SELECT videos.* FROM models LEFT JOIN videos ON model_id WHERE bust_size > size('33C') AND bmi 120;
The gay version. Heh. Heh.
SELECT videos.* FROM models LEFT JOIN videos ON model_id
WHERE cock_size > size('7.0 INCH') AND height > size('6 FEET') AND chest = 'hairless' AND body_rating >= 80/100;
Personally, I'm skeptical about the idea of malware that secretly downloads and hides kiddie porn--why would the malware developer do that?
Others already mentioned one good reason: forming distribution channels for illegal porn while providing a layer of protection for the bot net owners. There's also another reason, similar but with a slight twist.
To form a distributed network to aggregate porn, as well as a delivery system for it. A bot in this network would gather and catalog all porn, including high quality versions behind paid accounts. It would not discriminate between illegal and legal; it would grab everything.
Why would this be done? What are the motives?
Free bandwidth: bandwidth is expensive, particularly for serving image and video data. Nearly 100% of all bandwidth costs would be eliminated by stealing fractional bandwidth from 100s of thousands of compromised hosts.
Free storage: same reason here as with free bandwidth. Zero storage costs with unlimited backup copies and built-in fault tolerance.
Optimized delivery: bot nets could deliver content by transferring from compromised hosts that are geographically nearby having fewer hops between client and server. It could also anticipate user's habits by pre-loading with porn from other compromised hosts, making image loading nearly instantaneous. Faster download times = more profit.
No royalty costs: free access to distribute copyrighted material without incurring royalty payments.
Risk free distribution of illegal porn. Distributing from a compromised host in a different country provides the bot owner with that extra layer of protection. It also makes him immune to being shutdown. Lose 1 host, not a problem for him; he's got 500,000 more.
Risk free distribution of legal but copyrighted porn. Using a bot network is less risky instead of signing-up for various porn accounts, stealing their copyrighted material, and distributing from a central server. Some copyright holders aggressively sue, so this avoids the risk of being sued out of existence.
A bot net is a one stop shop for harvesting credit cards and account logins for sale on the black market; gathering emails and sending spam; distributing porn, stealing resources, and avoiding risk for the bot net owner. A turnkey solution so to speak. It's a product ripe for resale on the market to unscrupulous porn pushers who may be into illegal porn.
Bot networks are mature "products". They are resold as a product or service so setup is easy for porn pushers. No need to build complicated software systems from scratch. Just purchase an existing service.
Nope, you weren't
You were also verbally owned.
Thank you. Now make me a sandwich bitch.
You were also verbally owned.
Ummm. OK. Apparently you have zero reading comprehension skills. I was not verbally owned, because there was no logical or intellectual response. One cannot be owned by nothingness or rather the absence of replies. If you meant I was owned in the court of mindless 3rd grade insults, you may have a point.
I noticed all the idiotic replies are short, never have any clear point, and feature lame generic insults. No substance. No point. No intellectual thought.
You are fearful of posting under your real ID, which tells me something about your character. You hide under the Anonymous Coward moniker because you are fearful of being exposed. You're also fearful of others viewing your posting history.
Not surprised. When you aren't able to formulate a reply, you will result to name calling, insults, and cries of stupidity. It is you who is behaving in a fashion that's incredibly ignorant. I have gone to great lengths to explain myself in a detailed, exhaustive manner. You would do well to attempt the same.
Don't cry stupidity when you've offered nothing. I'm not here to win a popularity contest, apparently you are due to the fact you refuse to risk posting your garbage under your real ID. I say what's on my mind, yet my rating is still Excellent. But that doesn't matter, I let the arguments stand. Whether you choose to read and respond, or ignore and insult, that's your choice.
Going by the venerable branch of statistical mathematics called DISS (Debatable Internet Statistical Stereotypes).
Angry conservative voters tend to be senior citizens. Angry liberal voters tend to be young citizens. I'll bet there are more politically motivated bumper sticker forms of road rage triggerd by young liberals than old conservative ones.:D
Now, this doesn't account for boundary cases of young NASCAR angry conservatives and senior 60's generation angry liberals. Further study is recommended.
Even in the strict web-based sense of online communities with registration, member profiles, forums and so on, I was working building them in the late nineties so they have definitely been around for longer than 3-5 years.
