This is not even close to the same thing that is a BSD filesystem snapshot, but don't let interrupt your furious fanboy wankfest.
BSD snapshots are a lot like LVM snapshots (that have been available in Linux since 1998), except that under Linux, you are not limited to 20 snapshots.
What ext3cow does, which you would realize if you would have opened your ears before your mouth, give you true point in time recovery. In other words, without ever manually "taking a snapshot", like you'd have to under BSD, you can simply revert your filesystem to where it was at any arbitrary point in time. ("Oh crap, I need to revert to where we were at 8:52:12pm last Thursday!")
BSD, to my knowledge, does not support anything this advanced.
Neither is a hunk of metal, but a screwdriver is. I bet if you put a blindfold on, you'd sit around and wonder why you can't see. Is a number a tool? It is when it is a cryptographic key.
To put it in programming terms, a raw number has no methods (Java) or member fuctions (C++).
True, but irrelevant.
Yes, Your Honor, I seriously did try to argue that the design of Java and C++ primitives should govern your interpretation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to the exclusion of the Act itself. No, my mother did not drop me on my head when I was a baby. Why do you ask?
Re:Key Isn't Copyrighted - Then why DMCA Takedown?
on
Censoring a Number
·
· Score: 1
They are asking that the key be taken down because it is a circumvention tool, not because the key itself is somehow copyright.
I'd be willing to bet a lot of money these lip-reading cameras don't speak Arabic. Yes, I know, not all terrorists are Arabs, but enough terrorists are Arabs that they are going to miss out on a ton.
Won't be able to determine tone of voice. How can you tell if I'm saying "Let's bomb Buckingham palace!" or "<sarcasm>Let's bomb Buckingham palace!</sarcasm>"?
Lip reading is damn hard. Look in a mirror. Say, "All of you." Now say, "I love you." The meaning couldn't be more different... Could you tell the difference just by looking at your mouth? Would you trust a computer to tell the difference?
Accents: I can think of 8 different English accents in England, alone.
Dialects: "Fancy a fag?" means something very different in the US vs. the UK.
Waaaaaay too much data. If you had the raw data of every single outdoor conversation in the UK for a week, how would you write the algorithm to find the threat? How about in real time? How about with no false positives? Good luck.
What I think that the poster meant to say, was that sales of P&S cameras might suffer as camera phones improve. After all, we don't buy P&S cameras as an artistic tool. We buy P&S cameras for convenience; and what could be more convenient than the cellphone that you're carrying around already?
Personally, I was very impressed with the photos taken by the N95. Oversaturated, yes. WB off by a longshot, yes (unless you are going to try to convince me that purple is the new white). But for a camera that is always in your pocket? Amazing! I wonder what the shutter speed/lag is on that thing. Also, it'd be interesting to see a fullsize shot to see how much noise is in the shadows.
On the other hand, I'm not going to be selling my DSLR and equipment any time soon.
And another thing about small cameras (and to some extent, cameraphones): You don't look like a freaking dork when you're shooting.
I don't think that's really true anymore. With dSLR prices coming down (You could buy 2 Pentax K100Ds for the cost of one Nokia N95 cameraphone), more and more people are taking the plunge. DSLRs no longer look out of place.
I make candy at home for fun, including chocolate goodies. Just so you know, the palm oil is substituted for the cocoa butter so that you don't need to temper the chocolate, which is a royal pain in the arse.
I'm sorry to hear about your attack; I know what a pain in the neck it can be.
Unfortunately, there isn't going to be much I can do to help you. I am not a sysadmin either, and the only MTA that I know is qmail. I'd probably get flamed for saying this if people were still reading this thread, but qmail is outdated. It lacks many features, probably many that you rely upon, and is basically worthless without a standard set of patches. In other words, I do not recommend that you learn qmail.
My solution involved custom qmail coding, which probably will not help you at all. What you might try doing is going to find the exim users email list or forum (there must be one) and describe your problem. They may have a solution for you.
You can obviously point them to my solution as well to see if they can tell you how to implement it in exim. Unfortunately, I know absolutely nothing about exim. If I knew exim, I would have ditched qmail years ago. But as it stands, I have no incentive to learn another MTA. I am not a sysadmin.
Good luck!
P.S. I really do wish that I could help you because I understand the pain of thousands of blowbacks per day. Here is the relevant code from my greylisting system, which you can see just does exactly what I described before. Maybe it will help you, but I doubt it. Again, good luck!
