Go outside, get a life.. you're calling me a retard (a derogatory term I might add) over a COMPUTER ARGUMENT. Take a step back and look at how foolish you seem!
There are many reasons to dislike Windows. Reliability, however, is not one of them. My desktop running Windows XP hasn't crashed yet due to software. Individual programs crash, sure, but the OS is rock solid. My laptop running Win2k has gone for up to a week without rebooting - that's going between multiple network environments, hardware configurations, and going in and out of suspend and hibernate.
Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of reasons to bash Windows such as lackluster security (although a patched system can be as secure as a patched GNU/Linux installation).
Working with end users, I find that Windows is both hard to learn AND hard to use. Nobody's figured out how to make a truly intuitive interface yet, including Linux and Windows. Users don't get or accept the concept that there are multiple ways of doing things - they get locked into the first technique they learn, such as going to the file menu and clicking exit rather than hitting the big x. They are STILL afraid of breaking things, which is unfortunately still a valid fear.
At least in Massachusetts I know that you are allowed to bring a lawyer. However the system is designed so that having a lawyer isn't a great advantage. They try to cut down on the legal mumbo-jumbo and technicalities that are common in real litigation. You are allowed to present your case in plain English, without knowing tons of legalese.
Massachusetts has a consumer protection law (MGL c. 93A) that outlines how you may take a merchant to small claims. The process is specifically designed to allow consumers to resolve problems with businesses.
What happened to 'Information wants to be free?'
on
The Hypermedia Hazard
·
· Score: 2
Whatever happened to the 'Information wants to be free' JonKatz?
Jon seems willing to ignore previous statements he's made, frequently contradicting himself so he can write some new BS. What happened to the information zealot JonKatz, talking about geeks gathering online and Old media dying in the face of new media? Did the JonKatz who wrote this piece, about how newspapers can't compete with 'new media', do an about face since then?
Face it, Jon: distortion of facts pre-dated your 'new media' by many, many years. What, you say? There were rumors and urban legends BEFORE e-mail forwarding became a national pastime? The list of pre-1990s frenzies and distorted facts is too numerous to list them all.. how about:
The LSD scares of the 1960s, which last to this day: Teens staring into the sun, jumping out of windows, evil 'pushers' getting your elementary-school kids hooked on Mickey Mouse acid. The 'old media' reported on much of this as if it were fact.
The psychiatric debacle called 'repressed memories,' where the power of suggestion has caused thousands of people to invent stories of ritual and satanic abuse. Again, the old media ate this stuff up.
Jon, you can't change your opinion every time it would result in a good story. A year or two ago, you were singing praises of the Internet and online communication.
I fully agree. This is another example of an irresponsible and misleading submission for the purpose of sensationalism. Of course MS is going to charge for a valuable service you can plug into your applications. If you don't want to pay for it, or you don't trust MS to host critical parts of your app, then don't buy it! It's all XML based, so write your own components.
I'm not sure if MS has released pricing on Visual Studio.NET.. Whatever it is, I'm sure it won't be far off of their current VS pricing. One thing you'll never see is MS making developers SUBSCRIBE to Visual Studio.. they know their customers, and they know that nobody would stand for that. If you had to pay a monthly fee just to run VS in order to revise your app, developers would jump ship.
When someone simply refers to.NET, I tend to think of the core development tools of the.NET initiative.. that is, the common language runtime along with the framework class library, and individual languages such as C# and VB.NET. You'd have to be crazy to tell someone, "If you don't pay up this month, your C# compiler will break." Gimme a break, developers can't have that.
The PS2 isn't the most reliable console.. in addition to DVD and PSX problems you mentioned, my PS2 decided to stop reading CDs a few months after the warranty ended (90 days? ack!). DVDs work fine, but most PS2 games are on CD which sucks. I had to open up the console and adjust a little potentiometer.. I guess it ups the laser power. it works great now, but I'm sure the laser is slowly burning holes through my discs. Consumers shouldn't have to choose between
A. Paying $300 for a defective console, and then paying $120 more for the privilege of mailing it to Sony for repair
and
B. Opening up the console and tinkering around inside
Ahh, those were the days.. We didn't just EXPECT our video games to work, if you wanted to play Punch out you had to EARN it! And if you didn't have the touch, well, you were still entertained by that flashing red light on the console! We didn't need 3D, we had a flashing red light! You kids have it easy.
only the recipient is able to judge what is and is not spam
I disagree.. the recipient is part of the spam problem. If 99% of spam recipients think it's spam, but there's that 1% that really wants that credit card/loan/porn/make money fast, is it spam? I guess you'd say it's not spam. I'm sure there are people out there who wouldn't be offended if you were to put XXX porn on the Jumbotron in Times Square. They are the minority, though. Most users by far consider spam a nuisance. It is not a legitimate marketing method. A lot of spam is fraud. Spam has to be stopped, and it really is for the good of that 1% who don't know better.
Should an ISP filter its HTTP proxy to block sites that use pop-up ads?
Nope.. that's very different from spam. Pop-up ads are initiated by an action of my choosing - visiting some site. If I stop going to that site, I stop getting the ads, and I stop paying for that bandwidth. On the contrary, receiving spam is completely out of my control.
