One small step forward for Microsoft, one giant leap backwards for mankind?
Mankind could have saved themselves that leap if they didn't choose a low-quality OS to depend on for their critical business applications, and if they had picked open source solutions (admittedly not as availible in the past as these days, however) they could fix the incompatablilites.
MS needs to move on if the backwards compatability is what is killing XP. Businesses need to move on as well. The fact that this is the first time since 1996 that there are going to be significant backwards compatability problems is actually pretty good on Microsoft's part.
How do you keep usernames (or even ID number, for example) unique without a database to reference against? If you could just log in to the IM network as anyone, what is to prevent someone else from using your screen name?
IRC has this problem as well. Many hostnames are dynamic now, and what about logging in from other locations besides your usual terminal? NickServ is a centralized system as well, as the database is mirrored across the servers. I don't think it would be preferable to require an IM user to mirror a database of all the (potentially) millions of users on the network.
Truth of it is, this still creates a need to rely on a central presence for the IM system to work, but it is a step closer at least to middleman-free IM as far as message transmission goes. How to create a P2P system where each user is guarenteed their unique name and preferably their userlist from anywhere they log in? I'm still working that one out, but it might be more of a burden than it's worth...
Reminds me of that short story by Issac Asimov.. i forget the name but a man on another world thinks he is halucinating and it turns out to be insects that can combine their nervous systems and become "cels" of a larger creature.
Won't SVG give us this sort of ability? What about writing your own media design program that creates SWF files? Hell, you could write it in PHP if you wanted (it can create SWF files with the right libraries)
5 years ago, a spyware program would be considered a virus, the installer a trojan. These days, it's a business model? C'mon, it's installed without telling the user! Does this mean viruses are legal?
Keep a list of do-not-spam addresses, with each entry securely hashed. Bulk mailers would then hash each prospective recipient address, search for it in the list, and reject any that match. The main requirement here is that the hash function should work in only one direction.
So, it's not like you have to provide spammers with a list of actual live e-mail addresses in order to let them comply with a do-not-spam list.
I see a big problem here.
#1: Why the hash? Spammers obviously need an address to create a hash, and when it comes up rejected, they'll know they have a valid address. It's not like the list will be full of phony addresses, and even if it was, they'd be no point unless it had some real addresses.
#2: Spammers with a blatant disregard for the rules (read: all of them) will just use this as a certifiable list of good addresses to check their databases against, while looking good to the government for supposedly obeying the law. All they'd have to do is point to the government's logs of activity on the list server and say "Hey, I'm not spamming illegally, I've been checking the list failthfully everyday! Look in the logs!" It would probbly even stand up in court. In the meantime, they'll be spewing billions of e-mails from their XP zombie servers scattered about the Internet to government verified addresses.
The argument could be made that people who put their name on the list don't want the spam and the spammers shouldn't waste their bandwidth, but if that was the logic behind spam, it wouldn't be the problem it already is. I sure as hell didn't sign up on the Nicaraguan Mortgage Companies' penis-englargement vicodin advertising list, that's for sure.
Just because something is encrypted doesn't make it secure.
What we need is a way to ensure that e-mail comes from a verifiable source. HTTP has gone through a revision or two, HTML gets revised every few years, why hasn't SMTP been touched? It'd be good to see a solution that allows anyone to run their own mailserver as well, I know I'd sure have an easier time with my own website (which I host from home) if I could run a mailserver without all the mail being immediately placed in the Bulk or Junk mail folder of whomever I send a message to. Blocking spammers would be cake if we could verify domains with certainty. Getting spam from underagechicks.com? Oops, block the domain. Blacklisting would certainly be easier, and if someone who doesn't deserve it gets blacklisted, then they should have been more careful with how they secured their mailserver and/or who they allowed to use it.
As it stands now, half my Bulk mail is bounced spam which I did not send. Spammers are now using valid e-mail addresses to spam from, with the hopes that since they are indeed vaild addresses they will be more reliably passed by spam filters. A clearly illegal and sinister tactic (imagine if a telemarketer spoofed their caller ID to your number so that people would answer their phones more?). A verification of sender check would prevent phony addresses from being used.
We cant' stop people from sending whatever they want though e-mail, including advertisments. The problem, however, is we can't block what we don't want if we can't determine its origin reliably.
