The question shouldn't be what they know, but rather how they know it. I looked myself up on one of the better known data mining sites and I was surprised at how much they knew about me. They had my address, my (approximate) age, my marital status, the number of people in my house, and a few other things that don't come to mind for me immediately.
However, they came up with all of that without using facebook (as I don't have a facebook account) or a phone book (as we have never had a land line at our house). This seems to imply that they get a lot of the information from the government, but I can't verify that.
I don't know where you live, but where I live craigslist is primarily a way to find the flakiest people in town. I'd sooner post a flyer at the local dollar store.
Also you might look at a Toyota Yari.
I'd sooner walk to work than drive a Toyota; at least that would be an enjoyable experience.
I'd love a Smart Diesel too (although it is nearly impossible to own one in the US)
I'm almost inclined to try to find one in Canada and bring it down myself...
and a bicycle or scooter for commuting.
That would not work where I live. Even in the part of the year where bicycle commuting is possible, it still isn't a great idea here. A scooter would be an option, but now I have some mandatory stops on my way home that require room for at least one passenger, so a scooter (or any two-wheeled option really) is out as well.
I agree. I would love to be able to afford a 2 door Golf TDI with a manual transmission, but it is way beyond my price range and they pretty well never show up on the used market. The only diesel car I can afford right now would be a 1980's Benz sedan with 20 trillion miles on it and 30 tubs of bondo holding the doors on.
What I would really like is a Smart fortwo Diesel, but of course those will almost certainly never be brought to the US.
Some grassoline that most of us can use. I've been intrigued by the biodiesel movement for some time now, but there are so few Diesel cars available for purchase in this country that it hasn't even been worth considering for me. If this will burn in a regular gas engine, though...
you fools gave your houses to the right wing party. right wing parties anywhere around the world, always support corporations over people.
We didn't give the government to them - at least not in the 2010 election cycle. Rather several decades (or more) ago we happily sold them to them. The only difference is that now the "two" parties are openly showing that there is virtually nothing different between them. We have a (theoretically) non-right-wing president who is continuing every last executive decision of his right-wing predecessor. Meanwhile congress is doing the same thing they did two years ago, which is what they did two years before that, which is what they did two years before that, etc...
Sure, some people with power are now more openly right-wing, but in the end we don't have any politicians who are not right-wing.
it doesnt matter what your reasons or excuses for voting for a right wing party
Sadly, some people thought they were voting for a non-right-wing party. Now that the curtain has fallen they are realizing that indeed every politician comes from the same party now.
Walden added. "These regulations will cost jobs," he said.
I know, this is the standard-issue republican response to anything they don't like, but really could we have an explanation this time? Exactly how would net neutrality kill jobs?
Apparently you are angry that the message you wrote in reply to a message you clearly didn't read was moderated down. It is likely therefore worth while to point out that I was not responsible for the down-moderation of your ill-informed message, as I was writing in this thread already (to say nothing of the fact that I have no moderator points currently).
Of course, since you didn't bother reading the message before replying to to, I don't expect that you'll read it this time, either - even though I just gave you a link to it. However since it was a very short message that you replied to without reading, I don't mind quoting it here for you.
It started:
Do you expect a real education in a state where almost everyone believes the state was founded by fucking angels visiting con men pedophiles in caves?
Which as the topic of discussion is Utah, clearly the state in question is also Utah. Whether he is talking specifically about Mormonism, or more generally about Christianity, the point remains the same and you are not even close to the
And before all you Christians have a good laugh at these backwards Mormons, keep in mind that *you* dipshits believe that a first-century illiterate peasant was the "Son of God" (as evidenced somehow by the fact that a backwoods Roman prefect was able to crucify this "god"). So don't laugh too hard.
Which very specifically mentions Christians - which again are not a "vast majority of the human race" - not
ALL religion
As you just errantly claimed.
So perhaps you are angry because you couldn't bother to read the original message you were replying to, and hence you were down-moderated because your reply was irrelevant fact-free garbage. Or perhaps you are angry because your close-minded assumptions on the world are also fact-free garbage. One way or the other, you are simply wrong. And throwing out insults like
someone of you limited capabilities to be able to grasp the difference.
