions of establishing a base on the Moon?
Good old para^H^H^H^Hcompetitive spirit kicking in...?
"The administration examined a wide range of ideas, including new, reusable space shuttles and even exotic concepts such as space elevators" (my emphasis).
A space elevator, now there's a project worth pursuing. If we could only master the technology needed (superstrong materials, read Arthur C. Clarke's Fountains of Paradise or see this site for details) a space elevator would pay for itself in a matter of years and open up space for humanity like no other initiave we can even imagine today.
That aside, I wonder if we will read about this period in 30 years time like we do today about Nixon's deliberations about what to do with the Apollo program, not to mention how special interests got the Space Shuttle funding even though there was little science to gain from the program which basically tied us to LEO for decades? I wonder how much frenzied scrambling has been going on inside NASA these past few months to come up with realistic programs while the Prez is in a benign mood (all part of the re-election strategies, no doubt).
Whatever comes from this, if anything at all, let's try to make it an international effort. First of all that would be good for international cooperation in general, it wouldn't look like one country was doing this for strategic purposes and it would ease the burden somewhat for the US taxpayer. Fair is fair, the entire human race will (hopefully) benefit from this, so we should all chip in.
I find it interesting that a lot of Americans, including here on Slashdot, see the efforts by environmentalists to get global warming under control as an attack on America and The American Way Of Life(tm).
This is stupid because there is no one (except perhaps/bin/laden and his ilk) who would find any joy in seeing Americans have to adjust their lifestyle a bit. Most of the rest of us either don't care or do our best to emulate it anyway.
No, the only people actually feeling the effects of the environmentalists' crusade are those of us living in "progressive" countries where gas has been $5/gallon for a long time already and where every conceivable form of energy is taxed through the roof "in order to save the environment".
Nevermind that we need that energy to go about our daily business whatever the cost so demand isn't reduced anyway, nevermind that those same progressive governments put exactly zilch of that tax revenue back into alternative energy research and nevermind that it doesn't make any difference anyway because the rest of the world is still polluting at least as much as they ever did, so....
You get the drift. It's enough to make a poor sod wonder if this global warming panic isn't a huge scam cooked up by politicians to allow them to tax the populace with impunity.
Not that I doubt that the climate is changing, but wouldn't it be a good idea to get everyone to agree on the scientific basis for claiming man is (at least partly) behind the change, what measures to implement and then to implement them globally? Reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases 1% globally must be better than reducing them by 10% in a just couple of medium/small countries.
Also, it wouldn't leave those of us living in those countries feeling like we're having to do all the lifestyle adjusting in a massive and costly gesture of futility while the rest of the world doesn't really give a rat's ass.
Note that I'm not saying that the claims that the climate is changing are a scam, but I do think it's prudent to wonder out loud about the global warming panic that, as far as I can see, has only ever resulted in raised taxes in some countries. Where is the reduction in emissions of greenhouse gasses? Where is the reduction of the ozone holes? In short, where did our money go?
So, my dear Americans. Be prepared for the day when you too have to pay $5/gallon for gas, only make sure that when that day comes your money will actually be used for something that makes a difference.
IAXprovider.net is the site for people who want to network their Asterisk systems (IAX is the protocol Asterisk uses to talk to other Asterisk instances) with other Asterisk users.
The site is intended as a hub for Asterisk users to meet up, network and take over the world of telephony.
> Well, then, thanks for not referring to the events in 1905 as "breaking free from despotic royal rule".
N.P.;-)
> Don't mind you slagging the Danes though.:-)
There was quite a difference, even though tempers were running quite high on both sides in 1905 too. Still, under Swedish rule from 1814 to 1905 we had some degree of autonomy, not so under Danish rule from the dark middle ages until 1814. Quite sad really, we went from proud and fierce Vikings, found christianity and turned into servile peasants under foreign rule for centuries.
Norway is not a socialist nor a communist country.
Just thought I'd mention that FTR;-). Norway is currently governed by a coalition of the conservative party, the christian democrats and the liberal (no, not "liberal" in the US sense) party.
Norway has been a democratic, capitalist country ever since it broke free from despotic royal rule in the early 1800s.
> If I ran my car 8 hours a day, 7 days a week, and then complained when the engine blew up I'd be laughed at by the dealer.
>
> Dealer: "You put how many miles on it in 18 months?"
> Me: "220,000. Why did it die so soon?"
> Dealer: "Because you're an idiot."
Say what? Ever heard of taxis? Provided you change lubricants at the recommended intervals and perform proper maintenance, any reasonably engineered car will do 220K miles in 18 months just fine.
Of course it would mean running more or less 24/7/365, but the car could take it.
