Wow, I'm sure Rogers wouldn't do anything to piss of Microsoft after a C$600 investment. That's almost $400 US dollars! Probably almost 10 whole shares of stock!
Sorry, I meant to type "Star Warts", as that's my current opinion after realizing that I managed to pay almost $250 for a single movie in an obsolete format, and seeing that they're about to try to trick me into paying *another* $250 for a movie that I don't even like.
Yes, it's my fault. But I reserve the right to be angry at the fsckers who sat around boardroom tables drinking $30 coffees, thinking of new versions to release to milk cash from their fans.
Bah, they've got no respect for me, I've got no respect for them. The difference is: they need me.
Um, I beg to differ. DD has a total bandwidth of 320KB/s; at 5 channels, that's 64KB/S, or 32K-samples/sec @ 16 bits. Less than CD quality. Only 72% the resolution of CD's, in fact.
Add in the.1 sub channel, and you're talking about half the quality (per channel) available on CD's since 1981.
DTS devotes 48khz, 16 bit samples to all 5 channels, or 480KB/S. Sure, it's only 25% more detail than DD, but it's significant, especially during sequences with heavy surround effects.
DD's trick is to move bits from less used channels to more used channels. It's a good trick, but if you actually have ears and you've heard the same film passage in both formats, you would never compare the two.
DD-EX (or THX EX) is a different story and is finally on par with DTS.
For more information, see: http://www.moviesoundpage.com/msp_dddtsdvd.htm
...Lucas already busted me on laserdisc; I have 4 copies of Star Wards. Based on that experience, here's my prediction for the actual, top secret, rape-the-fans schedule:
October 16, 2001: Ep. 1, 6 hours of additional footage, some removed footage. Dolby Digital sound only (Yes, that's for real, check the link)
February 10th, 2002: "Special Edition" Ep. 1, same 6 hours of additional footage, 2 more missing scenes, addition of DTS sound. Buy another copy if you've got a good sound system.
May 30, 2002: "The ultimate edition" Ep. 1, new superior video transfer, director's commentary, Dolby digital and DTS sound. Missing the 6 hours of extra footage and extra scenes.
September 15, 2002: "Director's cut" Ep. 1, back to the old video transfer, same running length but a few scenes switched around, commentary from Lucas and several actors.
January 6, 2003: "Collector's Edition" Ep.1, Dolby Digital, DTS, 6 hours of extra footage, commentary, includes scripts, concept drawings, and other production notes.
Well, it's not all about evil plots by the government. I see several reasons why I wouldn't trust government to run a trusted public key repository:
1) Competence: How often would it be up? How often would it be hacked?
2) Inertia: How quickly would it rev to support new standards?
3) Corruption: How susceptible would it be to political pressure to support/not support encryption standards? Would Microsoft lobby for only MS-Crypt support?
And then there's the nefarious stuff:
1) Would they track who's retrieving the public keys for suspected criminals? If I send encrypted email to Al Capone, will the police knock on my door (or tap my phone, or whatever) the next day?
2) Out-of-band public keys only work when the people have an out of band connection. The whole point of a public repository is so I can send email to someone who doesn't necessarily know me yet, and have them read it. So yes, key replacement is an issue.
And there's probably more I haven't thought of yet.
I agree that this is probably the killer for 100% encrypted email. With as many different people and philosophies as there are out there, there's no way everyone will agree upon a single trusted key repository.
What's more likely to happen is multiple repositories, where people mutually agree to use one. Email software needs to support multiple repositories.
I also think it's kind of funny and sad how unremarkable your comment "we obviously can't trust the government" is. I totally agree, but it's kind of sad that it's such a given. I daresay people would trust Microsoft as a key repository before the government, which is a pretty sad state of affairs.
Oh, I agree. Note that I didn't say "impartial" or even "legitimate."
While I agree that Harry is so wrapped up in the hype machine that he is often way off base, biased one way or the other, and generally a fanboy more than a journalist, you have to admit that his Moulin Rouge review -- albeit gushy and fawning -- covered the essential elements of a review.
