I didn't see any mention of an answer to either. I don't mean to repeat the oft-stated meme here but the site is decaying and haemorrhaging users. Every month or so someone sends in another story to the firehose from a news agency reporting the death of slashdot.
What is the plan to make slashdor relevant again? Does one even exist? Who would be responsible for making one?
... what you can't accomplish when you are unwilling to pay for anything.
Although with the rather solid conservative majority in South Dakota, many of these people are probably the same ones who complain about public schools being a machine of the commie-socialist-atheist-muslim-fascist-hippie-liberal elite.
I can think of some things in Alaska that we could do without... Of course we'd probably have to ship them with payment to convince the Russians to take them.
The USGS site has it occurring a few minutes earlier - 1:51pm - while here we say 1:58pm. Not sure where the slashdot article gets its time from, or what the discrepancy comes from...
Your logic is close to the logic that says, their PC should get a virus if they don't protect it, or she deserved it because of the way she dressed.
No, my logic is nothing like that whatsoever. I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion, so I will rephrase my aim for you.
Filtering spam doesn't work as a long-term solution, because it only creates an arms race with the spammers, that the people who are setting up filters cannot ever win. They will invest more time and more money and eventually the collateral costs will be too high and they will need to find a different way to address the problem.
I do not seek to punish the people who receive spam, or even the people who purchase items that are spamvertised. What I do seek to do is to interfere with the prime motivation behind spam - money.
There are many places where the flow of money between the spammer, the spamvertisted, and all the middlemen can be interrupted and real effects on spam will be realized. Ultimately it is only through economic actions that spam can ever be defeated because it is at its root an economic problem. Anything else is a band-aid for a gushing head wound.
Were you perhaps intending to reply to a different message on here and accidentally clicked on mine?
Until we do something about the motivating factors behind spam - that is, the economics of spam - we will continue to get nowhere, while wasting more time and money on the problem.
The problem with that approach is that the economics of spam are totally slanted in favour of the spammer.
We seem to view the economics of spam differently. Your view seems to be focused on the return on investment, which is certainly one aspect of spam. From my vantage point I see the important factor in spam being the ease of the spamvertised in paying the spammers, coupled to the various middlemen who also take a cut on the action.
Spam is a very imperfect machine (thankfully). There are plenty of ways that one can approach it that would have a more meaningful and lasting impact on spam than just adjusting filters (and swallowing the costs of the same).
In a similar vein others have identified that there is a very short list (say around 3) of credit card processors who handle the transactions for >90% of all spamvertised "pharmacy" sites. Interfering with them can have lasting and dramatic effects on who spammers will spam for, as they won't be getting paid anymore.
After all, the most important - and perhaps most overlooked - fact about spam is that spammers send spam to make money. Many people seem to have convinced themselves that spam is sent out to piss them off personally, and that attitude does not accomplish anything. The correct view is that spam is sent out because spammers make money doing it, there are no more complicated driving forces behind it.
And how is that going for you long-term? How much time and money do you have invested in this strategy? How often do you have to adjust it?
You may be happy with the end result, but you should also be aware on some level that what you are doing is not sustainable in the long-term. If people continue to insist on filtering only, they will never win the war on spam.
When our anti-spam activities center on filtering received mail and chasing down the spammers themselves. Eventually someone else comes in and comes up with a different way to send spam so it gets around existing filters, which just starts a new round of whac-a-mole.
Until we do something about the motivating factors behind spam - that is, the economics of spam - we will continue to get nowhere, while wasting more time and money on the problem.
There is no safe way to drive without being able to see the road. Nobody that I know of considers it a good idea to have people who cannot see allowed to drive;
But I thought that the rumble strips on the side of the road were there so blind people knew when they had go too close to the edge? Have my friends been lying to me?
Did they forget to tell you that stop signs with white borders are optional?
should be handled the same way the rest of the industrialized world handles DUI - mandatory felony for the first offense.
except in Queensland, Australia. We have drunk off duty police keeping their licence, no conviction recorded and their names suppressed from media publication. This is the opposite of the nanny state. Here "justice" is administered not by the police but by the criminals who believe they are fairly redistributing wealth, Robin Hood would roll in his grave.
That problem is not unique, police abusing their powers to protect themselves happens all over the world.
The fact that some people are stupid enough to think that they can safely drive when they are not looking at the road is utterly ridiculous.
It's not a black and white issue (driver attention).
Actually, it is pretty simple to define what can and cannot be done safely.
You aren't looking at the road when you blink; that's around.3 seconds for the average blinker.
That is a trivial amount of time. On top of it, many people blink less often when driving than they do otherwise.
I can fairly safely look away from the road for 15 seconds.