What kills engines is improper maintenance (lubricants, coolants) and cold starts (acid build up). What kills chassis is lack of maintenance, ozone (rubber deteriorating over time) and rust. Metal fatigue seldom comes into play as most cars rust long before they see enough use for metal fatigue to become a factor. In your scenario however, it could become a factor before rust, but only after much longer than 18 months (5-10 years at least, depending on road surface quality and abuse).
> it is going to be determined in a Court of Law, not the Court of Slashdot.
"The Court of Slashdot", I like it...
Judge: "Mr. ForeGeek of the Jury, have you reached a verdict?"
FGOTJ: "Yes, Your Honor"
Judge: "What say you?"
FGOTJ: "We find the defendant guilty of Trolling in the first degree"
Judge: "I sentence the defendant to -1, Flamebait!"
Is it really? I guess that depends on your POW. From mine, the majority of the/. crowd appear to be slightly to the right of Atilla the Hun with a bunch of Ayn Rand-libertarians thrown in for good measure.
I'm guessing the difference in POW is caused by a mixture of geography, age, culture and upbringing.
"Second, we get overwhelmed by requests to add special access for LAN parties and small businesses running NAT (for the illiterate, if your IP address starts with 192.168. or 10., you are probably running NAT -- and your personal freedom is severely restricted).
Please understand; our answer will always be NO. It always has been, and it always will be. I will try to put this in simple terms; NAT (Network Address Translation) and similar "technologies" (masquerading, etc) are detrimental to the Public Internet.
NAT destroys the end-to-end transparency of the Internet. If you do not understand this or the ramifications of this, please READ UP ON IT and make up your mind. It is a short-term, detrimental solution to a long-term problem which is most easily solved by USING UP ALL AVAILABLE IPV4 ADDRESSES AS SOON AS POSSIBLE to force a transition to IPv6.
irc.homelien.no will never succumb to the incompetence of consultants. We do, however, realize that a number of our users actually constitute part of the technician and consultant community. If you want to give us something in return for providing this service, increase your awareness of the above issues. Short and to the point. --edison, Oystein Homelien"
This document describes the current state of the Internet from the
architectural viewpoint, concentrating on issues of end-to-end
connectivity and transparency. It concludes with a summary of some
major architectural alternatives facing the Internet network layer.
[...]
3.5 Network address translators
Network address translators (NATs) are an almost inevitable
consequence of the existence of Intranets using private addresses yet
needing to communicate with the Internet at large. Their
architectural implications are discussed at length in [NAT-ARCH], the
fundamental point being that address translation on the fly destroys
end-to-end address transparency and breaks any middleware or
applications that depend on it. Numerous protocols, for example
H.323, carry IP addresses at application level and fail to traverse a
simple NAT box correctly. If the full range of Internet applications
is to be used, NATs have to be coupled with application level
gateways (ALGs) or proxies. Furthermore, the ALG or proxy must be
updated whenever a new address-dependent application comes along. In
practice, NAT functionality is built into many firewall products, and
all useful NATs have associated ALGs, so it is difficult to
disentangle their various impacts.
Slashdot Mirror
Say what? What a load of wannabe-elitist crap.
Mandrake is intended for people who appreciate a distro which simply works.
What are you, so advanced you do your Linux installations with a magnet and a steady hand directly onto your harddrive platters?
Instant clue for you, sonny-boy: There are people out there who have been managing Linux installations since you were in diapers who prefer Mandrake because of its (quite advanced) features which allow everyone, even sysadmins and weary techs, to get on with the job.
> between a Linux and a BSD server, since most of the stuff past
> the kernel level is exactly the same anyway.
Insightful? In-fscking-sightful??!?
No it isn't. Most Linux distros are full of the same creature feep as Windows, while the *BSDs are minimalist in comparison. This is by design on the part of the *BSDs, not by accident.
If you insist on throwing everything including the kitchen sink into a distro, in order to bow down to the level of the least common denominator of users, 13K breakins is what happens.
Not a bad idea! Could you start with those annoying Olsen twins?
Ah, but the armchair quantum physicist will tell you that there is a way and he's about to announce it to the world. Any day now...
> getting 100+ spam emails per day. This leaves me
> with the question, HOW IS YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS
> GETTING INTO THEIR HANDS!?!?
I was going to say "you must be a young'un and new here", but then I noticed your low /. id. Go figure.
100 a day? I wish. On my domain there is only the one user: Me. I currently block ~5000 spams every day with DNSBLs. Granted, quite a few of those spams are dictionary attacks so would never reach my inbox anyway, but still.
