The majority of people who claim to be "Libertarian" adhere to an idealistic abstraction that says, "Government is too big and too much in everyone's lives" which is something that almost everyone can agree on. But the party does NOT have a realistic plan as to how to get from point A to point B.
You can't have an entire political party revolving around something like pot legalization, which is unfortunately probably one of the cornerstone agendas of the party, and yet another reason why they don't have any realistic, practical plan for "making government smaller". They're high.
Define 'essential services'. Most of the time, your 'essential' is not the same as mine... and so long as government continues to be about taking from one person and giving it to another person, Libertarians will continue to talk about reducing government.
Roads, electricity & utility regulation, environmental & health regulation.. there are literally tens of thousands of benefits the American people get from government that they have come to expect, that the Libertarians don't want to address. They want to make government smaller, but when you ask them, for example, whether or not abolishing the EPA and letting corporations self-regulate their industry and pollution is practical or beneficial, they respond, "Um, I'll get back to you on that."
Your average libertarian can't reconcile even the most basic ideals. They typically agree that corporations if left unregulated will act irresponsibly, but at the same time, they resent government regulation. You can't have it both ways.
If you went through a line item list of government-subsidized services, your average person would consider almost 70% or more "essential", and if they didn't, once they saw the repurcussions of, for example, housing or transportation departments eradicated and the responsibilities dumped on the state and the states raising taxes out the wazoo to compensate and how bad everything would get, they'd change their tune.
If Diebold machines get in the 2004 primary election, we're all screwed if we're not voting for Bush. Think about it.
If by some chance, Kerry wins the election, I predict all our critiques and cynacism will end up being used against us, as the mainstream media will suddenly ressurrect the Diebold story and use it as fodder to throw the whole election process into question, and likely land it back on the steps of the supreme court. I know that sounds like a ridulous assertion, but so was what happened last election.
With no paper trail to verify, and the media going apeshit because Bush has been dethroned, it wouldn't be unrealistic to have yet another major election up in the air.
I'm voting for Michael Badnarik Libertarian, who is also on almost all of the ballots
1. Your vote would be better served if it was cast for the tooth fairy.
2. The Libertarians have no clue. They want "less government" but when you ask them how they'll maintain so many essential services for the people, they have no idea. I spoke with Harry Browne and he gave me the run-around. In theory, Libertarianism is nice, just like in theory it would be cool to be invisible or fly through the air like superman, but in either case, the likelihood that any of those ideas are practical is nonexistent.
Do us all a favor and wake up and smell the napalm and don't promote ridiculous candidates with ridiculous agendas.
Management blamed the slow sales on a "lack of SCOsource licensing revenue." SCOsource is the Linux users' shakedown program. Apparently, no one is paying up. It took in $11,000 last quarter. That's not a typo. President and CEO Darl McBride paid more lip service to "increasing shareholder value," but you really have to wonder about the viability of his vision when his firm's most engrossing initiative brings in less money than the guys who mow lawns in my neighborhood. By the way, McBride was paid more than $1 million last year -- most of it in cash -- to preside over this impending disaster.
It really is sickening. And there seems to be no hope in sight for regulatory reform in this area, when public companies can perform goofy shit like this with impunity.
I admit this application is very creative and interesting. However, as much as I find it amusing to look at, it also seems to be a great example of unproductive, wasted, metaphors further encouraging the ADHD'ification of the populace.
Do we really need web site traffic represented as little people wandering around?
This to me seems ultimately as useful as Microsoft's stupid talking paperclip. Yea, it's amusing for the first few days, then it becomes an inefficient, time-wasting distraction. In other words, corporate America will probably love it.
is that with as many comments as people have posted, they aren't nearly as repetitive as one might think. It's utterly amazing how many legitimate issues there are with Windows, and I'm certain we haven't even come close to touching on them all even after 1000+ comments.
A few that come to mind for me include:
* The help system is downright insulting. How many times have you been presented with a checkbox of options and pressed the help key only to get instructions on the proper procedure to click a check box? Is that what Microsoft intended to dedicate the F1 key for? "To select one of the options click on the box" - Jesus!
* With few exceptions (i.e. Eudora), most applications take a Borg-like approach towards installation, assimilating themselves so deep into the OS that you can't ever remove them, and you most certainly can't copy an app from one directory to another (a common and painless procedure in Unix) without making the whole thing break, or worse, crashing the OS.
