Easy, you'd simply put the hydrogen inside containers that use a special "smart friendly chip" that allows the "true hydrogen" to be released. Any tampering with this will automatically trigger a self defense mechanism that will fire off a cease and desist letter to the offender.
If you're willing to take the word of an email marketer, say, in the form of Digital Impact press release, over a documented history of spamming, more power to ya
No thanks:-) I really was just trying to shed some light on a possible scenario where a legit mass mailing firm could be seen as a spammer and suffer the same as one who spams from China soliciting penis enlargement.
But I did go through the google link you provided and mostly found cases where m0.net had sent what the user simply considered spam but prolly wouldn't fit a legal definition. I'm not saying I've scoured every inch of the web and it's history and found no account. Just that I couldn't find any legit complaints on the link you provided. Most where related to a large retailer, Eddie Bauer for instance, using m0.net to email offers, but they didn't go into details about if the address was obtained illegally, if they had forged headers, or anything else illegal.
I'll just have to dig further but I fear my attention span for defending them is dwindling exponentially. So I'll just give it a rest and say fuck 'em;-)
Exactly, I agree. BTW, I was not the original poster you labled as a troll but I did feel the need to defend what he said.
My point is that if a mailing list makes a mistake and sends you an email, if you don't attempt to opt-out of it then how can you really complain? How can one determine who is a legit business person looking to solicit dollars from a willing consumer and a true spammer just looking for a hit if you don't try and actually track them down? There is no other side to this story, it simply stated that Digital Impact was a spammer and that was that. I find that wrong and here is one possible scenario to show why:
Microsoft has a mailing list that it has harvested from a true opt-in agreement, in this case by using hotmail you basically agree to get email from them or MS. It wants to send email to it's users to tell them about the latest version of MSN but it determines that hiring an outside email company would be cheaper than rolling their own setup to not only send the email but actually track the results, so it hires Digital Impact.
Digital Impact looks at the list and the way it was harvested and determines that it really is a legit list and according to the law the addresses were gathered legally as part of an opt-in agreement. BUT they still are in the business of sending mass emails so they know that being labled a spammer in that business is the kiss of death so at the end of every email they send they provide a link to those that want to opt-out of the list.
Joe user gets an email from MSN because he uses hotmail and gets pissed. He posts to newsgroups "Digital Impact is a SPAMMER!", he contacts the ISP and demands that Digital Impact be blocked, he gets College Jake, an RBL admin to add Digital Impact to the realtime blacklist that other ISPs subscribe to, but not once does he try to Opt-out, not once does he try to contact Digital Impact and get their side of the story. In his eyes all spammers must die a horrible death and Digital Impact is a spammer, regardless of the fact that his address was obtained within the law and he is actually WRONG. Now Digital Impact must suffer because they are labeled as a Spam Haus and no one even heard their side of the story. Case closed, another spammer defeated.
Well I would have to say that Digital Impact is very high profile and you can at least contact them for the abuse, as opposed to the real shady spammers who hide when approached.
Snip from their site Digital Impact works with the world's leading marketers to create permission-based email marketing programs that achieve superior results.
Digital Impact's role in supporting our clients may include hosting the actual collection site, delivery of email, tracking results of email campaigns, analysis of data, and transferring collected data back to the client. Digital Impact is contractually bound to keep our clients' customer data private and this data is never shared across clients.
Digital Impact provides both full service marketing solutions (utilizing our ASP product internally) and email marketing ASP products to its clients. For all clients (full-service and self-service), Digital Impact has a strict policy against sending unsolicited commercial email. If problems arise with a client's campaign, Digital Impact will work with the client to resolve the problems and prevent them in the future. If Digital Impact determines that a client has knowingly used our system for sending unsolicited commercial email, Digital Impact will revoke the right of this client to send email using our product and sending email from our system.