... have been repeated countless times.. by spammers.
Did you know that IP blocks that have been on the RBL in the past, but have been long removed, are still largely useless because of ISPs that once upon a time installed local blocking rules based on RBL information, and never bothered to keep those rules up to date.
How is this MAPS fault? Any ISP that does this should know better.. Would it be a problem if I ran an ISP and blocked IPs on my own? Say, no packets to or from China? Of course not.. nothing wrong with that, unless my users start complaining. ISPs aren't a public service, they can do whatever the hell they want.
That's not to say they are a bad idea, but only that they impose prior restraint on speech (if they didn't they wouldn't be very effective!;). There's a balancing act that must be performed here, so that the 1st amendment is treaded upon as lightly as possible, while still addressing the problem.
Never said that spam laws aren't prior restraint.. of course they are. So are obscenity laws, and harassment laws. Can I follow you around all day shouting obscenities? No? But it's OK for me to do that to your inbox?
The legislators of anti-junk-fax laws decided that the costs of receiving the junk faxes was unfairly being borne mostly by the recipients, who have to pay for their paper and ink.
As opposed to the costs of spam, which are paid up front by the spammers, who are happy to pay for the bandwidth they use, abuse staff salary, and wasted time of all the recipients. Oh wait, spammers don't pay for any of that. Forget what I said.
Most email users do not pay extra for incoming emails, especially in the US. They would pay the same amount for their internet service, whether they receive no spam, or thousands per month. This cost/benefit analysis MUST be part of any anti-spam legislation, just as it was for the anti-junk-fax legislation.
Bullshit. Maybe you're not aware of how much it costs to run an abuse department, or how much bandwidth spammers waste. AOL estimated that 30% of their e-mail traffic was spam. In addition, processing of mail along with filtering spam takes up CPU cycles. If you think that ISPs just eat those costs without passing them along to the consumer, well, who's being naive?
In the US, it's true that most users pay a flat rate for Internet - the cost of spam is just rolled into that flat rate. However in many other countries, folks pay by the minute. I have received spam with 100, even 200k of attachments. In this case, the cost of spam is charged directly to the user.
The answer to this problem really has to be the oft-repeated "JUST HIT DELETE".
You've got to be joking.. this is a joke, right?
I was too generous in my original post. I don't believe spam should be a protected form of speech - It's actually harassment. Spammers should be charged with harassment. I have had to ditch e-mail addresses due to the amazing amount of crap in my mailbox. (20+ spams a day? Would you like to 'just hit delete' on those, while making sure not to miss any important ones? And if you tell me to filter them, that isn't, and shouldn't be the user's responsibility.)
Systems administrators who will not adopt the suggested anti-spam policies find themselves unable to deliver their non-spamming users' mail to recipients who are on systems that participate in blacklisting.
The EFF, like many other groups, is incorrectly stating that MAPS is the organization doing the actual blocking of packets, not the ISPs. It is clear to me that if ISPs did not agree with MAPS' policies on what to block and with its history of questionable bans, then those ISPs wouldn't subscribe to MAPS. It is clear that ISPs see a benefit in using a blacklist, one that saves them money on bandwidth and support. Aside from the purely practical aspect, many feel very strongly about spam.
The EFF stated that they wouldn't support a blacklist if it blocked one legitimate piece of e-mail. Aside from the fact that this is impossible, they don't seem to understand the reason that MAPS works. It wouldn't work if spam-friendly ISPs were free to sign up spammers, without any fear of ALL their traffic being blackholed.. In order for a blackhole to work, you have to block ALL of their users' traffic. Yes, it sucks if you are that user.. however, it may teach you a lesson that it doesn't pay to have a spammer one IP over from you. If ISPs don't deal with their spam problems, they are free to watch all their users go away.
MAPS 'suggested anti-spam policies' are not overly demanding. They don't force ISPs to jump through hoops, they are reasonable requests to make. An ISP who subscribes to MAPS is saying, "I don't want to receive newsletters that are not confirmed opt-in. I don't want to receive mail from ISPs with open relays." Folks, that's not too much to ask for.
Yes it's a strong arm tactic, but it's one or the other - strong arm, or legislation. The EFF believes that filtering at the user's end is the right way to deal with spam. Bullshit. Filtering doesn't stop them from using up my bandwidth. Filtering doesn't stop them from spewing all over the net, wasting the time of support staff nationwide. Until every last AOL box is filtered from receiving a single piece of spam, there WILL be suckers responding to this shit, and the spammers WILL get paid. Filtering doesn't stop spam support services, spamvertised web sites, or spamware companies.
The EFF throws around that word, 'censorship,' like they don't know what it means. This worries me.. it is censorship if someone (correct me if I'm wrong, but censorship applies only to gov'ts) prevents you from voicing your opinion, or saying whatever you have to say. It is NOT censorship if I say to you, "I'm not going to listen to what you, or anyone from your ISP, has to say."
As for legislation, illegal censorship prevents speech based on CONTENT. Legal restraint of speech, such as junk fax laws, prevents speech based on the METHOD of the speech.