No, you cannot do that safely. A lot can happen in 15 seconds. An animal or child could jump out in front of your car in that time frame. You could encounter debris on the road that you did not see previously because of road or weather conditions.
Unless you are moving at 10mph or less, 15 seconds is far too long to be looking away from the road.
it's impossible to legislate everything that's 'stupid' to do while driving
There is stupid, and then there is blatant disregard for public safety. Reading and writing text messages while driving falls squarely under the latter.
A couple of morons with bad habits are going to ruin it for the vast majority who know better than to take their hands off the wheel.
He didn't just take his hands off the wheel - he took his eyes off the road. There is no safe way to drive without being able to see the road. Nobody that I know of considers it a good idea to have people who cannot see allowed to drive; but this person is for all intents and purposes blind while writing or reading a text message.
This is equally as dangerous to the public as driving drunk, and should be handled the same way the rest of the industrialized world handles DUI - mandatory felony for the first offense.
That said I am not aware of "nanny states" looking to use this to take away reasonable cell phone usage privileges from drivers. You can still talk on your phone, but for the sake of everyone on the road don't take your eyes off the road. Reading and writing text messages is simply not safe while driving. You can't read the newspaper while driving and expect to get away with it, there is no reason why a text message should be any different.
The fact that some people are stupid enough to think that they can safely drive when they are not looking at the road is utterly ridiculous. These people should not be given their licenses back, because they won't learn. Some time ago I mentioned in a journal entry here a similar dipshit who did a similar thing in MN - 80mph the wrong way down the road while texting. To the cop it looks like a drunk driver and from a public safety standpoint it is just as bad. Both should be mandatory felonies on the first offense.
I notice that probably 90% of laptops are carried in bags made by the manufacturer (I see lots of Dell backpacks) or companies who focus on laptop bags (caselogic as an excellent example). When you're carrying such a bag that is clearly designed for carrying a laptop, you are pretty well advertising to potential thieves that you are carrying a laptop.
Maybe you live in a utopian world where laptops are never stolen, and you have nothing to worry about - if so, congratulations. I would otherwise suggest you find something that might get you slightly more cover when you set it down.
I wonder what the carbon footprint of all that fake research is.
I would like to know what part of it you think is "fake", and why. If you actually read the links you can get to the sources for their research, and how they arrived at the numbers mentioned.
to calculate something that is fairy obvious and intuitive to most people.
Really? You intuitively knew those numbers? Sure, it is obvious that a bicycle is better than a car in terms of fuel economy, but the difference has been a subject of debate for some time.
This person didn't set out to prove something that was previously thought untrue, but rather to quantify that which was understood to be generally true.
Oh noes. Guess I better stop riding and turn into an obese blob for the sake of the environment.
Clearly you are trying to be funny, but it is still worth pointing out that - despite what many Americans may believe - lack of exercise on its own does not automatically turn one into an "obese blob". One becomes a blob through a multifactorial process of poor diet and lack of exercise (as well as other factors).
what way of doing myself in has least impact on the atmosphere
I would suggest perhaps dying in a mine collapse; then your decaying body would leech back into the ground and very little would make it back up to the atmosphere.
The worst would probably be incineration in a giant kerosene fire.
I'm not familiar with BART as I don't live out there, but was there an explicit promise that the fare for BART would also guarantee cellular service when on the BART system? If not, then I don't see how these people have grounds to complain. Someone else pointed out that the BART system has plenty of emergency phones available for actual emergencies, so what they are doing should not in any way be endangering public safety.
By that ruling, Tucows owns it. They registered it previously, and the court says it is still theirs and theirs alone to do with as they please.
...The domain name was in use, and also hosted 14 active domain email addresses that did not have to be surrendered by the person that registered the name with Tucows.
The article also mentions :
Tucows acquired the domain name when it bought MailBank.
So the answer to the question of who owns it is still Tucows. Whether you want to call the original registration domain speculation or not, the end result is the same in that the registrar is in this case the owner as well. Hence at this point there is no "person that registered the name with Tucows", as the registrant and registrar are one and the same.
That is clearly not what ICANN is counting on with their decision to start selling gTLDs. They are in fact betting the exact opposite, that they can start a new domain gold rush - and of course make some money for themselves in the process!
That said, people do use the internet differently now than they did back when the first rush of name registration began. Indeed the search engines are, for many users, the primary way to get to web sites. And for many of those same users, the secondary way is through links sent to them by their friends.
So indeed names may become less important in the future, but presently they are still valuable.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't see any mention of an answer to either. I don't mean to repeat the oft-stated meme here but the site is decaying and haemorrhaging users. Every month or so someone sends in another story to the firehose from a news agency reporting the death of slashdot.
What is the plan to make slashdor relevant again? Does one even exist? Who would be responsible for making one?
