I'm going to have to call fake. I doubt a real attorney would even bother to answer that email. Plus have you ever seen a lawyer be so concise in their writing?
Umm, you are crawling MY site for YOUR profit, you do as I say, not the other way around.
No offense dude, but you are the one who put the site out their publically. Now if they are DoSing you then you have a valid complaint but robots.txt is just there as a friendly suggestion. I can write a search bot today that completely ignores it and there is nothing wrong with that (except perhaps ethically but even that is arguable) If you don't want people (or bots) viewing it then password protect it or take it off the public interweb.
Are you insinuating that RS/6000s are cheap? Price them lately?
Besides, if you have an rs6k and probably also have AIX, just learn that. As of 5.2 it is quite friendly to Linux users (and lots of Linux packages available).
DRM is a fundamentally flawed concept. The only implementations of it that exist involve basically turning the concept of public key cryptography upside down. Giving someone a private key with which to decrypt data but then trying to prevent the user from ever coming in contact with that key is just silly.
The way it is SUPPOSED to work is the owner of the key is the only one who controls it and nobody else ever comes in contact with it. The way DRM is supposed to work is by having the content producers control what you can and cannot do with your own private key, and try to keep it from you.
This is why DRM (in its current form) is so easily (and constantly) broken and also why it will never work in an OSS implementation. Even strong proponants of DRM (you can find them at the Digital Identity World conference pontificating about how great DRM will be for the computer industry) admit that someone will be able to break it, they just want to keep everyone from breaking it. Of course once one person breaks it it and unencumbered media is released, then it is all over anyway.
Regardless, it is a dumb treaty as written. Congress will never pass it (in fact has already been unanimously voted against by every republician and democrat, like Kerry, in the senate). I don't know why Bush gets all the blame for what Congress is responsable for (like treaties, assualy weapon ban, etc).
There are religious morons on both sides. There are also black morons on both sides, and while morons on both sides. The problem is not religion, the problem is not morons. It is a difference of opinion.
It is also a lack of information. The "stupid rednecks" that the left hates are not unreasonable people. They just have different priorities that do not include inherently distrusting mainstream media and searching out "the truth" in alternative and foreign media.
Foxnews and CNN are not presenting them with all the information they need to make their decision, but since they have no reason to believe that is the case (and do not obsessivly follow news becasue they are busy doing thinks like raising families, working, providing the whiny elitist demographic with good and services they could not provide themselves, etc). If you really want to change their minds, subtly introducing them to other ideas and opinions would be a much better approach than calling them stupid NASCAR watching rednecks who don't know anything.
(not attacking your specifically, just the arguments and comments I hear coming from the left after this election)
Excellent plan, call yourselves the open-minded and inclusive party then label anyone who does not agree with you a religious moron. I honestly cannot imagine why the Democratic Party is not more popular.
Everything I have read and everyone I have talked to said there is no spyware in skype (as they claim). It is easy to check, spyware would communicate with the mothership somehow, just run a packet sniffer.
What leads you to believe it has spyware? Because the Kazaa guys wrote it? Any actual evidence?
As long as we no longer have democracy by the minority of the mega corporations being the only ones allowed to pick the viable candidates- this is the best we can hope for.
ONLY when we finally figure out that it's not a good idea to allow corporations to donate money to politicians, will we once again have a democracy- until that happens, your method of refusing to participate in the game will only insure that the corporations will contine to have carte blanche on whatever they want to pass.
I am not advocating not voting, I am advocating not voting for people who will just make things worse. Which of the two major candidates do you believe will do anything positive about the problem of corporations having undue influence on governement? Kerry (and the democrats in general) just has a different sent of corporate influences that own him.
You may believe that is what would happen if Kerry were president, but it is all just speculation, as is my belief. What it boils down to with Kerry is the same for me as Bush, I don't like his politics. The only difference between us is that I do not believe it is so important to get Bush out of office that I would want someone like Kerry in it. Don't get me wrong, I want Bush out of office, just not at any cost.