He spoke of his conclusion ("first great movie of the new century" or some such), and he supported it with opinions based on a wide swath of the film. He loved the editing, costumes, acting, singing, and every other thing.
He spoke to why he finds it a superior movie, and why he believes it succeeds.
I'll stand by calling that professional quality, at least in comparison to Katz's "oh, yeah, and this other movie was interesting and unpredictable."
So question Harry's motivation, sure. And question his writing ability (I despise the intentionally bad writing style). But give him credit for knowing what makes a good movie in his mind and being able to explain it, even if he often is convinced that the latest trash-of-the-week meets those criteria.
Only if Gibson has complete creative control, and David Fincher directs.
Can't you just see Neuromancer, as it would be done through the lens of normal hollywood test screenings and rewrite committes?
They'd give Case some backstory about how his parents were AI researchers who secretly implanted microchips in his brain. Molly would become a stripper who's just along for the ride. The whole space station thing doesn't play well with the female audience, so better make it a farm on the french countryside. Ugh.
Better that they not do it, than they screw it up.
Well, that was useless fluff, even by Katz's usual low standards. So here's where to find some more substantive info about what's good and bad in Moulin Rouge:
Harry at AICN waxes effusive and gushingly positive Paul Clinton at CNN is somewhat more restrained, but still surprisingly positive considering his usual skepticism about flashy stuff Rex Reed is absolutely not impressed, and strongly negative
I'm planning on catching the film, based on these reviews. Heck, even if it fails as art I'm willing to support it just because it's trying to do something different and exciting.
If you work in IT, you owe it to your company it your coworkers to practice this essential drill. I believe OSHA is considering making it mandatory for all businesses with more than 45mbps of bandwidth total (across all locations).
In order to perform an effective ping flood drill, you'll need every employee in the building to be equipped with the proper ping flood protective gear: two buckets, a mop, a snorkel, and a waterproof flashlight.
The drill should come as a surprise, so employees learn to react quickly and safely in the event of a real ping flood.
To begin the drill, a senior IT staffer should use the in-building paging system (if the building is not so equipped, a megaphone may be substituted).
Announce in a clear, calm voice, "Your attention please! We are currently experiencing a ping flood! All employees to ping flood response stations! This is not a drill!"
IT staffers should walk the building, making sure that employees are using their buckets and mops properly. The most common mistake non-IT staff makes when dealing with a ping flood is to not echo-reply properly. Unless you are practicing an IRC ping flood, people should *not* be saying "PONG!" This is a common panic response among employees, and part of the reason for the ping flood drill.
IT staff should also ensure that everyone in the building is mopping properly, and bailing the buckets out of the window, you may halt the drill. In the drill, of course, there will be no actual pings in the buckets, but it's important to have complete realism. Some buildings may have to have their windows knocked out with a chair or piece of computer equipment. The expense is well worth it in the event of an actual ping flood.
Although an actual ping flood can last for hours, you should limit a ping flood drill to no more than 45 minutes, as exhaustion may set in and render employees unable to deal with a real ping flood, should one occur immediately after the drill.
If you are in IT and not practicing this essential drill, you are negligent and irresponsible. If upper management refuses to allow you to stage ping flood drills, it is your moral obligation to do so anyway. When a real ping flood occurs, they will thank you for it.
I RUN A DUAL PROCESSOR DESKTOP WITH 3 HARD DRIVES AND I DON'T SEE WHAT ALL THE FUSS IS ABOUT . MY SYSTEM IS VERY VERY QUIET. THE WEIRD THING IS THAT EVERYONE I KNOW SEEMS TO TALK REALLY QUIETLY, TOO.
Ye gods, I should hope my customers would *sue* me if I used the default install of any line-of-business app, without configuring it for their particular needs!
You talk about 80% of web users not changing their home page, but what does that have to do with web site operators? Surely you're not saying you'd run a completely default install of even Apache without at least going over the config files and making sure it's set up to offer the minimum featureset that you need for a particular site?
Fair enough, and you're right that the other news I cited was of problems less severe.