You're right, I do work at a computer firm and every single one of us has some form of broadband at home.. however most of my friends are still in college (and not in a computer-related field), and they are also shelling out $50/mo for high speed Internet. I do think the demand is there.. we are far past the 'early adopter' stage here.
The problem is not infrastructure, it is management. There's no brand recognition in broadband, with all the companies merging and going under.. My cable company has already changed names once, and my internet service has had 3 different names!
With few exceptions, the current providers suck. My Mediaone Road Runner (oops, I mean AT&T @Home now) connection has become consistently slower and unreliable.. Verizon DSL in my area uses PPPOE along with WinPOET, which I hear is a real pain in the ass.
I say, give the people decent service, don't waste money, and watch the subscribers roll in. For god's sake, AT&T calls me every week to find out if I want a cable modem. I already HAVE one of their cable modems!
If broadband goes under, here's what I am going to do:
I am going to run my own broadband service. That's right, I think I can make money where other companies failed. Why? Because these startups were idiots! Everyone wants broadband! My friends who really aren't computer people, are signing up for DSL or cable, happily shelling out $50/mo.
If you can't make money providing a simple service to customers who will pay you $50 a month and be happy if they can just get their porn, well you're dumb. I may be oversimplifying things, but here is the fact: Plenty of times, people have wanted things. Stuff like cars, computers, and broadband Internet. If people want things, the bottom line is that SOMEONE is going to sell it to them! When these companies fail, it's not because people don't want the product - it's because of poor management. Management that couldn't see the eventual downturn in Internet companies was coming, management who thought $2M super bowl commercials, where most of the viewers weren't actually in the service area, were a really good idea.
Yeah, the current round of dumbshit broadband providers is failing.. so what? There are millions of people out there, without service, who are PRAYING for someone to come along and take their $50/mo. Broadband just isn't going away.. it's not an inherently 'unprofitable' market. Few things are.
I am ashamed at what corporations and politicians have done to America.. however, none of this would be possible if the American people cared more about the directions they are being led in. I would say I'm much more ashamed at the level of apathy in the US, than I am ashamed at the people who we have chosen to run the country.
As for making drastic changes in our government, I think we could do a lot worse. It's not perfect here, but there are a lot of problems that we don't have to worry about. These are problems like not having clean water or medical care, or a 30+ million person AIDS epidemic.
At the same time, we need to work on the problems we do have. Our human rights record is pretty piss-poor, the drug war needs to end now, and it's true that we have a civil liberties problem. The solution, though, isn't just to throw everything out and start from scratch. Democracy can work - it's just up to the people to make it work. Last November, voter turnout was around 50%. That's terrible! No wonder government and law enforcement know they can get away with a lot.. they know that many of us just don't care.
Well, I never said you should compress your MP3's at 10:1 (around 160kbit I think). 256kbit MP3's should yield roughly 5.5x compression. Again, I hope you don't take my word for it. Run your own ABX test in a controlled listening environment and check if you can hear the difference..
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes
-Thomas Jefferson, from the Declaration of Independence
Don't overestimate the importance of this legislation. It's a foolish piece of law, and yes, it invades on some of our personal freedoms, but is it so important? I think when all of this flag waving, go-America sentiment dies down, laws like this may be struck down or repealed..
Don't trust the web page, do some ABX tests on your reference system, comparing 256kbit MP3 to the original signal.
Oh, did you mean 128kbit MP3, encoded by Musicmatch, has hisses and skips? I whole heartedly agree with you! But if you believe that all MP3 < all CD, I have a $20,000 tube amp I'd like to sell you.
Assuming 256kbit MP3 done with a decent encoder, this component, and a Toslink connection to your badass DAC, I can assure you that the limiting factor there is the quality of your DAC and everything after it.
This happened to me twice in the past week. They know it's happening, and they seem to be taking their sweet time fixing it. If you don't muck around with your network card, release/renew, etc. you shouldn't run into any problems since it's only with the DHCP.
This is one time Linux dhcpcd is a bad thing- it's one of the few DHCP clients that actually plays by the rules, releasing your IP when you shutdown. Windows doesn't bother.
Overall ATT Broadband has their heads up their asses. They have managed to develop the WORST voice response system EVER. If you call the cable support number, they drag you through a huge menu, only to tell you to call another phone number. Another menu, a recorded woman who tells you about Nimda, how to reset your cable modem, then a recorded man who also tells you about Nimda, then a hold time ~20 mins. No wonder these companies are going under.. they couldn't manage a cable company, let alone an ISP.
A jaywalker CANNOT be convicted of a felony, period. It's just not on the books.
A website defacer, however, COULD be sentenced to life in jail under the ATA. Yes, it probably wouldn't happen, but it COULD, which is really the more important part.
I am concerned that legislators are not aware of how dangerous the SSSCA is, especially in light of our recent disaster and our coming war. Now more than ever, we need to be concerned about the possibility of losing our individual freedoms.
Are our lawmakers aware of the SSSCA and its dangers? Do you think it will be debated in detail, or will it pass "under the radar?"