Errm.. and this guy envisioned that in the 1934, before electronic computers existed. His picture ought to be next to "visionary" in the dictionary.
Envisioning something 5 years before it's widely used is future thinking, but not exactly an OMG type of revelation, but envisioning something 70+ years prior is one.
email from one of our competitors with several thousand of their potential customers in the 'To:' and 'Cc:' fields.
Disregard my previous post. I misread and assumed high volume email. The contributor mentioned several thousand email leads. If the leads were opt-in, they would be worth a shot; however, they're not because it would be illegal to market those ill-gotten emails with spam. They did not opt-in and you have no records proving opt-in. You'd be opening yourself up legally for violating current spamming laws. You also have no existing business relationship with these emails so another strike against you.
Spamming these specific email addresses is a bad move. Very bad.
Size matters only to those who have nothing else going for them... It's usually hard to decide for the rest of us whether to pity or laugh at these people.
I apologize in advance for turning this thread into a circus.. heh. heh..
but...
Do you always believe what you read? Think Yo Mama retorts.... no one really believes Yo Mama is that fat*. Same deal here. Heh.:D
* Of course, she may be pretty damned fat, but certainly not fat enough to generate a measureable amount of gravity.
The problem is that you lack eloquence and your inability to command language makes you look dimwitted. Being defensive and making scapegoats after you were put in your place (and rightfully so) doesn't help your case.
I'm breaking my policy of not responding to Anonymous posts with this one (yet again). Sometimes I break it when the post is sensible.
When the solution is obvious, I do not provide every detail and that is by design. It is brevity, which is something that's considered a virtue, not a flaw. On some occasions it's comedy mixed with brevity, which is what I employed with my original reply. But alas, I forgot this is slashdot. I made the mistake in assuming readers could or would jump the mental gap and see the self-evident point. I was wrong and for assuming that, I apologize.
For all future posts, and in order to be clear to even the lowliest of retarded code monkeys, I will enumerate each and every painfully obvious point, laboriously beyond the point of exasperation because that's the slashdot way. That is what is required for your typical poster here. Heh.
Anyway, I was not "put" in my place at all. I guess Matt (or you *wink* *wink) will have to try harder next time.
Your original post said that an individual must pay in order to get new features and bug fixes for Windows. Since the parent and grandparent post were both written in regards to Windows XP (indeed the entire thread and the headline is about Windows XP), it is logical to assume that you were also referring to XP. If you were, then you are simply wrong. If you weren't, then your post was a complete non sequitur.
It was very, very, very clear I was referring to XP and Vista. The fact that my entire point revolved around connecting XP to Vista is not invalidated because of some silly notion that the thread is limited to only XP. That is a distraction you're attempting to make to invalidate my point. No. You are the inflexible one here who cannot see a valid point due to some irrelevant "scope" issue with the topic thread.
Vista is the continuation of XP. It is not merely a logo. It is the current flagship operating system for Microsoft just as XP was in 2002.
Visa is the sum accumulation of all development for the Windows operating system, therefore it is perfectly valid for me to include Vista in the argument regarding free update/upgrades because both upgrade and update are treated equivalently in this case, for this argument, but not because they are the same function. No, they are not, but because the price required to perform them is ZERO in both cases. You get both for free with Linux, therefore if one is going to hold Linux to a standard using Windows as the model for product support, specifically Microsoft style support measured in years, then I can hold Windows to a standard using Linux as the model for update/upgrade path.
You and your MS fanboys are simply unhappy with this point as well as the earlier point about Linux not requiring such long-term support is because it's possible and relatively easy to attain updates and upgrades to bring servers up to current modern versions for free but you cannot do this using Microsoft products without continuing to pay again and again for a product that is essentially repackaged in a new box with a shiny new logo.
Some of you fan boys would rather lash out, but that's OK. I'm going to push it right back.
One last point, about the "scapegoats". Re-check the posting date/times. You've misused the term.
...are the cause. People see "Vote George Bush 2004" and see red.
Now, that's why I don't put political bumper stickers on my car. Obama, Hillary, or McCain, I don't care. I don't need some nut-job running me down because he doesn't like my choice of candidate.
Despite what slashdotters say. They just don't like having to come to grips with that.
Anyway. The reason your boss should not do it is not because it's immoral, but because your IT staff and company does not have the technical experience to do it right.