I don't buy that Bush believes he is some messenger of God (and a nytimes article is not going to convince me). He is a power hungry puppet who is falling all over himself to use the US to help those who put him into power (his Dad's and VP's companies, not to mention the Saudis). Now Ashcroft, I'll buy that about him, but I can't help but think the religious angle from Bush is just another ploy to garner support from the ultra right (like the "out of nowhere" marriage amendment).
Also, lets put this in prespective. I am a conservative, at least fiscally. Socially I am pretty much all over the map but I would say I am mostly liberal in this area. Last time I voted for Bush because I believed him to be the lesser of two evils. Al "Clipper Chip" Gore was certainly no friend of the security and cryptography industry and that is where I live. As an aside, imagine how betrayed a fiscial conservative feels having supported Bush at one time? The Economist is probably as good an example of this as any.
So if I choose to vote my conscious because I already got burned playing the lesser of two evils game, I am not hurting Kerry I am hurting Bush. You ought to be happy about that. Perhaps if Kerry wins and it turns out he is the corrupt politician I think he is; who will not follow through on any of his rhetoric or end up any better for the US in the long run, you will grow tired of voting for known evil as well. Hopefully that will not be the case but I think I have lost all hope in getting anything positive out of either major party at this point. Look at both of them, do either actually have anyone you think would make a good or even decent president, not just a "less evil" one? It amazes me how much everyone rationalizes the rampant corruption and lack of integrity of those they support just because it is so important to beat the "other guy". Are we happy with this situation or do we just believe we can do nothing to affect it so we will continue to play the little game they provide for us?
This will only change when a critical mass decides to stop going "I really dislike both parties and want the government to change but this election is too important so maybe I will vote for who I really believe in next time" For many on the left, that time was the 2000 election. For many on the right that time is this election. So the law of unintended consequences means that we will end up with people we don't like in office. Real change is never easy, and you have to make a stand somewhere or you just keep playing their games while they play us like puppets.
Damn I get long winded when I am tired.
Finkployd
(I'm going to be offline for a few days, if we continue this it will have to be on monday)
Funny, I said the same thing when it was Gore and Bush in 2000, I didn't vote and said at the time, that if I did vote I would have voted for Nader, since Bush and Gore are the same thing. Now I look back at my younger foolish self and shake my head at my idiotic assumptions. the proverb "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." best describes my situation. I have learned from my mistake and will not repeat it, do you really want to look back 4 years from now and shake your head in regret over what you could have done to change things?
I have the same outlook, but for different reason. See last time I DID vote for what I considered the lesser of two evils. I had a multitude of reasons not to like Gore (his clipper chip mess not the least of which) and therefor considered Bush to be the lesser of two evils.
I learned from my mistake and will not repeat it, I am no longer voting for evil, lesser or not.
but if you actually believe that they are identical, that which of them wins will not have a profound effect on the world -- then you are either living in a cave, or are blinded by ideology.
And you are blinded by rhetoric. Sure there are differences. They each say they will do things very differently. In their actions though that are quite similar. A profound effect on the world? What do you think Kerry is going to do differently? Until running for the Presidency he practically supported Bush in every crappy decision he has made. Only recently has he tried to creat differences. It is all just so much campaign speech.
If nothing else, Kerry believes in making decisions based on discernable reality, and Bush believes that we are an empire that can create its own reality, because we're armed to the teeth and on a mission from God. That difference alone is profound.
First up, they both are career politicians, they make decisions entirely based on what will be good for their political career, nothing more. But let's pretend either has integrity....
Ok, so their thought processes are different. If this translates into differences in action why do we not see it? They both supported the war in Iraq, they both are opposed to gay marriage, they both supported the Patriot act.
Or maybe I'm wrong. Just look at how effective the libertarians have been running their prez candidates for the last umpteen years: our civil liberties have never been safer! (There was that little trifle about habeus corpus, but who needed due process of law anyway?)
Interesting you would pick that topic, please show me where Kerry has a better record on civil liberties than Bush. Heck in recent days his speaches have become more "let's beat those bad terrorists" and "we will never back down" to the point where they might as well have the same speech writer.