This banner wasn't really the main point of my post.. in any case, I think the slogan was needlessly inflammatory, and disagreed with the sentiment of most of the town's residents. I for one, was extremely offended by it. Can't we acknowledge that the country has an abortion problem without being little kids about it, calling names and using hurtful speech? I would be very surprised if I ever saw an abortion protester who didn't fall into lowest-common-denominator tactics, holding up pictures of fully developed, stillborn babies (they will even lie and tell you they're aborted fetuses).
HOWEVER, if someone came along and tried to restrict your right to be utterly offensive and tasteless in your protests, I would defend that right with all my power. That is your right, and the damage done by taking away that right is thousands of times worse than the damage done by your message.
How is this different from spam? Simple, spam just shouldn't be a form of protected speech, regardless of content. Same as junk faxes, same as harassment.
I'll put aside the fact that this happened in Europe, for a second to talk about free speech in the US. It's my understanding that the Gov. can restrict harmful speech as long as it is in a content-neutral manner. I'll give an example. I live in the very liberal town of Amherst, MA. There is a banner across a public road, which town residents can use for announcements, etc. But every so often, some nut rents out the banner and puts up strongly-worded anti-abortion messages such as "Abortion has two victims, one is wounded and the other is dead." Needless to say, this sentiment doesn't reflect the opinion of MOST of the town. Unless we want to eliminate the banner entirely, though, there's nothing we can do about it without infringing on someone's first-amendment rights.
There is nothing in a law that prevents sending UCE that is restrictive of your personal freedoms, as long as it's done in a content-neutral way. My view is that spammers are infringing on MY rights when they put their crap into my mailbox. I think I have a RIGHT to pay for my Internet access without paying for someone else to send me porno and get rich quick schemes. I think if ISPs and users were allowed to recoup the costs of receiving spam as damages, ISP rates would drop!
Your suggestion that you should be required to add a header to your e-mail is just as restrictive. I think ANY restraint of speech is a very serious matter, and deserves much debate. I equate spam with a type of speech that is wholly unwanted and unbeneficial to society. We have proven that self-policing of spam simply doesn't work. There are too many rogue networks and spam-friendly service contracts out there to stop it.
The government is not telling you that there is a subset of users who you cannot e-mail. You are being told that if your e-mail is of a commercial nature, you can send it to ANY user who has agreed to receive e-mail from you, and to NO user who you are simply marketing to. Would this law prevent you from doing something that you presently do? If it would, then you are probably a spammer. If not, what are you worried about?
This isn't like encryption, or spying on citizens, or taking away your guns (although they already did that in Europe). You have a right to those things. You do not have a right to be a nuisance to millions of others.
Probably, yes. They have said they are OK with people using the term 'spam', with a lower-case 's'. However they don't want people using the term 'Spam', which would refer to their meat product. I'm sure they would be opposed to someone using a picture of their product in reference to 'spam'.
Personally, I'm fine with not calling it spam at all. I think people might take it more seriously if we always referred to it as UCE or something. 'spam' is an outdated term, reflective of the informality of the early days of the 'net. 'spam' can also mean other things than UCE, such as flooding a chat room.
Except for the CS degree, those are all entry-level certifications. For network administrators, I would look for CNE or MCSE certs, depending on what platform you were looking for of course. If I were hiring someone into a position where I expected them to learn and grow, I would hire someone with A+, MCP, or the like.. but to think that someone with an MCP is going to lead your enterprise migration from VMS is ridiculous..
MCSE and CNE are good certifications I think, just due to the sheer number of tests you need to take. For an MCSE with no previous MS certification, you need 7 tests under your belt. MCSE+I is 9. You don't just go out one day and say "I think I'll get an MCSE.." It's a big career move, and a huge committment. You will need to get recertified periodically, and it does cost money to study and take the tests. There are enough tests in the series to weed out people who aren't truly committed to learning.
I think certification is important depending on what you want. It's only one piece of the puzzle, and you certainly need to look for real-world experience and a demonstrated ability to learn and adapt. But if I were looking for someone whose job would mainly be to troubleshoot LaserJets, HP certification is the first thing I'd require!
As someone who once was a fellow "lazy dipshit," shouldn't you have a little more understanding for people who don't take college seriously enough? You mentioned you finished your degree at 32, so I'm assuming that you started when you were younger and at some point you left. If I'm wrong, please excuse me.
I left college last year, and so far it has been one of the best decisions I have made. When I was there, I saw plenty of students who didn't care, who got by doing the bare minimum. At the same time, there are plenty of students who really put their hearts and souls into their educations. But for those others, I think they're simply not ready for college. I know I wasn't.
I understand students who just aren't enthusiastic about college. Maybe they shouldn't be there, or maybe they need to go back when they are more mature. But to suggest that they all dig ditches or flip burgers? Come on. You can't exclude the K-12 educational system from at least some of the blame - By the time students get to college, many of them have become completely cynical and disrespectful of institutional learning. Couple that with the feeling that they are being forced to go to college, or the feeling that they won't get a decent job unless they go, and you'll get a bunch of bare-minimum C- students.
