Plus, I could totally see that going awry: Peter gets all hot 'n bothered by MJ, and, completely distracted, he shoots webbing all over the place, random-like... Comics creators and movie directors just don't think much about those kinds of things...
Correction: nice comics creators don't think much about those kinds of things. Pat Mills & Kev O'Neill's fine book "Crime & Punishment: Marshal Law Takes Manhattan," OTOH, includes exactly what you're after:
Case 5: A shy and sexually inhibited young man, who was experiencing difficulties with his marriage and coping with his super powers, he was diagnosed as suffering from a psycho-sexual neurosis.
He tried to overcome his marital problems by a blatant form of exhibitionism. Namely: spending his nights leaping from building to building in a hairy spider suit, "web-shooting".
The sexual significance of this, along with the circumstances under which he was arrested, is discussed below...
Re:You might be a JonKatz article if...
on
Heart of the Net
·
· Score: 2
And you think that planning, control, and peer review comes free, and without a lot of pain getting it wrong first?
No, he doesn't. The previous poster stated, IMO correctly, that *including* the time it takes to do proper planning, controls and peer review, you get clean code for less time *in total* than it takes to create and subsequently clean up sloppy code. Or do you think cleaning up bugs comes free and involves no pain for the coders? (Nobody's even considering the end users at this point, who are also experiencing pain and cost).
See Dave Parnas, Software Fundamentals, for some of the classic papers behind this analysis.
Plan it properly, do it properly, document it properly, and you have saved a whole *load* of wasted time and effort. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." And so on.
I think Neil overreacted, and his anti-spam bully friends took over. These guys cover for each other, and pick on the alleged spammers as a team.
If that's so*, then they must have also used their evil anti-spammer mind-control rays to make Bernard Shifman look like a drivelling cretin. He should sue!
* (leaving aside paranoid theories such as "it's all a hoax," or "they doctored his emails")
Is there any easy way to bulk-parse spam via SpamCop? I get 20 spams a day and it's very time consuming to copy-paste all of them. Forwarding isn't much faster, and I can't find a way to make a filter that automatically forwards spam in Outlook Express or Hotmail (I know MS sucks, but Outlook works fine for me and I'm too lazy to find and install something else).
Sounds like you're looking for Spam Deputy. 15 day free trial, $20 registration. I'm a satisfied customer, and happily recommend this product to any other Spam-haters.
From here on down is from the author's site:
Spam Deputy makes it easy to report spammers and now it comes in two flavors: a COM Add-In for Outlook 2000; and a new stand-alone application for other mail clients.
Overview of the stand-alone application
Spam Deputy is an application that makes it easy to report spam for users of Microsoft Outlook Express, Netscape Messenger, Eudora and other email clients. Simply drag-and-drop or copy-and-paste your spam messages onto Spam Deputy and click the "Report Spam" button.
Spam Deputy will perform the following steps:
launch a new instance of Internet Explorer
navigate to your SpamCop authorization URL
insert the selected spam message into the form
submit the form for processing
create a new email message addressed to the Spam Recycling Center
insert the selected spam message's subject into the Subject of the new message
insert the selected spam message into the Body of the new message
You can now choose to either send the email using an account of your choice or close it without sending it.
Then, after reviewing the results in Internet Explorer, you can click SpamCop's "Send Spam Report(s) Now" button to report the spam or simply close the browser.
That's it! In just a few clicks, you have reported the spammer to his ISP, webhost and/or email provider and to the proper authorities.
However, with a little more effort, you can increase the effectiveness of your spam reporting. Spam Deputy allows you to go beyond SpamCop's current spam message analysis.
you can verify if an email address is valid or if a website is active before reporting it. Doing so will help reduce the number of redundant reports to an abuse desk.
verify and report all email addresses (if appropriate), including "From", "Reply-To" and "Errors-To". You can determine which addresses are fakes and which are real and find the abuse address to report them.
see all the redirects for any URL.
perform WhoIs on dozens of servers to find who owns a particular domain.
perform TraceRoute to find the spammers upstream service provider and find their abuse address.
report any email address or website that SpamCop missed.
Decode obfuscated URLs.
Decode HTML document.
Spam Deputy not only makes it easier to report spam, it makes it more effective too.
Mail clients should have a spam-vote button, a button that lets you vote for blacklisting the sender of the message you are just viewing.
Mine does. It's called "Spam Deputy". Works a treat. Add-in for Outlook 2000, standalone program for Outlook Express, Netscape Messenger, Eudora and other mail clients. Check out the details at the Spam Deputy site.