Until we start using a more intelligent algorithm for casting and counting votes, third parties in national elections will remain a losing proposition.
Maybe, but as I think the state of the union will suck under either I am at least going to cast my ballot in such a way that I do not feel dirty on Nov 2nd.
Frankly this is the only halfway decent reason for voting for either of these two I have heard.
But think about it...The best solution is to force gridlock so that all those we elected are the most powerless to do anything? That is what we consider best for the USA, to put people in power for the purpose of blocking those others we have put into power?
Is that not he saddest thing ever, that THIS is what we aspire to? If it were not real it would be too funny and outlandish to pass as fiction.
I refuse to participate in that game, and will vote for who comes closest to me in my opinions and beliefs. If my doing so means the "wrong" candidate ends up in the whitehouse, so be it. When both are wrong at least I can walk away from this mess without feeling dirty.
Let me guess, you are not gay, you are not colored, you are not female, you are not poor, you are not uneducated, you are not uninsured, and you are not unemployeed.
It's no wonder a person such as yourself would think the two are the same.
And tell me, friend, what empty promises did the privileged, skull n bones frat boy from Yale make to you? What leads you to believe he is just not playing you to be elected and has no intention of following through (of course with some excuse, likely blaming the other party and continuing the cycle)?
Was Bush a hero to the uneducated? Has "no child left behind" make any tangible difference, or is it so much useless fluff?
Was Clinton, reveared by half of the country as the best president ever, a hero to the gays? Did he follow through with his promise to end the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military? Did he legalize gay mariage or even civil unions? Was he a model for equality of women, did he do anything to help their cause? Do we have the universal health insurance we were promised?
And Reagan, reveared by the other half of the country as the best president ever, did he turn this country around economically? Did he make us more fiscally responsible and lower the debt? Did he usher in a new "sustainable" (anyone can boost the economy temporarily, or rely on an internet stock bubble) economy? Did trickle down economics help the poor?
So you, the gay, poor, colored, female, uneducated, uninsured, and unemployed voter, who thinks that Kerry will save you. You are a deluded sheep. You will get nothing from him but you will rationalize it as the fault of the other party, and work that much harder to ensure than another corrupt, entrenched democrat gets elected in hopes that maybe he will some day follow through on the promises that the others have broken.
And you, the educated, successful, conservative, white, straight, and terrorist fearing voter. You are also a deluded sheep. You will continue to believe that tax cuts are the only thing that can save the economy. You will proudly proclaim that we must be ever viligant against the forces of terror and evil in this world, completely ignoring the damage that a misguided, ill-conceived, and impossible to win war is causing. Not realizing that not only is it a sideshow for the ignorant masses to watch and cheer for, but the single best tool those would harm us have to recruit into their ranks.
Of course, half of what I said was correct and half was lies and deceit right? I am just a random voice on the internet who does not know what he is talking about. Of course the two candidates are different. You will find the slightest difference in their actions or worse, just their empty words and magnify these differences until in your eyes one is Ghandi and the other is the devil. And who would ever vote for the devil? We must do all we can to make sure he does not win this election. It does not matter who you vote for as long as it is not him, so vote for the one with the best chance of beating him.
Sheep. But then, sheep do not proudly decide which wolf will ruin them, out of fear of the other wolf.
Slashdot Mirror
no its just the most pupolar site with MORE THAN in its content.
What does it take to make a pupolar site?
I'm going to have to call fake. I doubt a real attorney would even bother to answer that email. Plus have you ever seen a lawyer be so concise in their writing?
It suddenly felt as if a million server threads cried out in pain and were suddenly silenced.
And then there is Active Driectory....oops that is just a ripped off DCE. What about DCOM? Oh that is DCERPC minus the security.
That they put google up there as the number one search result is not that surprising. What gets me is they have themselves at number four.
Umm, you are crawling MY site for YOUR profit, you do as I say, not the other way around.
No offense dude, but you are the one who put the site out their publically. Now if they are DoSing you then you have a valid complaint but robots.txt is just there as a friendly suggestion. I can write a search bot today that completely ignores it and there is nothing wrong with that (except perhaps ethically but even that is arguable) If you don't want people (or bots) viewing it then password protect it or take it off the public interweb.