Slashdot Mirror
Go outside, get a life.. you're calling me a retard (a derogatory term I might add) over a COMPUTER ARGUMENT. Take a step back and look at how foolish you seem!
There are many reasons to dislike Windows. Reliability, however, is not one of them. My desktop running Windows XP hasn't crashed yet due to software. Individual programs crash, sure, but the OS is rock solid. My laptop running Win2k has gone for up to a week without rebooting - that's going between multiple network environments, hardware configurations, and going in and out of suspend and hibernate.
Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of reasons to bash Windows such as lackluster security (although a patched system can be as secure as a patched GNU/Linux installation).
Working with end users, I find that Windows is both hard to learn AND hard to use. Nobody's figured out how to make a truly intuitive interface yet, including Linux and Windows. Users don't get or accept the concept that there are multiple ways of doing things - they get locked into the first technique they learn, such as going to the file menu and clicking exit rather than hitting the big x. They are STILL afraid of breaking things, which is unfortunately still a valid fear.
At least in Massachusetts I know that you are allowed to bring a lawyer. However the system is designed so that having a lawyer isn't a great advantage. They try to cut down on the legal mumbo-jumbo and technicalities that are common in real litigation. You are allowed to present your case in plain English, without knowing tons of legalese.
Massachusetts has a consumer protection law (MGL c. 93A) that outlines how you may take a merchant to small claims. The process is specifically designed to allow consumers to resolve problems with businesses.
Whatever happened to the 'Information wants to be free' JonKatz?
Jon seems willing to ignore previous statements he's made, frequently contradicting himself so he can write some new BS. What happened to the information zealot JonKatz, talking about geeks gathering online and Old media dying in the face of new media? Did the JonKatz who wrote this piece, about how newspapers can't compete with 'new media', do an about face since then?
Face it, Jon: distortion of facts pre-dated your 'new media' by many, many years. What, you say? There were rumors and urban legends BEFORE e-mail forwarding became a national pastime? The list of pre-1990s frenzies and distorted facts is too numerous to list them all.. how about:
The LSD scares of the 1960s, which last to this day: Teens staring into the sun, jumping out of windows, evil 'pushers' getting your elementary-school kids hooked on Mickey Mouse acid. The 'old media' reported on much of this as if it were fact.
The psychiatric debacle called 'repressed memories,' where the power of suggestion has caused thousands of people to invent stories of ritual and satanic abuse. Again, the old media ate this stuff up.
Jon, you can't change your opinion every time it would result in a good story. A year or two ago, you were singing praises of the Internet and online communication.
I fully agree. This is another example of an irresponsible and misleading submission for the purpose of sensationalism. Of course MS is going to charge for a valuable service you can plug into your applications. If you don't want to pay for it, or you don't trust MS to host critical parts of your app, then don't buy it! It's all XML based, so write your own components.
.NET, I tend to think of the core development tools of the .NET initiative.. that is, the common language runtime along with the framework class library, and individual languages such as C# and VB.NET. You'd have to be crazy to tell someone, "If you don't pay up this month, your C# compiler will break." Gimme a break, developers can't have that.
I'm not sure if MS has released pricing on Visual Studio.NET.. Whatever it is, I'm sure it won't be far off of their current VS pricing. One thing you'll never see is MS making developers SUBSCRIBE to Visual Studio.. they know their customers, and they know that nobody would stand for that. If you had to pay a monthly fee just to run VS in order to revise your app, developers would jump ship.
When someone simply refers to
The PS2 isn't the most reliable console.. in addition to DVD and PSX problems you mentioned, my PS2 decided to stop reading CDs a few months after the warranty ended (90 days? ack!). DVDs work fine, but most PS2 games are on CD which sucks. I had to open up the console and adjust a little potentiometer.. I guess it ups the laser power. it works great now, but I'm sure the laser is slowly burning holes through my discs. Consumers shouldn't have to choose between
A. Paying $300 for a defective console, and then paying $120 more for the privilege of mailing it to Sony for repair
and
B. Opening up the console and tinkering around inside
Ahh, those were the days.. We didn't just EXPECT our video games to work, if you wanted to play Punch out you had to EARN it! And if you didn't have the touch, well, you were still entertained by that flashing red light on the console! We didn't need 3D, we had a flashing red light! You kids have it easy.
only the recipient is able to judge what is and is not spam
I disagree.. the recipient is part of the spam problem. If 99% of spam recipients think it's spam, but there's that 1% that really wants that credit card/loan/porn/make money fast, is it spam? I guess you'd say it's not spam. I'm sure there are people out there who wouldn't be offended if you were to put XXX porn on the Jumbotron in Times Square. They are the minority, though. Most users by far consider spam a nuisance. It is not a legitimate marketing method. A lot of spam is fraud. Spam has to be stopped, and it really is for the good of that 1% who don't know better.
Should an ISP filter its HTTP proxy to block sites that use pop-up ads?
Nope.. that's very different from spam. Pop-up ads are initiated by an action of my choosing - visiting some site. If I stop going to that site, I stop getting the ads, and I stop paying for that bandwidth. On the contrary, receiving spam is completely out of my control.