But in all fairness, when slashdot reports open source problems, it's not with the same gleeful tone that bad news for MS gets. "1 million servers! It could be more!"
As many people have pointed out, anyone reasonably experienced, and any "real" website, isn't vulnerable to this if they followed the best practice of deleting all app mappings that aren't in use. It's like the blank SQL sa password all over again. Easy to get worked up about, pretty much a nonissue for anyone who even halfway knows what they're doing.
I'll be the first to agree that this is both pressing and of widespread concern, but if Slashdot is concerned about being bashed, there are two easy steps to take:
1) Keep the tone about like it is for open source problems, more "Hey, everyone, you really need to patch XXXX" and less "Ha! Microsoft screws up AGAIN! Danger Will Robinson!" Anyone who's been around the block a few times knows that there are problems with ALL software products.
2) Do a touch of research and post what's actually going on currently, rather than one rather effusive press release. There's lots of history with this particular vulnerability -- some of which actually makes microsoft look worse -- so if you're going to be days behind bugtraq, at least bring some value-add editorial context to the whole thing by talking about the patch, MS's response, etc.
I love Slashdot. I just think it gets a bit emotional at times (hey, user posts should be as emotional as they want to be, but it's better when actual stories have a more professional feel).
...at least by security standards. It's been all over bugtraq for the past few days.
Maybe I'll write a little app to just forward bugtraq emails which mention Microsoft to slashdot submissions. In case you *don't* follow bugtraq, and security is important to you, here's what else has gone on in the past few days that, oddly enough, will probably not rate slashdot articles:
Computer programs can be protected speech because they are the literal representation of an abstract creative idea. The actual letters and numbers that make up computer code is simply the concrete version of some programmer's insight and creativity.
The algorithms and logic in DeCSS are the embodiement of a human being's intent, which includes political and social thought.
Look at it using one of the MPAA's metaphors: courts have conclusively decided that it is possible to infringe on the copyright of a script even if all of the letters and punctiation are different (that is, the infringer paraphrased the original).
It's not about the code as a series of letters and numbers, it's about the expression of creativity that some human had. The code is just the physical manifestation of that creativity. Outlawing particular types of code is paramount to outlawing particular types of thought or speech.
...this kind of thing really gets my goat. I think I've got an answer, albeit one that's unlikely to be passed any time soon.
What we need is a law that would allow courts to punitively strip intellectual property protections from individuals, companies, and organizations that use those protections in bad faith.
Under my proposal, those who abuse the system would be subject to public domainification not only of the IP in question, but also of other IP they may own.
My law would allow courts to strip IP ownership in the event that any one of the following is true:
- The guilty party is using IP laws to prevent dissemination of critiques of IP. This includes flaws, comparisons with other solutions, historical research, or other legitimate academic or competitive information
- The guilty party *knowingly* sought and received IP protection in bad faith; IE patenting something with advance knowledge of prior art that would disqualify the patent
- The guilty party is, or has a business relationship with, the RIAA
Ok, that last one may not fly, but the first two cases are increasingly common, and go beyond corporate malfeasance and into the area of crimes against the public good. The only way these abuses will stop will be if there are severe penalties levied on those who perpetrate IP abuse.
...find a home painted in this stuff, and write obscene things on it with a low power laser, water pistol, etc.
...take a pic of same house on a normal summer day, go to paint store, get custom paint, come back and grafitti house liberally. Invisible today, pretty dramatic when winter comes around.
...get a stepladder, press butt or other anatomy against middle of front door, ring bell, run.
...for at least some websites. One website I run has over 200,000 subscribers. At least once a month we get a rant from some user who uses this method. They go on and on about how we sold their email address to spammers, they're going to sue us, blah blah blah.
But we simply don't do any such thing. I am the only one with access to that data in bulk.
I don't know where someone got that address from; maybe sniffing traffic at some intermediate point, or through a client-side security issue in their browser.
So if you *do* use the alias trick to identify where spam is coming from, keep in mind that it is not fail safe. And if you're going to contact the website in question, try to be reasonably polite and not instantly super-confrontational and threatening, ok?
