What this means is that those marketing lists created by data brokers aren't even accurate enough for sending spam.
No that's not what it means, though that reason is listed, the focus is on the emails that were not legitimate opt-in's. And I'd think that the fact that this angered the company in question means that they aren't a spammer, they seem to be attempting to send to opt in's only.
Define bulk. They send un-solicited mail to hundreds if not thousands of servers a day, not even with the intention of selling anything but in order to exploit flaws in mail servers.
Should the employer pay $60,000 a year to hire a sysadmin who can secure the one or two servers the business operates? Even if the business doesn't have that kind of cash flow? Even if the increased costs mean they can't compete? Even when the office coordinator can get the system functional
Uhh yeah they should.
Should a new nuclear plant hire qualified technicians to prevent meltdowns? Even if they don't have the cashflow, even if it means they can't compete? Even if a high school student can get the plant functional?
If they can't be responsible they shouldn't be in business. It's a pretty simple concept.
Qmail is good, but take a stroll through the code one day, there's some stuff on there that'll make your hair stand on end. A coworker found a lot of poor coding in the source, mostly performance stuff.
I ran it this morning and don't seem to have bee infected by their fraud so I don't know what the BHO looks like that belongs to Morpheus, but this app looks pretty helpful.
Insightful my ass. This is an invasion of privacy pure and simple. If it was an integrated browser in the Morpheus client, that's one thing. But if I were to write a virus to do the exact same thing, I'd be prosecuted if I was caught. Why is ok for a corporation to do something that is a criminal act for an individual?
You're right. Just as I take (or could, it's rarely that I even think about it) umbrage at subsidizing people who can't seem to keep a job yet get pregnant every year or two? due to my age, gender, race and marital status most of my taxes go to programs that have nothing to do with me. It's about time tax money goes to pay for something I want. Too bad I live in Harford County, MD;)
No one was trying to justify his claims, pointing out the humor in his statement was the point.
Re:7/10? POSSIBLE MINOR SPOILERS
on
Resident Evil
·
· Score: 2
Fair enough, on the one hand the AI shouldn't have cared, it had no reason to pressure them to kill her, on the other, maybe it was trying to preserve any lives it could and killing her might allow the others to escape.
Re:7/10? POSSIBLE MINOR SPOILERS
on
Resident Evil
·
· Score: 2
That would explain it. I saw Event Horizon and laughed hysterically through it, the girl I was with was freaked out about the gore, but I thought the movie was terrible. I especially like the bit when they look in the derilict spacship and among the ice chunks and various other frozen things floating around see a bottle of Evian turning end over end with the water sloshing around .
You don't seem to be getting the point, that's no proof that the relationship is legal as another replier said. Beside harping on a point that was not the main intent of the original post, try focusing on what I'm saying, not what you think I'm saying.
7/10? POSSIBLE MINOR SPOILERS
on
Resident Evil
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Maybe a little higher, but (possible spoilers)
Spoilers Below *******
Why would you build a emergency cutoff system for an AI (in case it perhaps goes crazy) BEHIND defense systems controlled by the AI??
And why would an AI that we find out isn't crazy start freaking out over killing the infected chick? The AI shouldn't care, it should have calmly stated kill her or you all die, instead of screaming kill her over and over like that chick just ate her cookie.
Not a plot problem but the Matrix bullets have to go, getting sick of the rip offs.
Who directed this flick: Hey pal, load noises and sudden appearances on screen only work if you use them SPARINGLY. No audience is going to jump every five minutes at that shit.
All in all it was a good watch though, entertaining at least.
Just because the government continuosly does it doesn't mean it's legal. There may not be a provision anywhere for these cases. Or more likely the people who are valid representatives often are not the ones who show up in court.
Uhh, one guy (who's not a hacker, but I won't get into that argument) proves that most hackers are idiots. No, I think the finger pointing needs to be turned around to face the other direction. Only an idiot would think that one case implies a trait for a group.
It is funny in a sad little way. You have the right in this country to face your accuser, I wonder if there is a law anywhere that allows a respresentative of the plaintiff to stand in his place. I'm sure there is, but regardless this line is the only smart/clever thing the kid said.