# If envelope sender is <> and recipient has never sent email, reject as spam if ($from_email eq '<>' && ! ( $to_email =~ m/-return-/ || is_outgoing_emailer($to_email))) {
print DEBUG "BLOWBACK!\n";
$exitcode = $EXITCODE_BLOWBACK; } elsif...
# Determine if the address in argument has ever sent email from this server before sub is_outgoing_emailer {
my $emailer = shift;
my $num = $dbh->do("SELECT * FROM outgoing WHERE email LIKE ?", undef, "$emailer");
return sprintf('%u',$num); }
As others have pointed out, everyone knows that spammers forge the From: header, so your domain would not be blocked except by the dumbest of mail admins.
Your real problem is the backscatter (those 1000 bounce messages you get per day). My solution follows:
I still have all of my mail logs since time immemorial, so I wrote a script to parse out all of the From email addresses in outgoing email and made a list. Going forward, each outgoing email from my server gets its From address added to that list.
In other words, I have a list of every possible From address ever used to send email from any of my domains (and the domains of the folks I host because they were jealous of my spam filtering).
Part of incoming email processing is a rule that if your envelope sender is <> (that is the envelope sender for bounce messages), and the envelope recipient is not on that magic list of my outgoing senders, then the message must be blowback, and you get an SMTP rejection code and a message that explains why your email was backscatter and to please fix your server.
Before you respond and say, "What about email addresses that you put in webforms? Hello!" Remember, I only apply this rule to envelope sender <>. If you're bouncing email to an address that has never been used to send email, then you are sending blowback.
A desperate plea to mail admins out there: For the love of all things holy, stop sending delayed bounces! When you reject a message, reject it during the SMTP session! Do you have any idea how much pain you are causing others? More information here.
I am well aware of this, but I agree that my understanding of this point was not conveyed in my original post.
A return may contain hundreds of different pieces if information, and then connect to the IRS servers to actually submit the return.
The client's system was also a financial system. While I can't comment on the amount of "work" that goes into grabbing someone's 1040EZ from the TurboTax client software, transforming it, and the submitting it to the IRS, I can definitely assure you that the amount of "work" that went into this client's processing was nontrivial.
And yes, I realize that I am being vague. I'd like to have them hire me again in the future, and that entails keeping my mouth shut sometimes. Perhaps you will decide not to believe me as a result. Perhaps I don't care.
It's one thing to process 1500 TPS where your transaction consists of updating a single column in one row
Obviously I would have never made such a comment if that was what I was referring to. Let's give a little credit here.
The engineering student was probably an american. [...] So far the word is the kid was a senior with 3 engineering majors.
I know that you posted this long before the announcement, so this is not a criticism of your post, (in fact, my first reaction was, "Prolly an engineering student that snapped under the pressure") but...
I have been to Mexico City, and I have been to Blacksburg. There is not a single square inch of Mexico City where I feel safer than any single square inch of Blacksburg, Virginia.
In Mexico, you're lucky if the only thing that happens to you is that you are pulled over by the police for some invented "infraction" and required to pay the fine on the spot, in cash, under penalty of finding yourself in a Mexican jail. Getting robbed, mugged, etc., in Mexico City is a fact of life.
Look, I'm not happy about the VT massacre either, but let's try to maintain a little perspective here. Mexico City is orders and orders of magnitude more dangerous a place than Blacksburg, VA.
TV shows talk about an 'epidemic' of road rage, an epidemic being five reported incidents in the country in the last year.
I think the keyword there is "reported" because I have personally witnessed more than 5 incidents of road rage (one car trying to run another off the road, etc.), and I don't even drive that much.
The US has always been a violent and aggressive society. Just look at the historical figures that we glorify, such as Billy The Kid, Wyatt Erp, etc. All violent people.
I think part of it might be that we have more space here, so we get testier when we feel that it is violated. Everyone is so cramped together in Europe that you kind of have to learn to get along with those around you because there is no escape. Here, we don't like people to get in our faces.
I seriously doubt that mate. A random armed rabble will not overthrow your government by force. You have invented the most powerful Military on the planet.
I'm sorry, is that a quote from today describing the US military? Or is that a quote from the mid to late 1700s describing the Royal British Army and Navy? It's hard to tell without a little bit of context.
Removing my tongue from my cheek, look at the success of the insurgency in Iraq, a poor country with a decimated military. Do you really believe that the US military would be successful fighting against Americans on American soil? Really? Do you? Shooting at Americans?