His site's FAQ ("What's going on here?") includes unsolicited praise for the discussion group: "The forum is great because you attracted a group of thoughtful people who can write clearly. No flames. No all caps. No crap. Little HTML showing where it shouldn't. No one replying just to be the first to reply."
And then he gets featured on Slashdot. Poor Joel. Poor discussion group.
After the product is released, nobody will allow you the time you'd need to write comments or user documentation or Visio diagrams. The only effective way to produce documentation and commented code is to generate it as you go along.
I'm surprised you haven't yet been modded down as a Troll, you are so far off-base. See Dave Parnas' "Software Fundamentals" for a detailed exposition of why your approach is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Your objective should be to get working, stable, maintainable, supportable code out of the door. This means it's commented and documented (and, yes, diagrams count as documentation). If you fail to do this, you're failing your users and (ultimately) your company.
their expense system at Oracle: all expense reports worldwide! go to (and are approved in) one central database in the US head office. Not for good database reasons but for control reasons.
The Register has a couple of good stories about how this system screwed over two other vast enterprises that tried to use it: Marconi and Cisco.
Trust me: that's a deliberate filter, to weed out anyone who can't be bothered to write a snailmail letter (or snaffle out a URL the way you did) in pursuit of this job. They want to be sure you're serious. Dealing with mountains of timewasting applicants is a *big* problem for all recruitment agencies: this is an easy way of cutting down the number of no-hopers.
How would I prove that I wasn't the one who used my PIN at an ATM (or several) to clear out my account? Anyone have an answer that can put my mind at ease?
In a word, no. Here in the UK, there was an unpleasant case some years back when the banks tried to do just that -- covering up security flaws in their ATM machines and prosecuting the man who had suffered from their errors when he protested about unauthorised withdrawals from his account.
There's a selection of relevant papers on Ross Anderson's website: read up on the subject here. "Why Cryptosystems Fail" is probably the most immediately rewarding, given your concerns.
Ross Anderson is the author of "Security Engineering" -- if you're interested in this story but haven't read the book, consider this a strong recommendation. More details inc. sample chapters at his website. Plus other fascinating stuff.
Until MSFT becomes more like GE, where no single shareholder owns more than 20 percent of the stock, this will never change.
This is their way of avoiding taxes.
No, that can't be right. In the minutes of the meeting, billg explicitly complains about the free software movement (which is amusingly typo'd in the official transcript):
In the pre-software vision is that there would be no jobs in the software industry, there would be no testers, no engineers,
no taxes paid, or anything of that notion.
So remember, kids: Microsoft pays its taxes; the free software movement doesn't!
Brainfart. The crimes committed *were* penal offences at the time they were committed. The change is to the statute of limitations, i.e. if they catch up with ObL in ten years time, he can't say "time's up" because they should have caught him within seven years of committing his offence. That's all.
Now, if they retrospectively made some behaviour criminal, *that'd* be a human rights violation. Keep your sense of perspective.
I read a good article about this written by a phd in microbiology. It contains many more facts that I haven't discussed. You can read it here [villagevoice.com].
The author, George C Smith, has other techy-related achievements more relevant to many Slashdotters than "a phd in microbiology" -- author of The Virus Creation Labs, compiler of The Crypt Newsletter, frequent contributor to the Virus Myths stupidity-debunking site vmyths.com...
And he's dead funny, too.
BTW, "virus" throughout the above links refers to our old friend, malicious code, and not some new terror attack. (And anthrax ain't viral).
Having an ID does not stop one from blowing things up. Especially the breed we are dealing with now - ones who DONT CARE if they die, and PREFER that we know who they are.
Yeah, but it'll stop repeat offenders. Nobody's ever going to be able to crash a second airplane into a building -- we'll tag their card the first time around, and be on the lookout.
If Osama ibn Laden is indeed guilty of the attacks and the Taliban was indeed fully aware and complicit, then what will our government risk by full disclosure of all evidence?
Maybe the loss of the few sources of information we have that let us know what's going on inside Al Qaeda / Taliban circles? Death of informants, change in compromised methods of communication, etc.? Perhaps leading to subsequent successful atrocities? How robust is your conscience feeling?
I doubt you've thought this through. Quit the personal attacks on Dubya (justified though they may well be), and look at what's going on. You've just suggested throwing away a major intelligence asset -- and for what?
Because you don't trust George Bush? Don't worry so much -- there are grown-ups holding his hand through this crisis. They will try to keep him sane and rational, whatever the provocation. Look: Afghanistan doesn't yet glow in the dark!
Only then will the specter of George Orwell and Joe McCarthy be dispelled
I don't like seeing George Orwell (good) twinned with Joe McCarthy (evil) like that. "The spectre of Big Brother and Joe McCarthy" would have been an unobjectionable way to put it. Just my $0.02.