... have been repeated countless times.. by spammers.
;). There's a balancing act that must be performed here, so that the 1st amendment is treaded upon as lightly as possible, while still addressing the problem.
Did you know that IP blocks that have been on the RBL in the past, but have been long removed, are still largely useless because of ISPs that once upon a time installed local blocking rules based on RBL information, and never bothered to keep those rules up to date.
How is this MAPS fault? Any ISP that does this should know better.. Would it be a problem if I ran an ISP and blocked IPs on my own? Say, no packets to or from China? Of course not.. nothing wrong with that, unless my users start complaining. ISPs aren't a public service, they can do whatever the hell they want.
That's not to say they are a bad idea, but only that they impose prior restraint on speech (if they didn't they wouldn't be very effective!
Never said that spam laws aren't prior restraint.. of course they are. So are obscenity laws, and harassment laws. Can I follow you around all day shouting obscenities? No? But it's OK for me to do that to your inbox?
The legislators of anti-junk-fax laws decided that the costs of receiving the junk faxes was unfairly being borne mostly by the recipients, who have to pay for their paper and ink.
As opposed to the costs of spam, which are paid up front by the spammers, who are happy to pay for the bandwidth they use, abuse staff salary, and wasted time of all the recipients. Oh wait, spammers don't pay for any of that. Forget what I said.
Most email users do not pay extra for incoming emails, especially in the US. They would pay the same amount for their internet service, whether they receive no spam, or thousands per month. This cost/benefit analysis MUST be part of any anti-spam legislation, just as it was for the anti-junk-fax legislation.
Bullshit. Maybe you're not aware of how much it costs to run an abuse department, or how much bandwidth spammers waste. AOL estimated that 30% of their e-mail traffic was spam. In addition, processing of mail along with filtering spam takes up CPU cycles. If you think that ISPs just eat those costs without passing them along to the consumer, well, who's being naive?
In the US, it's true that most users pay a flat rate for Internet - the cost of spam is just rolled into that flat rate. However in many other countries, folks pay by the minute. I have received spam with 100, even 200k of attachments. In this case, the cost of spam is charged directly to the user.
The answer to this problem really has to be the oft-repeated "JUST HIT DELETE".
You've got to be joking.. this is a joke, right?
I was too generous in my original post. I don't believe spam should be a protected form of speech - It's actually harassment. Spammers should be charged with harassment. I have had to ditch e-mail addresses due to the amazing amount of crap in my mailbox. (20+ spams a day? Would you like to 'just hit delete' on those, while making sure not to miss any important ones? And if you tell me to filter them, that isn't, and shouldn't be the user's responsibility.)
Systems administrators who will not adopt the suggested anti-spam policies find themselves unable to deliver their non-spamming users' mail to recipients who are on systems that participate in blacklisting.
The EFF, like many other groups, is incorrectly stating that MAPS is the organization doing the actual blocking of packets, not the ISPs. It is clear to me that if ISPs did not agree with MAPS' policies on what to block and with its history of questionable bans, then those ISPs wouldn't subscribe to MAPS. It is clear that ISPs see a benefit in using a blacklist, one that saves them money on bandwidth and support. Aside from the purely practical aspect, many feel very strongly about spam.
The EFF stated that they wouldn't support a blacklist if it blocked one legitimate piece of e-mail. Aside from the fact that this is impossible, they don't seem to understand the reason that MAPS works. It wouldn't work if spam-friendly ISPs were free to sign up spammers, without any fear of ALL their traffic being blackholed.. In order for a blackhole to work, you have to block ALL of their users' traffic. Yes, it sucks if you are that user.. however, it may teach you a lesson that it doesn't pay to have a spammer one IP over from you. If ISPs don't deal with their spam problems, they are free to watch all their users go away.
MAPS 'suggested anti-spam policies' are not overly demanding. They don't force ISPs to jump through hoops, they are reasonable requests to make. An ISP who subscribes to MAPS is saying, "I don't want to receive newsletters that are not confirmed opt-in. I don't want to receive mail from ISPs with open relays." Folks, that's not too much to ask for.
Yes it's a strong arm tactic, but it's one or the other - strong arm, or legislation. The EFF believes that filtering at the user's end is the right way to deal with spam. Bullshit. Filtering doesn't stop them from using up my bandwidth. Filtering doesn't stop them from spewing all over the net, wasting the time of support staff nationwide. Until every last AOL box is filtered from receiving a single piece of spam, there WILL be suckers responding to this shit, and the spammers WILL get paid. Filtering doesn't stop spam support services, spamvertised web sites, or spamware companies.
The EFF throws around that word, 'censorship,' like they don't know what it means. This worries me.. it is censorship if someone (correct me if I'm wrong, but censorship applies only to gov'ts) prevents you from voicing your opinion, or saying whatever you have to say. It is NOT censorship if I say to you, "I'm not going to listen to what you, or anyone from your ISP, has to say."
As for legislation, illegal censorship prevents speech based on CONTENT. Legal restraint of speech, such as junk fax laws, prevents speech based on the METHOD of the speech.