My domain and my email address have been the same for over 10 years now. Back in the day I used to post to USENET with this address, without obfuscating it. There was no reason to, we hadn't even heard of Canter & Siegel yet. I put my email address on web pages too. Heck, I still do, it's too late now in any case. My email address must have been sold and resold over and over again for close to a decade.
Besides, I shouldn't need to hide my email address in the first place. I'm not at fault here, the dim-witted lowlifes who couldn't even get a job as telemarketers and who are clogging the 'net with sewage in the imbecile hope of peddling worthless crap to retards are.
I have never, ever replied to spam (D-oh!) and I have never used an email program that previews HTML and loads images automatically.
I guess I could change my email address and do my best to hide it from the world, but that wouldn't help for long in the first place (first person who has me in their address book to get hit with a virus and ka-blam!...) and more importantly: That would be giving in and letting the braindead scum-sucking felonious numbskulls win. Never, I say!
Some say I must be on the verge of losing my sanity, some say the IDP wouldn't work, most of you say that there would simply be too much collateral damage.
You're all correct, of course (except the guy who threatened with a lawsuit. He can go play in traffic). My point still stands though, we have to come up with something new as nothing so far has worked. The worthless and scumsucking social rejects commonly known as spammers are ruining email and costing the rest of us a lot of money.
I run several email servers, for various sites and companies, but let me use my own server as an example here. I host about 20 domains on it, mostly vanity domains for friends, but also a couple of small mom-and-pop type businesses. That server is currently rejecting close to 100,000 SPAM messages per month on the frontend (through the use of DNSBLs). On the backend SpamAssassin identifies another 3,000 or so per month.
Anyone see a problem with this picture? A small server like this having to fight off over 100K SPAM messages every month? This is insane and yes, I am losing both patience and sanity. The problem is only getting worse too, only back in October the rate was 75K messages per month. That's a 33% increase in SPAM in two months! A look at my daily logs since the new year tells me it's still increasing. This means I'm going to have to upgrade the hardware on my email gateway yet again in not too long.
I. Have. Had. Enough.
Note: I've been patient. I've been constantly upgrading defenses for years, keeping track of which DNSBLs work and which have closed down, tuning SpamAssassin and trying out various bayesian filters etc. All the while I've been waiting for lawmakers to realize that this is a big problem and that it is a global problem. I've been thinking that technology probably isn't the best way to deal with this, as at its core it's a social (or is that sociological?) problem.
As many have said before me, this is a classic case of the tragedy of the commons. A small group of socially irresponsible people are abusing a common good, in the process ruining it, all in the name of making a quick buck.
How does society protect itself from people like that in other contexts? With laws. We reject, we ostracize and we punish. In civilized society we leave the punishment to law enforcement. In the case of SPAM many countries have passed laws against it, but there are really only a handful of countries that "count" and those countries have been less than vigilant in their fight against SPAM so far. I'm talking about China and Korea of course, as well as Brazil and Argentina. These countries may not originate all the SPAM out there, but they sure do host a lot of spammers and relay a lot of SPAM.
But most of all I'm talking about the US of A, simply because a whole lot of the SPAM relayed through those other countries originates in the US. I've held on to my sanity, clutching at the hopes of impending legislation with teeth. For a while there really was hope, several states passed good laws. And then came CAN-SPAM.
Now what? The volume of SPAM is not going down, even if CAN-SPAM was enforced to the letter. I'd still have scumbags out there trying to steal my bandwidth and server resources. To all of you complaining that blacklists (and the IDP) are evil, why is this so hard to understand? The spammers are stealing my resources, period! Yes, I have voluntarily connected my network to the Internet, but I have never asked for this deluge of electronic sewage!
I want these anti-social misfits punished by society, I want the common good to prevail over the stupidity and greed of a few scam artists and I want this to happen in a civilized way (through laws and law enforcement).
If that doesn't happen we will have no recourse but to fall back on technology and in that case we
Methinks we have to get a little more drastic in order to have any effect on spam. I mean, everything else seems to fail.
Let's get extreme and start dropping packets from entire /24s from which spam is originating. In extreme cases, let's drop entire spam friendly ISPs. This is the only way to get rid of pink contracts, if all the customers of an ISP suddenly find that large parts of the Internet become unreachable to them.
If an ISP finds itself dropped from routing tables and unable to reach most/all of the rest of the 'net, I have a feeling they will get tough on spam and on clueless customers with open relays/proxies real fast. They'll have to, or they'll be out of business.
Yeah, I know this is extreme and drastic, but what else is there? SPF records won't be effective, laws don't do squat (a: because this is a global problem and b: because law enforcement haven't got the resources/motivation/whatever to enforce the laws anyway).