My prediction, that line will appear in a movie shortly. (Of cours maybe it has allready and the dik stole it)
Your right, I could have left off the first line, and I'll drop the security discussion.
Yes it would be nice to work a 40 hour week and do personal stuff at home. But the fact is that I, and most others, work during the exact time that the places required to do personal stuff are open (let's include all personal business, not that that is just accessable through the web since that's the larger issue), so it becomes necessary for me to take care of other things during work.
It doesn't see much use because it doesn't do anyone a bit of good if they aren't sitting at their desks referring to a reference. I constantly use the web as an engineer. Need to know how something works, fire up google and search. Tracking down something strange that might be a bug, check usenet. Need to figure out this Oracle error I'm getting and how to work around it, the net is the way to go. I'd waste more time searching for and through books if I didn't have net access at my finger tips.
If my company took away net access, would I continue to work, well yeah, would I be any more productive definitely not. Would I be looking for a new job, count on it.
Huh, and where do they draw the line? Alchohol is a drug, if it doesn't affect my work, but they don't want drug users working for them what right do they have to fire me on that basis. None, no more than if I was gay. My alchohol use is a lifestyle choice not affecting my productivity.
Agreed, and as long as there are companies who do provide a pleasant (dare I say healthy) environment, they will get the best employees. The heavy handed employers will be left with the scraps.
Most of the posts here are black and white, for and against. I need to give you credit for being more balanced. Personally I have no problem with filtering attachments, or making sure an employee isn't pulling down pirated software, or even mp3's (my stance on mp3's is complex but I will agree that a company needs to protect itself). But limiting web access to a certain group of machines or other heavy handed web access filtering, that I don't agree with. But like you said it's the other problems that are the major issues.
I was going to post with the exact same sentiments. The knife cuts both ways. Want me to work from home, uh uh, provide me with a computer and an internet connection and I'll VPN in, I'm not using my resources to further the company. And by the way, my work week ends at 40 hours, and don't call me on the weekend to come in without offering comp time. I can no longer spare my free time to work, since I can't use my downtime at work to do anything anymore.
This "productivity loss" is a bunch of horse shit anyway. People with a strong work ethic will do the job regardless, and people without won't. You're not going to turn a bad employee into a good one by removing net access.
Hey now, smoking does not fuzz your brain as you imply, the smoke break is a high probability method of solving a problem. Not only is it a stimulant, an addict can't think clearly during withdrawl. Of course we could stop smoking and in time wouldn't have these problems, but if it were that easy I'd have quit a long time ago.
Slashdot Mirror
No that's not what it means, though that reason is listed, the focus is on the emails that were not legitimate opt-in's. And I'd think that the fact that this angered the company in question means that they aren't a spammer, they seem to be attempting to send to opt in's only.
Define bulk. They send un-solicited mail to hundreds if not thousands of servers a day, not even with the intention of selling anything but in order to exploit flaws in mail servers.
Should the employer pay $60,000 a year to hire a sysadmin who can secure the one or two servers the business operates? Even if the business doesn't have that kind of cash flow? Even if the increased costs mean they can't compete? Even when the office coordinator can get the system functional
Uhh yeah they should.
Should a new nuclear plant hire qualified technicians to prevent meltdowns? Even if they don't have the cashflow, even if it means they can't compete? Even if a high school student can get the plant functional?
If they can't be responsible they shouldn't be in business. It's a pretty simple concept.
Hmm ORBZ is sending email to my server, un-solicited no less, sounds like Spam to me. ;)
Qmail is good, but take a stroll through the code one day, there's some stuff on there that'll make your hair stand on end. A coworker found a lot of poor coding in the source, mostly performance stuff.
BHO Cop 1.0
I ran it this morning and don't seem to have bee infected by their fraud so I don't know what the BHO looks like that belongs to Morpheus, but this app looks pretty helpful.
Insightful my ass. This is an invasion of privacy pure and simple. If it was an integrated browser in the Morpheus client, that's one thing. But if I were to write a virus to do the exact same thing, I'd be prosecuted if I was caught. Why is ok for a corporation to do something that is a criminal act for an individual?