... what you can't accomplish when you are unwilling to pay for anything.
Although with the rather solid conservative majority in South Dakota, many of these people are probably the same ones who complain about public schools being a machine of the commie-socialist-atheist-muslim-fascist-hippie-liberal elite.
I can think of some things in Alaska that we could do without... Of course we'd probably have to ship them with payment to convince the Russians to take them.
The USGS site has it occurring a few minutes earlier - 1:51pm - while here we say 1:58pm. Not sure where the slashdot article gets its time from, or what the discrepancy comes from...
Make them take it to arbitration, they have no case.
I doubt that is the likely outcome with ICANN. If they are interested in anything it is defending profits.
As usual the article places all the blame on the union and makes no mention of their grievances... The usual conservative line for this site.
It appears we crashed the AMNH web site. Perhaps they need more power themselves?
Your logic is close to the logic that says, their PC should get a virus if they don't protect it, or she deserved it because of the way she dressed.
No, my logic is nothing like that whatsoever. I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion, so I will rephrase my aim for you.
Filtering spam doesn't work as a long-term solution, because it only creates an arms race with the spammers, that the people who are setting up filters cannot ever win. They will invest more time and more money and eventually the collateral costs will be too high and they will need to find a different way to address the problem.
I do not seek to punish the people who receive spam, or even the people who purchase items that are spamvertised. What I do seek to do is to interfere with the prime motivation behind spam - money.
There are many places where the flow of money between the spammer, the spamvertisted, and all the middlemen can be interrupted and real effects on spam will be realized. Ultimately it is only through economic actions that spam can ever be defeated because it is at its root an economic problem. Anything else is a band-aid for a gushing head wound.
Were you perhaps intending to reply to a different message on here and accidentally clicked on mine?
Until we do something about the motivating factors behind spam - that is, the economics of spam - we will continue to get nowhere, while wasting more time and money on the problem.
The problem with that approach is that the economics of spam are totally slanted in favour of the spammer.
We seem to view the economics of spam differently. Your view seems to be focused on the return on investment, which is certainly one aspect of spam. From my vantage point I see the important factor in spam being the ease of the spamvertised in paying the spammers, coupled to the various middlemen who also take a cut on the action.
Spam is a very imperfect machine (thankfully). There are plenty of ways that one can approach it that would have a more meaningful and lasting impact on spam than just adjusting filters (and swallowing the costs of the same).
In a similar vein others have identified that there is a very short list (say around 3) of credit card processors who handle the transactions for >90% of all spamvertised "pharmacy" sites. Interfering with them can have lasting and dramatic effects on who spammers will spam for, as they won't be getting paid anymore.
After all, the most important - and perhaps most overlooked - fact about spam is that spammers send spam to make money. Many people seem to have convinced themselves that spam is sent out to piss them off personally, and that attitude does not accomplish anything. The correct view is that spam is sent out because spammers make money doing it, there are no more complicated driving forces behind it.
And how is that going for you long-term? How much time and money do you have invested in this strategy? How often do you have to adjust it?
You may be happy with the end result, but you should also be aware on some level that what you are doing is not sustainable in the long-term. If people continue to insist on filtering only, they will never win the war on spam.
When our anti-spam activities center on filtering received mail and chasing down the spammers themselves. Eventually someone else comes in and comes up with a different way to send spam so it gets around existing filters, which just starts a new round of whac-a-mole.
Until we do something about the motivating factors behind spam - that is, the economics of spam - we will continue to get nowhere, while wasting more time and money on the problem.
Maybe he just wanted to listen to the deep conversation and intricate plot points. You know, just like some people buy playboy to read the articles...
There is no safe way to drive without being able to see the road. Nobody that I know of considers it a good idea to have people who cannot see allowed to drive;
But I thought that the rumble strips on the side of the road were there so blind people knew when they had go too close to the edge? Have my friends been lying to me?
Did they forget to tell you that stop signs with white borders are optional?
should be handled the same way the rest of the industrialized world handles DUI - mandatory felony for the first offense.
except in Queensland, Australia. We have drunk off duty police keeping their licence, no conviction recorded and their names suppressed from media publication. This is the opposite of the nanny state. Here "justice" is administered not by the police but by the criminals who believe they are fairly redistributing wealth, Robin Hood would roll in his grave.
That problem is not unique, police abusing their powers to protect themselves happens all over the world.
The fact that some people are stupid enough to think that they can safely drive when they are not looking at the road is utterly ridiculous.
It's not a black and white issue (driver attention).
Actually, it is pretty simple to define what can and cannot be done safely.
You aren't looking at the road when you blink; that's around .3 seconds for the average blinker.
That is a trivial amount of time. On top of it, many people blink less often when driving than they do otherwise.
