Those sites make money from people with credit cards. Having.sex would make it easier for the clients with the credit cards to find them.
A lot of the existing sites would still keep their current address because their current customers use it, and they would sign up for a.sex address. But new sites would, in my opinion, opt for the.sex instead of the.com or.net or.org addresses because that's where the customers will be going.
Now, to clean up the.com addresses, simply prosecute any company that allows minors to view porn that isn't marked.sex. This includes US companies, Canadian, Europe, etc.
For those companies with.sex, it will be up to the parents or whatever to filter those addresses.
Nice, simple and fairly easy to implement.
Sure, some companies will have.com and move to other countries, but their connections will be slower than the US based ones so they will dwindle anyway.
No, I did not claim that. Tell me what your family issues are so we don't end up playing "revealed knowledge". That's where I say something and you come back with some new "fact" that prevents it. So I say something that takes that new "fact" into account and you come back with another new "fact" that prevents it.
And I do NOT want to hear about "that doesn't pay enough". As long as it pays enough for basic food, shelter and clothing and it's ethical, it meets the criteria.
And THAT was the point. People will do unethical things because they're greedy. They value money and material possessions over other things.
"I cannot relocate from Fort Wayne because of family issues."
And that's another of your problems. You can relocate. You just don't want to make the sacrifices and commitments required for you to relocate.
You can break it down however you want to, but the end result is still a false dichotomy.
Feed your children
-OR-
Work for an unethical company
You've pointed out what appears to be a false dilemma in that I haven't justified the "no 'ethical' employer willing to hire you at a living wage exists" premiss.
That is so.
A "no $foo exists" premise often comes from a lack-of-imagination fallacy.
And examples of this can be found here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_by_lack_of_i magination
I think you're using that backwards. I'm saying that there EXISTS a job with an ethical employer.
You're saying that there IS NOT a job with an ethical employer.
I'll confess to such an appeal to ignorance in this premiss, but remember that such appeals are not fallacies when one can show that the cost of obtaining such information exceeds one's resources.
But you haven't shown that. All you've done is state it as a condition.
I'll use the polar bear example from that page. Your position would be that it isn't a fallacy if you set the condition that there is only one use for camouflage.
The same with the job search. You're trying to set conditions such that there are no jobs that he is capable of finding.
It is a false dichotomy even if you attempt to set criteria that would result in only two choices because your criteria are false.
In the belief system of khasim, is it "ethical" to stop supporting your children just because you found out your employer is no longer "ethical", and no employer willing to hire you at a rate sufficient to support your children is "ethical" either?
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/eitheror.html
I am sure that there are employers who would hire me that I consider to be "ethical" who would pay me enough.
"I bet you'd hire someone that didn't quite fit your needs knowing fully that you'd fire them later if a better suited individual came along if your company couldn't otherwise function without someone in the position."
Nope. I'd only fire someone if they couldn't or wouldn't do the job. Then I'd post the job, then I'd start interviewing.
We've only had to fire one person in the past 3 years and that was because he refused to work with the rest of the team. The person we hired to replace him had no prior contact with anyone at our company before the job was posted.
Seems that you're wrong.
"So why is it o.k. for you to put your company's needs ahead of your employees and not o.k. for them to do the very same thing?"
Your initial supposition was incorrect.
Because I would not hire someone knowing I would be firing them when I could get a better deal, I would not hire someone who would quit when he could get a better deal.
It seems that you're attempting to justify that behaviour on the part of the employee by claiming that they would be treated the same way by the company. That is not the case.
Then that is what is important to you. Is it more important than ethical behaviour?
"...but most of these situations are a lot more subtle,..."
No, they're not. But most people haven't really examined their belief system so things appear subtle that are not. But many people's belief system boils down to greed. They will do just about anything if you pay them enough.
If they're looking for a job BEFORE they lose their job at SCO, that's one thing.
If they're in debt that bad, they could be a risk. Do they have a gambling problem?