Look at the fall of the USSR. Where was the huge, fearsome Soviet army?
The American Revolution was fought by a bunch of ragtag hacks against the most powerful military in the world. The Revolutionaries did not even enjoy the support of the majority of the colonial population.
Could the US government be overthrown? Under the correct circumstances, I believe that it could.
If that is the case - I don't have numbers that confirm your assertion
You do now. The top 5% make only $137,500.00 and above, and pay 57% of federal income taxes.
since we know that the top bracket is 35%, we can double the taxes of that top 5% to 70%, they will then be paying 100% of the taxes, and the rest of us can do trivial little things like be able to afford medical care.
This is incorrect on many levels.
At its most basic level, the math is incorrect. Consider:
At $137,500.00, a person with that income is only in the 28% tax bracket. Doubling his highest marginal tax rate would not yield 70%.
More importantly, that person is not paying 28%. He is only paying $15,107.50 + 0.28 * 63,300 = 32,831.50 / 137,500.00 = 23.9% Bumping him up to 70% would be quite a shock!
Perhaps you would say that the actual rates are not relevant. Just double the final tax bill. We still get into issues of fundamental fairness. Is it fair that someone who earns $137,500 should pay $65,663.00 federal income taxes? I suppose we should double his state taxes as well, right? ~12% of 137,500 and you get another $16,500 in state taxes. So now our guy only gets to keep $55,337? Talk about a disincentive to get into that top 5%!
Also consider that poor people are poor for a reason. You might assert that the reason is a lack of money. But you do not know many poor people and their finances. I mean really truly know them. I work with them on a daily basis and do you want to know the difference between them and me? Between their finances and mine? They make poor people decisions, and I do not. It sounds harsh. It is harsh. But I cannot explain it any other way.
What are poor people decisions, you might ask? Let's stick with the most relevant to our discussion: Squandering your emergency Katrina aid on $200 bottles of champagne at Hooters, $600 at a strip club, etc. This, by the way, is exactly what would happen if you let poor people quit paying taxes. (Not that the truly poor pay any federal income tax, anyhow. They get money back.)
Lastly, let's say you fix your math so that the top 5%ers pay double taxes, and let's say you fix poor people to make them spend their windfalls wisely, your proposal still won't raise enough money. Why?
The rich will find loopholes. They always do when it's worth their while.
They'll quit working. Think about it. If you made $300,000 already this year, and it was September or so... would you really work the rest of the year for $0.30 on the dollar? Or would you just take a cruise to Tahiti?
Taxpatriates. It's extreme, but people more and more are renouncing their citizenship in high-tax countries and moving to low-tax countries and taking their wealth with them. Make it worth their while, and they'll move to Bermuda.
Part of my business involves direct mail advertising. I send all of my direct mail first class (with a real stamp, not a meter) for two reasons:
I don't send enough to make bulk mailing worth my while (presorting, bulk license fees, etc.), and
I get a better response rate when I use a first class stamp--probably because more people open the letter
I know some folks in my business who even go so far as to pay senior citizens in nursing homes to hand address their direct mail for them. Just trying to eek out that last % or two in response, I suppose.
The so called scream speech as you probably are aware was his being slightly above the noise level of the crowd which was filtered out while being replayed repeatedly.
I'm aware of that, and further I think he handled it well, referring to it as a, "crazy, red-faced rant", which it most certainly was (the crowd noise may have been filtered out, but his vein-popping red-facedness was not added in in post-processing).
Also a week or so before that he had called out big media on how it was one of the biggest problems in the country and needed to be dismantled
That is not something that I remember from '04, but let's assume that it did happen. Do you think that was weighing heavily on the Iowa caucus delegates' minds when they were voting for everyone other than Dean? And more importantly, do you think they would have disagreed with his statement calling out big media?
My point is that the removal of the crowd noise during his Scream Speech did not cause him to get clobbered in Iowa because he hadn't even given the speech yet.
Slashdot Mirror
This is not even close to the same thing that is a BSD filesystem snapshot, but don't let interrupt your furious fanboy wankfest.
BSD snapshots are a lot like LVM snapshots (that have been available in Linux since 1998), except that under Linux, you are not limited to 20 snapshots.
What ext3cow does, which you would realize if you would have opened your ears before your mouth, give you true point in time recovery. In other words, without ever manually "taking a snapshot", like you'd have to under BSD, you can simply revert your filesystem to where it was at any arbitrary point in time. ("Oh crap, I need to revert to where we were at 8:52:12pm last Thursday!")