You're right. Just as I take (or could, it's rarely that I even think about it) umbrage at subsidizing people who can't seem to keep a job yet get pregnant every year or two? due to my age, gender, race and marital status most of my taxes go to programs that have nothing to do with me. It's about time tax money goes to pay for something I want. Too bad I live in Harford County, MD ;)
Uh moderators, that should be funny, let me hit you with a clue stick. Tick references are ALWAYS +1 Funny ;)
No one was trying to justify his claims, pointing out the humor in his statement was the point.
Fair enough, on the one hand the AI shouldn't have cared, it had no reason to pressure them to kill her, on the other, maybe it was trying to preserve any lives it could and killing her might allow the others to escape.
That would explain it. I saw Event Horizon and laughed hysterically through it, the girl I was with was freaked out about the gore, but I thought the movie was terrible. I especially like the bit when they look in the derilict spacship and among the ice chunks and various other frozen things floating around see a bottle of Evian turning end over end with the water sloshing around .
You don't seem to be getting the point, that's no proof that the relationship is legal as another replier said. Beside harping on a point that was not the main intent of the original post, try focusing on what I'm saying, not what you think I'm saying.
Spoilers Below *******
Why would you build a emergency cutoff system for an AI (in case it perhaps goes crazy) BEHIND defense systems controlled by the AI??
And why would an AI that we find out isn't crazy start freaking out over killing the infected chick? The AI shouldn't care, it should have calmly stated kill her or you all die, instead of screaming kill her over and over like that chick just ate her cookie.
Not a plot problem but the Matrix bullets have to go, getting sick of the rip offs.
Who directed this flick: Hey pal, load noises and sudden appearances on screen only work if you use them SPARINGLY. No audience is going to jump every five minutes at that shit.
All in all it was a good watch though, entertaining at least.
Just because the government continuosly does it doesn't mean it's legal. There may not be a provision anywhere for these cases. Or more likely the people who are valid representatives often are not the ones who show up in court.
Uhh, one guy (who's not a hacker, but I won't get into that argument) proves that most hackers are idiots. No, I think the finger pointing needs to be turned around to face the other direction. Only an idiot would think that one case implies a trait for a group.
My prediction, that line will appear in a movie shortly. (Of cours maybe it has allready and the dik stole it)
Yes it would be nice to work a 40 hour week and do personal stuff at home. But the fact is that I, and most others, work during the exact time that the places required to do personal stuff are open (let's include all personal business, not that that is just accessable through the web since that's the larger issue), so it becomes necessary for me to take care of other things during work.
Any company that says "I'll pay to fuck your ass" I'm out the door.
If my company took away net access, would I continue to work, well yeah, would I be any more productive definitely not. Would I be looking for a new job, count on it.
Huh, and where do they draw the line? Alchohol is a drug, if it doesn't affect my work, but they don't want drug users working for them what right do they have to fire me on that basis. None, no more than if I was gay. My alchohol use is a lifestyle choice not affecting my productivity.
Agreed, and as long as there are companies who do provide a pleasant (dare I say healthy) environment, they will get the best employees. The heavy handed employers will be left with the scraps.
Most of the posts here are black and white, for and against. I need to give you credit for being more balanced. Personally I have no problem with filtering attachments, or making sure an employee isn't pulling down pirated software, or even mp3's (my stance on mp3's is complex but I will agree that a company needs to protect itself). But limiting web access to a certain group of machines or other heavy handed web access filtering, that I don't agree with. But like you said it's the other problems that are the major issues.
This "productivity loss" is a bunch of horse shit anyway. People with a strong work ethic will do the job regardless, and people without won't. You're not going to turn a bad employee into a good one by removing net access.
Hey now, smoking does not fuzz your brain as you imply, the smoke break is a high probability method of solving a problem. Not only is it a stimulant, an addict can't think clearly during withdrawl. Of course we could stop smoking and in time wouldn't have these problems, but if it were that easy I'd have quit a long time ago.