In addition to sending sophisticated email campaigns on behalf of clients, Digital Impact also provides web page-hosting services and a website tracking and analysis service. Some clients use all of our services. Some clients only use our technology to send email campaigns. Providing these services, Digital Impact acts as a service provider for our clients. This means that Digital Impact is a third party that processes data only on behalf of our clients for the completion of stated purposes. The client, not Digital Impact, owns data collected by Digital Impact on behalf of the client.
I just think that people with legit businesses can be hurt by a simple accusation in this world of "anything I don't like is spam" or "anything commercial is spam". Would you say the same if you had actually given them your email address at the store and they sent you an email?
Now before you lambaste me with accusations of being a shill or tell me to go fuck myself let me explain - some people actually do want solicited emails. I may sign up for an email from NFL.com when they have the draft listings, or sign up with Thinkgeek.com to know when they get the latest products in. That is legit commercial email. You may think it is spam but by definition it is not because I have opted in.
If I don't subscribe to a list, and m0.net sends me unsolicited commercial email telling me to opt out if I don't want more unsolicited commercial email from m0.net, then m0.net is a spammer.
So even if they provide a means to get out of this then they are spammers? Here you state that they provide a mechanism to get out of the list because obviously they made a mistake but yet they should be flogged? Stoned to death? I mean what sentence would you recommend? They actually do what is required of them by law and that is not enough?
SHOW ME where someone tried to contact digital impact to get removed from a list and they did not comply and I will rest my argument and join you to burn them at the stake. The fact is I could give two shits about digital impact but I think we need to slow the bandwagon a little and realize that there are legit reasons for bulk mailing and we should not hurt legit businesses with an angry mob mentality and empty accusations.
$100 says I get modded down because spam is bad and I am "defending it" ergo I am bad or a troll. I have my own opinion and it does not coincide with the group so I must be punished! But i dont care I got karma to burn
Oh I agree this works and I like it. But that is not the current win32 dll system and I merely work within it's confines. I made an assumption that you were talking about the current win32 system and why we don't change the name when we release a dll, my bad.
The new system will fix the problems current system but I think the one you cite would also work.
Um, why don't you just have multiple files, with the version number part of the filename? Sort of like libfoo.4.0.0.so and libfoo.3.2.1.so. Then if the library you need isn't installed (regardless of whether a different version is), you install it, and if not, you leave it alone.
So if I fix a bug and release a new version how are the applications that call it going to use it? All of them would have to be recompiled. Not exactly an option when you don't have the source code.
It's funny because you even debunk your own argument saying sometimes it can't be helped EXACTLY. What if it is a total rewrite? What if the API has changed drastically? What if calling function X now does something totally different? Sometimes it cannot be helped. Every programmer that releases a dll knows that they should maintain backwards compatability as much as possible. But sometimes we must break with the past and accept the consequences because the result outweighs the need for such compatability.
Look I didn't create the system and I'm not going to stand up for it BUT I do think the new system is an improvement over the old one where problems like this cannot be resolved. You didn't say anything to the contrary.
If you're a programmer, and you don't realize this, you shouldn't be programming.
They're probably doing it to break WINE as well. DLL problems aren't that bad with Win2k and XP, system DLLs are protected and with XP you can go back to a restore point.
Gimme a break. DLL Hell has been a problem for a long long time so when they actually try and fix it they are now only trying to fix it to break WINE? That's a strech and I'm sure you know it. Yes you can go back to a restore point but that does not solve the problem. Now one app works but the other doesn't because they are both calling the same dll expecting different versions. Restore points are a temporary solution to a legit problem.
If an app installer is so badly written that it messes up your installation then the software can't be much good either.
So using the current system how do you propose that app developers deal with this? Say when I compile against a dll I am expecting version 1 and it works fine. Three years go by and the dll has gone through 2 new versions released with the latest service pack. Someone installs my application and it copies the old dll over the new one. The system is now screwed. My other option would be to link dynamically and since the new version is on the machine my application simply wouldn't work. BUT using the new system both my application and other applications would work fine, using their appropriate dlls. So how is this a bad thing again?