Slashdot Mirror
For some reason the distributors must think fewer people would see the film if it was a '12'.
My daughter is four, and she's looking forward to the new Star Wars film. So that's one.
Be careful what you wish for...
the world market only had demand for about a thousand (or a hundred, i forget which) computers (some IBM head-huncho back in the 60s)
You're out by several orders of magnitude, and a couple of decades.
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." - Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943.
Correction: nice comics creators don't think much about those kinds of things. Pat Mills & Kev O'Neill's fine book "Crime & Punishment: Marshal Law Takes Manhattan," OTOH, includes exactly what you're after:
Wot no "post-Columbine"?
And you think that planning, control, and peer review comes free, and without a lot of pain getting it wrong first?
No, he doesn't. The previous poster stated, IMO correctly, that *including* the time it takes to do proper planning, controls and peer review, you get clean code for less time *in total* than it takes to create and subsequently clean up sloppy code. Or do you think cleaning up bugs comes free and involves no pain for the coders? (Nobody's even considering the end users at this point, who are also experiencing pain and cost).
See Dave Parnas, Software Fundamentals, for some of the classic papers behind this analysis.
Plan it properly, do it properly, document it properly, and you have saved a whole *load* of wasted time and effort. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." And so on.
Are there any groups that are actively standing out against spam and lobbying the politicians? If so, I'm ready to join, if not, I need to start one.
CAUCE (Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email)
They have links from their home page to related regional organisations, including EuroCAUCE (European branch)
I think Neil overreacted, and his anti-spam bully friends took over. These guys cover for each other, and pick on the alleged spammers as a team.
If that's so*, then they must have also used their evil anti-spammer mind-control rays to make Bernard Shifman look like a drivelling cretin. He should sue!
* (leaving aside paranoid theories such as "it's all a hoax," or "they doctored his emails")
Basically I thought the film was OK as big superproductions go, but I was disappointed that it doesn't add anything to the book.
Phew! I was delighted it didn't add much that wasn't in the book. Guess it takes all sorts...
Sounds like you're looking for Spam Deputy. 15 day free trial, $20 registration. I'm a satisfied customer, and happily recommend this product to any other Spam-haters.
From here on down is from the author's site:
Spam Deputy makes it easy to report spammers and now it comes in two flavors: a COM Add-In for Outlook 2000; and a new stand-alone application for other mail clients.
Overview of the stand-alone application
Spam Deputy is an application that makes it easy to report spam for users of Microsoft Outlook Express, Netscape Messenger, Eudora and other email clients. Simply drag-and-drop or copy-and-paste your spam messages onto Spam Deputy and click the "Report Spam" button.
Spam Deputy will perform the following steps:
- launch a new instance of Internet Explorer
- navigate to your SpamCop authorization URL
- insert the selected spam message into the form
- submit the form for processing
- create a new email message addressed to the Spam Recycling Center
- insert the selected spam message's subject into the Subject of the new message
- insert the selected spam message into the Body of the new message
You can now choose to either send the email using an account of your choice or close it without sending it.Then, after reviewing the results in Internet Explorer, you can click SpamCop's "Send Spam Report(s) Now" button to report the spam or simply close the browser.
That's it! In just a few clicks, you have reported the spammer to his ISP, webhost and/or email provider and to the proper authorities.
However, with a little more effort, you can increase the effectiveness of your spam reporting. Spam Deputy allows you to go beyond SpamCop's current spam message analysis.
- you can verify if an email address is valid or if a website is active before reporting it. Doing so will help reduce the number of redundant reports to an abuse desk.
- verify and report all email addresses (if appropriate), including "From", "Reply-To" and "Errors-To". You can determine which addresses are fakes and which are real and find the abuse address to report them.
- see all the redirects for any URL.
- perform WhoIs on dozens of servers to find who owns a particular domain.
- perform TraceRoute to find the spammers upstream service provider and find their abuse address.
- report any email address or website that SpamCop missed.
- Decode obfuscated URLs.
- Decode HTML document.
Spam Deputy not only makes it easier to report spam, it makes it more effective too.Alas, this proposed "4th Law" says nothing about avoiding conflict with the First or Second installments of the Franchise.
Mail clients should have a spam-vote button, a button that lets you vote for blacklisting the sender of the message you are just viewing.
Mine does. It's called "Spam Deputy". Works a treat. Add-in for Outlook 2000, standalone program for Outlook Express, Netscape Messenger, Eudora and other mail clients. Check out the details at the Spam Deputy site.
