What are the defenses for this kind of thing? The email that came in wasn't spam. It was real email from real people who had real mailboxes. How do you prevent this kind of thing? So most of the antispam techniques that I know of wouldn't have worked. Additionally, we occasionally get emails w/attachments from friends who want to show us pictures of their kids. So blocking all attachments won't work. What should be done?
You don't have to actually look at all attachments, and hopefully you can tell from the email text if it's a picture of someone's kid rather than a picture of someone having sex with a moose. I always have HTML email turned off and if I want to see an image I drag it to my browser. I prefer not to get images at all in email; if someone wants me to see their kid they can put up a web page and send me the URL. Which I will ignore, but I'll tell them their kid looks cute anyway. I can't stand HTML email, and I don't let my email program show inline images at all.
I doubt the person was trying to get ahold of the iname account, since it would have been as unusable for them as it became for you. And that seems like a lot of harassment just to get a freakin' login id. It could have been someone who wanted to harass you specifically, or more likely they just used a common name at random that happened to be your wife's name.
How does porn make Americans more literate by the way?
Porn doesn't; but libraries do. And if public libraries offer internet access they should do so in a manner consistent with the Constitution, that's all I'm really saying here. For me the possible harm of someone viewing porn in a public library is far outweighed by the benefit of being able to use a public library for research, and the internet is a wonderful research tool.
Again, you're just wrong. And, it's neither here nor there, but since you bring it up, I actually do have a background in free speech law, though IANAL. The issue is not whether the govt has a "right" to prevent you from using "their" equipment. The equipment paid for by taxpayers is actually our equipment, not "theirs." (In other words, we are they). It's a question of a public resource (the library) being free of government censorship. Not a question of the government "helping" you access it. The first amendment is quite clear on this matter - the legislature may not restrict freedom of speech - and the courts have been clear in interpreting this to mean that public institutions may not be in the business of censorship. To prevent people from accessing information from a public institution is government censorship, clear and simple, and I expect the Court to rule accordingly. Any talk of the government "helping" you access information or the freedom to "hear" what is spoken is a diversion from the issue, and it has no basis in case law that I am aware of.
The Constitution demands that if taxpayer-funded resources exist that they obey the law of the land. One aspect of that is that they do not restrict freedom of speech and press. If you have a problem with this, then perhaps this isn't the best country for you? It's not about the taxpayer controlling where his/her taxes go; it's about the government, which our tax dollars fund, not restricting the rights that our Constitution protects. Sure, if you don't want people to be literate in your community, lobby for the abolition of libraries. But if you have public libraries they damn well better obey the US Constitution.
I'm sure the ACLU is very unhappy that an anonymous coward is no friend of theirs. Hopefully they'll be able to see past the sorrow and move on with their lives.
This debate is academic. The Constitution protects your right to receive information whether or not that information is reliable or comes from a qualified source. Also, the Constitution protects your right to look at (non-obscene) tits on the internet whether or not you're researching cancer.
Why is the Internet different from books in this way? The internet carries information, so do books. You can find tits in both places. The Constitution protects your right to look at tits in books or on computers whether or not you have breast cancer. Having a right to the internet is no different from having a right to read and write books or a right to produce or receive information from any other source. The fact that public access to the internet (or to library books) is paid for by taxpayers is more reason for it to be protected by the first amendment, not less, as you imply here. A private institution can censor without fear of running afoul of the Constitution; a public institution is legally bound to respect the rights protected by the Constitution. There is nothing about the internet that makes it inherently less worthy of protection than other media of expression. And, in fact, the courts have ruled quite the opposite - that the internet is worthy of more protection than, for example, television (because the internet is more of a participatory medium).
If Americans were smart, we would make ammendments to the Constituion more often to deal with the chaning world. Instead, we let the Supreme Court invent things to cover situations.
If we just amend the Constitution whenever the public mood changes, it wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on. There's a reason it's difficult to amend. The Court doesn't "invent things," or at least not when it's doing it's job; the Court's job is to interpret the Constitution and they are generally pretty careful about respecting precedent. When they do overturn precedent they try to articulate a good reason for doing so.
As for the Internet being protected, your argument seems ludicrous to me. How is speech on the internet different from speech in a newspaper, magazine, or any other public forum? The Court has been sober enough to see that it is not so different and that it certainly is speech. And in fact in Reno v ACLU they upheld a federal court ruling that the internet was "the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed," entitled to "the highest protection from governmental intrusion." I think that determination is pretty conclusive, and the Court is unlikely to just overturn it without reason.
This is bullshit, and thankfully the courts have not been as confused on this issue as you are. The right to free speech and press protected by the Constitution has been interpreted to include the freedom of access to information. That is why we have a Freedom of Information Act, for example. What you're saying is you have a right to speak but that the government should be allowed to prevent anyone from hearing what you have to say. That is, ipso facto, censorship, and as I said, thankfully the courts have been intelligent enough to recognize that. What I really don't get is how the grandparent here was marked "insightful," when it really should be moderated "ignorant," though we don't have that option. Ah well....