Can anyone propose a better solution? If so I'm all ears.
Why do you invision[sic] that? This system is actually going to prevent such a thing. As it is on a Windows platform if you install an old program that needs and installs an older dll it will simply overwrite the newer one causing new programs to break. It's called dll hell and it's been the scourge of win32 developers for a long time. This new system allows the old program to install the version it needs but the system still has a copy of the new one that the newer programs need and each program calls it's respective dll.
If you want more information on how this is going to work simply look into how.Net handles dll versions using the Global Assembly Cache (GAC):
The GAC can be used to register a dll on a system wide basis and allow other programs on the machine to link to that dll. It handles the different versions of each dll and how they are configured. BUT you do not have to use the GAC to use a dll within.Net, if you prefer you can instead simply copy the dll to the bin directory inside the application directory and that application will use that dll. That's usually refered to as XCOPY deployment.
The trade off of this system is that you have more files on the filesystem which need to be managed. It has it's own drawbacks. But to anyone who's ever f'd a win32 machine because a system dll got replaced when they installed that dvd player app from 1997 and it just happened to replace a critical system dll that was just updated in the last service pack, this is a godsend.
I don't usually respond to troll acs but I'll bite this time just for "kicks":
"Literally" is not to be used for emphasis; especially when you're applying it to something you mean figuratively.
Kind of like: I'd like to figuratively put my foot up your ass?
If meant it as a jab, a funny, a laugh, a quick haha. I guess you get your kicks in other places. Like in your ass for instance. Oh wait, not actually in your ass. Just figuratively.
Hey.. I didn't say they'd point their huge cannons at my puny ass. I just said if they wanted to they could. I agree with you though, anyone with a bit of intelligence would go for an easier method besides brute force. But they do have the capability.
I know that probably was a joke but.. If you think the NSA needs a key to get to your data you need to go read up on the amount of computing power they have in their hands. I recommend "Puzzle Palace" and "Body of Secrets" from James Bamford. Really interesting stuff. They could basically pick through your weak built in encryption like Rosie Odonnell picks through a rack of ribs. Their computers would literally sigh from boredom.
Me too. I once had so many cans on my desk that my colleague said it was a shrine to "The good Dr."
Although It's not good fo me I have shunned long life in exchange for instant gratification in the form of sugar and caffeine. Hell, I'd be a Dr. Pepper "Evangelist" if they supplied me with a 2 cases a week.
I guess I can see where you are going. I could always say - "ok but now the supervisor wants to count each brick because he is real anal and wants to keep a real time count of the amount of bricks you have lay."
I guess with a little bit of effort I could make these metaphors work, but they need to be more widespread in the AOP movement if they want wide adoption. More education that is dumbed down for those of us that aren't the next Donald Knuth and need a little help;-) (read:dummies like me)
Ah, so if you do not like it you are now a novice? Thanks for helping the discussion along... I simply never said that or even implied it and you are stretching. What I meant is it's hard to explain to someone that is new to AOP, I.E. a novice. Or do you think programmers come out of the womb as experts? It will have to be taught and the inability to easily relate it to metaphor leave it lacking. Ease of use leads to wide adoption.
Logging is frequently used as the killer app to justify AOP (Does Jog4J use AOP as the basis for it's design?). But a code profiler might be another example of when to use aspects.
My biggest beef with AOP is that unlike OOP it cannot be easily explained to a novice. People can understand OOP because it relates to real world metaphors very easily. Objects have properties and you can interact with those objects using actions (methods). I can explain this to my brother, who is a brick layer, and he understands what I am talking about when I say I want to create a "brick" object and changes it's color property to red. It seems a little abstract to him to talk about computer representations of real world objects and manipulate them, but he can make the leap. The reason for OOPs popularity is it's ease of use and logical representation of real world ideas.
