Well, here's the early data: The 'confirm' message has a domain which you can't send email to at all; the domain exists, but there's no MX records or anything, and you can't send email there.
Who gave them permission to share my contact info with their marketing department? Privacy means you use personal info about me only with my permission. Use, not just sharing, is part of the picture.
TrustE does not require people to agree not to sell names. For instance, Amazon says they may at any time start selling names, so you still have to ask them not to. Something like TrustE is not as good, IMHO, as the Powell's privacy policy (http://www.powells.com/info/privacy.html). Note that they don't say anything I can see about TrustE, but they are offering you more privacy than most companies who do.
TrustE is like an ISO9001 certified organization which has documented that it sucks. It doesn't help that they have proof that they suck; they still suck.
Hold out for reasonable policies, and let the proof be in the pudding.
(Disclaimer: I am a happy Powell's customer. I don't work for 'em, I don't get paid by 'em, but it is important to me that they stay in business, because they are an excellent source for books.)
It doesn't make them accountable in any way, really. They can change the policy any time they want - TrustE does not require them to keep it steady. So, all they have to do is periodically change the policy completely (remember, notification consists of posting the new policy), do bad things, then change the policy back.
TrustE exists to try to prevent other watchdog groups from gaining acceptance. Don't buy into it.
If you posted We track our customers down, shave their cats, and rape their aunts. on your web site, and did so, TrustE would certify you.
TrustE will *NEVER*, *EVER* prevent companies from spamming. Excite spammed me. I complained to TrustE. They said "Excite has now removed you from that list, therefore, there is no problem".
Sorry, but a "one free bite per customer" policy is not enforcement.
Never, ever, refer to TrustE as if it ensured privacy or honesty; you're giving credibility to an organization that is probably almost an entire level of deviousness up from the DMA.
Sure, *THEY* say they quit. I say they spammed my mom a few weeks ago, they have lied about this, they have ignored complaints, they have re-added people who have asked to be taken off their lists, and they have never, ever, admitted that maybe they should just ask.
I think they're still connected because they've made "you can't disconnect us, we fixed it" lies at uu.net, not because of a dearth of complaints.
... Every single technical, admin, or zone contact in the world sent a single polite solicitation to Mr. Emery? After all, he claims to have a relationship with us such that this is not abuse.
It is a transformational experience to realize that one-to-many is just as abusive as many-to-one.
Re:they claim list removal is possible...
on
NSI to be RBL'ed?
·
· Score: 1
So? It's not my job to clean their marketing mailing list.
I sent my "remove" request to the MAPS RBL team, and I hope NSI is RBL'd.
Hmm. I have an old thing I wrote a few years back sitting around on my web page...
http://www.plethora.net/~seebs/faqs/hacker.html
Not sure if that's the same kind of thing.
99% of managing hackers is mostly-like managing anyone else well. The difference is just that hacker productivity will vary a lot more with quality of environment.
sizeof('a') is 4. Oh, wait. 8. Oh, 1. It depends. It's just that it's the same as sizeof(int).
There's a reason for this. In C, 'a' is an int, and you can do hacky stuff like 'abcd' on some platforms and expect to get results. C++ changed it so you could overload functions to take char arguments and get the results you expected.
C++ was not intended, as of a fairly long time back, to be a perfect superset, just to be "fairly compatible".
C++ *will not* include the C9X features, which, for me, means that C9X will be the one I use, because C++ is a lot uglier.
Labeling solves absolutely none of the problem. Spam does not need to exist, it does not need to be legalized, and suggesting this is, frankly, *VERY STUPID*.
Three years ago, maybe four, when we didn't know much about how spam would shape up, it seemed like an interesting idea.
Now we know a lot more about the economics of spam. And no, filtering isn't the solution.
The solution is simple; ISP's kill accounts and web pages and all other services of spammers. Spammers eventually run out of ISP's. End of problem.
I personally don't think we need any new laws; just the RBL.
http://maps.vix.com/rbl/
Thinking like an end-user...
on
UNIX for Moms
·
· Score: 1
Wouldn't it have been a good idea if the person designing the drive had known that would happen, and had come up with a way for the computer to notify the moron?
I work in support, and I'm *very* tired of people who need to be told to hit enter.
That said, that's not their problem entirely. Go read _The Design Of Everyday Things_.
Learn to think like an end-user; even expert users will find your applications easier to use.
"mom-friendly"? Whose mom?
on
UNIX for Moms
·
· Score: 1
What makes someone who can use TeX a computer geek? Lots of mathematicians who aren't particularly computer oriented learn enough TeX to write a paper or two.
That said, she *is* a mathematician, and that counts for a lot. The main coolness of this is positive reporting in the press.
Hey, that's Seebs' mom! (yup! and I'm so proud)
on
UNIX for Moms
·
· Score: 0
Slashdot Mirror
Well, here's the early data: The 'confirm'
message has a domain which you can't send email
to at all; the domain exists, but there's no
MX records or anything, and you can't send
email there.
Very disappointing.
So, I used a special unique email address. Anyone ;)
want to take bets on how many days before I get
junk email at it?
Who gave them permission to share my contact info
with their marketing department? Privacy means you
use personal info about me only with my permission.