I can fairly safely look away from the road for 15 seconds.
No, you cannot do that safely. A lot can happen in 15 seconds. An animal or child could jump out in front of your car in that time frame. You could encounter debris on the road that you did not see previously because of road or weather conditions.
Unless you are moving at 10mph or less, 15 seconds is far too long to be looking away from the road.
it's impossible to legislate everything that's 'stupid' to do while driving
There is stupid, and then there is blatant disregard for public safety. Reading and writing text messages while driving falls squarely under the latter.
A couple of morons with bad habits are going to ruin it for the vast majority who know better than to take their hands off the wheel.
He didn't just take his hands off the wheel - he took his eyes off the road. There is no safe way to drive without being able to see the road. Nobody that I know of considers it a good idea to have people who cannot see allowed to drive; but this person is for all intents and purposes blind while writing or reading a text message.
This is equally as dangerous to the public as driving drunk, and should be handled the same way the rest of the industrialized world handles DUI - mandatory felony for the first offense.
That said I am not aware of "nanny states" looking to use this to take away reasonable cell phone usage privileges from drivers. You can still talk on your phone, but for the sake of everyone on the road don't take your eyes off the road. Reading and writing text messages is simply not safe while driving. You can't read the newspaper while driving and expect to get away with it, there is no reason why a text message should be any different.
The fact that some people are stupid enough to think that they can safely drive when they are not looking at the road is utterly ridiculous. These people should not be given their licenses back, because they won't learn. Some time ago I mentioned in a journal entry here a similar dipshit who did a similar thing in MN - 80mph the wrong way down the road while texting. To the cop it looks like a drunk driver and from a public safety standpoint it is just as bad. Both should be mandatory felonies on the first offense.
I notice that probably 90% of laptops are carried in bags made by the manufacturer (I see lots of Dell backpacks) or companies who focus on laptop bags (caselogic as an excellent example). When you're carrying such a bag that is clearly designed for carrying a laptop, you are pretty well advertising to potential thieves that you are carrying a laptop.
Maybe you live in a utopian world where laptops are never stolen, and you have nothing to worry about - if so, congratulations. I would otherwise suggest you find something that might get you slightly more cover when you set it down.
I wonder what the carbon footprint of all that fake research is.
I would like to know what part of it you think is "fake", and why. If you actually read the links you can get to the sources for their research, and how they arrived at the numbers mentioned.
to calculate something that is fairy obvious and intuitive to most people.
Really? You intuitively knew those numbers? Sure, it is obvious that a bicycle is better than a car in terms of fuel economy, but the difference has been a subject of debate for some time.
This person didn't set out to prove something that was previously thought untrue, but rather to quantify that which was understood to be generally true.
Oh noes. Guess I better stop riding and turn into an obese blob for the sake of the environment.
Clearly you are trying to be funny, but it is still worth pointing out that - despite what many Americans may believe - lack of exercise on its own does not automatically turn one into an "obese blob". One becomes a blob through a multifactorial process of poor diet and lack of exercise (as well as other factors).
what way of doing myself in has least impact on the atmosphere
I would suggest perhaps dying in a mine collapse; then your decaying body would leech back into the ground and very little would make it back up to the atmosphere.
The worst would probably be incineration in a giant kerosene fire.
On that happy note, enjoy your Sunday.
I'm not familiar with BART as I don't live out there, but was there an explicit promise that the fare for BART would also guarantee cellular service when on the BART system? If not, then I don't see how these people have grounds to complain. Someone else pointed out that the BART system has plenty of emergency phones available for actual emergencies, so what they are doing should not in any way be endangering public safety.
By that ruling, Tucows owns it. They registered it previously, and the court says it is still theirs and theirs alone to do with as they please.
...The domain name was in use, and also hosted 14 active domain email addresses that did not have to be surrendered by the person that registered the name with Tucows.
The article also mentions :
Tucows acquired the domain name when it bought MailBank.
So the answer to the question of who owns it is still Tucows. Whether you want to call the original registration domain speculation or not, the end result is the same in that the registrar is in this case the owner as well. Hence at this point there is no "person that registered the name with Tucows", as the registrant and registrar are one and the same.
FWIW, there is a little more information on mailbank.com on the Tucows wikipedia entry.
The domain name gold rush will come to an end.
That is clearly not what ICANN is counting on with their decision to start selling gTLDs. They are in fact betting the exact opposite, that they can start a new domain gold rush - and of course make some money for themselves in the process!
That said, people do use the internet differently now than they did back when the first rush of name registration began. Indeed the search engines are, for many users, the primary way to get to web sites. And for many of those same users, the secondary way is through links sent to them by their friends.
So indeed names may become less important in the future, but presently they are still valuable.