N is bound to 16, and you have to account for the requirement of having the first character be a letter (a good move on AOL's part because it made SMS compatability much simpler to implement, I assume), so (26^1)+(36^16) = approx 7.95866110995 x 10^24
Still plenty, but is it really useful to have "xrb2387CNoin2dH8" for a screen name? I like how ICQ has a system of ID numbers and you can assign whatever name you like to them. Even though it's less user-friendly to pass along, phone numbers aren't much better, but logging in from a remote computer presents a problem, too, when trying to remember your number...
I knew about Jabber, but I was thinking more along the lines of a P2P-style client that is serverless. The only problem is how to manage screen names. You can't spell "NickServ" without "Serv[er]"...
...or at least it's becomming more and more visible how it's going too. It's too damn hard to get a screen name that isn't taken, because you have all of AIM and all of regular AOL to compete with, and accounts don't ever disappear. Eventually that namespace is going to be used up.
Charging for voice and video is an injustice because AOL is not bouncing the stream off it's own servers; it goes P2P, so to speak. So what are they charging for? You're effectively renting software as you use it, and that's not going to fly, for the same reason charging micropayments by the IM is a bad idea.
Looks liek it's time for me to get started on that IM client project I've been meaning to start for years, everytime I get fed up with being booted off AOL. I'll make millions while AOL crumbles beneath me! MUAHAHA*ahem* sorry.
Umm, at what point to they get to take a sample to match against evidence found at the felony that they arrested you for?
At the time the judge overseeing the case deems it nessisary. Sure, someone could post bail and skip town, but if you're not guilty just don't run. The fact that you are you could set you free.
Failure to look at how this could help you can also hurt you someday. Make sure things in this world are not done wrong, not that they're not done at all.
Pink Floyd Dark Side Of The Moon, SACD: $13.49 from Amazon.com Miles Davis Sketches of Spain, DVD-A, $14.99 from Amazon.com
Whatcha talkin bout Willis???
Yes, but those are existing albums. Imagine an artist filling a whole disc with material, you'd have hours (not sure how many, but way more than the 74-80 minutes CDs give you, and at a higher quality). I'm sure that the artists would want more money for more work, and the labels would want even more profit because um, the extra music, uhh weighs down the delivery trucks and costs more to ship. Yeah.
Slashdot Mirror
MS needs to move on if the backwards compatability is what is killing XP. Businesses need to move on as well. The fact that this is the first time since 1996 that there are going to be significant backwards compatability problems is actually pretty good on Microsoft's part.
If they defame your character though selective editing, isn't that slander/libel?
How do you keep usernames (or even ID number, for example) unique without a database to reference against? If you could just log in to the IM network as anyone, what is to prevent someone else from using your screen name?
IRC has this problem as well. Many hostnames are dynamic now, and what about logging in from other locations besides your usual terminal? NickServ is a centralized system as well, as the database is mirrored across the servers. I don't think it would be preferable to require an IM user to mirror a database of all the (potentially) millions of users on the network.
Truth of it is, this still creates a need to rely on a central presence for the IM system to work, but it is a step closer at least to middleman-free IM as far as message transmission goes. How to create a P2P system where each user is guarenteed their unique name and preferably their userlist from anywhere they log in? I'm still working that one out, but it might be more of a burden than it's worth...
...towards creating that completely P2P IM system I've always wante to see. Now, can we trust this company?
Because you misbehaved on a comedy show, that you KNEW was setting you up?
God forbid any working professionals have a sense of humor, the f*cking world might collapse.
It's that kind of mentality that makes this world a sick, sick, sick place. Yes, really.
Reminds me of that short story by Issac Asimov.. i forget the name but a man on another world thinks he is halucinating and it turns out to be insects that can combine their nervous systems and become "cels" of a larger creature.
Won't SVG give us this sort of ability? What about writing your own media design program that creates SWF files? Hell, you could write it in PHP if you wanted (it can create SWF files with the right libraries)
5 years ago, a spyware program would be considered a virus, the installer a trojan. These days, it's a business model? C'mon, it's installed without telling the user! Does this mean viruses are legal?
OMG it is not, stfu you whinny left wing propagandist
/bighugewinksoyouknowthisisnotreal
Automatic double-optimized code +bonus language and platform portability?