Doing it right means: avoiding blowing complaint thresholds with receiving ISPs, setting up a complaint loop and unsubscribing quickly, not burning out your IPs, having multiple clean IPs to send from, having someone to manage relations with ISPs and spam organizations, understanding the relationship between # of complaints and sending volumne, and understanding the effect of attrition on list size and the need to resupply it with new leads.
Realize this is only the scratch of the surface. Successfully sending email at high volume is complicated. You're risking losing your ISP contract, getting all your IPs listed as spam sources, and destroying your reputation in your industry. These are difficult things to achieve for those who have experience with sending commercial bulk email. I will tell you right now, you do not have the knowledge to it right.
Instead, you will probably pimp out your email list to a corporation that specializes in sending email. It will simply things greatly, sure, and they will assume the delivery risks and you will cut them a hefty profit share, but understand many of those providers use employ very sleazy techniques. They often skirt legality by playing semantic games with CANSPAM and other laws. Also, sometimes they rely on extremely large numbers of hosts (such as Datran) and actively pursue methods to break through spam filters using various forms of text and markup for the email content. Other times, they contract out the dirty work to illegal bot networks which perform the actual delivery. Some may even pay ISPs to get Inbox delivery, cutting back on net profit.
Using the wrong sending provider could also mean losing editorial control of what gets sent to your list. They may slam it with general offers, totally unrelated to your product. They may exert extreme pressure on you to do so, which could unnecessarily piss off your client base. They won't be satisfied with hitting up your users once a week, they will SLAM them 3-5 times a day. They don't care about pissing your clients off. They can always burn out your list and move on to the next list, leaving you to deal with the aftermath.
Are there ways to send SPAM, or rather commercial bulk email, to your list and stay clean? Yes, there is. Believe it or not, some people WANT your email. If your boss still wants to continue with it, fight very hard for the following:
Start small. Send at low volumes. Avoid any sudden changes in the rate of sending.
Provide an 800 number for complaints, unsubs, and ISPs inquiries.
Actually answer that number with a human operator. Don't let complaints go to voicemail. Your goal is to diffuse complainers quickly by giving them immediate satisfaction. Not doing that can cause you a huge amount of grief with organizations like Spamhaus and Brightmail.
Provide current business contact info on email footers.
Provide a clear--working--unsubscribe link at the bottom of your emails. Make your unsubscribe link reliable so that it'll work when your database is offline. Unsubscribe users as fast as you possibly can. Within 24 hours is good, 8 hours is better, 1 hour is even better.
Keep your volume low. If you're talking about sending 1 email per week for a list of 100,000 emails, you will stay under the radar. If you're talking about 3 emails per day for 3 million, you will not. Your traffic will be noticed.
Avoid sending blanket untargeted emails to everyone. Try to target specific offers to users likely to respond. Minimizing volume while increasing effectiveness is good.
Avoid single opt-in emails. Strive for double opt-in. This means user signs up, you send them an activation link to the specified email, they
So you've updated to Vista without paying? Via Microsoft's servers? WOW. How'd u manage that?
By the way, I will explain responding to my own post since no one else wants to engage in a respectful or intelligent way. (Typical testosterone rage based behavior.)
XP automatically patches XP so that it goes from an outdated OS that's near its end of life to an outdated OS that's near its end of life. They do not upgrade to the CURRENT version of the Windows operating system whereas Linux updates DO. The entire comparison is invalid and illogical.
In order to follow the series of updates to get Windows CURRENT, you have to PAY, and PAY, and PAY. That's the differentiator I was talking about.
I'm sorry none of you picked up on this. I will hold your hands next time. My bad.
I've owned XP since about a year after it was released. Not once have I had to pay again for patches and updates to it. I'll still be able to get patches and updates until the end-of-support is reached.
Second question... shoulda wrapped it in the other..
I've owned XP since about a year after it was released. Not once have I had to pay again for patches and updates to it. I'll still be able to get patches and updates until the end-of-support is reached.
So you've updated to Vista without paying? Via Microsoft's servers? WOW. How'd u manage that?
Amazing. You can't even get Linux distro support for that long which is sad.
Why would it be needed when upgrading the Linux kernel is a matter of download/compile/boot. Can't do that with windows. Must repurchase the OS to gain feature additions and accumulated bug fixes. If you're paying, and paying, and paying, you're going to expect longer periods of support.