But when you try and explain AOP to a novice you have to explain it in terms that don't have a logical metaphor that you can easily reference. join points? cross cutting? You are now manipulating real world objects using a event and time based metaphors. I think it is hard to make the leap and that is going to be a hurdle for adoption of AOP. What they need is a good group of high profile evangelists and more real world examples (other than just logging).
That's the thing - Mr. Shein proposes that only those that pay will be placed in the mailbox, promise;-)
It's filtering by payment. His beef is not with spam - It's with not being payed for spam his servers hosts. To him it's simply a cost issue. Unfortuantely this might not bode well for the user - who still receives nigerian money or cheap viagra emails but yet has no way to stop it because now they are viewed as legit advertisers on the same level as your favorite mailing list because they BOTH had to pay the ISP.
I think he has some good ideas as far as recouping the cost at the ISP level, but as far as junk mail is concerned this will stop nothing. It will basically just put a "good spam" stamp on every piece of bulk email that is sent. The amount might dwindle some, leaving only those with money the ability to market their goods (which might not be a bad thing).
Am I surrounded by teenagers? While I did find myself amongst the geek ranks while in high school I don't think classifying and stereotyping every athlete as destined for mediocrity is fair. If you intended that as tongue in cheek then I apologize.
I just don't think I can devote much more of my brain power to this subject.
<sarcasm> Yes people who are nerds are actually cool. Yes athletes are jerks straight out of a campy 80s film who get blonde bimbos and end up with an SUV with "boring" kids. </sarcaasm>
I mean lets be real and realize that people are all individuals and you cannot judge someone by their cover. Is that not what we are saying when we oppose the stereotyping of the teenage "bad kid"? As if you can just categorize and predict the psyche of individuals by a predetermined set of circumstances (athletes get blonde bimbos, nerd don't get laid, rich people are assholes, etc).
I will not contribute to the broad swiping of people no matter what side of the fence I am on or how others classify me. I am not a teenage geek anymore afraid of the world or what others think, lashing out at the status quo at every turn. I am a grown man now and I choose to think for myself and judge others by their actions not by labels.
Bravo, well said. Forgive me for misunderstanding your point. There ARE consequences to an engineers actions, especially those that develop weapons, and they must weigh all the consequences of their efforts.
Yes but what if the body armor is wore by gun touting armed robbers as was the case in Los Angeles a few years ago. In that case i think that body armor piercing bullets were used for the greater good by stopping the criminals, thereby protecting the average citizen.
Even a weapon can be used in a "good" way depending on your view point. If you have a rock and the bad guy has a assault rifle to say you are in a very bad position would be an understatement. Now I am not advocating killing BUT I know for a fact that the world has bad people in it. Should we to simply stop providing the means to stop them because it involves very nasty things? To fight a devil you've got to be a devil yourself. The engineers know that a bomb can be used to both kill and protect, life is not black and white as some portray. Maybe if we could stop killing altogether it wouldn't be a problem, but that eutopian view goes upstream against the current of the primitive mind.
The problem with that is the only way to enforce it would be through authorizing users to acess your smtp server. Although you can do this for the sending of spam, as some ISPs do using pop before smtp.. etc., But hwo would you authroize the receiving of email from another server? If you cannot authorize legit senders than how can you say it is prohibited?
I mean this from a both a technical and legal standpoint. The only way to make such a system work is to say my server will only receive email from servers x,y, and z. If you attemtpt to send email to my server and you are not one of the above then it is unautorized use of my machine. But without that white list how could one ever say that receiving is unauthorized?
A lot of that above defeats the purpose of internet smtp email and basically sets up seperated email networks for closed users.
Slashdot Mirror
armed conflict will no longer be called war but something else
You mean like: police action? enduring freedom? liberation? conflict resolution?
Double speak has been perfected to a point that would make George Orwell blush.
Easy, you'd simply put the hydrogen inside containers that use a special "smart friendly chip" that allows the "true hydrogen" to be released. Any tampering with this will automatically trigger a self defense mechanism that will fire off a cease and desist letter to the offender.