His site's FAQ ("What's going on here?") includes unsolicited praise for the discussion group: "The forum is great because you attracted a group of thoughtful people who can write clearly. No flames. No all caps. No crap. Little HTML showing where it shouldn't. No one replying just to be the first to reply."
And then he gets featured on Slashdot. Poor Joel. Poor discussion group.
After the product is released, nobody will allow you the time you'd need to write comments or user documentation or Visio diagrams. The only effective way to produce documentation and commented code is to generate it as you go along.
I'm surprised you haven't yet been modded down as a Troll, you are so far off-base. See Dave Parnas' "Software Fundamentals" for a detailed exposition of why your approach is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Your objective should be to get working, stable, maintainable, supportable code out of the door. This means it's commented and documented (and, yes, diagrams count as documentation). If you fail to do this, you're failing your users and (ultimately) your company.
The Register has a couple of good stories about how this system screwed over two other vast enterprises that tried to use it: Marconi and Cisco.
"For details, write to:..." it says.
Trust me: that's a deliberate filter, to weed out anyone who can't be bothered to write a snailmail letter (or snaffle out a URL the way you did) in pursuit of this job. They want to be sure you're serious. Dealing with mountains of timewasting applicants is a *big* problem for all recruitment agencies: this is an easy way of cutting down the number of no-hopers.
How would I prove that I wasn't the one who used my PIN at an ATM (or several) to clear out my account? Anyone have an answer that can put my mind at ease?
In a word, no. Here in the UK, there was an unpleasant case some years back when the banks tried to do just that -- covering up security flaws in their ATM machines and prosecuting the man who had suffered from their errors when he protested about unauthorised withdrawals from his account.
There's a selection of relevant papers on Ross Anderson's website: read up on the subject here. "Why Cryptosystems Fail" is probably the most immediately rewarding, given your concerns.
If you want more technical detail, check out the
paper on API-Level Attacks on Embedded Systems by Mike Bond and Ross Anderson.
Ross Anderson is the author of "Security Engineering" -- if you're interested in this story but haven't read the book, consider this a strong recommendation. More details inc. sample chapters at his website. Plus other fascinating stuff.
Until MSFT becomes more like GE, where no single shareholder owns more than 20 percent of the stock, this will never change.
This is their way of avoiding taxes.
No, that can't be right. In the minutes of the meeting, billg explicitly complains about the free software movement (which is amusingly typo'd in the official transcript):
So remember, kids: Microsoft pays its taxes; the free software movement doesn't!
That's an old joke.
Brainfart. The crimes committed *were* penal offences at the time they were committed. The change is to the statute of limitations, i.e. if they catch up with ObL in ten years time, he can't say "time's up" because they should have caught him within seven years of committing his offence. That's all.
Now, if they retrospectively made some behaviour criminal, *that'd* be a human rights violation. Keep your sense of perspective.
I read a good article about this written by a phd in microbiology. It contains many more facts that I haven't discussed. You can read it here [villagevoice.com].
The author, George C Smith, has other techy-related achievements more relevant to many Slashdotters than "a phd in microbiology" -- author of The Virus Creation Labs, compiler of The Crypt Newsletter, frequent contributor to the Virus Myths stupidity-debunking site vmyths.com...
And he's dead funny, too.
BTW, "virus" throughout the above links refers to our old friend, malicious code, and not some new terror attack. (And anthrax ain't viral).
Having an ID does not stop one from blowing things up. Especially the breed we are dealing with now - ones who DONT CARE if they die, and PREFER that we know who they are.
Yeah, but it'll stop repeat offenders. Nobody's ever going to be able to crash a second airplane into a building -- we'll tag their card the first time around, and be on the lookout.
If Osama ibn Laden is indeed guilty of the attacks and the Taliban was indeed fully aware and complicit, then what will our government risk by full disclosure of all evidence?
Maybe the loss of the few sources of information we have that let us know what's going on inside Al Qaeda / Taliban circles? Death of informants, change in compromised methods of communication, etc.? Perhaps leading to subsequent successful atrocities? How robust is your conscience feeling?
I doubt you've thought this through. Quit the personal attacks on Dubya (justified though they may well be), and look at what's going on. You've just suggested throwing away a major intelligence asset -- and for what?
Because you don't trust George Bush? Don't worry so much -- there are grown-ups holding his hand through this crisis. They will try to keep him sane and rational, whatever the provocation. Look: Afghanistan doesn't yet glow in the dark!
Only then will the specter of George Orwell and Joe McCarthy be dispelled
I don't like seeing George Orwell (good) twinned with Joe McCarthy (evil) like that. "The spectre of Big Brother and Joe McCarthy" would have been an unobjectionable way to put it. Just my $0.02.