I agree with most of your post, but I have to point out that McCain/Feingold will *not* outlaw corporate lobbying of anyone. People who saw it will are just trying to paint apocalyptic scenarios to scare people into opposing what, in my opinion, is a good bill.
McCain/Feingold will outloaw the use of soft money during elections. It has no bearing whatsoever on inter-election money usage. Yes, it could impact AT&T's ability to sway the next election, but that's the whole point, right?
It is a bit weird, but not without precedent in the real world. Think of mom-and-pop stores that happen to own very desirable property. They have every right to continue to operate their small business on very valuable property. The property is indeed "worth" more than the business. Nothing wrong with that.
I'm involved with a site that's very much the last of these permutations; legal and quality. Not free, though, for actual pornography (other features are free). Sites like that do indeed exist. No popups, no spam, no CC fraud, nothing. We've lasted 4 years with no temptation to go slimey.
Most of the really big companies (CEN, Cyberotica, iGallery, etc) are 100% legit, but do use popup windows, which I find annoying but not unethical.
I don't want to be seen as promoting a porn site on/., so here's the ROT13 version of the site I do work for: obaqntr.pbz
Will Slashdot begin posting only hypotetical questions like would space aliens have civil rights?, what OS would best interface with space aliens?, and what would/. be like during war?. Will articles become increasingly self-referential and hypothetical until the only articles posted are idle speculation about whether, if space aliens landed, the only articles/. would post would be about what aliens would think of idle speculation about future/. postings about aliens? This is a burning question, people!
Slashdot Mirror
CmdrTaco apparently thinks happiness is a right!
-b
Wow, I'm sure Rogers wouldn't do anything to piss of Microsoft after a C$600 investment. That's almost $400 US dollars! Probably almost 10 whole shares of stock!
-b
Sorry, I meant to type "Star Warts", as that's my current opinion after realizing that I managed to pay almost $250 for a single movie in an obsolete format, and seeing that they're about to try to trick me into paying *another* $250 for a movie that I don't even like.
Yes, it's my fault. But I reserve the right to be angry at the fsckers who sat around boardroom tables drinking $30 coffees, thinking of new versions to release to milk cash from their fans.
Bah, they've got no respect for me, I've got no respect for them. The difference is: they need me.
-b
Um, I beg to differ. DD has a total bandwidth of 320KB/s; at 5 channels, that's 64KB/S, or 32K-samples/sec @ 16 bits. Less than CD quality. Only 72% the resolution of CD's, in fact.
.1 sub channel, and you're talking about half the quality (per channel) available on CD's since 1981.
Add in the
DTS devotes 48khz, 16 bit samples to all 5 channels, or 480KB/S. Sure, it's only 25% more detail than DD, but it's significant, especially during sequences with heavy surround effects.
DD's trick is to move bits from less used channels to more used channels. It's a good trick, but if you actually have ears and you've heard the same film passage in both formats, you would never compare the two.
DD-EX (or THX EX) is a different story and is finally on par with DTS.
For more information, see: http://www.moviesoundpage.com/msp_dddtsdvd.htm
Cheers
-b
...Lucas already busted me on laserdisc; I have 4 copies of Star Wards. Based on that experience, here's my prediction for the actual, top secret, rape-the-fans schedule:
October 16, 2001: Ep. 1, 6 hours of additional footage, some removed footage. Dolby Digital sound only (Yes, that's for real, check the link)
February 10th, 2002: "Special Edition" Ep. 1, same 6 hours of additional footage, 2 more missing scenes, addition of DTS sound. Buy another copy if you've got a good sound system.
May 30, 2002: "The ultimate edition" Ep. 1, new superior video transfer, director's commentary, Dolby digital and DTS sound. Missing the 6 hours of extra footage and extra scenes.
September 15, 2002: "Director's cut" Ep. 1, back to the old video transfer, same running length but a few scenes switched around, commentary from Lucas and several actors.
January 6, 2003: "Collector's Edition" Ep.1, Dolby Digital, DTS, 6 hours of extra footage, commentary, includes scripts, concept drawings, and other production notes.