BSD, to my knowledge, does not support anything this advanced.
Look, I'm not saying that I like the law. I'm just trying to shed some light on what's going on here.
Yes, Your Honor, I seriously did try to argue that the design of Java and C++ primitives should govern your interpretation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to the exclusion of the Act itself. No, my mother did not drop me on my head when I was a baby. Why do you ask?
They are asking that the key be taken down because it is a circumvention tool, not because the key itself is somehow copyright.
But the protected content is. Is the key to circumvent the DRM protecting the copyrighted content, not a circumvention tool under the DMCA?
What I think that the poster meant to say, was that sales of P&S cameras might suffer as camera phones improve. After all, we don't buy P&S cameras as an artistic tool. We buy P&S cameras for convenience; and what could be more convenient than the cellphone that you're carrying around already?
Personally, I was very impressed with the photos taken by the N95. Oversaturated, yes. WB off by a longshot, yes (unless you are going to try to convince me that purple is the new white). But for a camera that is always in your pocket? Amazing! I wonder what the shutter speed/lag is on that thing. Also, it'd be interesting to see a fullsize shot to see how much noise is in the shadows.
On the other hand, I'm not going to be selling my DSLR and equipment any time soon.
Look at the N95 picture again. The whites are purple.
Personally, I'm surprised that the 400D was so overwarm. I mean, c'mon Canon.
I make candy at home for fun, including chocolate goodies. Just so you know, the palm oil is substituted for the cocoa butter so that you don't need to temper the chocolate, which is a royal pain in the arse.
Unfortunately, there isn't going to be much I can do to help you. I am not a sysadmin either, and the only MTA that I know is qmail. I'd probably get flamed for saying this if people were still reading this thread, but qmail is outdated. It lacks many features, probably many that you rely upon, and is basically worthless without a standard set of patches. In other words, I do not recommend that you learn qmail.
My solution involved custom qmail coding, which probably will not help you at all. What you might try doing is going to find the exim users email list or forum (there must be one) and describe your problem. They may have a solution for you.
You can obviously point them to my solution as well to see if they can tell you how to implement it in exim. Unfortunately, I know absolutely nothing about exim. If I knew exim, I would have ditched qmail years ago. But as it stands, I have no incentive to learn another MTA. I am not a sysadmin.
Good luck!
P.S. I really do wish that I could help you because I understand the pain of thousands of blowbacks per day. Here is the relevant code from my greylisting system, which you can see just does exactly what I described before. Maybe it will help you, but I doubt it. Again, good luck!
Last I checked, MySQL supports partitioning.
Last I checked, PostgreSQL does not.
As others have pointed out, everyone knows that spammers forge the From: header, so your domain would not be blocked except by the dumbest of mail admins.
Your real problem is the backscatter (those 1000 bounce messages you get per day). My solution follows:
I still have all of my mail logs since time immemorial, so I wrote a script to parse out all of the From email addresses in outgoing email and made a list. Going forward, each outgoing email from my server gets its From address added to that list.
In other words, I have a list of every possible From address ever used to send email from any of my domains (and the domains of the folks I host because they were jealous of my spam filtering).
Part of incoming email processing is a rule that if your envelope sender is <> (that is the envelope sender for bounce messages), and the envelope recipient is not on that magic list of my outgoing senders, then the message must be blowback, and you get an SMTP rejection code and a message that explains why your email was backscatter and to please fix your server.
Before you respond and say, "What about email addresses that you put in webforms? Hello!" Remember, I only apply this rule to envelope sender <>. If you're bouncing email to an address that has never been used to send email, then you are sending blowback.
A desperate plea to mail admins out there: For the love of all things holy, stop sending delayed bounces! When you reject a message, reject it during the SMTP session! Do you have any idea how much pain you are causing others? More information here.
And yes, I realize that I am being vague. I'd like to have them hire me again in the future, and that entails keeping my mouth shut sometimes. Perhaps you will decide not to believe me as a result. Perhaps I don't care.Obviously I would have never made such a comment if that was what I was referring to. Let's give a little credit here.
40 TPS is nothing. I've worked on systems that required 600 TPS and achieved 1500 TPS.
Intuit should be hanging their heads in shame.
It turns out the guy was a South Korean English major.
Truly.
An English major.