* And of course, every person who installs any new program has the added anxiety of wondering if the new application:
a) Will even install properly without freezing up
b) Won't disable or break other applications
c) Run rampant with unrequested file associations
d) Install some unnecessary "startup agent" that hogs memory and contacts the mothership
* I don't know a single Windows user who hasn't had to run Windows at least twice to get a proper installation, or any Windows user who hasn't at one point or another had to completely wipe their hard drive and start over when some ill-behaved application took the whole OS down with it. I have NEVER had to do this with any flavor of Unix.
* Users even live in fear of Microsoft Update, wondering if the next patch to fix their system will actually break it.
* Two words: memory leaks! They're everywhere, and nobody really seems to ever be able to fix things to the point where any decent continued use of the system doesn't eventually require a reboot to make the system not run like dog shit after awhile.
* Speaking of reboots... why? You don't need to do reboots with Unix except in the most major/dire of circumstances. Under Windows, 95% of most software, plugins or anything require a reboot.
* No symlink. Such a simple, wonderful feature of Unix that would obviously make Microsoft's OS's explode and throw shrapnel at the user.
* No respect for software autonomy. Microsoft's desire is to be everything to everybody. As a result each new iteration of their OSes tends to be more bloated and bundled with tons of crap you don't want, don't need, or can't extricate from the OS to make it run efficiently.
* No respect for develoeprs. Any developer for Microsoft OSes has to safely assume that each new version of their OS might completely put an end to their software's ability to run, versatility, performance and everything else. There's a reason why there's better quality software for the Unix community: no self-respecting developer that really cares about the future of his code wants to subject his work or himself to the uncertain future that lies ahead when developing apps under Windows platforms.
Myself and a friend of mine both came from the DOS world. We both developed commercial software. When Windows came along, I went to Unix; he went to Windows. I have systems I configured 8 years ago that are still going strong and doing their job; I have software programs that were written 9 years ago that are still viable and marketable today and in use online. OTOH, he's had to completely rewrite his code countless times; he's constantly battling with customers over tech support issues that are beyond his control, that don't have to do with his software. Sounds fun.... sigh... I could go on and on, there really doesn't seem to be any end to the issues of this OS. I think the biggest problem is most users today simply do not know how much better things could be because they've never seen any alternative.
As a developer, I can't stand writing software for Windows. The hassels you run into trying to support your products are simply nightmarish. I have friends who develop commercial Windows software and all they ever do is complain about how the vast majority of tech support they provide has absolutely nothing to do with their products, and is more likely the result of problems with other applications or the operating system itself. Life is too short to program for an environment that is so rife with problems and buck-passing from one vendor to another.
how long would it take for a spamming network to generally remove my email address from their infrastructure, as "a dead email", if I turn it off for a while to let the spam bounce off?
I tried that on-and-off over the years and it's never made even the slightest difference. I used to create temporary e-mail addresses to track the dissemination of mailing lists. I would get flooded, and then turn the e-mail off. I could turn it back on six months later and it would take about ten minutes before I had inbound spam.
Ironically, I believe content-based filtering techniques have contributed to the proliferation of spam and have forced the spammers to abandon the idea of "cleaning" their mailing lists.
So many messages they send are filtered out without giving them any indication the message wasn't delivered that it's simply not practical any more for them to worry about whether or not their messages are properly delivered. They just ramp up the quantity and frequency to compensate.
This is one of the many problems I have with content-based filtering systems. They actually encourage spammers to send out more spam and negate the value of smtp error messages. If you knew that a message accepted for delivery was a relatively safe assumption that it would end up in the user's mailbox, you might have more incentive to clear out bad addresses. In fairness, SMTP servers using RBLs are also using 550 (mailbox unavailable) error messages, which have also forced the spammers to not trust the "user not found" feedback they get. But by far, the biggest problem still seems to be that Spammers have this false sense of security that their messages might be read when mail systems accept their messages and later filter them based on content. In fact, these schemes actually validate the integrity of their mailing lists.
This "study" is dubious at best IMO. They don't show any details on how they came up with the statistic of 80% spam originating from zombie PCs. They just declare this as if it were factual. While I agree that the percentage of spam coming from hijacked broadband PCs is definitely increasing, I think their figures are not accurate.