If they ban keywords, they'll move onto new euphemisms. No automatic filter will do this job - and the results of the attempt will be worse in every way than if no filter was used.
I don't buy into that theory. Here's why. Those people will try to find obscure newsgroups to hide in, using the euphamisms as you say, but that also means many others won't be able to find it because it's well hidden. They won't choose mainstream groups either, because they'd get busted in 2 seconds.
The sum level of dissemination will be reduced and fewer people will have access to it, which is a good thing. It will also ram the concept into their brains that authorities are aware of what they're posting and will pursue them. The only reason people don't commit crimes in public is because they know there will be consequences for that action. The same is true for the internet. We can't cure these people, but we can make the criminal actions they wish to make undesireable due to the risks of severe punishment.
Slashdot Mirror
SELECT videos.* FROM models LEFT JOIN videos ON model_id
WHERE cock_size > size('7.0 INCH') AND height > size('6 FEET') AND chest = 'hairless' AND body_rating >= 80/100;
To form a distributed network to aggregate porn, as well as a delivery system for it. A bot in this network would gather and catalog all porn, including high quality versions behind paid accounts. It would not discriminate between illegal and legal; it would grab everything.
Why would this be done? What are the motives?
Ummm. OK. Apparently you have zero reading comprehension skills. I was not verbally owned, because there was no logical or intellectual response. One cannot be owned by nothingness or rather the absence of replies. If you meant I was owned in the court of mindless 3rd grade insults, you may have a point.
I noticed all the idiotic replies are short, never have any clear point, and feature lame generic insults. No substance. No point. No intellectual thought.
You are fearful of posting under your real ID, which tells me something about your character. You hide under the Anonymous Coward moniker because you are fearful of being exposed. You're also fearful of others viewing your posting history.
Not surprised. When you aren't able to formulate a reply, you will result to name calling, insults, and cries of stupidity. It is you who is behaving in a fashion that's incredibly ignorant. I have gone to great lengths to explain myself in a detailed, exhaustive manner. You would do well to attempt the same.
Don't cry stupidity when you've offered nothing. I'm not here to win a popularity contest, apparently you are due to the fact you refuse to risk posting your garbage under your real ID. I say what's on my mind, yet my rating is still Excellent. But that doesn't matter, I let the arguments stand. Whether you choose to read and respond, or ignore and insult, that's your choice.
Angry conservative voters tend to be senior citizens. Angry liberal voters tend to be young citizens. I'll bet there are more politically motivated bumper sticker forms of road rage triggerd by young liberals than old conservative ones.
Now, this doesn't account for boundary cases of young NASCAR angry conservatives and senior 60's generation angry liberals. Further study is recommended.
(yea yea yea)
Envisioning something 5 years before it's widely used is future thinking, but not exactly an OMG type of revelation, but envisioning something 70+ years prior is one.
Spamming these specific email addresses is a bad move. Very bad.
but...
Do you always believe what you read? Think Yo Mama retorts.... no one really believes Yo Mama is that fat*. Same deal here. Heh.
* Of course, she may be pretty damned fat, but certainly not fat enough to generate a measureable amount of gravity.
When the solution is obvious, I do not provide every detail and that is by design. It is brevity, which is something that's considered a virtue, not a flaw. On some occasions it's comedy mixed with brevity, which is what I employed with my original reply. But alas, I forgot this is slashdot. I made the mistake in assuming readers could or would jump the mental gap and see the self-evident point. I was wrong and for assuming that, I apologize.
For all future posts, and in order to be clear to even the lowliest of retarded code monkeys, I will enumerate each and every painfully obvious point, laboriously beyond the point of exasperation because that's the slashdot way. That is what is required for your typical poster here. Heh.
Anyway, I was not "put" in my place at all. I guess Matt (or you *wink* *wink) will have to try harder next time. It was very, very, very clear I was referring to XP and Vista. The fact that my entire point revolved around connecting XP to Vista is not invalidated because of some silly notion that the thread is limited to only XP. That is a distraction you're attempting to make to invalidate my point. No. You are the inflexible one here who cannot see a valid point due to some irrelevant "scope" issue with the topic thread.
Vista is the continuation of XP. It is not merely a logo. It is the current flagship operating system for Microsoft just as XP was in 2002.
