Slashdot Mirror

Yeah, makes me wonder too. But still, some crackhead modded your post informative anyway.

M.O.C.

These are people who post things which can be totally fabricated, simply regurgitations of the information available, bashing individuals or companies unpopular among Slashdot readers, or any other form of redundant or pointless contribution for the purpose of collecting "karma." This is described in more detail below, but suffice it to say that those individuals who consider collecting karma to be a status symbol need to get out more, and make some friends in meatspace.

Here is the scoop on Green Card Spam you mentioned. Worth a read to see what happens to a typical spammer in the long run. He was disbarred, his wife left him, humiliated, now he is pretty much living in hell. Justice was served.

That would be Karma Whore. Not to be confused with with any of the following :

Crack Whore, Assistant Crack Whore, Crack Whores Who Remember 9/11, A little known band called the Absolute Whores, Media Whores, or even Evil Lesbian Media Whores

Yes, I'm all for enforcing grammar where it matters. I happen to think that correct usage of apostrophes is important, for example. In this case however, we are kowtowing to rules that have been outdated for centuries and have no impact on comprehension.

Why, that's simple. You can Karma Whore at slashdot.org! :-)

Also, this site has some information on the software suggested: xzgv.

Hopefully you will find this useful.

"Spam is flooding the Internet with many copies of the same message, in an attempt to force the message on people who would not otherwise choose to receive it."

From the Net Abuse FAQ:

"The term "spam," as used on this newsgroup, means "the same article (or essentially the same article) posted an unacceptably high number of times to one or more newsgroups." CONTENT IS IRRELEVANT. 'Spam' doesn't mean "ads." It doesn't mean "abuse." It doesn't mean "posts whose content I object to."

I make no claim to having THE answer, but I put forward for your consideration this idea. First, some background:

On July 3, 1995, Time Magazine published its infamous cover story on Cyberporn. Written by Phillip Elmer-Dewitt, the story was based on a "study" done by CMU then-undergraduate Martin Rimm. (see this page for some details.)

A number of dead-tree journalists who haunted alt.internet.media-coverage got up in arms about the article. Rather than lamenting the follies of their brothers in reporting, they decided to do something about it. Thus was born the Internet Press Guild, a peer organization of journalists who work to provide assistance to any member of the working press who find themselves with an assignment to write about "The Internet." Membership in the IPG is open to any working press, regardless of publishing method. We have Slashdot/NewsForge/Andover people as members, for example. (Hi, Rob!)

The goal of the "organizaiton" is not to "judge", but rather to assist reporters and editors find sources that are useful and accurate, and to point them to information that can prevent them getting egg on their face.

(Disclosure: I'm one of the founding members, so salt to taste.)

I'm not pushing the IPG as a solution to improving Net journalism -- our focus has been on helping reporters and editors reporting ABOUT the Net in the dead-tree and glowing-phosper media. The point is that we are an Internet-based organization -- no conventions, no formal face-to-face meetings, and very low dues -- that is designed to provide peer help.

I suggest that a meeting-place for working Net journalists could provide the same benefit for the New Media that the IPG is currently providing to the Old Media.

www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=karma%20whore

www.cybernothing.org/~holychao/karmaho.html

www.wirednews.com/wired/archive/8.07/mustread.html ?pg=9

http://slashdot.org/users.pl?op=userinfo&nick=sign al%2011

This place should give a lot of resources too:
http://goatse.cx

I can relate.

I have a personal web site, that's located at www.cybernothing.org/~alanna. I work for a Large Corporation. Occasionally, I will want to view my web pages at work, to grab some information/check to see if the pages look decent under a higher screen resolution/etc/etc. I used to be able to, until one day I found that the proxy banned my site under the category of 'hate speech'.

Now, I will freely admit that the company has the right to block whatever they want to block, because it's their network, blah, blah. I was just amused at the category that they put me in, especially considering some of the other categories that should be appropriate -- such as sexual content (no, I don't host pr0n, but I do have certain sexually explicit writings on my site), entertainment, opinion (yes, that is actually a category), and the catch-all, 'non-business-related pages'.

I'm curious to know if any of the commercial filters also catches my page, just not curious enough to actually install any of them. I am, however, vastly amused in a sort of upset manner that the people who take care of our filtering software thought that my few little rants about the state of the world today constituted 'hate speech'.

Has anyone else had the experience of having their sites caught by filtering software? If so, were you upset, proud, baffled, or what?