Use, not just sharing, is part of the picture.
TrustE does not require people to agree not to
sell names. For instance, Amazon says they may
at any time start selling names, so you still have
to ask them not to. Something like TrustE is not
as good, IMHO, as the Powell's privacy policy
(http://www.powells.com/info/privacy.html). Note
that they don't say anything I can see about
TrustE, but they are offering you more privacy
than most companies who do.
TrustE is like an ISO9001 certified organization
which has documented that it sucks. It doesn't
help that they have proof that they suck; they
still suck.
Hold out for reasonable policies, and let the proof
be in the pudding.
(Disclaimer: I am a happy Powell's customer.
I don't work for 'em, I don't get paid by 'em,
but it is important to me that they stay in
business, because they are an excellent source
for books.)
It doesn't make them accountable in any way,
really. They can change the policy any time
they want - TrustE does not require them to
keep it steady. So, all they have to do is
periodically change the policy completely
(remember, notification consists of posting the
new policy), do bad things, then change the policy
back.
TrustE exists to try to prevent other watchdog
groups from gaining acceptance. Don't buy into
it.
If you posted
We track our customers down, shave their
cats, and rape their aunts.
on your web site, and did so, TrustE would certify
you.
TrustE will *NEVER*, *EVER* prevent companies from
spamming. Excite spammed me. I complained to TrustE.
They said "Excite has now removed you from that
list, therefore, there is no problem".
Sorry, but a "one free bite per customer" policy
is not enforcement.
Never, ever, refer to TrustE as if it ensured
privacy or honesty; you're giving credibility to
an organization that is probably almost an entire
level of deviousness up from the DMA.
Sure, *THEY* say they quit. I say they spammed
my mom a few weeks ago, they have lied about this,
they have ignored complaints, they have re-added
people who have asked to be taken off their lists,
and they have never, ever, admitted that maybe
they should just ask.
I think they're still connected because they've
made "you can't disconnect us, we fixed it" lies
at uu.net, not because of a dearth of complaints.
http://www.panix.com/~iayork/amazon.html
Amazon has always been spammy. Privacy is not
something they are okay with. They spam, they
lie about it, they continue to spam.
Why is anyone surprised? You can't deal with
spammers and expect privacy.
... Every single technical, admin, or zone contact
in the world sent a single polite solicitation to
Mr. Emery? After all, he claims to have a
relationship with us such that this is not abuse.
It is a transformational experience to realize
that one-to-many is just as abusive as many-to-one.
So? It's not my job to clean their marketing
mailing list.
I sent my "remove" request to the MAPS RBL
team, and I hope NSI is RBL'd.
Hmm. I have an old thing I wrote a few years
back sitting around on my web page...
http://www.plethora.net/~seebs/faqs/hacker.html
Not sure if that's the same kind of thing.
99% of managing hackers is mostly-like managing
anyone else well. The difference is just that
hacker productivity will vary a lot more with
quality of environment.
sizeof('a') is 4. Oh, wait. 8. Oh, 1.
It depends. It's just that it's the same
as sizeof(int).
There's a reason for this. In C, 'a' is an int,
and you can do hacky stuff like 'abcd' on some
platforms and expect to get results. C++ changed
it so you could overload functions to take char
arguments and get the results you expected.
C++ was not intended, as of a fairly long time
back, to be a perfect superset, just to be "fairly
compatible".
C++ *will not* include the C9X features, which,
for me, means that C9X will be the one I use,
because C++ is a lot uglier.
(Disclaimer: I just might be a little
biased.)
Labeling solves absolutely none of the problem.
Spam does not need to exist, it does not need
to be legalized, and suggesting this is, frankly,
*VERY STUPID*.
Three years ago, maybe four, when we didn't know
much about how spam would shape up, it seemed like
an interesting idea.
Now we know a lot more about the economics of
spam. And no, filtering isn't the solution.
The solution is simple; ISP's kill accounts and
web pages and all other services of spammers.
Spammers eventually run out of ISP's. End of
problem.
I personally don't think we need any new laws;
just the RBL.
http://maps.vix.com/rbl/
Wouldn't it have been a good idea if the person
designing the drive had known that would happen,
and had come up with a way for the computer to
notify the moron?
"Your CD-ROM drive has been open for 15 minutes."
:)
If memory serves, we were using PCTeX on a Zenith
Z-100 running MS-DOS 3.3. I think it also ran
on our luggable Z-171.
(Admittedly, we were a computer family from way
back.)
I work in support, and I'm *very* tired of
people who need to be told to hit enter.
That said, that's not their problem entirely.
Go read _The Design Of Everyday Things_.
Learn to think like an end-user; even expert
users will find your applications easier to
use.
What makes someone who can use TeX a computer
geek? Lots of mathematicians who aren't particularly
computer oriented learn enough TeX to write
a paper or two.
That said, she *is* a mathematician, and that
counts for a lot. The main coolness of this is
positive reporting in the press.
Yes. BUT IT ISN'T LINUX, IT'S NETBSD DAMMIT!
I'm having fun talking to them about it though.
They've tried to convince me it doesn't apply
to "operating software". Heh.