If you're willing to take the word of an email marketer, say, in the form of Digital Impact press release, over a documented history of spamming, more power to ya
:-) I really was just trying to shed some light on a possible scenario where a legit mass mailing firm could be seen as a spammer and suffer the same as one who spams from China soliciting penis enlargement.
;-)
No thanks
But I did go through the google link you provided and mostly found cases where m0.net had sent what the user simply considered spam but prolly wouldn't fit a legal definition. I'm not saying I've scoured every inch of the web and it's history and found no account. Just that I couldn't find any legit complaints on the link you provided. Most where related to a large retailer, Eddie Bauer for instance, using m0.net to email offers, but they didn't go into details about if the address was obtained illegally, if they had forged headers, or anything else illegal.
I'll just have to dig further but I fear my attention span for defending them is dwindling exponentially. So I'll just give it a rest and say fuck 'em
Spam is about consent, not content.
:
Exactly, I agree. BTW, I was not the original poster you labled as a troll but I did feel the need to defend what he said.
My point is that if a mailing list makes a mistake and sends you an email, if you don't attempt to opt-out of it then how can you really complain? How can one determine who is a legit business person looking to solicit dollars from a willing consumer and a true spammer just looking for a hit if you don't try and actually track them down? There is no other side to this story, it simply stated that Digital Impact was a spammer and that was that. I find that wrong and here is one possible scenario to show why
Microsoft has a mailing list that it has harvested from a true opt-in agreement, in this case by using hotmail you basically agree to get email from them or MS. It wants to send email to it's users to tell them about the latest version of MSN but it determines that hiring an outside email company would be cheaper than rolling their own setup to not only send the email but actually track the results, so it hires Digital Impact.
Digital Impact looks at the list and the way it was harvested and determines that it really is a legit list and according to the law the addresses were gathered legally as part of an opt-in agreement. BUT they still are in the business of sending mass emails so they know that being labled a spammer in that business is the kiss of death so at the end of every email they send they provide a link to those that want to opt-out of the list.
Joe user gets an email from MSN because he uses hotmail and gets pissed. He posts to newsgroups "Digital Impact is a SPAMMER!", he contacts the ISP and demands that Digital Impact be blocked, he gets College Jake, an RBL admin to add Digital Impact to the realtime blacklist that other ISPs subscribe to, but not once does he try to Opt-out, not once does he try to contact Digital Impact and get their side of the story. In his eyes all spammers must die a horrible death and Digital Impact is a spammer, regardless of the fact that his address was obtained within the law and he is actually WRONG. Now Digital Impact must suffer because they are labeled as a Spam Haus and no one even heard their side of the story. Case closed, another spammer defeated.
Well I would have to say that Digital Impact is very high profile and you can at least contact them for the abuse, as opposed to the real shady spammers who hide when approached.
Snip from their site
Digital Impact works with the world's leading marketers to create permission-based email marketing programs that achieve superior results.
Digital Impact's role in supporting our clients may include hosting the actual collection site, delivery of email, tracking results of email campaigns, analysis of data, and transferring collected data back to the client. Digital Impact is contractually bound to keep our clients' customer data private and this data is never shared across clients.
Digital Impact provides both full service marketing solutions (utilizing our ASP product internally) and email marketing ASP products to its clients. For all clients (full-service and self-service), Digital Impact has a strict policy against sending unsolicited commercial email. If problems arise with a client's campaign, Digital Impact will work with the client to resolve the problems and prevent them in the future. If Digital Impact determines that a client has knowingly used our system for sending unsolicited commercial email, Digital Impact will revoke the right of this client to send email using our product and sending email from our system.
In addition to sending sophisticated email campaigns on behalf of clients, Digital Impact also provides web page-hosting services and a website tracking and analysis service. Some clients use all of our services. Some clients only use our technology to send email campaigns. Providing these services, Digital Impact acts as a service provider for our clients. This means that Digital Impact is a third party that processes data only on behalf of our clients for the completion of stated purposes. The client, not Digital Impact, owns data collected by Digital Impact on behalf of the client.