Visa is the sum accumulation of all development for the Windows operating system, therefore it is perfectly valid for me to include Vista in the argument regarding free update/upgrades because both upgrade and update are treated equivalently in this case, for this argument, but not because they are the same function. No, they are not, but because the price required to perform them is ZERO in both cases. You get both for free with Linux, therefore if one is going to hold Linux to a standard using Windows as the model for product support, specifically Microsoft style support measured in years, then I can hold Windows to a standard using Linux as the model for update/upgrade path.
You and your MS fanboys are simply unhappy with this point as well as the earlier point about Linux not requiring such long-term support is because it's possible and relatively easy to attain updates and upgrades to bring servers up to current modern versions for free but you cannot do this using Microsoft products without continuing to pay again and again for a product that is essentially repackaged in a new box with a shiny new logo.
Some of you fan boys would rather lash out, but that's OK. I'm going to push it right back.
One last point, about the "scapegoats". Re-check the posting date/times. You've misused the term.
LOL. I was the one attacked. Heh. I don't care. I push back. Don't care if that irritates some IT geek.
...are the cause. People see "Vote George Bush 2004" and see red.
Now, that's why I don't put political bumper stickers on my car. Obama, Hillary, or McCain, I don't care. I don't need some nut-job running me down because he doesn't like my choice of candidate.
(Plus, it'll spoil the purdy paint.)
Anyway. The reason your boss should not do it is not because it's immoral, but because your IT staff and company does not have the technical experience to do it right.
Doing it right means: avoiding blowing complaint thresholds with receiving ISPs, setting up a complaint loop and unsubscribing quickly, not burning out your IPs, having multiple clean IPs to send from, having someone to manage relations with ISPs and spam organizations, understanding the relationship between # of complaints and sending volumne, and understanding the effect of attrition on list size and the need to resupply it with new leads.
Realize this is only the scratch of the surface. Successfully sending email at high volume is complicated. You're risking losing your ISP contract, getting all your IPs listed as spam sources, and destroying your reputation in your industry. These are difficult things to achieve for those who have experience with sending commercial bulk email. I will tell you right now, you do not have the knowledge to it right.
Instead, you will probably pimp out your email list to a corporation that specializes in sending email. It will simply things greatly, sure, and they will assume the delivery risks and you will cut them a hefty profit share, but understand many of those providers use employ very sleazy techniques. They often skirt legality by playing semantic games with CANSPAM and other laws. Also, sometimes they rely on extremely large numbers of hosts (such as Datran) and actively pursue methods to break through spam filters using various forms of text and markup for the email content. Other times, they contract out the dirty work to illegal bot networks which perform the actual delivery. Some may even pay ISPs to get Inbox delivery, cutting back on net profit.
Using the wrong sending provider could also mean losing editorial control of what gets sent to your list. They may slam it with general offers, totally unrelated to your product. They may exert extreme pressure on you to do so, which could unnecessarily piss off your client base. They won't be satisfied with hitting up your users once a week, they will SLAM them 3-5 times a day. They don't care about pissing your clients off. They can always burn out your list and move on to the next list, leaving you to deal with the aftermath.
Are there ways to send SPAM, or rather commercial bulk email, to your list and stay clean? Yes, there is. Believe it or not, some people WANT your email. If your boss still wants to continue with it, fight very hard for the following:
XP automatically patches XP so that it goes from an outdated OS that's near its end of life to an outdated OS that's near its end of life. They do not upgrade to the CURRENT version of the Windows operating system whereas Linux updates DO. The entire comparison is invalid and illogical.
In order to follow the series of updates to get Windows CURRENT, you have to PAY, and PAY, and PAY. That's the differentiator I was talking about.
I'm sorry none of you picked up on this. I will hold your hands next time. My bad.
I was getting worried.
Ass-umptions make an ass of you and you.
Oh yes... size DOES matter.. shorty.
How's that Aero workin for ya on XP?
Or on the other hand, the universe is Windows.
The sum level of dissemination will be reduced and fewer people will have access to it, which is a good thing. It will also ram the concept into their brains that authorities are aware of what they're posting and will pursue them. The only reason people don't commit crimes in public is because they know there will be consequences for that action. The same is true for the internet. We can't cure these people, but we can make the criminal actions they wish to make undesireable due to the risks of severe punishment.