Me, I'm just gonna wait until Jan 6, 2003.
-b
Well, it's not all about evil plots by the government. I see several reasons why I wouldn't trust government to run a trusted public key repository:
1) Competence: How often would it be up? How often would it be hacked?
2) Inertia: How quickly would it rev to support new standards?
3) Corruption: How susceptible would it be to political pressure to support/not support encryption standards? Would Microsoft lobby for only MS-Crypt support?
And then there's the nefarious stuff:
1) Would they track who's retrieving the public keys for suspected criminals? If I send encrypted email to Al Capone, will the police knock on my door (or tap my phone, or whatever) the next day?
2) Out-of-band public keys only work when the people have an out of band connection. The whole point of a public repository is so I can send email to someone who doesn't necessarily know me yet, and have them read it. So yes, key replacement is an issue.
And there's probably more I haven't thought of yet.
Cheers
-b
I agree that this is probably the killer for 100% encrypted email. With as many different people and philosophies as there are out there, there's no way everyone will agree upon a single trusted key repository.
What's more likely to happen is multiple repositories, where people mutually agree to use one. Email software needs to support multiple repositories.
I also think it's kind of funny and sad how unremarkable your comment "we obviously can't trust the government" is. I totally agree, but it's kind of sad that it's such a given. I daresay people would trust Microsoft as a key repository before the government, which is a pretty sad state of affairs.
Cheers
-b
It was on CNN yesterday. Damn, I'm glad I bother to read /. so I can stay ahead of the mainstream.
-b
Oh, I agree. Note that I didn't say "impartial" or even "legitimate."
While I agree that Harry is so wrapped up in the hype machine that he is often way off base, biased one way or the other, and generally a fanboy more than a journalist, you have to admit that his Moulin Rouge review -- albeit gushy and fawning -- covered the essential elements of a review.
He spoke of his conclusion ("first great movie of the new century" or some such), and he supported it with opinions based on a wide swath of the film. He loved the editing, costumes, acting, singing, and every other thing.
He spoke to why he finds it a superior movie, and why he believes it succeeds.
I'll stand by calling that professional quality, at least in comparison to Katz's "oh, yeah, and this other movie was interesting and unpredictable."
So question Harry's motivation, sure. And question his writing ability (I despise the intentionally bad writing style). But give him credit for knowing what makes a good movie in his mind and being able to explain it, even if he often is convinced that the latest trash-of-the-week meets those criteria.
Cheers
-b
Only if Gibson has complete creative control, and David Fincher directs.
Can't you just see Neuromancer, as it would be done through the lens of normal hollywood test screenings and rewrite committes?
They'd give Case some backstory about how his parents were AI researchers who secretly implanted microchips in his brain. Molly would become a stripper who's just along for the ride. The whole space station thing doesn't play well with the female audience, so better make it a farm on the french countryside. Ugh.
Better that they not do it, than they screw it up.
Cheers
-b
Well, that was useless fluff, even by Katz's usual low standards. So here's where to find some more substantive info about what's good and bad in Moulin Rouge:
Harry at AICN waxes effusive and gushingly positive
Paul Clinton at CNN is somewhat more restrained, but still surprisingly positive considering his usual skepticism about flashy stuff
Rex Reed is absolutely not impressed, and strongly negative
I'm planning on catching the film, based on these reviews. Heck, even if it fails as art I'm willing to support it just because it's trying to do something different and exciting.
Cheers
-b
If you work in IT, you owe it to your company it your coworkers to practice this essential drill. I believe OSHA is considering making it mandatory for all businesses with more than 45mbps of bandwidth total (across all locations).
In order to perform an effective ping flood drill, you'll need every employee in the building to be equipped with the proper ping flood protective gear: two buckets, a mop, a snorkel, and a waterproof flashlight.
The drill should come as a surprise, so employees learn to react quickly and safely in the event of a real ping flood.
To begin the drill, a senior IT staffer should use the in-building paging system (if the building is not so equipped, a megaphone may be substituted).
