pacbell.net · Domains · Slashdot Mirror

Finally... a story where this is *not* offtopic... by Anonymous Coward · 2000-05-19 20:38 · Score: 5 · on Oxford Yanks Student Page Over Spoof DeCSS

and I'm asleep at the keyboard. Doh!

Oh well... here it is.
Add your own, and spread this far and wide:

This announcement brought to you by the DeCSS Polar Bear.

Time for Slashdot to take a stand... by Anonymous Coward · 2000-04-05 03:12 · Score: 4 · on MPAA Files Another Injunction Against 2600

The following is a list of all the mirrors from the 2600 site.

Re:Another (L)GPLed project that will never finish by Le+douanier · 2000-01-30 01:38 · Score: 2 · on GNUstep 0.6.5 freeze

was thinking of learning objective-c (objective-c==openstep?) but if i gotta buy some devkit from apple to get the full functionality and only be able to run stuff on OSX then i guess i wouldn't be bothered...

Objective C != OpenStep.

Objective C is a programming language that adds OO style programming to C but with a philosophy closer to Smalltalk than to C++ (i.e. Java also has a Smalltalk-like philosophy but with C++ syntax), thus Objective C has got great merits on its own.

OpenStep use Objective C, so it integrates well with OpenStep, but you can use it without OpenStep.

By the way, Next made the Objective C front end for GCC, and first tried to release it in binary only (they thought that releasing the .o binary was compliant with the GPL), RMS contacted them to tell them it was in violation and they re-released it under the GPL.

I have also heard that Apple has got a compiler in which you can mix Objective C and C++, must be pretty cool.

I haven't used it personally so it is things I have heard about it in various tutorials/explanations/... When I get the time I definitively must check it (I'm checking Guile right now).

Anyway, for more informations see this.

Re:hmm.. by Anonymous Coward · 2000-01-26 14:58 · Score: 0 · on XHTML 1.0 now a W3C Recommendation

Any basic SAX + DOM package will work with XHTML too, if it supports XML validation. If you've got one, keep using it!

One Java package has some XHTML-specific tools already: here it is, including SAX (latest 2.0), DOM (L2 latest, with events and such), validation, and so on.

The XHTML-specific features in that package are a basic HTML parser that lets you convert lots of HTML into XHTML using SAX (but you've got to fix the validity errors yourself), and a way to write your stuff out as XHTML text.

Re:Lego Battlebots by Anonymous Coward · 2000-01-11 23:10 · Score: 1 · on Revenge of the Battle Bots

Its been done, check out these sites. Rules and everything.
Ronin Special Effects LEGO page
Team Delta LEGO RoboGladiator page
And there may be more events to come.

Re:DSL Rates, and how this won't really show up. by Stinking+Pig · 1999-11-16 11:37 · Score: 1 · on FCC May Force Telcos to Cut Rates for DSL Providers

That is a little pricey, but still beats the shit out of a fractional T1, huh :-) IIRC, Bell Atlantic uses Alcatel -- your "modem" is a black rectangle, smaller at one end, labelled 1000 ADSL? If that's the case, your ATM PVC is just giving you a bandwidth 'guarantee,' not security. Your ethernet is bridged out via RFC 1483. Have a look at Linux Router Project and enjoy.

Why "Just Delete it" doesn't work by B.D.Mills · 1999-11-14 06:16 · Score: 1 · on Secret Spam Summit Held in Washington DC

Delete it? This is one common spammer response to the issue of spam. "If you don't want it, just delete it." Other common spammer responses are "What I'm doing is not illegal" (technically, it probably is, as I will show), "I have a right to do this, under S.1618, a proposed Bill" (this bill was defeated and did not become law), and "I have a constitutional right to free speech" (if that was true and spammers had a right to spam, then I have the same right to break into a spammer's home at 2 in the morning, come into their bedroom and read them my resume using a megaphone at maximum volume).

Why "Just delete it" is not a solution:

By the time you receive the e-mail, resources that cost real money to install, use and maintain have been consumed to send the message to you. Thus, the spammer has effectively stolen from various places on the 'Net.
You have to spend your own time to discard the junk. Could that time be better used by you earning money? Do you place a monetary value on your own time? If so, then the spammer has stolen from you as well.
If spammers felt that "just delete it" was an appropriate response if their spam was unwanted, then they would make it easy to filter the spam automatically. A few actually do this by putting "ADV:" or something similar in the subject. However, the majority of spammers don't want their message deleted, and some go as far as putting misleading subjects in the message to make you think it's from someone you know so you have to read the message, e.g.: "Info you requested" and "Hi, remember me?".
Can you delete your way through 50, 100, 200, 300, 500, 1000 spams a day? If nothing is done about stopping spam, the volume of spam will only increase to the point where e-mail is no longer a usable resource for the 'Net community. Spammers, by spamming, are destroying the usefulness of the resources that they exploit.

Other reasons why spam is undesirable

Electronic mail is not a broadcast medium. E-mail is meant to be a communication between two people, not a means by which a dysfunctional individual can spew junk all over the 'Net.
Spamming is not a legitimate form of advertising. If spam was a legitimate form of advertising, then reputable business would be using it. Legitimate businesses do not generally use spam to advertise.