Based on my own statistics, which I've begun compiling over the last year, the source of spam and amount has remained fairly consistent. In terms of the number of spam messages, the lion's share of spam continues to originate from APNIC address space (China, Korea, Etc.) -- now whether or not these systems are zombies, I don't know but I am more inclined to believe that they're not. There are spammers who have made arrangements with some ISPs overseas who seem to be able to rotate their source IP in a very large chunk of address space.
I see at least 40% of spam coming from APNIC blocks and other assorted International spam havens. The second largest chunk of spam sources seem to be: Southwest Bell, TDE, SBC and others -- these likely include a combination of zombie PCs and ISP deals.
Now I'd buy the 80% figure IF you cut out the Chinese and Korean sources, and maybe most ISPs these days are now blocking big chunks of class B space in lieu of the signal-to-noise ratio they're generating. Then it makes sense, but this "study" is no "study" - it's more like a press release without any substance.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize that zombie PCs are becoming more of a force in the spam industry. And why is that? It's because ISPs are starting to blacklist IP space -- it has NOTHING to do with content-based filtering (which I keep saying is a waste of time). So yea, we can expect more DUL PCs to be compromised, but based on my analysis of my own logs, there has not been the radical shift in spam sources that the article implies.
All ISPs need to do is block port 25 traffic. If you want to run your own SMTP server, then you should make special arrangements and be on a separate IP block that your ISP regulates differently.
This will solve the spam problem and the worm problem.
Most competent ISPs are already blocking port 25, and that in combination with RBLs is making the most effective effort in addressing these problems.
Now that the net is mainstream, idiot users are unavoidable. The least a responsible ISP can do is block traffic that is in most cases against their TOS in the first place. ISPs that refuse to do this should be wholesale blacklisted.
One final word: I hope I never have someone as prejudiced as yourself for a manager. Discarding the majority of the working population because of one bad employee... sheesh.
You've taken my comments out of context and exaggerated them. I am not prejudiced in any sort of general manner.. quite the contrary. Obviously an employee with children can be a benefit too (due to the increased likelihood of stability vocationally because of their famile committments). But it all depends upon the circumstances. SOME types of jobs are less ideal for people starting a family. A classic example of this are grass-roots startups.
Does anyone think for a moment if Bill Gates got married and had children in the early days of he and Allan working on the Altair, that Microsoft might even exist today, much less to the degree it does now?
Ironically, one of the historical driving forces in the inception of the tech industry was either because of, or as a result of talented people banding together and working on tech projects in lieu of pursuing social idioms. I'm not trying to reinforce the inaccurate stereotype of nerds not being able to get dates, but there is some truth to the fact that the less distrction one has in this industry, the more productive they can often be, and in the vast majority of cases of successful startups, this was the case, especially in the early days.
It's circumstantial.
If you want to be the best violinist you can be; if you also want to be a great plumber and you split your energy between both of them, it doesn't take a wise man to recognize that your potential violin virtuosity will be lessened. In some cases this could mean the difference between success and failure *depending upon the scenario*.
Why is this such an unpalatable concept for people to recognize?
I had another similar experience. I was forming a start-up and hired as VP an excellent sales guy. He was a monster and the company grew rapidly, then he got married to a woman who had three kids and started taking off work at 3pm to watch his children's little-league games. That's noble and wonderful, but it had a substantive impact on the company at its early stage of development. There are some types of roles that are more suited towards people with more energy to dedicate. This obviously might not apply when you're working for a big company, but it does apply in some situations, and the tech industry has historically been driven by lots of small, innovative start-ups that were primarily run by people who invested the time normal people might divert towards famile and social pursuits, to their careers... and it made a difference. A manager's first priority is to the venture - if the venture fails, he certainly cannot provide for his employees' welfare in the first place.
Good straw man argument there, dude. And yes, you are an asshole.
I wouldn't normally respond to a reply like this but it really illustrates what I find so annoying these days about the way people reason. Just because I offend your sensibilities, I'm an asshole? I was just being honest. You're being overly PC and denying the reality that peoples priorities change and this has an impact on their motivation and productivity. It's really sad when people are called names just because they will admit the obvious, no matter how truthful and politically-incorrect it may be.