Announce in a clear, calm voice, "Your attention please! We are currently experiencing a ping flood! All employees to ping flood response stations! This is not a drill!"
IT staffers should walk the building, making sure that employees are using their buckets and mops properly. The most common mistake non-IT staff makes when dealing with a ping flood is to not echo-reply properly. Unless you are practicing an IRC ping flood, people should *not* be saying "PONG!" This is a common panic response among employees, and part of the reason for the ping flood drill.
IT staff should also ensure that everyone in the building is mopping properly, and bailing the buckets out of the window, you may halt the drill. In the drill, of course, there will be no actual pings in the buckets, but it's important to have complete realism. Some buildings may have to have their windows knocked out with a chair or piece of computer equipment. The expense is well worth it in the event of an actual ping flood.
Although an actual ping flood can last for hours, you should limit a ping flood drill to no more than 45 minutes, as exhaustion may set in and render employees unable to deal with a real ping flood, should one occur immediately after the drill.
If you are in IT and not practicing this essential drill, you are negligent and irresponsible. If upper management refuses to allow you to stage ping flood drills, it is your moral obligation to do so anyway. When a real ping flood occurs, they will thank you for it.
Cheers
-b
I RUN A DUAL PROCESSOR DESKTOP WITH 3 HARD DRIVES AND I DON'T SEE WHAT ALL THE FUSS IS ABOUT . MY SYSTEM IS VERY VERY QUIET. THE WEIRD THING IS THAT EVERYONE I KNOW SEEMS TO TALK REALLY QUIETLY, TOO.
-b
Ye gods, I should hope my customers would *sue* me if I used the default install of any line-of-business app, without configuring it for their particular needs!
You talk about 80% of web users not changing their home page, but what does that have to do with web site operators? Surely you're not saying you'd run a completely default install of even Apache without at least going over the config files and making sure it's set up to offer the minimum featureset that you need for a particular site?
Right?
-b
Fair enough, and you're right that the other news I cited was of problems less severe.
But in all fairness, when slashdot reports open source problems, it's not with the same gleeful tone that bad news for MS gets. "1 million servers! It could be more!"
As many people have pointed out, anyone reasonably experienced, and any "real" website, isn't vulnerable to this if they followed the best practice of deleting all app mappings that aren't in use. It's like the blank SQL sa password all over again. Easy to get worked up about, pretty much a nonissue for anyone who even halfway knows what they're doing.
I'll be the first to agree that this is both pressing and of widespread concern, but if Slashdot is concerned about being bashed, there are two easy steps to take:
1) Keep the tone about like it is for open source problems, more "Hey, everyone, you really need to patch XXXX" and less "Ha! Microsoft screws up AGAIN! Danger Will Robinson!" Anyone who's been around the block a few times knows that there are problems with ALL software products.
2) Do a touch of research and post what's actually going on currently, rather than one rather effusive press release. There's lots of history with this particular vulnerability -- some of which actually makes microsoft look worse -- so if you're going to be days behind bugtraq, at least bring some value-add editorial context to the whole thing by talking about the patch, MS's response, etc.
I love Slashdot. I just think it gets a bit emotional at times (hey, user posts should be as emotional as they want to be, but it's better when actual stories have a more professional feel).
Cheers
-b
...at least by security standards. It's been all over bugtraq for the past few days.
Maybe I'll write a little app to just forward bugtraq emails which mention Microsoft to slashdot submissions. In case you *don't* follow bugtraq, and security is important to you, here's what else has gone on in the past few days that, oddly enough, will probably not rate slashdot articles:
- Debian sendfile root exploit (updated package available)
- Bugzilla shell exploit (updated info available)
- Iplanet calendar server exposes netscape admin password
- DoS against Novell Border Manager
...there's lots more. That's just in the past two days. But it's not news unless it's Microsoft, eh, folks?
-b
I'll take a stab at this one.
Computer programs can be protected speech because they are the literal representation of an abstract creative idea. The actual letters and numbers that make up computer code is simply the concrete version of some programmer's insight and creativity.