Doesn't anyone understand sarcasm anymore? Do I really have to put silly emoticons all over my posts when I'm telling a joke so that people don't take me seriously?
Come on, I'm sick of all this rationalization for piracy and theft on slashdot. The IEEE is asking Congress to reexamine or clarify the DMCA. Sounds to me like they are using Congress as a device to circumvent the provisions of the DMCA. The DMCA is crystal clear that such activity is illegal.
So I was sitting in a cafe with my iBook looking for Britney Spears songs but all I could find was crap like Incubus but then I found a good song and I started to download it, and it was like BEEP BEEP BEEP BEEP and this fat ugly lady in a suit yelled at me and told me I was breaking the law and I sat there and cried. It was a really good song too.
Turn on speech recognition. Use your voice to type an email, and send the email. It's pretty cool, and you can even tell your email program to attach an mp3 file of your voice. If you prefer real-time, just do this through IRC. But what would be really cool is if we can think of a way to have real-time voice-to-voice communication over the phone lines without having to use a computer. Now that would be the killer app.
1. Ogg - You're right, ogg support is weak in iTunes, but most ogg-heads are using unix tools to manipulate them, so I would search there rather than expecting it in iTunes. Ogg is younger than mp3; apple will support it if they think people want to use it, and I imagine they are figuring that out. In the meantime, use whatever unix folks are using to automate CD ripping and ogg encoding; I am certain the tools exist to do this and that they will run on OS X.
2. For keyboard navigation check out launchbar which you'll probably find meets your needs. Me I'm still hoping for menu navigation like OtherMenu used to provide back in the 8.5 days....
3. For graphical ftp, nothing compares to Interarchy, but if you're more comfortable with the windows-style graphical ftp clients like cuteftp you should look elsewhere; interarchy's interface is a lot like the finder.
My Power Tower Pro 225 is still running smoothly with the original 604, and it boots OS 8.5.1 (which kicks OS9's ass on this machine), debian, and BeOS. Not that I use it much with a G4 867 with OS X sitting here in front of me, but it's a killer machine. Power Computing had the coolest adverts too, you can still find them at powerwatch.
Yeah I fully agree; PalmOS rules. I am still waiting for a decent PalmOS phone that doesn't cost a testicle. Then I will finally make the leap into cellular phone technology, which I have so far resisted like a Luddite.... (the way I see it, it's easy enough to get in touch with me as it is. if it's really important, post it to slashdot; chances are I'll read it before I hear it on my answering machine....)
Slashdot Mirror
Is there any way to install the upgrade without screwing these settings? Did this happen to everyone?
p2p!!! forget mp3s; let's fill the p2p networks with laws and court decisions!
You don't have to actually look at all attachments, and hopefully you can tell from the email text if it's a picture of someone's kid rather than a picture of someone having sex with a moose. I always have HTML email turned off and if I want to see an image I drag it to my browser. I prefer not to get images at all in email; if someone wants me to see their kid they can put up a web page and send me the URL. Which I will ignore, but I'll tell them their kid looks cute anyway. I can't stand HTML email, and I don't let my email program show inline images at all.
I doubt the person was trying to get ahold of the iname account, since it would have been as unusable for them as it became for you. And that seems like a lot of harassment just to get a freakin' login id. It could have been someone who wanted to harass you specifically, or more likely they just used a common name at random that happened to be your wife's name.
I bet she wasn't much into sex with animals for a while after that too.
You've got to be kidding! For some reason I find that hysterical.
only break $5000 worth of his bones. then you won't be worth investigating either.
Porn doesn't; but libraries do. And if public libraries offer internet access they should do so in a manner consistent with the Constitution, that's all I'm really saying here. For me the possible harm of someone viewing porn in a public library is far outweighed by the benefit of being able to use a public library for research, and the internet is a wonderful research tool.
I thought it was unreal?
Again, you're just wrong. And, it's neither here nor there, but since you bring it up, I actually do have a background in free speech law, though IANAL. The issue is not whether the govt has a "right" to prevent you from using "their" equipment. The equipment paid for by taxpayers is actually our equipment, not "theirs." (In other words, we are they). It's a question of a public resource (the library) being free of government censorship. Not a question of the government "helping" you access it. The first amendment is quite clear on this matter - the legislature may not restrict freedom of speech - and the courts have been clear in interpreting this to mean that public institutions may not be in the business of censorship. To prevent people from accessing information from a public institution is government censorship, clear and simple, and I expect the Court to rule accordingly. Any talk of the government "helping" you access information or the freedom to "hear" what is spoken is a diversion from the issue, and it has no basis in case law that I am aware of.
The Constitution demands that if taxpayer-funded resources exist that they obey the law of the land. One aspect of that is that they do not restrict freedom of speech and press. If you have a problem with this, then perhaps this isn't the best country for you? It's not about the taxpayer controlling where his/her taxes go; it's about the government, which our tax dollars fund, not restricting the rights that our Constitution protects. Sure, if you don't want people to be literate in your community, lobby for the abolition of libraries. But if you have public libraries they damn well better obey the US Constitution.