Anyhow, I wish everyone down in Blacksburg all the best. And that's coming from someone who married into a Wahoo family.
I have been to Mexico City, and I have been to Blacksburg. There is not a single square inch of Mexico City where I feel safer than any single square inch of Blacksburg, Virginia.
In Mexico, you're lucky if the only thing that happens to you is that you are pulled over by the police for some invented "infraction" and required to pay the fine on the spot, in cash, under penalty of finding yourself in a Mexican jail. Getting robbed, mugged, etc., in Mexico City is a fact of life.
Look, I'm not happy about the VT massacre either, but let's try to maintain a little perspective here. Mexico City is orders and orders of magnitude more dangerous a place than Blacksburg, VA.
The US has always been a violent and aggressive society. Just look at the historical figures that we glorify, such as Billy The Kid, Wyatt Erp, etc. All violent people.
I think part of it might be that we have more space here, so we get testier when we feel that it is violated. Everyone is so cramped together in Europe that you kind of have to learn to get along with those around you because there is no escape. Here, we don't like people to get in our faces.
Removing my tongue from my cheek, look at the success of the insurgency in Iraq, a poor country with a decimated military. Do you really believe that the US military would be successful fighting against Americans on American soil? Really? Do you? Shooting at Americans?
Look at the fall of the USSR. Where was the huge, fearsome Soviet army?
The American Revolution was fought by a bunch of ragtag hacks against the most powerful military in the world. The Revolutionaries did not even enjoy the support of the majority of the colonial population.
Could the US government be overthrown? Under the correct circumstances, I believe that it could.
At its most basic level, the math is incorrect. Consider:
- At $137,500.00, a person with that income is only in the 28% tax bracket. Doubling his highest marginal tax rate would not yield 70%.
- More importantly, that person is not paying 28%. He is only paying $15,107.50 + 0.28 * 63,300 = 32,831.50 / 137,500.00 = 23.9% Bumping him up to 70% would be quite a shock!
Perhaps you would say that the actual rates are not relevant. Just double the final tax bill. We still get into issues of fundamental fairness. Is it fair that someone who earns $137,500 should pay $65,663.00 federal income taxes? I suppose we should double his state taxes as well, right? ~12% of 137,500 and you get another $16,500 in state taxes. So now our guy only gets to keep $55,337? Talk about a disincentive to get into that top 5%!Also consider that poor people are poor for a reason. You might assert that the reason is a lack of money. But you do not know many poor people and their finances. I mean really truly know them. I work with them on a daily basis and do you want to know the difference between them and me? Between their finances and mine? They make poor people decisions, and I do not. It sounds harsh. It is harsh. But I cannot explain it any other way.
What are poor people decisions, you might ask? Let's stick with the most relevant to our discussion: Squandering your emergency Katrina aid on $200 bottles of champagne at Hooters, $600 at a strip club, etc. This, by the way, is exactly what would happen if you let poor people quit paying taxes. (Not that the truly poor pay any federal income tax, anyhow. They get money back.)
Lastly, let's say you fix your math so that the top 5%ers pay double taxes, and let's say you fix poor people to make them spend their windfalls wisely, your proposal still won't raise enough money. Why?
- The rich will find loopholes. They always do when it's worth their while.
- They'll quit working. Think about it. If you made $300,000 already this year, and it was September or so... would you really work the rest of the year for $0.30 on the dollar? Or would you just take a cruise to Tahiti?
- Taxpatriates. It's extreme, but people more and more are renouncing their citizenship in high-tax countries and moving to low-tax countries and taking their wealth with them. Make it worth their while, and they'll move to Bermuda.
In summary, your idea would not work as intended.- I don't send enough to make bulk mailing worth my while (presorting, bulk license fees, etc.), and
- I get a better response rate when I use a first class stamp--probably because more people open the letter
I know some folks in my business who even go so far as to pay senior citizens in nursing homes to hand address their direct mail for them. Just trying to eek out that last % or two in response, I suppose.What you describe is actually called a "Head Tax" (i.e. $5,000.00 per head).
A flat tax just means a constant tax rate. Say, 5% or something.
The top 5% of taxpayers pay over 50% of the taxes. I think taxes are progressive enough.
I was floored to read that the top 5% of taxpayers pay over 50% of the tax revenue.
I hate taxes.
My point is that the removal of the crowd noise during his Scream Speech did not cause him to get clobbered in Iowa because he hadn't even given the speech yet.