I just think that people with legit businesses can be hurt by a simple accusation in this world of "anything I don't like is spam" or "anything commercial is spam". Would you say the same if you had actually given them your email address at the store and they sent you an email?
Now before you lambaste me with accusations of being a shill or tell me to go fuck myself let me explain - some people actually do want solicited emails. I may sign up for an email from NFL.com when they have the draft listings, or sign up with Thinkgeek.com to know when they get the latest products in. That is legit commercial email. You may think it is spam but by definition it is not because I have opted in.
If I don't subscribe to a list, and m0.net sends me unsolicited commercial email telling me to opt out if I don't want more unsolicited commercial email from m0.net, then m0.net is a spammer.
So even if they provide a means to get out of this then they are spammers? Here you state that they provide a mechanism to get out of the list because obviously they made a mistake but yet they should be flogged? Stoned to death? I mean what sentence would you recommend? They actually do what is required of them by law and that is not enough?
SHOW ME where someone tried to contact digital impact to get removed from a list and they did not comply and I will rest my argument and join you to burn them at the stake. The fact is I could give two shits about digital impact but I think we need to slow the bandwagon a little and realize that there are legit reasons for bulk mailing and we should not hurt legit businesses with an angry mob mentality and empty accusations.
$100 says I get modded down because spam is bad and I am "defending it" ergo I am bad or a troll. I have my own opinion and it does not coincide with the group so I must be punished! But i dont care I got karma to burn
Oh I agree this works and I like it. But that is not the current win32 dll system and I merely work within it's confines. I made an assumption that you were talking about the current win32 system and why we don't change the name when we release a dll, my bad.
The new system will fix the problems current system but I think the one you cite would also work.
Um, why don't you just have multiple files, with the version number part of the filename? Sort of like libfoo.4.0.0.so and libfoo.3.2.1.so. Then if the library you need isn't installed (regardless of whether a different version is), you install it, and if not, you leave it alone.
So if I fix a bug and release a new version how are the applications that call it going to use it? All of them would have to be recompiled. Not exactly an option when you don't have the source code.
It's funny because you even debunk your own argument saying sometimes it can't be helped EXACTLY. What if it is a total rewrite? What if the API has changed drastically? What if calling function X now does something totally different? Sometimes it cannot be helped. Every programmer that releases a dll knows that they should maintain backwards compatability as much as possible. But sometimes we must break with the past and accept the consequences because the result outweighs the need for such compatability.
Look I didn't create the system and I'm not going to stand up for it BUT I do think the new system is an improvement over the old one where problems like this cannot be resolved. You didn't say anything to the contrary.
If you're a programmer, and you don't realize this, you shouldn't be programming.
Pretty bold words for a coward.
They're probably doing it to break WINE as well. DLL problems aren't that bad with Win2k and XP, system DLLs are protected and with XP you can go back to a restore point.
Gimme a break. DLL Hell has been a problem for a long long time so when they actually try and fix it they are now only trying to fix it to break WINE? That's a strech and I'm sure you know it. Yes you can go back to a restore point but that does not solve the problem. Now one app works but the other doesn't because they are both calling the same dll expecting different versions. Restore points are a temporary solution to a legit problem.
If an app installer is so badly written that it messes up your installation then the software can't be much good either.
So using the current system how do you propose that app developers deal with this? Say when I compile against a dll I am expecting version 1 and it works fine. Three years go by and the dll has gone through 2 new versions released with the latest service pack. Someone installs my application and it copies the old dll over the new one. The system is now screwed. My other option would be to link dynamically and since the new version is on the machine my application simply wouldn't work. BUT using the new system both my application and other applications would work fine, using their appropriate dlls. So how is this a bad thing again?
Can anyone propose a better solution? If so I'm all ears.