Doesn't help your position; nor does your grammatical error within the same statement. Of course, when you can't even write your first sentence without resorting to a petty insult, you've already lost any high ground you may have been hoping for.
something that the vast majority of the human race believe
Unfortunately for you, you are wrong. The majority of the human race is not Christian, even if it currently is still the most adhered to faith worldwide.
although the fact that you are reality-impaired enough to say something like
the liberal bastion of slashdot
Is telling in its own right, and may explain why you don't acknowledge that there are (at least) two people in the world who are not Christians for every one person in the world who is.
at all issues of unemployment, finance and social service must be resolved in Utah
The solution is quite simple - so simple, I don't know why all the other states haven't figured it out already. Apparently only Utah has smart people living in it these days:
Unemployed? Go get a job!
Financial problems? Go get a job!
Need social services? Go get a job, you lazy bastard and you won't need them anymore!
With those problems addressed, what else can we fix for you?
So in other words, yes. Spam is still very much an epidemic. It will cease to be an epidemic when spam is no longer sent; regardless of whether or not it is viewed.
Spam will disappear once mankind has transcended capitalism, there is a near infinite amount of resources to be shared around, and greed is no longer a meaningful concept.
So I'm guessing not in my lifetime.
By that metric, it will likely never happen, being as we have lately been more inclined to move towards capitalism than away from it.
We pay for inoculations as well. They aren't free and often are not paid for by the individual being inoculated.
Actually there are many cases where your second statement is untrue. The direct cost of inoculation has plummeted due to several factors in the past few decades, such that individuals can afford the cost of some inoculations directly.
If you starve it out, the problem will go away and that is MUCH more feasible than targeting thousands of amorphous spammers around the globe (often in places where they are not reachable by any punitive means).
The problem is you cannot starve out the spam epidemic, if that is what you want to suggest. At least not by any filtering method. Filters will never end the spamming epidemic because the spammers will always find ways around them and other real costs of filtering will continue to increase.
That said, you don't have to go after the spammers themselves to shut them down. You just need to take the initiative to go after the people who pay them. Spammers don't send out spam to piss people off, they send it out because they are paid to do so. If they don't get paid, they don't send the spam. And the total list of people who are paying for spam is actually fairly small in comparison to the number of spamming operations.
I don't see a significant difference from the inoculation metaphor.
There is a huge difference. If you don't understand it then either I'm not explaining it well, you don't understand what I am saying, or you don't want to understand what I am saying.
Like a virus, spam only continues to "spread" if it continues to find purchase within a host. Or, rather, to be viewed and responded to. The only reason spammers continue to do what they do is because of the handful of people who don't take precautions against spam, like people who don't protect their children from mumps, rubella, or smallpox.
Actually, you are wrong there. Spammers are not paid directly for purchases, they are paid for sending out the spam. After all, you do realize that spam is most often not sent out by the merchants themselves, but rather by their business partners, right?
which can best be addressed by preventative technology
You're wrong twice there. First, preventative technology won't do it, and filtering is by no means preventative.
rather than trying to stick some kid in pound-me-in-the-ass hard-core prison, for writing a script that spams a bunch of crap to a million accounts.
I have never advocated jailing spammers. In fact I have repeatedly stated that jail will never work for the spamming epidemic. If you some how came to any other conclusion from my writing then please go back and re-read what I have written.
The sickness fuels an entire industry (medical and pharmaceutical or technological and consultative)
That is also incorrect. Most drug spams are selling counterfeit drugs that are seldom what they claim to be. Hence the industries you are aiming to demonize are seeing zero profit from the spamming operations, and indeed are more likely being unfairly hurt by it because people are purchasing the counterfeit versions - which don't generally work - and end up incorrectly believing the true products to be snake oil.
If they take out ALL guys like this one, then drug spam will be gone.