Well, that kind of business practice would be completely out of character for Microsoft.
This is a non-story. A good Slashdot headline will be when they get caught actually NOT doing something like this.
Microsoft Has Original Idea and Implements it By Themselves
From the 70%-of-slashdot-editors-suffered-heart-attacks -reading-this-submission Dept.
Are you insinuating that RS/6000s are cheap? Price them lately?
Besides, if you have an rs6k and probably also have AIX, just learn that. As of 5.2 it is quite friendly to Linux users (and lots of Linux packages available).
Smit is your friend
Finkployd
DRM is a fundamentally flawed concept. The only implementations of it that exist involve basically turning the concept of public key cryptography upside down. Giving someone a private key with which to decrypt data but then trying to prevent the user from ever coming in contact with that key is just silly.
The way it is SUPPOSED to work is the owner of the key is the only one who controls it and nobody else ever comes in contact with it. The way DRM is supposed to work is by having the content producers control what you can and cannot do with your own private key, and try to keep it from you.
This is why DRM (in its current form) is so easily (and constantly) broken and also why it will never work in an OSS implementation. Even strong proponants of DRM (you can find them at the Digital Identity World conference pontificating about how great DRM will be for the computer industry) admit that someone will be able to break it, they just want to keep everyone from breaking it. Of course once one person breaks it it and unencumbered media is released, then it is all over anyway.
Finkployd
Regardless, it is a dumb treaty as written. Congress will never pass it (in fact has already been unanimously voted against by every republician and democrat, like Kerry, in the senate). I don't know why Bush gets all the blame for what Congress is responsable for (like treaties, assualy weapon ban, etc).
Finkployd
So did Kerry, your point?
There are religious morons on both sides. There are also black morons on both sides, and while morons on both sides. The problem is not religion, the problem is not morons. It is a difference of opinion.
It is also a lack of information. The "stupid rednecks" that the left hates are not unreasonable people. They just have different priorities that do not include inherently distrusting mainstream media and searching out "the truth" in alternative and foreign media.
Foxnews and CNN are not presenting them with all the information they need to make their decision, but since they have no reason to believe that is the case (and do not obsessivly follow news becasue they are busy doing thinks like raising families, working, providing the whiny elitist demographic with good and services they could not provide themselves, etc). If you really want to change their minds, subtly introducing them to other ideas and opinions would be a much better approach than calling them stupid NASCAR watching rednecks who don't know anything.
(not attacking your specifically, just the arguments and comments I hear coming from the left after this election)
Excellent plan, call yourselves the open-minded and inclusive party then label anyone who does not agree with you a religious moron. I honestly cannot imagine why the Democratic Party is not more popular.
Finkployd
I don't know. The force?
Finkployd
they even included the slashcode-fubared-rogue-spaces link.
:)
Are you sure? Is it possible that since this IS slashdot, it just furbared the link when he posted it just now?
Finkployd
Everything I have read and everyone I have talked to said there is no spyware in skype (as they claim). It is easy to check, spyware would communicate with the mothership somehow, just run a packet sniffer.
What leads you to believe it has spyware? Because the Kazaa guys wrote it? Any actual evidence?
Finkployd
As long as we no longer have democracy by the minority of the mega corporations being the only ones allowed to pick the viable candidates- this is the best we can hope for.
ONLY when we finally figure out that it's not a good idea to allow corporations to donate money to politicians, will we once again have a democracy- until that happens, your method of refusing to participate in the game will only insure that the corporations will contine to have carte blanche on whatever they want to pass.
I am not advocating not voting, I am advocating not voting for people who will just make things worse. Which of the two major candidates do you believe will do anything positive about the problem of corporations having undue influence on governement? Kerry (and the democrats in general) just has a different sent of corporate influences that own him.