Why do you invision[sic] that? This system is actually going to prevent such a thing. As it is on a Windows platform if you install an old program that needs and installs an older dll it will simply overwrite the newer one causing new programs to break. It's called dll hell and it's been the scourge of win32 developers for a long time. This new system allows the old program to install the version it needs but the system still has a copy of the new one that the newer programs need and each program calls it's respective dll.
.Net handles dll versions using the
.Net, if you prefer you can instead simply copy the dll to the bin directory inside the application directory and that application will use that dll. That's usually refered to as XCOPY deployment.
If you want more information on how this is going to work simply look into how
Global Assembly Cache (GAC):
The GAC can be used to register a dll on a system wide basis and allow other programs on the machine to link to that dll. It handles the different versions of each dll and how they are configured. BUT you do not have to use the GAC to use a dll within
The trade off of this system is that you have more files on the filesystem which need to be managed. It has it's own drawbacks. But to anyone who's ever f'd a win32 machine because a system dll got replaced when they installed that dvd player app from 1997 and it just happened to replace a critical system dll that was just updated in the last service pack, this is a godsend.
I don't usually respond to troll acs but I'll bite this time just for "kicks":
"Literally" is not to be used for emphasis; especially when you're applying it to something you mean figuratively.
Kind of like: I'd like to figuratively put my foot up your ass?
If meant it as a jab, a funny, a laugh, a quick haha. I guess you get your kicks in other places. Like in your ass for instance. Oh wait, not actually in your ass. Just figuratively.
Hey.. I didn't say they'd point their huge cannons at my puny ass. I just said if they wanted to they could. I agree with you though, anyone with a bit of intelligence would go for an easier method besides brute force. But they do have the capability.
I know that probably was a joke but.. If you think the NSA needs a key to get to your data you need to go read up on the amount of computing power they have in their hands. I recommend "Puzzle Palace" and "Body of Secrets" from James Bamford. Really interesting stuff. They could basically pick through your weak built in encryption like Rosie Odonnell picks through a rack of ribs. Their computers would literally sigh from boredom.
I have disgraced myself and should be punished by flogging via the official Dr Pepper cane.
Proceed
Me too. I once had so many cans on my desk that my colleague said it was a shrine to "The good Dr."
Although It's not good fo me I have shunned long life in exchange for instant gratification in the form of sugar and caffeine. Hell, I'd be a Dr. Pepper "Evangelist" if they supplied me with a 2 cases a week.
I guess I can see where you are going. I could always say - "ok but now the supervisor wants to count each brick because he is real anal and wants to keep a real time count of the amount of bricks you have lay."
;-) (read:dummies like me)
I guess with a little bit of effort I could make these metaphors work, but they need to be more widespread in the AOP movement if they want wide adoption. More education that is dumbed down for those of us that aren't the next Donald Knuth and need a little help
Ah, so if you do not like it you are now a novice? Thanks for helping the discussion along...
I simply never said that or even implied it and you are stretching. What I meant is it's hard to explain to someone that is new to AOP, I.E. a novice. Or do you think programmers come out of the womb as experts? It will have to be taught and the inability to easily relate it to metaphor leave it lacking. Ease of use leads to wide adoption.
Logging is frequently used as the killer app to justify AOP (Does Jog4J use AOP as the basis for it's design?). But a code profiler might be another example of when to use aspects.
My biggest beef with AOP is that unlike OOP it cannot be easily explained to a novice. People can understand OOP because it relates to real world metaphors very easily. Objects have properties and you can interact with those objects using actions (methods). I can explain this to my brother, who is a brick layer, and he understands what I am talking about when I say I want to create a "brick" object and changes it's color property to red. It seems a little abstract to him to talk about computer representations of real world objects and manipulate them, but he can make the leap. The reason for OOPs popularity is it's ease of use and logical representation of real world ideas.