Except that using this method you will never take out all the drug spammers. Not in an infinite amount of time, as long as nothing else changes and the human race exists. Spammers don't give a shit about US laws because most of them don't live or operate here anyways.
The only way to stop spam is to address the root cause of spam, and this method doesn't even move in the right direction to do so.
But we pay a nontrivial cost for those filters. Even if you only use gmail for email, and you trust the "free" google filters, you are still paying for them. The cost is passed down to the consumer to pay for bandwidth, CPU time, storage space, and of course updates to filter rules.
If everyone is inoculated against something, so nobody is thereby being infected with said virus, is it really still an "epidemic"?
That is not a fair comparison and I'll tell you why.
When we began inoculation against polio, we eventually wiped out the virus from the main population. The virus could not spread and could not infect (of course now it may be coming back but that is a different situation). The cost of polio dropped to almost nothing because in the developed world people no longer were infected by the virus.
On the other hand, people all over the world are constantly paying the cost of spam. Just because they don't see (much of) it doesn't mean it no longer exists. Spam still consumes bandwidth, storage, and CPU time. And of course we need to also consider the false positive rate of spam filtering; the lost productivity and economic progress that we pay for as a result of legitimate email that is errantly thrown out as spam by filtering techniques. Those who believe in filters have to update their filters because the spammers are constantly finding new ways to get around them. Even if the average person sees very few spam emails in a year, it doesn't mean they don't have to pay for them.
And the fact that so many people are oblivious to what spam costs them may in some ways be even worse.
So in other words, yes. Spam is still very much an epidemic. It will cease to be an epidemic when spam is no longer sent; regardless of whether or not it is viewed.
That's why at one point Obama claimed he was going to cut $36.5 billion in them.
You must have missed the memo. Let me remind you, you are writing on slashdot and are under no circumstances allowed to suggest that President Obama is a reasonable and/or intelligent human being. Furthermore in some crowds here you might not be allowed to even suggest that he is indeed a he or a human being.
So some guy who sent out spam was convicted and jailed for something not related to his spam. Really he might as well have been ticketed for jaywalking, it would be just as useful in regards to the spamming epidemic. In the end this kind of crap will never make one iota of difference in global spam volumes or the problems that come from them.
As long as there is money to be made from sending spam, spam will continue to be sent. The only way to end spam is to detach spammers from their revenue sources, period. This did not accomplish that so the spam will continue.
Of course it would be great if we could each get out full genomes - full coverage of every chromosome at high confidence - for an affordable price. However, if you did that, you would find that the vast majority of the information would be quite uninteresting or even borderline meaningless. There are large regions of the chromosomes that do not code for anything, and some of those end up being particularly difficult to sequence accurately. While changes in those regions can be important, changes in those regions are likely not anything you could easily search out and compare anyways.
If what you actually want is to know how the expressed parts of your genome compare to known genomic assemblies, that is fairly straightforward now. While not exactly cheap they are not impossible to handle on a reasonable budget. You could look at your favorite genes - particularly if you know of health conditions in your family that may have clear genetic components - and generate some DNA oligos to sequence those. Of course, that sequencing is not really approachable by most people because the sequencers are still quite expensive (unless you want to do sequencing gels which require radioactive and/or carcinogenic dyes and will make you go cross-eyed to boot) so you'll end up having to send out your samples somewhere eventually.
Which is why we have various companies who are doing SNP profiling for a few hundred dollars per person. They can recover the cost of their sequencing and assembly fairly quick at that rate, and provide some of the most useful information to the customers at a manageable price and turnaround rate.
So basically what it boils down to is that if you want to do a full genome, every chromosome, you most likely couldn't afford the equipment and materials to do it yourself. If you want just SNPs or even ESTs, you could possibly do it but it would be vastly impractical to pay for it yourself in comparison to sending it out to an existing company.
I say this as a grad student in a field closely related to genomics, with several genomics papers on my CV from over the years.
disappointment with Windows 7 leads to incremental downgrades back to Windows 1.0
I often wondered how many of the windows upgrades were undo-able. I seem to recall having seen that option in various other windows upgrade versions over the years; how many of them would work? Personally I'd be surprised if he even succeeded in downgrading all the way back to XP or 2k (assuming he didn't change his partition tables along the way)...