Hey, if it works, I'm down.
#1: Why the hash? Spammers obviously need an address to create a hash, and when it comes up rejected, they'll know they have a valid address. It's not like the list will be full of phony addresses, and even if it was, they'd be no point unless it had some real addresses.
#2: Spammers with a blatant disregard for the rules (read: all of them) will just use this as a certifiable list of good addresses to check their databases against, while looking good to the government for supposedly obeying the law. All they'd have to do is point to the government's logs of activity on the list server and say "Hey, I'm not spamming illegally, I've been checking the list failthfully everyday! Look in the logs!" It would probbly even stand up in court. In the meantime, they'll be spewing billions of e-mails from their XP zombie servers scattered about the Internet to government verified addresses.
The argument could be made that people who put their name on the list don't want the spam and the spammers shouldn't waste their bandwidth, but if that was the logic behind spam, it wouldn't be the problem it already is. I sure as hell didn't sign up on the Nicaraguan Mortgage Companies' penis-englargement vicodin advertising list, that's for sure.
Just because something is encrypted doesn't make it secure.
What we need is a way to ensure that e-mail comes from a verifiable source. HTTP has gone through a revision or two, HTML gets revised every few years, why hasn't SMTP been touched? It'd be good to see a solution that allows anyone to run their own mailserver as well, I know I'd sure have an easier time with my own website (which I host from home) if I could run a mailserver without all the mail being immediately placed in the Bulk or Junk mail folder of whomever I send a message to. Blocking spammers would be cake if we could verify domains with certainty. Getting spam from underagechicks.com? Oops, block the domain. Blacklisting would certainly be easier, and if someone who doesn't deserve it gets blacklisted, then they should have been more careful with how they secured their mailserver and/or who they allowed to use it.
As it stands now, half my Bulk mail is bounced spam which I did not send. Spammers are now using valid e-mail addresses to spam from, with the hopes that since they are indeed vaild addresses they will be more reliably passed by spam filters. A clearly illegal and sinister tactic (imagine if a telemarketer spoofed their caller ID to your number so that people would answer their phones more?). A verification of sender check would prevent phony addresses from being used.
We cant' stop people from sending whatever they want though e-mail, including advertisments. The problem, however, is we can't block what we don't want if we can't determine its origin reliably.
"TurdFerguson"
Best SNL skits ever = perfect AIM name
Will replace nonsensical screen name ending in 420 from the 10th grade
Ackbar isn't a cliche on
They'll actually let us use the bandwidth they provide to us without restricting/overcharging us?
Nah.
N is bound to 16, and you have to account for the requirement of having the first character be a letter (a good move on AOL's part because it made SMS compatability much simpler to implement, I assume), so (26^1)+(36^16) = approx 7.95866110995 x 10^24
Still plenty, but is it really useful to have "xrb2387CNoin2dH8" for a screen name? I like how ICQ has a system of ID numbers and you can assign whatever name you like to them. Even though it's less user-friendly to pass along, phone numbers aren't much better, but logging in from a remote computer presents a problem, too, when trying to remember your number...
Man, I think I just got the urge to brainstorm
Can you purge one for me?
I knew about Jabber, but I was thinking more along the lines of a P2P-style client that is serverless. The only problem is how to manage screen names. You can't spell "NickServ" without "Serv[er]"...
...or at least it's becomming more and more visible how it's going too. It's too damn hard to get a screen name that isn't taken, because you have all of AIM and all of regular AOL to compete with, and accounts don't ever disappear. Eventually that namespace is going to be used up.
Charging for voice and video is an injustice because AOL is not bouncing the stream off it's own servers; it goes P2P, so to speak. So what are they charging for? You're effectively renting software as you use it, and that's not going to fly, for the same reason charging micropayments by the IM is a bad idea.
Looks liek it's time for me to get started on that IM client project I've been meaning to start for years, everytime I get fed up with being booted off AOL. I'll make millions while AOL crumbles beneath me! MUAHAHA*ahem* sorry.
Failure to look at how this could help you can also hurt you someday. Make sure things in this world are not done wrong, not that they're not done at all.
IIRC, AAC is "MP4" essentially...correct?
PIN number.
Besides, I haven't had a single clerk ever compare my signature to my card before.