Health insurance is tricky. They can continue their coverage in many cases, but they'll have to pay for it.
That's why being proactive is important. I don't want some idiot who can't see what's coming because he's too busy worrying about his gambling debts.
If his life is THAT complicated (high debts, sick family member, etc) then he NEEDS to be proactive and he NEEDS to be interviewing now instead of HOPING that something good will happen with SCO.
If you have bills to pay and a sick wife to look after, and your job MIGHT be gone in 6 months.......Would it be MORE responsible of you to look for another job NOW or 6 months down the road?
If you have all those qualifications and you're willing to work cheap, I will presume that you'll still be interviewing while you're working for me and that you'll take the first job that offers you more money.
If you're over-qualified, then you'll have to explain to me why you're not seeking employment and compensation more in line with your experience level.
I don't want people who are just working here so they can pay the rent while they look for better paying jobs.
I've worked for far less than I could have made. But that was for a non-profit organization.
There's a big difference between leaving when you can still claim moral justification and leaving when they finally kick you out.
I wouldn't have a problem with hiring someone who worked for SCO if they were looking for a job now. But I'd have a different opinion if they were looking after SCO goes broke (or whatever happens).
I only saw a couple instances of the BIOS being attacked and I ended up tossing the motherboards both times. I couldn't get anything to re-flash the chip. Wouldn't putting it in a different motherboard be the same because the BIOS is in charge of controlling the boot order?
I wouldn't risk moving a chip into a motherboard that is already up and running. I'd be worried about damaging that motherboard and ending up with two dead systems.
If it is not good for Linux, then it shouldn't be done.
After all, Linux runs on just about EVERY platform out there. From wrist watches to mainframes.
So, if there is something about this solution that RESTRICTS Linux's access, then isn't that sufficient warning that there are problems in this "solution"?
Is it possible to get the benefits proposed by this solution WITHOUT those restrictions?
Its sad, because I had always thought computer people always look for the best way to do things. Unfortunately, computer people are just like everyone else, and all too willing to accept the status quo.
Most of us do. But each person has a different idea of what is the "best way" to do something. That's why we have KDE and GNOME and all the others. That's why we have all those editors.
You list shorter boot times and better power savings. It appears that these are important to you. It appears that Linux compatibility is less important to you than those.
To others, that is reversed. They view Linux compatibility as more imporant than shorter boot times and better power savings.
Does that make them "wrong"?
You're posting on a pro-Linux site, asking why a solution that restricts Linux isn't popular here. While on a Microsoft-centric site, the response would be different.
It's all ones and zeros. There is no "right" or "wrong". Only design decisions based upon someone's criteria.
You're looking at figures from the PAST to counter an article about how Microsoft is hitting a tipping point in the PRESENT which will result in fewer Microsoft products in the FUTURE.
Now, if those stats you linked to showed that Linux had 42% of the market, then Microsoft would have hit the tipping point a couple of years or more in the PAST.
To put it another way, once, Internet Explorer had ZERO market share. Netscape had LOTS of marketshare.
Then Internet Explorer had 1% of the market. Still Netscape had LOTS of the market.
So, by your logic, Netscape would still be the leading browser.
But there was a "tipping point". That was the date when Microsoft required all the OEM's to put IE on the desktop and told them that they could not remove it or replace it with Netscape on the desktop.
Now, that's an easy example because it is between two products and it hinges on a single event.
Microsoft's business is far more complex. But a lot is happening and you're starting to see some of the effects. The most glaring one being Microsoft's financial report.
That was what the article was about. Not whether Linux has more desktop share than Apple accourding to Google's stats.
#1. Even if Gates did buy up all the publicly traded Linux companies, so what? Read the GPL and you'll see why he isn't even attempting to do this.
#2. No, it does not make "one very hard to "tipover"." It just means that there have to be a lot of factors that have to coincide. Microsoft has saturated the desktop market. They have to find ways to continue selling their product to people who have already purchased it. That is difficult to do.
