That's the beauty of it: GoogleTalk doesn't need to be open source. Because it uses an open protocol, we can make our own tools to communicate with it, rather being stuck with Google's.
So you are suggesting that a crowd of several hundred people (the kind that propably make Comcast's list of excessive downloaders) share a measly ~1.5Mbps?
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses ( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected (*) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks ( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it ( ) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it (*) The police will not put up with it ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists (*) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
(*) Laws expressly prohibiting it ( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email (*) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses (*) Asshats (*) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email ( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches (*) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Sending email should be free ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I don't want the government reading my email (*) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(*) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
The seizure often interferes with the recording of memory, probably because it is messing with the replay of memory at the same time, so it is difficult to report exactly what the experience consists of after the event, beyond a simple outline.
Lose your CPU?
Although you probably wouldn't mind afterwards.
Re:A couple of annoying things I've found so far
on
Google Chrome, Day 2
·
· Score: 1
In Firefox, there's a search field right next to the address bar
It's actually kinda conveniant. Google searches from the address bar and Wikipedia/Dictionary.com/Debian package searches (the less used ones) from the search bar.
Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome
on
Google Chrome, Day 2
·
· Score: 1
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.0.1) Gecko/2008070208 Firefox/3.0.1
...the EULA should be in plain, easily readable to any high school student English (that last bit brings up other issues on the quality of the education system but that's an argument for another day)
I checked Yahoo's Privacy policy. It's so easy to read that I am embarrassed about it being at the level we want our high school graduates to be.
Slashdot Mirror
A laval newt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt
Where you banned for violating Puppy Linux's trademark?
You should only need 42.
Congratulations. You rooted a honeypot VM.
The RIAA is totally irrelevant in this story.
It's not even in the same country.
I hope so. Better than finding a lawsuit in the mail one day.
Fellow geeks. Mario cannot 'improve' your sex life.
How do you know? None of us have one to be improved.
...and have more than 40 domains pointing to 0.0.0.0 in my router's hosts file, including stuff like Google Analytics.
Only 40? There are some good host files available online. 6900+ entries.
Here's the relevant section:
Good thing I spotted this line, or else I would have been guilty of reading part of TFA.
What does this have to do with Yandex?
You don't see many people boycotting Google for the war in Iraq.
That's the beauty of it: GoogleTalk doesn't need to be open source. Because it uses an open protocol, we can make our own tools to communicate with it, rather being stuck with Google's.
So you are suggesting that a crowd of several hundred people (the kind that propably make Comcast's list of excessive downloaders) share a measly ~1.5Mbps?
I blame the fine print. They are so verbose that you could be agreeing to anything.
You know AT&T is going to abuse the rules. Bring along some CDs to burn and mail home next time.
Hell, fill them with enough guns and they could just put them in international waters.
That's one long fiber-optic cord you are proposing. Somehow I doubt people would put up with satellite's latency.
yet she does not believe in evolution
I think she may be confusing evolution with abiogenesis. Most people do.
Talk about being ungrateful, rude and anti-social!
Well, this is Slashdot...
Your post advocates a
( ) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based (*) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
(*) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
(*) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
(*) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
(*) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
(*) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(*) Asshats
(*) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
(*) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
(*) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(*) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!
Get off of my WiFi!
The seizure often interferes with the recording of memory, probably because it is messing with the replay of memory at the same time, so it is difficult to report exactly what the experience consists of after the event, beyond a simple outline.
Kinda like dreams?
Lose your CPU? Although you probably wouldn't mind afterwards.
In Firefox, there's a search field right next to the address bar
It's actually kinda conveniant. Google searches from the address bar and Wikipedia/Dictionary.com/Debian package searches (the less used ones) from the search bar.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.0.1) Gecko/2008070208 Firefox/3.0.1
Heretic!
...the EULA should be in plain, easily readable to any high school student English (that last bit brings up other issues on the quality of the education system but that's an argument for another day)
I checked Yahoo's Privacy policy. It's so easy to read that I am embarrassed about it being at the level we want our high school graduates to be.
GGP's post shows what gravity is doing to the brackets.