You're right, I do work at a computer firm and every single one of us has some form of broadband at home.. however most of my friends are still in college (and not in a computer-related field), and they are also shelling out $50/mo for high speed Internet. I do think the demand is there.. we are far past the 'early adopter' stage here.
The problem is not infrastructure, it is management. There's no brand recognition in broadband, with all the companies merging and going under.. My cable company has already changed names once, and my internet service has had 3 different names!
With few exceptions, the current providers suck. My Mediaone Road Runner (oops, I mean AT&T @Home now) connection has become consistently slower and unreliable.. Verizon DSL in my area uses PPPOE along with WinPOET, which I hear is a real pain in the ass.
I say, give the people decent service, don't waste money, and watch the subscribers roll in. For god's sake, AT&T calls me every week to find out if I want a cable modem. I already HAVE one of their cable modems!
If broadband goes under, here's what I am going to do:
I am going to run my own broadband service. That's right, I think I can make money where other companies failed. Why? Because these startups were idiots! Everyone wants broadband! My friends who really aren't computer people, are signing up for DSL or cable, happily shelling out $50/mo.
If you can't make money providing a simple service to customers who will pay you $50 a month and be happy if they can just get their porn, well you're dumb. I may be oversimplifying things, but here is the fact: Plenty of times, people have wanted things. Stuff like cars, computers, and broadband Internet. If people want things, the bottom line is that SOMEONE is going to sell it to them! When these companies fail, it's not because people don't want the product - it's because of poor management. Management that couldn't see the eventual downturn in Internet companies was coming, management who thought $2M super bowl commercials, where most of the viewers weren't actually in the service area, were a really good idea.
Yeah, the current round of dumbshit broadband providers is failing.. so what? There are millions of people out there, without service, who are PRAYING for someone to come along and take their $50/mo. Broadband just isn't going away.. it's not an inherently 'unprofitable' market. Few things are.
I am ashamed at what corporations and politicians have done to America.. however, none of this would be possible if the American people cared more about the directions they are being led in. I would say I'm much more ashamed at the level of apathy in the US, than I am ashamed at the people who we have chosen to run the country.
As for making drastic changes in our government, I think we could do a lot worse. It's not perfect here, but there are a lot of problems that we don't have to worry about. These are problems like not having clean water or medical care, or a 30+ million person AIDS epidemic.
At the same time, we need to work on the problems we do have. Our human rights record is pretty piss-poor, the drug war needs to end now, and it's true that we have a civil liberties problem. The solution, though, isn't just to throw everything out and start from scratch. Democracy can work - it's just up to the people to make it work. Last November, voter turnout was around 50%. That's terrible! No wonder government and law enforcement know they can get away with a lot.. they know that many of us just don't care.
Well, I never said you should compress your MP3's at 10:1 (around 160kbit I think). 256kbit MP3's should yield roughly 5.5x compression. Again, I hope you don't take my word for it. Run your own ABX test in a controlled listening environment and check if you can hear the difference..
-Thomas Jefferson, from the Declaration of Independence
Don't overestimate the importance of this legislation. It's a foolish piece of law, and yes, it invades on some of our personal freedoms, but is it so important? I think when all of this flag waving, go-America sentiment dies down, laws like this may be struck down or repealed..
r3mix
Read it, then come back here with a clue.
Don't trust the web page, do some ABX tests on your reference system, comparing 256kbit MP3 to the original signal.
Oh, did you mean 128kbit MP3, encoded by Musicmatch, has hisses and skips? I whole heartedly agree with you! But if you believe that all MP3 < all CD, I have a $20,000 tube amp I'd like to sell you.
Assuming 256kbit MP3 done with a decent encoder, this component, and a Toslink connection to your badass DAC, I can assure you that the limiting factor there is the quality of your DAC and everything after it.
This happened to me twice in the past week. They know it's happening, and they seem to be taking their sweet time fixing it. If you don't muck around with your network card, release/renew, etc. you shouldn't run into any problems since it's only with the DHCP.
This is one time Linux dhcpcd is a bad thing- it's one of the few DHCP clients that actually plays by the rules, releasing your IP when you shutdown. Windows doesn't bother.
Overall ATT Broadband has their heads up their asses. They have managed to develop the WORST voice response system EVER. If you call the cable support number, they drag you through a huge menu, only to tell you to call another phone number. Another menu, a recorded woman who tells you about Nimda, how to reset your cable modem, then a recorded man who also tells you about Nimda, then a hold time ~20 mins. No wonder these companies are going under.. they couldn't manage a cable company, let alone an ISP.
A jaywalker CANNOT be convicted of a felony, period. It's just not on the books.
A website defacer, however, COULD be sentenced to life in jail under the ATA. Yes, it probably wouldn't happen, but it COULD, which is really the more important part.
I am concerned that legislators are not aware of how dangerous the SSSCA is, especially in light of our recent disaster and our coming war. Now more than ever, we need to be concerned about the possibility of losing our individual freedoms.
Are our lawmakers aware of the SSSCA and its dangers? Do you think it will be debated in detail, or will it pass "under the radar?"
