In the actual case, he sent spam to 10,000 people in order to alert them to the fact that they could potentially get spam. He is doing exactly the "bad thing" that everyone involved hates and wants to avoid. In your storage locker case, you could contort it to say that he is breaking into their locker (where he left the note) to show that other people could break into the locker, so it's analogous. But really, the "bad thing" I want to avoid isn't just someone entering my locker; it's having my stuff stolen. And he didn't actually steal anything, while this clown actually did send spam to people who don't want spam.
It's clearer if you universalize it. A thousand people sending me spam about how I could potentially get spam would make my real mail hard to find and flood my inbox, just like I want to avoid. A thousand people leaving notes about how my stuff could get stolen would not be the same as my stuff getting stolen, since my stuff would still be right there.
Seriously, programmers are a commodity, because a lot of people like to program as a hobby.
This is where his comparison to carpenters and such is relevant. There are lots of people who like to do home improvement projects for fun on the weekend, but that doesn't mean that when professional construction work is needed, there is no market for people who charge money for it. Hobbyists are nice and working on hobby projects can be cool, but that doesn't mean that a fortune 500 company is going to run its business on some guy's toy that he works on when he feels like it and has free time.
But 2001 is related in more than just the fact that it "deals with evolution". At the end of the movie (hope this isn't a spoiler for anyone), the super-evolved entity is actually represented as a human baby (the "star child"). I understood the second sentence, and it was interesting; my comment was just related to the first.
Its like how they give alcoholics Methadone to help them get over the addiction;)
They do? I thought it was only given to heroin (or maybe other opiate) addicts since methadone is itself an opiate thus helps deal with those cravings.
Michael Ross is right here, and the author of the article is confused. Mr. Ross is saying that you can't trust the articles on wikipedia because anyone can write anything and it immediately becomes part of the site. The article writer tries to imply that the same is true of the code in a free software project, but this is not the case. I cannot right now as a stranger/ outsider take some code and check it into the apache source tree. My code would need to be reviewed by someone before it was allowed in. This isn't the same as wikipedia where I can put a completely false article up right now. Yes, eventually it will be found and corrected, but that doesn't guarantee that any given time you won't run across an article that is bogus, which is my Ross is correct that for serious academic purposes, this is not a competitor for Britannica, even if the contributors want to split ridiculous semantic hairs to find errors in some Britannica articles.
It's not that nobody reads the articles; it's that nobody who posts comments reads the article. The people who read the articles and the people who discuss them are two completley distinct groups. And no, I didn't read this article.
Yes I read your post, and that should be obvious from my reply when I said that it's ridiculous to assert that 15% of people using windows (i.e., "only" the people using windowsupate) isn't a lot of people. Many millions of people use windows. 15% of them is a lot of people. I don't see how you can imply otherwise.
Yes, that's pretty obviously what he means. It seems from your quotation marks like you're trying to be sarcastic, but that doesn't make much sense unless you live in some fantasy world where 15% of people using windows isn't a lot of people. How many people do you estimate use windows? 100? 1000? It's more, trust me.
This is completely untrue. There aren't images pulled from anywhere unless you actively go and download the images. That's how outlook stops you from getting hit with webbugs and the like. You see how when you view an email with images from the web each of them isn't dipslayed and instead there are little boxes with red x's? And how it says "to help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of some pictures in this message"? That's what it's talking about.
if you're using the preview pane on outlook or OE, and someone sends you an HTML spam with dodgy content, you'll get hits to a dodgy site. This could explain a lot of it...
Like many of the "anti outlook rants", this is completely false. The HTML is in your inbox on your machine/ mail server. Your computer does not go to hit an external site when you read the mail unless you tell it to.
Um, yes. Car doesn't mean "engine". The body is part of the car. The windows are part of the car. The steering wheel is part of the car. Yes, they can be replaced. That doesn't mean they're not part of the car. I can get a kidney transplant too, but until I do, my kidney is a part of me.
Well then, this is a bad deal for you and that sucks. And you should probably complain to the school. But it's still not a rights issue or a protection racket. I'm don't eat meat. The vegetarian options in our cafeteria mostly sucked and my room/board money was largely going towards food that I'm not going to eat. Similarly, there might be some students who find that the kinds of books that interset them (or that are relevant to their studies) aren't carried in the school library, while books they don't care about are. Those seem like a pretty similar situation to what's happening here.