I'm sure the ACLU is very unhappy that an anonymous coward is no friend of theirs. Hopefully they'll be able to see past the sorrow and move on with their lives.
This debate is academic. The Constitution protects your right to receive information whether or not that information is reliable or comes from a qualified source. Also, the Constitution protects your right to look at (non-obscene) tits on the internet whether or not you're researching cancer.
Why is the Internet different from books in this way? The internet carries information, so do books. You can find tits in both places. The Constitution protects your right to look at tits in books or on computers whether or not you have breast cancer. Having a right to the internet is no different from having a right to read and write books or a right to produce or receive information from any other source. The fact that public access to the internet (or to library books) is paid for by taxpayers is more reason for it to be protected by the first amendment, not less, as you imply here. A private institution can censor without fear of running afoul of the Constitution; a public institution is legally bound to respect the rights protected by the Constitution. There is nothing about the internet that makes it inherently less worthy of protection than other media of expression. And, in fact, the courts have ruled quite the opposite - that the internet is worthy of more protection than, for example, television (because the internet is more of a participatory medium).
If we just amend the Constitution whenever the public mood changes, it wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on. There's a reason it's difficult to amend. The Court doesn't "invent things," or at least not when it's doing it's job; the Court's job is to interpret the Constitution and they are generally pretty careful about respecting precedent. When they do overturn precedent they try to articulate a good reason for doing so.
As for the Internet being protected, your argument seems ludicrous to me. How is speech on the internet different from speech in a newspaper, magazine, or any other public forum? The Court has been sober enough to see that it is not so different and that it certainly is speech. And in fact in Reno v ACLU they upheld a federal court ruling that the internet was "the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed," entitled to "the highest protection from governmental intrusion." I think that determination is pretty conclusive, and the Court is unlikely to just overturn it without reason.
This is bullshit, and thankfully the courts have not been as confused on this issue as you are. The right to free speech and press protected by the Constitution has been interpreted to include the freedom of access to information. That is why we have a Freedom of Information Act, for example. What you're saying is you have a right to speak but that the government should be allowed to prevent anyone from hearing what you have to say. That is, ipso facto, censorship, and as I said, thankfully the courts have been intelligent enough to recognize that. What I really don't get is how the grandparent here was marked "insightful," when it really should be moderated "ignorant," though we don't have that option. Ah well....
Doesn't anyone understand sarcasm anymore? Do I really have to put silly emoticons all over my posts when I'm telling a joke so that people don't take me seriously?
Come on, I'm sick of all this rationalization for piracy and theft on slashdot. The IEEE is asking Congress to reexamine or clarify the DMCA. Sounds to me like they are using Congress as a device to circumvent the provisions of the DMCA. The DMCA is crystal clear that such activity is illegal.
So I was sitting in a cafe with my iBook looking for Britney Spears songs but all I could find was crap like Incubus but then I found a good song and I started to download it, and it was like BEEP BEEP BEEP BEEP and this fat ugly lady in a suit yelled at me and told me I was breaking the law and I sat there and cried. It was a really good song too.
Turn on speech recognition. Use your voice to type an email, and send the email. It's pretty cool, and you can even tell your email program to attach an mp3 file of your voice. If you prefer real-time, just do this through IRC. But what would be really cool is if we can think of a way to have real-time voice-to-voice communication over the phone lines without having to use a computer. Now that would be the killer app.
1. Ogg - You're right, ogg support is weak in iTunes, but most ogg-heads are using unix tools to manipulate them, so I would search there rather than expecting it in iTunes. Ogg is younger than mp3; apple will support it if they think people want to use it, and I imagine they are figuring that out. In the meantime, use whatever unix folks are using to automate CD ripping and ogg encoding; I am certain the tools exist to do this and that they will run on OS X.
2. For keyboard navigation check out launchbar which you'll probably find meets your needs. Me I'm still hoping for menu navigation like OtherMenu used to provide back in the 8.5 days....
3. For graphical ftp, nothing compares to Interarchy, but if you're more comfortable with the windows-style graphical ftp clients like cuteftp you should look elsewhere; interarchy's interface is a lot like the finder.
My Power Tower Pro 225 is still running smoothly with the original 604, and it boots OS 8.5.1 (which kicks OS9's ass on this machine), debian, and BeOS. Not that I use it much with a G4 867 with OS X sitting here in front of me, but it's a killer machine. Power Computing had the coolest adverts too, you can still find them at powerwatch.
So you're saying we should call it Coctothorpe?
You obviously haven't installed Dopewars.
Yeah I fully agree; PalmOS rules. I am still waiting for a decent PalmOS phone that doesn't cost a testicle. Then I will finally make the leap into cellular phone technology, which I have so far resisted like a Luddite.... (the way I see it, it's easy enough to get in touch with me as it is. if it's really important, post it to slashdot; chances are I'll read it before I hear it on my answering machine....)
I agree; mod the kid up too!!