I'm just getting so sick and tired of these antisocial scumbags ruining email for the rest of us.
BTW, this same article is also available over on news.com.com. Anyway, lemme quote:
"The agencies have asked the Federal Communications Commission to order companies offering voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service to rewire their networks to guarantee police the ability to eavesdrop on subscribers' conversations."
Think about that one for a minute. How is a VoIP provider going to ensure that? There is only one way, turn off and disable all use of encryption in their VoIP network, unless the provider has access to the keys used.
Now think of IM networks, email servers, or just about any other Internet service. What are they going to do, outlaw all "non-sanctioned" client software using encryption? Are we gearing up for another Clipper Chip fiasco here?
FCC chairman Michael Powell has just come down on the side of VoIP providers saying, in part:
"Rapidly expanding voice communications over the Internet should be protected from excessive government regulation and from being pigeonholed as simple phone service". He goes on to say "harm from misregulation of VoIP could take "decades to fix."
"You [can] create a very hostile regulatory environment for voice-over-IP providers in the United States," Powell said.
He added "there is nothing to stop" the companies from moving to other countries and setting up computer systems to serve U.S. customers.
Exactly. Welcome to the Internet age.
Know what Arthur C. Clarke had to say about that?
"The Space Elevator will be built as soon as everyone stops laughing"
> Also, you guys like bashing Bush so much
> I can't believe how ferociously you attack him
> How the heck can you compare him to Hitler
What have you been smoking, I have done no such thing.
Good old para^H^H^H^Hcompetitive spirit kicking in...?
Nah.
"The administration examined a wide range of ideas, including new, reusable space shuttles and even exotic concepts such as space elevators" (my emphasis).
A space elevator, now there's a project worth pursuing. If we could only master the technology needed (superstrong materials, read Arthur C. Clarke's Fountains of Paradise or see this site for details) a space elevator would pay for itself in a matter of years and open up space for humanity like no other initiave we can even imagine today.
That aside, I wonder if we will read about this period in 30 years time like we do today about Nixon's deliberations about what to do with the Apollo program, not to mention how special interests got the Space Shuttle funding even though there was little science to gain from the program which basically tied us to LEO for decades? I wonder how much frenzied scrambling has been going on inside NASA these past few months to come up with realistic programs while the Prez is in a benign mood (all part of the re-election strategies, no doubt).
Whatever comes from this, if anything at all, let's try to make it an international effort. First of all that would be good for international cooperation in general, it wouldn't look like one country was doing this for strategic purposes and it would ease the burden somewhat for the US taxpayer. Fair is fair, the entire human race will (hopefully) benefit from this, so we should all chip in.
This is stupid because there is no one (except perhaps /bin/laden and his ilk) who would find any joy in seeing Americans have to adjust their lifestyle a bit. Most of the rest of us either don't care or do our best to emulate it anyway.
No, the only people actually feeling the effects of the environmentalists' crusade are those of us living in "progressive" countries where gas has been $5/gallon for a long time already and where every conceivable form of energy is taxed through the roof "in order to save the environment".
Nevermind that we need that energy to go about our daily business whatever the cost so demand isn't reduced anyway, nevermind that those same progressive governments put exactly zilch of that tax revenue back into alternative energy research and nevermind that it doesn't make any difference anyway because the rest of the world is still polluting at least as much as they ever did, so....
You get the drift. It's enough to make a poor sod wonder if this global warming panic isn't a huge scam cooked up by politicians to allow them to tax the populace with impunity.
Not that I doubt that the climate is changing, but wouldn't it be a good idea to get everyone to agree on the scientific basis for claiming man is (at least partly) behind the change, what measures to implement and then to implement them globally? Reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases 1% globally must be better than reducing them by 10% in a just couple of medium/small countries.
Also, it wouldn't leave those of us living in those countries feeling like we're having to do all the lifestyle adjusting in a massive and costly gesture of futility while the rest of the world doesn't really give a rat's ass.
Note that I'm not saying that the claims that the climate is changing are a scam, but I do think it's prudent to wonder out loud about the global warming panic that, as far as I can see, has only ever resulted in raised taxes in some countries. Where is the reduction in emissions of greenhouse gasses? Where is the reduction of the ozone holes? In short, where did our money go?
So, my dear Americans. Be prepared for the day when you too have to pay $5/gallon for gas, only make sure that when that day comes your money will actually be used for something that makes a difference.
Not that I can see why anyone would ever need more than 640 TB anyways. Except people still using MS Windows and MS Office, of course. Sheesh!
Ooops, wrong timeline. 'Scuse me while I duck back, er... forwards, to 2014 again.