#3. Those are financial analysts that you're quoting. Microsoft's stock price is $27.21, but that is less than HALF of what it was. Go to the 5 year chart and see the pattern. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=MSFT&t=5 y&l=on&z=m &q=l&c=
#4. No, there isn't a "real battleground". Microsoft will lose their desktop monopoly right before Microsoft ends. But there are a LOT of steps prior to that. And Microsoft may be able to re-design itself before then.
#5. There's no need to hope. Just check out Munich. Microsoft kept cutting its price when they looked like they were SERIOUSLY considering Linux.
For all the money that MS spends on R&D, they have ZERO items to show for it.
Every single Microsoft product was either purchased or copied from somewhere else.
You'd think that with that much money being spent on R&D that you would see SOMETHING new come out. Something that isn't simply derivative of another product. Something that has not been produced before.
Before you roll something out into production, you hammer on it for a while. The crappy parts will fail or generate errors and you can have them replaced.
In my experience, most of the no-moving-parts hardware will fail within the first week, or last for years and years.
The stuff with moving parts will eventually fail. But that's harder to predict.
One of them went to Verisign and asked for info to be sent to his corporate account and then dumped the resulting email into the "spam folder" I have setup for feeding SpamAssassin.
If I had not caught it, SpamAssassin would have up'ed the ranking on similar emails from Verisign.
My point is that I cannot trust my users to understand what is "spam" and what is not. So I accept just about everything (SpamAssassin deletes at 15+ which weeds out the most obnoxious spam) and flags it "ooo_SPAM_ooo" and then drops it in their inbox.
In the past, they have dumped the following into the "spam folder": Their eBay account info Email from their bank (complete with userID) PayPal crap (again, with userID)
And it isn't just the users. I have to keep two entries in my local DNS system to handle two companies that we deal with that have admins that refuse to setup their email servers and DNS entries correctly.
I swear that there is something about email that makes people stupid.
I like the idea of slowing down the sending of email by half a second or even 1 second. 10 seconds is a bit much. My company sends out a lot of messages on some days and I'd prefer that they didn't have to wait 8+ hours to actually be sent. (Only so many threads running the mail process and each one has to wait X seconds.)
I just don't have much hope that the admins out there will correctly upgrade their servers to handle this (there are a lot of them out there that still operate open relays which the spammers use) nor that the users will be able to correctly operate a "friends list".
If the "friends list" is at the user level, then the Internet connection is still being used by all that spam.
Maybe I just have to find smarter end-users. Yeah. That would solve most of these problems.
Oh, I almost forgot to mention, the guy who put the Verisign email in the spam folder also signed up on all kinds of sites like that stupid high school classmates one with his CORPORATE EMAIL ADDRESS so he's constantly bombarded with spam. Another woman was replying to the spam she was getting so she's in the same situation.
Yet if I were to bludgeon them, I would be the bad guy.
I like the idea, but unless EVERYONE who sends you legitimate email upgrades their servers to handle this, you'll still have the spam problem. If you make exceptions for non-upgraded legit email, then the spammers will adapt to those exceptions.
Also, from the article, there isn't any mention of how a 10 second delay would be handled by the receiving server. Without understanding that, this process would turn become an instant DoS attack. How many 10 second connections can your server keep open while the calculations are done?
Handling the spam problem will be a bit complicated and take a few years of upgrading the infra-structure.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess she decided she could make more money with her body than her brains.
Those sites make money from people with credit cards. Having .sex would make it easier for the clients with the credit cards to find them.
.sex address. But new sites would, in my opinion, opt for the .sex instead of the .com or .net or .org addresses because that's where the customers will be going.
.com addresses, simply prosecute any company that allows minors to view porn that isn't marked .sex. This includes US companies, Canadian, Europe, etc.
.sex, it will be up to the parents or whatever to filter those addresses.