The algorithms and logic in DeCSS are the embodiement of a human being's intent, which includes political and social thought.
Look at it using one of the MPAA's metaphors: courts have conclusively decided that it is possible to infringe on the copyright of a script even if all of the letters and punctiation are different (that is, the infringer paraphrased the original).
It's not about the code as a series of letters and numbers, it's about the expression of creativity that some human had. The code is just the physical manifestation of that creativity. Outlawing particular types of code is paramount to outlawing particular types of thought or speech.
-b
Thanks for the suggestion, but that's not it. I should have mentioned that the addresses are *not* displayed anywhere on the web site, ever.
...this kind of thing really gets my goat. I think I've got an answer, albeit one that's unlikely to be passed any time soon.
What we need is a law that would allow courts to punitively strip intellectual property protections from individuals, companies, and organizations that use those protections in bad faith.
Under my proposal, those who abuse the system would be subject to public domainification not only of the IP in question, but also of other IP they may own.
My law would allow courts to strip IP ownership in the event that any one of the following is true:
- The guilty party is using IP laws to prevent dissemination of critiques of IP. This includes flaws, comparisons with other solutions, historical research, or other legitimate academic or competitive information
- The guilty party *knowingly* sought and received IP protection in bad faith; IE patenting something with advance knowledge of prior art that would disqualify the patent
- The guilty party is, or has a business relationship with, the RIAA
Ok, that last one may not fly, but the first two cases are increasingly common, and go beyond corporate malfeasance and into the area of crimes against the public good. The only way these abuses will stop will be if there are severe penalties levied on those who perpetrate IP abuse.
Cheers
-b
...find a home painted in this stuff, and write obscene things on it with a low power laser, water pistol, etc.
...take a pic of same house on a normal summer day, go to paint store, get custom paint, come back and grafitti house liberally. Invisible today, pretty dramatic when winter comes around.
...get a stepladder, press butt or other anatomy against middle of front door, ring bell, run.
-b
...for at least some websites. One website I run has over 200,000 subscribers. At least once a month we get a rant from some user who uses this method. They go on and on about how we sold their email address to spammers, they're going to sue us, blah blah blah.
But we simply don't do any such thing. I am the only one with access to that data in bulk.
I don't know where someone got that address from; maybe sniffing traffic at some intermediate point, or through a client-side security issue in their browser.
So if you *do* use the alias trick to identify where spam is coming from, keep in mind that it is not fail safe. And if you're going to contact the website in question, try to be reasonably polite and not instantly super-confrontational and threatening, ok?
Cheers
-b
I agree with most of your post, but I have to point out that McCain/Feingold will *not* outlaw corporate lobbying of anyone. People who saw it will are just trying to paint apocalyptic scenarios to scare people into opposing what, in my opinion, is a good bill.
McCain/Feingold will outloaw the use of soft money during elections. It has no bearing whatsoever on inter-election money usage. Yes, it could impact AT&T's ability to sway the next election, but that's the whole point, right?
-b
It is a bit weird, but not without precedent in the real world. Think of mom-and-pop stores that happen to own very desirable property. They have every right to continue to operate their small business on very valuable property. The property is indeed "worth" more than the business. Nothing wrong with that.
-b
You're quite right.
/., so here's the ROT13 version of the site I do work for: obaqntr.pbz
I'm involved with a site that's very much the last of these permutations; legal and quality. Not free, though, for actual pornography (other features are free). Sites like that do indeed exist. No popups, no spam, no CC fraud, nothing. We've lasted 4 years with no temptation to go slimey.
Most of the really big companies (CEN, Cyberotica, iGallery, etc) are 100% legit, but do use popup windows, which I find annoying but not unethical.
I don't want to be seen as promoting a porn site on
-b
Will Slashdot begin posting only hypotetical questions like would space aliens have civil rights?, what OS would best interface with space aliens?, and what would /. be like during war?. Will articles become increasingly self-referential and hypothetical until the only articles posted are idle speculation about whether, if space aliens landed, the only articles /. would post would be about what aliens would think of idle speculation about future /. postings about aliens? This is a burning question, people!