It was done in a VMWare setup, so the hardware wasn't really much of a factor. I think it would have been more interesting had it actually been done in a physical box, but it is what it is.
So when he was in prison, spam went down how much?
Oh, right, it went up. Yeah, that worked really well, didn't it?
And when other spammers are thrown in prison - or murdered as many people here would like to call for - the same thing will happen. No amount of criminal response will slow down spam, no matter how much you might want it to be the case.
If you want to stop spam for real, you need to go after the driving force behind spam - money. Disconnect the spammers from their revenue source and spam will stop. Until then, spam will continue to flourish because spammers make money sending spam. Everything else is at best a feel-good or knee-jerk approach that makes no meaningful difference.
The enemy is the same in this third Bush Administration as it was during the previous two. The enemy, of course, is anyone who the administration doesn't like, or anyone who doesn't like them.
Opposed to invading Iraq / Afghanistan? You're an enemy
Opposed to tax cuts for the rich? You're an enemy
Support single-payer health care? You're an enemy
That pretty well covers everyone who doesn't live in the US - and at least half of the people who do.
Just as in the previous two Bush administration (this being the third Bush administration currently), the "enemy" is whoever is not "with us". Anyone who did not aid in invading Afghanistan or Iraq can be counted as an "enemy". Anyone who doesn't view tax breaks for the rich as the pathway to economic salvation is an "enemy". Anyone who uses a god-forsaken and wholly Un-American "socialized" single-payer health care system can be an "enemy".
Sure, Manning aided someone from at least one of those categories.
At first I thought it said "Altrix", which reminded me of the SGI Altix that I use at work. Now if they had reduced that to something resembling portable (or even something resembling what I would want for my next PC), I'd be impressed!
Slashdot Mirror
The question shouldn't be what they know, but rather how they know it. I looked myself up on one of the better known data mining sites and I was surprised at how much they knew about me. They had my address, my (approximate) age, my marital status, the number of people in my house, and a few other things that don't come to mind for me immediately.
However, they came up with all of that without using facebook (as I don't have a facebook account) or a phone book (as we have never had a land line at our house). This seems to imply that they get a lot of the information from the government, but I can't verify that.
checl craiglist?
I don't know where you live, but where I live craigslist is primarily a way to find the flakiest people in town. I'd sooner post a flyer at the local dollar store.
Also you might look at a Toyota Yari.
I'd sooner walk to work than drive a Toyota; at least that would be an enjoyable experience.
I'd love a Smart Diesel too (although it is nearly impossible to own one in the US)
I'm almost inclined to try to find one in Canada and bring it down myself...
and a bicycle or scooter for commuting.
That would not work where I live. Even in the part of the year where bicycle commuting is possible, it still isn't a great idea here. A scooter would be an option, but now I have some mandatory stops on my way home that require room for at least one passenger, so a scooter (or any two-wheeled option really) is out as well.
The VW TDI cars are excellent cars
I agree. I would love to be able to afford a 2 door Golf TDI with a manual transmission, but it is way beyond my price range and they pretty well never show up on the used market. The only diesel car I can afford right now would be a 1980's Benz sedan with 20 trillion miles on it and 30 tubs of bondo holding the doors on.
What I would really like is a Smart fortwo Diesel, but of course those will almost certainly never be brought to the US.
Some grassoline that most of us can use. I've been intrigued by the biodiesel movement for some time now, but there are so few Diesel cars available for purchase in this country that it hasn't even been worth considering for me. If this will burn in a regular gas engine, though...
you fools gave your houses to the right wing party. right wing parties anywhere around the world, always support corporations over people.
We didn't give the government to them - at least not in the 2010 election cycle. Rather several decades (or more) ago we happily sold them to them. The only difference is that now the "two" parties are openly showing that there is virtually nothing different between them. We have a (theoretically) non-right-wing president who is continuing every last executive decision of his right-wing predecessor. Meanwhile congress is doing the same thing they did two years ago, which is what they did two years before that, which is what they did two years before that, etc ...