This banner wasn't really the main point of my post.. in any case, I think the slogan was needlessly inflammatory, and disagreed with the sentiment of most of the town's residents. I for one, was extremely offended by it. Can't we acknowledge that the country has an abortion problem without being little kids about it, calling names and using hurtful speech? I would be very surprised if I ever saw an abortion protester who didn't fall into lowest-common-denominator tactics, holding up pictures of fully developed, stillborn babies (they will even lie and tell you they're aborted fetuses).
HOWEVER, if someone came along and tried to restrict your right to be utterly offensive and tasteless in your protests, I would defend that right with all my power. That is your right, and the damage done by taking away that right is thousands of times worse than the damage done by your message.
How is this different from spam? Simple, spam just shouldn't be a form of protected speech, regardless of content. Same as junk faxes, same as harassment.
I'll put aside the fact that this happened in Europe, for a second to talk about free speech in the US. It's my understanding that the Gov. can restrict harmful speech as long as it is in a content-neutral manner. I'll give an example. I live in the very liberal town of Amherst, MA. There is a banner across a public road, which town residents can use for announcements, etc. But every so often, some nut rents out the banner and puts up strongly-worded anti-abortion messages such as "Abortion has two victims, one is wounded and the other is dead." Needless to say, this sentiment doesn't reflect the opinion of MOST of the town. Unless we want to eliminate the banner entirely, though, there's nothing we can do about it without infringing on someone's first-amendment rights.
There is nothing in a law that prevents sending UCE that is restrictive of your personal freedoms, as long as it's done in a content-neutral way. My view is that spammers are infringing on MY rights when they put their crap into my mailbox. I think I have a RIGHT to pay for my Internet access without paying for someone else to send me porno and get rich quick schemes. I think if ISPs and users were allowed to recoup the costs of receiving spam as damages, ISP rates would drop!
Your suggestion that you should be required to add a header to your e-mail is just as restrictive. I think ANY restraint of speech is a very serious matter, and deserves much debate. I equate spam with a type of speech that is wholly unwanted and unbeneficial to society. We have proven that self-policing of spam simply doesn't work. There are too many rogue networks and spam-friendly service contracts out there to stop it.
The government is not telling you that there is a subset of users who you cannot e-mail. You are being told that if your e-mail is of a commercial nature, you can send it to ANY user who has agreed to receive e-mail from you, and to NO user who you are simply marketing to. Would this law prevent you from doing something that you presently do? If it would, then you are probably a spammer. If not, what are you worried about?
This isn't like encryption, or spying on citizens, or taking away your guns (although they already did that in Europe). You have a right to those things. You do not have a right to be a nuisance to millions of others.
Probably, yes. They have said they are OK with people using the term 'spam', with a lower-case 's'. However they don't want people using the term 'Spam', which would refer to their meat product. I'm sure they would be opposed to someone using a picture of their product in reference to 'spam'.
Personally, I'm fine with not calling it spam at all. I think people might take it more seriously if we always referred to it as UCE or something. 'spam' is an outdated term, reflective of the informality of the early days of the 'net. 'spam' can also mean other things than UCE, such as flooding a chat room.
Except for the CS degree, those are all entry-level certifications. For network administrators, I would look for CNE or MCSE certs, depending on what platform you were looking for of course. If I were hiring someone into a position where I expected them to learn and grow, I would hire someone with A+, MCP, or the like.. but to think that someone with an MCP is going to lead your enterprise migration from VMS is ridiculous..
MCSE and CNE are good certifications I think, just due to the sheer number of tests you need to take. For an MCSE with no previous MS certification, you need 7 tests under your belt. MCSE+I is 9. You don't just go out one day and say "I think I'll get an MCSE.." It's a big career move, and a huge committment. You will need to get recertified periodically, and it does cost money to study and take the tests. There are enough tests in the series to weed out people who aren't truly committed to learning.
I think certification is important depending on what you want. It's only one piece of the puzzle, and you certainly need to look for real-world experience and a demonstrated ability to learn and adapt. But if I were looking for someone whose job would mainly be to troubleshoot LaserJets, HP certification is the first thing I'd require!
I swear, when that woman was on the radio it really really sounded like she said CmdrTaco.. /. reference?
As someone who once was a fellow "lazy dipshit," shouldn't you have a little more understanding for people who don't take college seriously enough? You mentioned you finished your degree at 32, so I'm assuming that you started when you were younger and at some point you left. If I'm wrong, please excuse me.
I left college last year, and so far it has been one of the best decisions I have made. When I was there, I saw plenty of students who didn't care, who got by doing the bare minimum. At the same time, there are plenty of students who really put their hearts and souls into their educations. But for those others, I think they're simply not ready for college. I know I wasn't.
I understand students who just aren't enthusiastic about college. Maybe they shouldn't be there, or maybe they need to go back when they are more mature. But to suggest that they all dig ditches or flip burgers? Come on. You can't exclude the K-12 educational system from at least some of the blame - By the time students get to college, many of them have become completely cynical and disrespectful of institutional learning. Couple that with the feeling that they are being forced to go to college, or the feeling that they won't get a decent job unless they go, and you'll get a bunch of bare-minimum C- students.