Agreed. The "still make money" argument here is similar to "musicians shouldn't mind if everyone downloads their stuff from kazaa because they can still make money selling tshirts and concert tickets".
In my mind, if I have already paid a fee to buy as many songs as I wish, why should I be required to purchase the same thing later?
Because you haven't paid to "buy" them. That's not the service they're offering.
If I'm paying through my college for cable television in my dorm, why should I have to pay if I want to get one of the movies I watched on cable on dvd after I graduate?
This isn't a "protection racket". A protection racket would be if the schools paid them money to avoid being sued. Here, the schools are actually buying/ licensing/ renting music for the students. It's similar to the fact that some of the students tuition/ room&board money goes towards internet access or food. That's not "protection money" to stop comcast from suing students who steal internet access or to stop a grocery store from punishing students who steal food. It's the school actually providing something the students want, and then making the students pay for it whether they want to or not.
IE uses two by default just like firefox does because the RFC forbids using more (by default). However, the RFC permits using more if there is a compelling reason to do so, which (arguably) includes the fact that the user has hacked around with their configuration to change the number. This is why both IE (google for the MaxConnectionsPerServer registry value) and Firefox give you a way to create a setting to increase it if you really want to, but don't make it easily accessible through the control panel or something similar.
Was the stalker in the same state as the fiancee? If so, it seems reasonable that the FBI would leave it to local authorities.
Btw, isn't the FBI only supposed to deal with domestic threats? I believe that death threats from Nigeria are within the purview of the CIA and should have nothing to do with the FBI.
I like sigur ros, but I thought the exact same thing when I saw them used as an example. There's nothing wrong with listening them, but they seem like a poor example of a crazy underground band no one's heard of. If you're going to use them, you might just as well have used radiohead or the flaming lips or modest mouse. Again, I'm not knocking the music, but way too common to be called "esoteric".
Slashdot Mirror
In the actual case, he sent spam to 10,000 people in order to alert them to the fact that they could potentially get spam. He is doing exactly the "bad thing" that everyone involved hates and wants to avoid. In your storage locker case, you could contort it to say that he is breaking into their locker (where he left the note) to show that other people could break into the locker, so it's analogous. But really, the "bad thing" I want to avoid isn't just someone entering my locker; it's having my stuff stolen. And he didn't actually steal anything, while this clown actually did send spam to people who don't want spam.
It's clearer if you universalize it. A thousand people sending me spam about how I could potentially get spam would make my real mail hard to find and flood my inbox, just like I want to avoid. A thousand people leaving notes about how my stuff could get stolen would not be the same as my stuff getting stolen, since my stuff would still be right there.
This is where his comparison to carpenters and such is relevant. There are lots of people who like to do home improvement projects for fun on the weekend, but that doesn't mean that when professional construction work is needed, there is no market for people who charge money for it. Hobbyists are nice and working on hobby projects can be cool, but that doesn't mean that a fortune 500 company is going to run its business on some guy's toy that he works on when he feels like it and has free time.
But 2001 is related in more than just the fact that it "deals with evolution". At the end of the movie (hope this isn't a spoiler for anyone), the super-evolved entity is actually represented as a human baby (the "star child"). I understood the second sentence, and it was interesting; my comment was just related to the first.
Actually, for me it wasn't about being lazy; I just feel a little uncomfortable doing heavy research into methadone and the like from work.
I would probably start by digitally signing whatever it is that I want to share.
Yes, we've all seen 2001.
They do? I thought it was only given to heroin (or maybe other opiate) addicts since methadone is itself an opiate thus helps deal with those cravings.
Michael Ross is right here, and the author of the article is confused. Mr. Ross is saying that you can't trust the articles on wikipedia because anyone can write anything and it immediately becomes part of the site. The article writer tries to imply that the same is true of the code in a free software project, but this is not the case. I cannot right now as a stranger/ outsider take some code and check it into the apache source tree. My code would need to be reviewed by someone before it was allowed in. This isn't the same as wikipedia where I can put a completely false article up right now. Yes, eventually it will be found and corrected, but that doesn't guarantee that any given time you won't run across an article that is bogus, which is my Ross is correct that for serious academic purposes, this is not a competitor for Britannica, even if the contributors want to split ridiculous semantic hairs to find errors in some Britannica articles.