Sure, some people with power are now more openly right-wing, but in the end we don't have any politicians who are not right-wing.
it doesnt matter what your reasons or excuses for voting for a right wing party
Sadly, some people thought they were voting for a non-right-wing party. Now that the curtain has fallen they are realizing that indeed every politician comes from the same party now.
Walden added. "These regulations will cost jobs," he said.
I know, this is the standard-issue republican response to anything they don't like, but really could we have an explanation this time? Exactly how would net neutrality kill jobs?
Of course, since you didn't bother reading the message before replying to to, I don't expect that you'll read it this time, either - even though I just gave you a link to it. However since it was a very short message that you replied to without reading, I don't mind quoting it here for you.
It started:
Do you expect a real education in a state where almost everyone believes the state was founded by fucking angels visiting con men pedophiles in caves?
Which as the topic of discussion is Utah, clearly the state in question is also Utah. Whether he is talking specifically about Mormonism, or more generally about Christianity, the point remains the same and you are not even close to the
vast majority of the human race
as you plainly stated in your reply.
The original message then went on to say:
And before all you Christians have a good laugh at these backwards Mormons, keep in mind that *you* dipshits believe that a first-century illiterate peasant was the "Son of God" (as evidenced somehow by the fact that a backwoods Roman prefect was able to crucify this "god"). So don't laugh too hard.
Which very specifically mentions Christians - which again are not a "vast majority of the human race" - not
ALL religion
As you just errantly claimed.
So perhaps you are angry because you couldn't bother to read the original message you were replying to, and hence you were down-moderated because your reply was irrelevant fact-free garbage. Or perhaps you are angry because your close-minded assumptions on the world are also fact-free garbage. One way or the other, you are simply wrong. And throwing out insults like
someone of you limited capabilities to be able to grasp the difference.
Doesn't help your position; nor does your grammatical error within the same statement. Of course, when you can't even write your first sentence without resorting to a petty insult, you've already lost any high ground you may have been hoping for.
something that the vast majority of the human race believe
Unfortunately for you, you are wrong. The majority of the human race is not Christian, even if it currently is still the most adhered to faith worldwide.
although the fact that you are reality-impaired enough to say something like
the liberal bastion of slashdot
Is telling in its own right, and may explain why you don't acknowledge that there are (at least) two people in the world who are not Christians for every one person in the world who is.
at all issues of unemployment, finance and social service must be resolved in Utah
The solution is quite simple - so simple, I don't know why all the other states haven't figured it out already. Apparently only Utah has smart people living in it these days:
With those problems addressed, what else can we fix for you?
So in other words, yes. Spam is still very much an epidemic. It will cease to be an epidemic when spam is no longer sent; regardless of whether or not it is viewed.
Spam will disappear once mankind has transcended capitalism, there is a near infinite amount of resources to be shared around, and greed is no longer a meaningful concept. So I'm guessing not in my lifetime.
By that metric, it will likely never happen, being as we have lately been more inclined to move towards capitalism than away from it.
I figured it was going to advocate decapitation.
Someone should fix that Perl logo. And maybe explain what the hell Perl has to do with "Disarm Internet Trolls, Gently".
We pay for inoculations as well. They aren't free and often are not paid for by the individual being inoculated.
Actually there are many cases where your second statement is untrue. The direct cost of inoculation has plummeted due to several factors in the past few decades, such that individuals can afford the cost of some inoculations directly.
If you starve it out, the problem will go away and that is MUCH more feasible than targeting thousands of amorphous spammers around the globe (often in places where they are not reachable by any punitive means).
The problem is you cannot starve out the spam epidemic, if that is what you want to suggest. At least not by any filtering method. Filters will never end the spamming epidemic because the spammers will always find ways around them and other real costs of filtering will continue to increase.