.com and move to other countries, but their connections will be slower than the US based ones so they will dwindle anyway.
A lot of the existing sites would still keep their current address because their current customers use it, and they would sign up for a
Now, to clean up the
For those companies with
Nice, simple and fairly easy to implement.
Sure, some companies will have
You can't relocate because you are living with your parents.
Join the Coast Guard.
It pays, you have food, shelter and clothing and you're performing a worthwhile service (saving people's lives).
I don't give a damn what your degree is in or whether you can find work in that field.
You can get your student loans defered.
Again, you only think that you don't have options because you're focusing on other criteria.
No, I did not claim that. Tell me what your family issues are so we don't end up playing "revealed knowledge". That's where I say something and you come back with some new "fact" that prevents it. So I say something that takes that new "fact" into account and you come back with another new "fact" that prevents it.
e ds /employment/
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/fortwayne/classifi
And I do NOT want to hear about "that doesn't pay enough". As long as it pays enough for basic food, shelter and clothing and it's ethical, it meets the criteria.
And THAT was the point. People will do unethical things because they're greedy. They value money and material possessions over other things.
"I cannot relocate from Fort Wayne because of family issues."
And that's another of your problems. You can relocate. You just don't want to make the sacrifices and commitments required for you to relocate.
Feed your children
-OR-
Work for an unethical company
That is so.
And examples of this can be found here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_by_lack_of_
I think you're using that backwards. I'm saying that there EXISTS a job with an ethical employer.
You're saying that there IS NOT a job with an ethical employer.
But you haven't shown that. All you've done is state it as a condition.
I'll use the polar bear example from that page. Your position would be that it isn't a fallacy if you set the condition that there is only one use for camouflage.
The same with the job search. You're trying to set conditions such that there are no jobs that he is capable of finding.
It is a false dichotomy even if you attempt to set criteria that would result in only two choices because your criteria are false.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/eitheror.html
I am sure that there are employers who would hire me that I consider to be "ethical" who would pay me enough.
"I bet you'd hire someone that didn't quite fit your needs knowing fully that you'd fire them later if a better suited individual came along if your company couldn't otherwise function without someone in the position."
Nope. I'd only fire someone if they couldn't or wouldn't do the job. Then I'd post the job, then I'd start interviewing.
We've only had to fire one person in the past 3 years and that was because he refused to work with the rest of the team. The person we hired to replace him had no prior contact with anyone at our company before the job was posted.
Seems that you're wrong.
"So why is it o.k. for you to put your company's needs ahead of your employees and not o.k. for them to do the very same thing?"
Your initial supposition was incorrect.
Because I would not hire someone knowing I would be firing them when I could get a better deal, I would not hire someone who would quit when he could get a better deal.
It seems that you're attempting to justify that behaviour on the part of the employee by claiming that they would be treated the same way by the company. That is not the case.
I want people who are working to make this the best company there is.
"well, if you want a family,..."
Then that is what is important to you. Is it more important than ethical behaviour?
"...but most of these situations are a lot more subtle,..."
No, they're not. But most people haven't really examined their belief system so things appear subtle that are not. But many people's belief system boils down to greed. They will do just about anything if you pay them enough.
If they're looking for a job BEFORE they lose their job at SCO, that's one thing.
...Would it be MORE responsible of you to look for another job NOW or 6 months down the road?
If they're in debt that bad, they could be a risk. Do they have a gambling problem?
Health insurance is tricky. They can continue their coverage in many cases, but they'll have to pay for it.
That's why being proactive is important. I don't want some idiot who can't see what's coming because he's too busy worrying about his gambling debts.
If his life is THAT complicated (high debts, sick family member, etc) then he NEEDS to be proactive and he NEEDS to be interviewing now instead of HOPING that something good will happen with SCO.
If you have bills to pay and a sick wife to look after, and your job MIGHT be gone in 6 months....