Finkployd
You may believe that is what would happen if Kerry were president, but it is all just speculation, as is my belief. What it boils down to with Kerry is the same for me as Bush, I don't like his politics. The only difference between us is that I do not believe it is so important to get Bush out of office that I would want someone like Kerry in it. Don't get me wrong, I want Bush out of office, just not at any cost.
I don't buy that Bush believes he is some messenger of God (and a nytimes article is not going to convince me). He is a power hungry puppet who is falling all over himself to use the US to help those who put him into power (his Dad's and VP's companies, not to mention the Saudis). Now Ashcroft, I'll buy that about him, but I can't help but think the religious angle from Bush is just another ploy to garner support from the ultra right (like the "out of nowhere" marriage amendment).
Also, lets put this in prespective. I am a conservative, at least fiscally. Socially I am pretty much all over the map but I would say I am mostly liberal in this area. Last time I voted for Bush because I believed him to be the lesser of two evils. Al "Clipper Chip" Gore was certainly no friend of the security and cryptography industry and that is where I live. As an aside, imagine how betrayed a fiscial conservative feels having supported Bush at one time? The Economist is probably as good an example of this as any.
So if I choose to vote my conscious because I already got burned playing the lesser of two evils game, I am not hurting Kerry I am hurting Bush. You ought to be happy about that. Perhaps if Kerry wins and it turns out he is the corrupt politician I think he is; who will not follow through on any of his rhetoric or end up any better for the US in the long run, you will grow tired of voting for known evil as well. Hopefully that will not be the case but I think I have lost all hope in getting anything positive out of either major party at this point. Look at both of them, do either actually have anyone you think would make a good or even decent president, not just a "less evil" one? It amazes me how much everyone rationalizes the rampant corruption and lack of integrity of those they support just because it is so important to beat the "other guy". Are we happy with this situation or do we just believe we can do nothing to affect it so we will continue to play the little game they provide for us?
This will only change when a critical mass decides to stop going "I really dislike both parties and want the government to change but this election is too important so maybe I will vote for who I really believe in next time" For many on the left, that time was the 2000 election. For many on the right that time is this election. So the law of unintended consequences means that we will end up with people we don't like in office. Real change is never easy, and you have to make a stand somewhere or you just keep playing their games while they play us like puppets.
Damn I get long winded when I am tired.
Finkployd
(I'm going to be offline for a few days, if we continue this it will have to be on monday)
Yes, because one must be unemployed to two more than two sentances.
:P
Ummmm, yeah. "one must be unemployed to WRITE more than two SENTENCES"
Apparently I am both unemployed AND uneducated. You got me, I guess I have to vote for Kerry now
Finkployd
Funny, I said the same thing when it was Gore and Bush in 2000, I didn't vote and said at the time, that if I did vote I would have voted for Nader, since Bush and Gore are the same thing. Now I look back at my younger foolish self and shake my head at my idiotic assumptions. the proverb "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." best describes my situation. I have learned from my mistake and will not repeat it, do you really want to look back 4 years from now and shake your head in regret over what you could have done to change things?
I have the same outlook, but for different reason. See last time I DID vote for what I considered the lesser of two evils. I had a multitude of reasons not to like Gore (his clipper chip mess not the least of which) and therefor considered Bush to be the lesser of two evils.
I learned from my mistake and will not repeat it, I am no longer voting for evil, lesser or not.
Finkployd
but if you actually believe that they are identical, that which of them wins will not have a profound effect on the world -- then you are either living in a cave, or are blinded by ideology.
And you are blinded by rhetoric. Sure there are differences. They each say they will do things very differently. In their actions though that are quite similar. A profound effect on the world? What do you think Kerry is going to do differently? Until running for the Presidency he practically supported Bush in every crappy decision he has made. Only recently has he tried to creat differences. It is all just so much campaign speech.
If nothing else, Kerry believes in making decisions based on discernable reality, and Bush believes that we are an empire that can create its own reality, because we're armed to the teeth and on a mission from God. That difference alone is profound.
First up, they both are career politicians, they make decisions entirely based on what will be good for their political career, nothing more. But let's pretend either has integrity....