That said, you don't have to go after the spammers themselves to shut them down. You just need to take the initiative to go after the people who pay them. Spammers don't send out spam to piss people off, they send it out because they are paid to do so. If they don't get paid, they don't send the spam. And the total list of people who are paying for spam is actually fairly small in comparison to the number of spamming operations.
I don't see a significant difference from the inoculation metaphor.
There is a huge difference. If you don't understand it then either I'm not explaining it well, you don't understand what I am saying, or you don't want to understand what I am saying.
Like a virus, spam only continues to "spread" if it continues to find purchase within a host. Or, rather, to be viewed and responded to. The only reason spammers continue to do what they do is because of the handful of people who don't take precautions against spam, like people who don't protect their children from mumps, rubella, or smallpox.
Actually, you are wrong there. Spammers are not paid directly for purchases, they are paid for sending out the spam. After all, you do realize that spam is most often not sent out by the merchants themselves, but rather by their business partners, right?
which can best be addressed by preventative technology
You're wrong twice there. First, preventative technology won't do it, and filtering is by no means preventative.
rather than trying to stick some kid in pound-me-in-the-ass hard-core prison, for writing a script that spams a bunch of crap to a million accounts.
I have never advocated jailing spammers. In fact I have repeatedly stated that jail will never work for the spamming epidemic. If you some how came to any other conclusion from my writing then please go back and re-read what I have written.
The sickness fuels an entire industry (medical and pharmaceutical or technological and consultative)
That is also incorrect. Most drug spams are selling counterfeit drugs that are seldom what they claim to be. Hence the industries you are aiming to demonize are seeing zero profit from the spamming operations, and indeed are more likely being unfairly hurt by it because people are purchasing the counterfeit versions - which don't generally work - and end up incorrectly believing the true products to be snake oil.
If they take out ALL guys like this one, then drug spam will be gone.
Except that using this method you will never take out all the drug spammers. Not in an infinite amount of time, as long as nothing else changes and the human race exists. Spammers don't give a shit about US laws because most of them don't live or operate here anyways.
The only way to stop spam is to address the root cause of spam, and this method doesn't even move in the right direction to do so.
Is spam really an epidemic?
Yes, it is
We have simple means to block almost all spam
But we pay a nontrivial cost for those filters. Even if you only use gmail for email, and you trust the "free" google filters, you are still paying for them. The cost is passed down to the consumer to pay for bandwidth, CPU time, storage space, and of course updates to filter rules.
If everyone is inoculated against something, so nobody is thereby being infected with said virus, is it really still an "epidemic"?
That is not a fair comparison and I'll tell you why.
When we began inoculation against polio, we eventually wiped out the virus from the main population. The virus could not spread and could not infect (of course now it may be coming back but that is a different situation). The cost of polio dropped to almost nothing because in the developed world people no longer were infected by the virus.
On the other hand, people all over the world are constantly paying the cost of spam. Just because they don't see (much of) it doesn't mean it no longer exists. Spam still consumes bandwidth, storage, and CPU time. And of course we need to also consider the false positive rate of spam filtering; the lost productivity and economic progress that we pay for as a result of legitimate email that is errantly thrown out as spam by filtering techniques. Those who believe in filters have to update their filters because the spammers are constantly finding new ways to get around them. Even if the average person sees very few spam emails in a year, it doesn't mean they don't have to pay for them.
And the fact that so many people are oblivious to what spam costs them may in some ways be even worse.
So in other words, yes. Spam is still very much an epidemic. It will cease to be an epidemic when spam is no longer sent; regardless of whether or not it is viewed.
That's why at one point Obama claimed he was going to cut $36.5 billion in them.
You must have missed the memo. Let me remind you, you are writing on slashdot and are under no circumstances allowed to suggest that President Obama is a reasonable and/or intelligent human being. Furthermore in some crowds here you might not be allowed to even suggest that he is indeed a he or a human being.
So some guy who sent out spam was convicted and jailed for something not related to his spam. Really he might as well have been ticketed for jaywalking, it would be just as useful in regards to the spamming epidemic. In the end this kind of crap will never make one iota of difference in global spam volumes or the problems that come from them.