But when you try and explain AOP to a novice you have to explain it in terms that don't have a logical metaphor that you can easily reference. join points? cross cutting? You are now manipulating real world objects using a event and time based metaphors. I think it is hard to make the leap and that is going to be a hurdle for adoption of AOP. What they need is a good group of high profile evangelists and more real world examples (other than just logging).
That's the thing - Mr. Shein proposes that only those that pay will be placed in the mailbox, promise ;-)
It's filtering by payment. His beef is not with spam - It's with not being payed for spam his servers hosts. To him it's simply a cost issue. Unfortuantely this might not bode well for the user - who still receives nigerian money or cheap viagra emails but yet has no way to stop it because now they are viewed as legit advertisers on the same level as your favorite mailing list because they BOTH had to pay the ISP.
I think he has some good ideas as far as recouping the cost at the ISP level, but as far as junk mail is concerned this will stop nothing. It will basically just put a "good spam" stamp on every piece of bulk email that is sent. The amount might dwindle some, leaving only those with money the ability to market their goods (which might not be a bad thing).
Why do you want to be anonymous? What are you hiding?
I am hiding my personal information from those that will spam or telemarket or data mine me to death. I don't want my info in a "consumer dossier".
Am I surrounded by teenagers? While I did find myself amongst the geek ranks while in high school I don't think classifying and stereotyping every athlete as destined for mediocrity is fair. If you intended that as tongue in cheek then I apologize.
I just don't think I can devote much more of my brain power to this subject.
<sarcasm>
Yes people who are nerds are actually cool. Yes athletes are jerks straight out of a campy 80s film who get blonde bimbos and end up with an SUV with "boring" kids.
</sarcaasm>
I mean lets be real and realize that people are all individuals and you cannot judge someone by their cover. Is that not what we are saying when we oppose the stereotyping of the teenage "bad kid"? As if you can just categorize and predict the psyche of individuals by a predetermined set of circumstances (athletes get blonde bimbos, nerd don't get laid, rich people are assholes, etc).
I will not contribute to the broad swiping of people no matter what side of the fence I am on or how others classify me. I am not a teenage geek anymore afraid of the world or what others think, lashing out at the status quo at every turn. I am a grown man now and I choose to think for myself and judge others by their actions not by labels.
Bravo, well said. Forgive me for misunderstanding your point. There ARE consequences to an engineers actions, especially those that develop weapons, and they must weigh all the consequences of their efforts.
Yes but what if the body armor is wore by gun touting armed robbers as was the case in Los Angeles a few years ago. In that case i think that body armor piercing bullets were used for the greater good by stopping the criminals, thereby protecting the average citizen.
Even a weapon can be used in a "good" way depending on your view point. If you have a rock and the bad guy has a assault rifle to say you are in a very bad position would be an understatement. Now I am not advocating killing BUT I know for a fact that the world has bad people in it. Should we to simply stop providing the means to stop them because it involves very nasty things? To fight a devil you've got to be a devil yourself. The engineers know that a bomb can be used to both kill and protect, life is not black and white as some portray. Maybe if we could stop killing altogether it wouldn't be a problem, but that eutopian view goes upstream against the current of the primitive mind.
Actually I'd just shorten your statement a bit:
the right language probably isn't perl, no matter what the problem is.
Just Kidding! I don't want 10 million zomby eyed perl hackers coming out of the woods looking for $blood
The problem with that is the only way to enforce it would be through authorizing users to acess your smtp server. Although you can do this for the sending of spam, as some ISPs do using pop before smtp.. etc., But hwo would you authroize the receiving of email from another server? If you cannot authorize legit senders than how can you say it is prohibited?
I mean this from a both a technical and legal standpoint. The only way to make such a system work is to say my server will only receive email from servers x,y, and z. If you attemtpt to send email to my server and you are not one of the above then it is unautorized use of my machine. But without that white list how could one ever say that receiving is unauthorized?
A lot of that above defeats the purpose of internet smtp email and basically sets up seperated email networks for closed users.