On the issue of legality:

It is now illegal in some jurisdictions (Washington State, USA, for example) to send e-mail with forged headers or misleading subject lines.
Forging the headers of an e-mail message may also constitute fraud in jurisdictions without explicit anti-spam laws. Fraud is a criminal offence.
Sending pornographic spam to minors is almost certainly illegal, regardless of whether it contains a disclaimer stating that "you must be over 18 to view this" or words to that effect. Would you leave the Kama Sutra on your coffee table at home, but tell your kids that you must be over 18 to read it? Sending pornographic spam to an Australian resident may also be illegal after 1 January, 2000, when the Online Services amendments to the Telecommunications Act come into force.
Advertising of any product or service is subject to laws that regulate truth in advertising. Making up testimonials is illegal. Claims that are false are illegal. Lying in advertising is illegal.
Pyramid scams and other similar "Get-rich-quick" schemes are illegal.
Asking people to send cash through the post is probably illegal.
Using resources that other people have paid for is regarded by many as theft. Theft is a criminal offence.

Links:

LART FAQ
Death to Spam
JunkBusters home page with a link to their Spam page

--

Re:Imagine what we can do with the mozilla source. by ctucker · 1999-10-26 01:26 · Score: 1 · on Cookies, Ad Banners, and Privacy

I'm afraid your option #3 would wreck my links page.

DSL in Silicon Valley Advice Wanted by Wanker · 1999-09-23 00:34 · Score: 1 · on Cable vs. DSL, Explained

The Slashdot crowd remains one of the most technically-savvy discussion groups around, and this seems like an opportune time to ask since the discussion centers around high-speed connectivity.

Does anyone have experience with DSL in the Silicon Valley area? Some of the providers I've looked at have been:

Do any of you know of any web sites which have customer reviews of DSL in this area? Do any of you have personal experience with these (or other) ISPs? (I'm curious how well they are connected, and how well they tolerate those of us who use a real operating system.)

Re:Gun ownership. by Steve+B · 1999-09-22 23:51 · Score: 1 · on Everything We've Heard About Columbine is Wrong?

We recently [2-3 years ago] had a similar situation [Port Arthur], and this resulted in a very controversial change to our legistation, basically [and i'm generalising here] outlawing all semi-automatic rifles [pistols are already illegal without the licence].

Yes, and your crime rate went up afterwards. No thanks.
/.

Re:What does guns have to do with anything? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-28 05:07 · Score: 0 · on Interception in the UK

In the last couple of posts in this thread, Lars wrote:

I reiterate: Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to kill in self-defense.

I notice you cite your source: Handgun Control, Inc. (which was once called the National Coalition to Ban Handguns, a rather more honest label than they have now). You should be aware that the figures cited by HCI are bogus. They have been retracted by very researcher who produced them. From a page on Sarah Brady:

Sarah likes to use this "43 times" statistic, even though the author of the study admits that his study was flawed and, at best, the number should be closer to 2.7 times. But the true story is in how the study evaluated data.
Remarkably, the author excluded all other legitimate uses, including occasions where a gun was used a gun for protection but a shot was never fired or a criminal simply wounded or frightened away. This is equivalent to claiming airplanes are an public danger due to the number of yearly deaths without accounting for the number of passengers or miles safely flown!

More to the point, the "43 times" statistic includes all killings of non-strangers, including criminal competitors. Finally, the vast majority of murderers have a long history of violence before they ever kill somebody; the USA does have laws against felons possessing firearms. Dozens of them. Many of the criminals who've gone on to commit murder were only in possession of a legal weapon because the police and prosecutors didn't bother to have them tried on felony charges when they had the chance. Since they fail to enforce the laws we have, why should the law-abiding public have to accept any more restrictions?

More guns means more death. Less guns means less death.

For every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, attractive and wrong. (Of course, simple solutions are easiest for the simple-minded to grasp, and attract them strongly.)

And that's when you get statistics like "35,957 Americans killed with firearms, in homicides, suicides, and accidents

From the same page:

Sarah likes to claim 40,000 people are being gunned down yearly but she knows full well that deaths from suicide account for nearly half of that number (about 18,346 in 1994). Without trying to downplay the tragedy of suicide, no law could adequately prevent someone from taking their own life. Also, since Canada imposed heavy restrictions on handguns the suicide rate has remained about the same. People simply changed from gun suicides to leaping suicides.
But then, one hundred people per day makes for a nice sound-byte, doesn't it?

If your simplistic views had any relationship to reality, the states of Florida, Indiana and Texas (among others) should have had an explosion of homicides when they gasp legalized the concealed carry of handguns! Funny, the homicide rate stats (which mostly reflect crooks killing each other) didn't change, and crime went down. So, I guess you're wrong.

Another helping of crow, Lars?

read carefully by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-02 05:38 · Score: 0 · on Feature: Getting DSL

its $10 for Internet access + $40 for dsl line + $198 for equipment and installation + one year subscription required( for $10+40 per month) or read [ all info] from their web site

PacBell DSL Home Pack is $198 for the year by Will+Sargent · 1999-06-01 23:08 · Score: 1 · on Feature: Getting DSL

I've seen lots of ads all over San Francisco for CoVad or Concentric, but they charge $50 a month for service which may not be all that great -- they were out for almost an entire week once in January.

PacBell charges $10 a month for DSL, but you have to find it here. Yes, that is $10 a month. Be prepared to be put on hold a lot, but it works great when it's in.

Project to fix these bugs by stevenj · 1999-01-10 11:19 · Score: 1 · on Linux and GNU at their best

I just thought you might want to know that there is a project specifically aimed at fixing the bugs described in this paper (the 6-9% failure rate). (In fact, many of them have been fixed.)

Slashdot Mirror

Domain: pacbell.net

Comments · 114