As long as there is money to be made from sending spam, spam will continue to be sent. The only way to end spam is to detach spammers from their revenue sources, period. This did not accomplish that so the spam will continue.
Of course it would be great if we could each get out full genomes - full coverage of every chromosome at high confidence - for an affordable price. However, if you did that, you would find that the vast majority of the information would be quite uninteresting or even borderline meaningless. There are large regions of the chromosomes that do not code for anything, and some of those end up being particularly difficult to sequence accurately. While changes in those regions can be important, changes in those regions are likely not anything you could easily search out and compare anyways.
If what you actually want is to know how the expressed parts of your genome compare to known genomic assemblies, that is fairly straightforward now. While not exactly cheap they are not impossible to handle on a reasonable budget. You could look at your favorite genes - particularly if you know of health conditions in your family that may have clear genetic components - and generate some DNA oligos to sequence those. Of course, that sequencing is not really approachable by most people because the sequencers are still quite expensive (unless you want to do sequencing gels which require radioactive and/or carcinogenic dyes and will make you go cross-eyed to boot) so you'll end up having to send out your samples somewhere eventually.
Which is why we have various companies who are doing SNP profiling for a few hundred dollars per person. They can recover the cost of their sequencing and assembly fairly quick at that rate, and provide some of the most useful information to the customers at a manageable price and turnaround rate.
So basically what it boils down to is that if you want to do a full genome, every chromosome, you most likely couldn't afford the equipment and materials to do it yourself. If you want just SNPs or even ESTs, you could possibly do it but it would be vastly impractical to pay for it yourself in comparison to sending it out to an existing company.
I say this as a grad student in a field closely related to genomics, with several genomics papers on my CV from over the years.
disappointment with Windows 7 leads to incremental downgrades back to Windows 1.0
I often wondered how many of the windows upgrades were undo-able. I seem to recall having seen that option in various other windows upgrade versions over the years; how many of them would work? Personally I'd be surprised if he even succeeded in downgrading all the way back to XP or 2k (assuming he didn't change his partition tables along the way)...
It was done in a VMWare setup, so the hardware wasn't really much of a factor. I think it would have been more interesting had it actually been done in a physical box, but it is what it is.
So when he was in prison, spam went down how much?
Oh, right, it went up. Yeah, that worked really well, didn't it?
And when other spammers are thrown in prison - or murdered as many people here would like to call for - the same thing will happen. No amount of criminal response will slow down spam, no matter how much you might want it to be the case.
If you want to stop spam for real, you need to go after the driving force behind spam - money. Disconnect the spammers from their revenue source and spam will stop. Until then, spam will continue to flourish because spammers make money sending spam. Everything else is at best a feel-good or knee-jerk approach that makes no meaningful difference.
Aren't you uploading the pictures from your PC? Why aren't you keeping copies on your PC? You should be backing them up from there...
Makes you kinda wonder who "us" is in this context doesn't it?
That's pretty easy, really. "Us" is just the Bush Administration and their closest supporters. Everyone else is a potential enemy.
The enemy is the same in this third Bush Administration as it was during the previous two. The enemy, of course, is anyone who the administration doesn't like, or anyone who doesn't like them.
Opposed to invading Iraq / Afghanistan? You're an enemy
Opposed to tax cuts for the rich? You're an enemy
Support single-payer health care? You're an enemy
That pretty well covers everyone who doesn't live in the US - and at least half of the people who do.
Just as in the previous two Bush administration (this being the third Bush administration currently), the "enemy" is whoever is not "with us". Anyone who did not aid in invading Afghanistan or Iraq can be counted as an "enemy". Anyone who doesn't view tax breaks for the rich as the pathway to economic salvation is an "enemy". Anyone who uses a god-forsaken and wholly Un-American "socialized" single-payer health care system can be an "enemy".
Sure, Manning aided someone from at least one of those categories.
At first I thought it said "Altrix", which reminded me of the SGI Altix that I use at work. Now if they had reduced that to something resembling portable (or even something resembling what I would want for my next PC), I'd be impressed!