It's not that nobody reads the articles; it's that nobody who posts comments reads the article. The people who read the articles and the people who discuss them are two completley distinct groups. And no, I didn't read this article.
How do you watch tv on a deck of cards?
Yes I read your post, and that should be obvious from my reply when I said that it's ridiculous to assert that 15% of people using windows (i.e., "only" the people using windowsupate) isn't a lot of people. Many millions of people use windows. 15% of them is a lot of people. I don't see how you can imply otherwise.
Yes, that's pretty obviously what he means. It seems from your quotation marks like you're trying to be sarcastic, but that doesn't make much sense unless you live in some fantasy world where 15% of people using windows isn't a lot of people. How many people do you estimate use windows? 100? 1000? It's more, trust me.
This is completely untrue. There aren't images pulled from anywhere unless you actively go and download the images. That's how outlook stops you from getting hit with webbugs and the like. You see how when you view an email with images from the web each of them isn't dipslayed and instead there are little boxes with red x's? And how it says "to help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of some pictures in this message"? That's what it's talking about.
Like many of the "anti outlook rants", this is completely false. The HTML is in your inbox on your machine/ mail server. Your computer does not go to hit an external site when you read the mail unless you tell it to.
Um, yes. Car doesn't mean "engine". The body is part of the car. The windows are part of the car. The steering wheel is part of the car. Yes, they can be replaced. That doesn't mean they're not part of the car. I can get a kidney transplant too, but until I do, my kidney is a part of me.
Well then, this is a bad deal for you and that sucks. And you should probably complain to the school. But it's still not a rights issue or a protection racket. I'm don't eat meat. The vegetarian options in our cafeteria mostly sucked and my room/board money was largely going towards food that I'm not going to eat. Similarly, there might be some students who find that the kinds of books that interset them (or that are relevant to their studies) aren't carried in the school library, while books they don't care about are. Those seem like a pretty similar situation to what's happening here.
Agreed. The "still make money" argument here is similar to "musicians shouldn't mind if everyone downloads their stuff from kazaa because they can still make money selling tshirts and concert tickets".
Because you haven't paid to "buy" them. That's not the service they're offering.
If I'm paying through my college for cable television in my dorm, why should I have to pay if I want to get one of the movies I watched on cable on dvd after I graduate?
This isn't a "protection racket". A protection racket would be if the schools paid them money to avoid being sued. Here, the schools are actually buying/ licensing/ renting music for the students. It's similar to the fact that some of the students tuition/ room&board money goes towards internet access or food. That's not "protection money" to stop comcast from suing students who steal internet access or to stop a grocery store from punishing students who steal food. It's the school actually providing something the students want, and then making the students pay for it whether they want to or not.
IE uses two by default just like firefox does because the RFC forbids using more (by default). However, the RFC permits using more if there is a compelling reason to do so, which (arguably) includes the fact that the user has hacked around with their configuration to change the number. This is why both IE (google for the MaxConnectionsPerServer registry value) and Firefox give you a way to create a setting to increase it if you really want to, but don't make it easily accessible through the control panel or something similar.
Was the stalker in the same state as the fiancee? If so, it seems reasonable that the FBI would leave it to local authorities.
Btw, isn't the FBI only supposed to deal with domestic threats? I believe that death threats from Nigeria are within the purview of the CIA and should have nothing to do with the FBI.
He loses that "slack" once he decides to have a sig criticizing others for their English.
For example, a game about a guy who has gotten bitten by a radioactive spider and thus gained superpowers.
I like sigur ros, but I thought the exact same thing when I saw them used as an example. There's nothing wrong with listening them, but they seem like a poor example of a crazy underground band no one's heard of. If you're going to use them, you might just as well have used radiohead or the flaming lips or modest mouse. Again, I'm not knocking the music, but way too common to be called "esoteric".
As opposed to making death threats against everyone else (and across state/ country lines, no less), which is perfectly legal?