Linux's development model is "Open Source".
You can go back through and find out WHO submitted that code and WHEN it was submitted and in WHAT form it was originally submitted.
A lot of the stuff in Linux was originally submitted in very crude form and polished afterwards.
Tracking code in Linux is easy.
If you have all those qualifications and you're willing to work cheap, I will presume that you'll still be interviewing while you're working for me and that you'll take the first job that offers you more money.
If you're over-qualified, then you'll have to explain to me why you're not seeking employment and compensation more in line with your experience level.
I don't want people who are just working here so they can pay the rent while they look for better paying jobs.
I've worked for far less than I could have made. But that was for a non-profit organization.
There's a big difference between leaving when you can still claim moral justification and leaving when they finally kick you out.
I wouldn't have a problem with hiring someone who worked for SCO if they were looking for a job now. But I'd have a different opinion if they were looking after SCO goes broke (or whatever happens).
I only saw a couple instances of the BIOS being attacked and I ended up tossing the motherboards both times. I couldn't get anything to re-flash the chip. Wouldn't putting it in a different motherboard be the same because the BIOS is in charge of controlling the boot order?
I wouldn't risk moving a chip into a motherboard that is already up and running. I'd be worried about damaging that motherboard and ending up with two dead systems.
After all, Linux runs on just about EVERY platform out there. From wrist watches to mainframes.
So, if there is something about this solution that RESTRICTS Linux's access, then isn't that sufficient warning that there are problems in this "solution"?
Is it possible to get the benefits proposed by this solution WITHOUT those restrictions?
Most of us do. But each person has a different idea of what is the "best way" to do something. That's why we have KDE and GNOME and all the others. That's why we have all those editors.
You list shorter boot times and better power savings. It appears that these are important to you. It appears that Linux compatibility is less important to you than those.
To others, that is reversed. They view Linux compatibility as more imporant than shorter boot times and better power savings.
Does that make them "wrong"?
You're posting on a pro-Linux site, asking why a solution that restricts Linux isn't popular here. While on a Microsoft-centric site, the response would be different.
It's all ones and zeros. There is no "right" or "wrong". Only design decisions based upon someone's criteria.
You're looking at figures from the PAST to counter an article about how Microsoft is hitting a tipping point in the PRESENT which will result in fewer Microsoft products in the FUTURE.
Now, if those stats you linked to showed that Linux had 42% of the market, then Microsoft would have hit the tipping point a couple of years or more in the PAST.
To put it another way, once, Internet Explorer had ZERO market share. Netscape had LOTS of marketshare.
Then Internet Explorer had 1% of the market. Still Netscape had LOTS of the market.
So, by your logic, Netscape would still be the leading browser.
But there was a "tipping point". That was the date when Microsoft required all the OEM's to put IE on the desktop and told them that they could not remove it or replace it with Netscape on the desktop.
Now, that's an easy example because it is between two products and it hinges on a single event.
Microsoft's business is far more complex. But a lot is happening and you're starting to see some of the effects. The most glaring one being Microsoft's financial report.
That was what the article was about. Not whether Linux has more desktop share than Apple accourding to Google's stats.
#1. Even if Gates did buy up all the publicly traded Linux companies, so what? Read the GPL and you'll see why he isn't even attempting to do this.
5 y&l=on&z=m &q=l&c=
#2. No, it does not make "one very hard to "tipover"." It just means that there have to be a lot of factors that have to coincide. Microsoft has saturated the desktop market. They have to find ways to continue selling their product to people who have already purchased it. That is difficult to do.
#3. Those are financial analysts that you're quoting. Microsoft's stock price is $27.21, but that is less than HALF of what it was. Go to the 5 year chart and see the pattern.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=MSFT&t=
#4. No, there isn't a "real battleground". Microsoft will lose their desktop monopoly right before Microsoft ends. But there are a LOT of steps prior to that. And Microsoft may be able to re-design itself before then.