Ok, so their thought processes are different. If this translates into differences in action why do we not see it? They both supported the war in Iraq, they both are opposed to gay marriage, they both supported the Patriot act.
Or maybe I'm wrong. Just look at how effective the libertarians have been running their prez candidates for the last umpteen years: our civil liberties have never been safer! (There was that little trifle about habeus corpus, but who needed due process of law anyway?)
Interesting you would pick that topic, please show me where Kerry has a better record on civil liberties than Bush. Heck in recent days his speaches have become more "let's beat those bad terrorists" and "we will never back down" to the point where they might as well have the same speech writer.
Until we start using a more intelligent algorithm for casting and counting votes, third parties in national elections will remain a losing proposition.
Maybe, but as I think the state of the union will suck under either I am at least going to cast my ballot in such a way that I do not feel dirty on Nov 2nd.
Finkployd
I guess you are unemployeed, my bad. How else could you have taken so long to write that drivel?
Yes, because one must be unemployed to two more than two sentances.
You must have had no intelligent response to just post a snippy comment like that.
Cert yes, but keys?
Frankly this is the only halfway decent reason for voting for either of these two I have heard.
But think about it...The best solution is to force gridlock so that all those we elected are the most powerless to do anything? That is what we consider best for the USA, to put people in power for the purpose of blocking those others we have put into power?
Is that not he saddest thing ever, that THIS is what we aspire to? If it were not real it would be too funny and outlandish to pass as fiction.
I refuse to participate in that game, and will vote for who comes closest to me in my opinions and beliefs. If my doing so means the "wrong" candidate ends up in the whitehouse, so be it. When both are wrong at least I can walk away from this mess without feeling dirty.
Finkployd
Let me guess, you are not gay, you are not colored, you are not female, you are not poor, you are not uneducated, you are not uninsured, and you are not unemployeed.
It's no wonder a person such as yourself would think the two are the same.
And tell me, friend, what empty promises did the privileged, skull n bones frat boy from Yale make to you? What leads you to believe he is just not playing you to be elected and has no intention of following through (of course with some excuse, likely blaming the other party and continuing the cycle)?
Was Bush a hero to the uneducated? Has "no child left behind" make any tangible difference, or is it so much useless fluff?
Was Clinton, reveared by half of the country as the best president ever, a hero to the gays? Did he follow through with his promise to end the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military? Did he legalize gay mariage or even civil unions? Was he a model for equality of women, did he do anything to help their cause? Do we have the universal health insurance we were promised?
And Reagan, reveared by the other half of the country as the best president ever, did he turn this country around economically? Did he make us more fiscally responsible and lower the debt? Did he usher in a new "sustainable" (anyone can boost the economy temporarily, or rely on an internet stock bubble) economy? Did trickle down economics help the poor?
So you, the gay, poor, colored, female, uneducated, uninsured, and unemployed voter, who thinks that Kerry will save you. You are a deluded sheep. You will get nothing from him but you will rationalize it as the fault of the other party, and work that much harder to ensure than another corrupt, entrenched democrat gets elected in hopes that maybe he will some day follow through on the promises that the others have broken.
And you, the educated, successful, conservative, white, straight, and terrorist fearing voter. You are also a deluded sheep. You will continue to believe that tax cuts are the only thing that can save the economy. You will proudly proclaim that we must be ever viligant against the forces of terror and evil in this world, completely ignoring the damage that a misguided, ill-conceived, and impossible to win war is causing. Not realizing that not only is it a sideshow for the ignorant masses to watch and cheer for, but the single best tool those would harm us have to recruit into their ranks.
Of course, half of what I said was correct and half was lies and deceit right? I am just a random voice on the internet who does not know what he is talking about. Of course the two candidates are different. You will find the slightest difference in their actions or worse, just their empty words and magnify these differences until in your eyes one is Ghandi and the other is the devil. And who would ever vote for the devil? We must do all we can to make sure he does not win this election. It does not matter who you vote for as long as it is not him, so vote for the one with the best chance of beating him.
Sheep. But then, sheep do not proudly decide which wolf will ruin them, out of fear of the other wolf.
Finkployd