IAXprovider.net is the site for people who want to network their Asterisk systems (IAX is the protocol Asterisk uses to talk to other Asterisk instances) with other Asterisk users.
The site is intended as a hub for Asterisk users to meet up, network and take over the world of telephony.
N.P. ;-)
> Don't mind you slagging the Danes though. :-)
There was quite a difference, even though tempers were running quite high on both sides in 1905 too. Still, under Swedish rule from 1814 to 1905 we had some degree of autonomy, not so under Danish rule from the dark middle ages until 1814. Quite sad really, we went from proud and fierce Vikings, found christianity and turned into servile peasants under foreign rule for centuries.
Just thought I'd mention that FTR ;-). Norway is currently governed by a coalition of the conservative party, the christian democrats and the liberal (no, not "liberal" in the US sense) party.
Norway has been a democratic, capitalist country ever since it broke free from despotic royal rule in the early 1800s.
>
> Dealer: "You put how many miles on it in 18 months?"
> Me: "220,000. Why did it die so soon?"
> Dealer: "Because you're an idiot."
Say what? Ever heard of taxis? Provided you change lubricants at the recommended intervals and perform proper maintenance, any reasonably engineered car will do 220K miles in 18 months just fine.
Of course it would mean running more or less 24/7/365, but the car could take it.
What kills engines is improper maintenance (lubricants, coolants) and cold starts (acid build up). What kills chassis is lack of maintenance, ozone (rubber deteriorating over time) and rust. Metal fatigue seldom comes into play as most cars rust long before they see enough use for metal fatigue to become a factor. In your scenario however, it could become a factor before rust, but only after much longer than 18 months (5-10 years at least, depending on road surface quality and abuse).
FAQ here.
I remember reading in the foreword to some novel:
"This novel was written entirely in WordPerfect, which is anything but".
"The Court of Slashdot", I like it...
Judge: "Mr. ForeGeek of the Jury, have you reached a verdict?"
FGOTJ: "Yes, Your Honor"
Judge: "What say you?"
FGOTJ: "We find the defendant guilty of Trolling in the first degree"
Judge: "I sentence the defendant to -1, Flamebait!"
That should teach 'em! Or not...
Is it really? I guess that depends on your POW. From mine, the majority of the /. crowd appear to be slightly to the right of Atilla the Hun with a bunch of Ayn Rand-libertarians thrown in for good measure.
I'm guessing the difference in POW is caused by a mixture of geography, age, culture and upbringing.
[ker-snip]
Robby Todino, is that you?
This is from the motd on irc.homelien.no:
"Second, we get overwhelmed by requests to add special access for
LAN parties and small businesses running NAT (for the
illiterate, if your IP address starts with 192.168. or 10., you are
probably running NAT -- and your personal freedom is severely
restricted).
Please understand; our answer will always be NO. It always has
been, and it always will be. I will try to put this in simple
terms; NAT (Network Address Translation) and similar "technologies"
(masquerading, etc) are detrimental to the Public Internet.
NAT destroys the end-to-end transparency of the Internet. If you
do not understand this or the ramifications of this, please READ
UP ON IT and make up your mind. It is a short-term, detrimental
solution to a long-term problem which is most easily solved by
USING UP ALL AVAILABLE IPV4 ADDRESSES AS SOON AS POSSIBLE to force
a transition to IPv6.
irc.homelien.no will never succumb to the incompetence of
consultants. We do, however, realize that a number of our users
actually constitute part of the technician and consultant
community. If you want to give us something in return for
providing this service, increase your awareness of the above
issues. Short and to the point. --edison, Oystein Homelien"
(irc.homelien.no is a popular server on EFnet)
From RFC 2775:
Abstract
This document describes the current state of the Internet from the
architectural viewpoint, concentrating on issues of end-to-end
connectivity and transparency. It concludes with a summary of some
major architectural alternatives facing the Internet network layer.
[...]
3.5 Network address translators
Network address translators (NATs) are an almost inevitable
consequence of the existence of Intranets using private addresses yet
needing to communicate with the Internet at large. Their
architectural implications are discussed at length in [NAT-ARCH], the
fundamental point being that address translation on the fly destroys
end-to-end address transparency and breaks any middleware or
applications that depend on it. Numerous protocols, for example
H.323, carry IP addresses at application level and fail to traverse a
simple NAT box correctly. If the full range of Internet applications
is to be used, NATs have to be coupled with application level
gateways (ALGs) or proxies. Furthermore, the ALG or proxy must be
updated whenever a new address-dependent application comes along. In
practice, NAT functionality is built into many firewall products, and
all useful NATs have associated ALGs, so it is difficult to
disentangle their various impacts.