#5. There's no need to hope. Just check out Munich. Microsoft kept cutting its price when they looked like they were SERIOUSLY considering Linux.
For all the money that MS spends on R&D, they have ZERO items to show for it.
Every single Microsoft product was either purchased or copied from somewhere else.
You'd think that with that much money being spent on R&D that you would see SOMETHING new come out. Something that isn't simply derivative of another product. Something that has not been produced before.
I don't think so. Either way, you'll have to pay for an admin.
If those companies had signed up for the new license, then they would still be paying Microsoft.
#1. Open Source is part of the equation. It allows companies that do sign with Microsoft to get huge discounts.
#2. Other companies do not upgrade their old Microsoft products. But they may have problems getting licenses for those products in the future.
#3. Other companies have migrated all or a portion of their systems to Open Source products.
#4. Microsoft's other products are losing money.
It is a bit complicated. There isn't any single factor. And that is why Microsoft is having such a hard time dealing with it.
Before you roll something out into production, you hammer on it for a while. The crappy parts will fail or generate errors and you can have them replaced.
In my experience, most of the no-moving-parts hardware will fail within the first week, or last for years and years.
The stuff with moving parts will eventually fail. But that's harder to predict.
One of them went to Verisign and asked for info to be sent to his corporate account and then dumped the resulting email into the "spam folder" I have setup for feeding SpamAssassin.
If I had not caught it, SpamAssassin would have up'ed the ranking on similar emails from Verisign.
My point is that I cannot trust my users to understand what is "spam" and what is not. So I accept just about everything (SpamAssassin deletes at 15+ which weeds out the most obnoxious spam) and flags it "ooo_SPAM_ooo" and then drops it in their inbox.
In the past, they have dumped the following into the "spam folder":
Their eBay account info
Email from their bank (complete with userID)
PayPal crap (again, with userID)
And it isn't just the users. I have to keep two entries in my local DNS system to handle two companies that we deal with that have admins that refuse to setup their email servers and DNS entries correctly.
I swear that there is something about email that makes people stupid.
I like the idea of slowing down the sending of email by half a second or even 1 second. 10 seconds is a bit much. My company sends out a lot of messages on some days and I'd prefer that they didn't have to wait 8+ hours to actually be sent. (Only so many threads running the mail process and each one has to wait X seconds.)
I just don't have much hope that the admins out there will correctly upgrade their servers to handle this (there are a lot of them out there that still operate open relays which the spammers use) nor that the users will be able to correctly operate a "friends list".
If the "friends list" is at the user level, then the Internet connection is still being used by all that spam.
Maybe I just have to find smarter end-users. Yeah. That would solve most of these problems.
Oh, I almost forgot to mention, the guy who put the Verisign email in the spam folder also signed up on all kinds of sites like that stupid high school classmates one with his CORPORATE EMAIL ADDRESS so he's constantly bombarded with spam. Another woman was replying to the spam she was getting so she's in the same situation.
Yet if I were to bludgeon them, I would be the bad guy.
I like the idea, but unless EVERYONE who sends you legitimate email upgrades their servers to handle this, you'll still have the spam problem. If you make exceptions for non-upgraded legit email, then the spammers will adapt to those exceptions.
Also, from the article, there isn't any mention of how a 10 second delay would be handled by the receiving server. Without understanding that, this process would turn become an instant DoS attack. How many 10 second connections can your server keep open while the calculations are done?
Handling the spam problem will be a bit complicated and take a few years of upgrading the infra-structure.
I'm not too thrilled with the reliability of their drives, but they do make replacing the defective ones very easy.
h tm
http://www.maxtor.com/en/support/service/index.
Then just start following the right links to see if you're still under warranty.
Lots of luck with the new drive.
Maxtor does have a very nice RMA system online. Hop over there and see if your drive is still under warranty (100GB probably is).
I've returned a lot of Maxtor drives. They're fast and efficient.