Don't mean to repeat myself, but the critical importance of this IMO necessitates this...
Al Gore's speech last week touched on some of the issues here and I think he expressed them poignantly. Everyone should see this speech. video [c-span.org] or audio [rbn.com].
"President Bush is claiming the unilateral right to do that to any American citizen he believes is an "enemy combatant." Those are the magic words. If the President alone decides that those two words accurately describe someone, then that person can be immediately locked up and held incommunicado for as long as the President wants, with no court having the right to determine whether the facts actually justify his imprisonment.
Now if the President makes a mistake, or is given faulty information by somebody working for him, and locks up the wrong person, then it's almost impossible for that person to prove his innocence - because he can't talk to a lawyer or his family or anyone else and he doesn't even have the right to know what specific crime he is accused of committing. So a constitutional right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness that we used to think of in an old-fashioned way as "inalienable" can now be instantly stripped from any American by the President with no meaningful review by any other branch of government.
How do we feel about that? Is that OK?
Here's another recent change in our civil liberties: Now, if it wants to, the federal government has the right to monitor every website you go to on the internet, keep a list of everyone you send email to or receive email from and everyone who you call on the telephone or who calls you - and they don't even have to show probable cause that you've done anything wrong. Nor do they ever have to report to any court on what they're doing with the information. Moreover, there are precious few safeguards to keep them from reading the content of all your email.
Everybody fine with that?
If so, what about this next change?
For America's first 212 years, it used to be that if the police wanted to search your house, they had to be able to convince an independent judge to give them a search warrant and then (with rare exceptions) they had to go bang on your door and yell, "Open up!" Then, if you didn't quickly open up, they could knock the door down. Also, if they seized anything, they had to leave a list explaining what they had taken. That way, if it was all a terrible mistake (as it sometimes is) you could go and get your stuff back.
But that's all changed now. Starting two years ago, federal agents were given broad new statutory authority by the Patriot Act to "sneak and peak" in non-terrorism cases. They can secretly enter your home with no warning - whether you are there or not - and they can wait for months before telling you they were there. And it doesn't have to have any relationship to terrorism whatsoever. It applies to any garden-variety crime. And the new law makes it very easy to get around the need for a traditional warrant - simply by saying that searching your house might have some connection (even a remote one) to the investigation of some agent of a foreign power. Then they can go to another court, a secret court, that more or less has to give them a warrant whenever they ask.
Three weeks ago, in a speech at FBI Headquarters, President Bush went even further and formally proposed that the Attorney General be allowed to authorize subpoenas by administrative order, without the need for a warrant from any court.
What about the right to consult a lawyer if you're arrested? Is that important?
Attorney General Ashcroft has issued regulations authorizing the secret monitoring of attorney-client conversations on his say-so alone; bypassing procedures for obtaining prior judicial review for such monitoring in the rare instances when it was permitted in the past. Now, whoever is in custody has to assume that the government is always listening to consultations between them and their lawyers.
I thought it was a fair comment too. I can only assume moderators with kids who want special treatment didn't like what I had to say.
The bottom line is you can't have it all. If you want to be a great parent, something has to give. There apparently are people out there who think they can have their cake and eat it too, and with all due respect, that's bullshit. If you are raising children and you think you can be just as productive a worker doing so as you were before you had kids YOU ARE DELUSIONAL!
I was incredibly supportive of this employee. I let him leave whenever he wanted to attend to family matters; I let him work from home a lot; I gave him gifts for the family (including a really nice stroller). I don't consider myself a bad boss. I'm not saying this situation would be the same with another employee in the same circumstance, but it's just my experience. Obviously everyone with kids is going to tear me a new ass for even suggesting the notion that anyone with a major life change who doesn't get back massages from his boss can't continue to be the best employee evah.... get over it..
I had an employee's wife get pregnant about a year into him working for me. At that point, he basically became useless. He no longer had the passion for the job he once had. He slacked off and spent half his time researching things and creating goofy personal home pages chronicling the development of his child. I think having children is one of those fundamental things in life that creates a paradigm shift in peoples' motivation. As a result, I would always prefer an employee that doesn't have children over one that does, especially in a case where the family is about to have their first baby. I guess it depends upon the industry you're in, but I do agree, programming takes quite a lot of concentration and commitment and I'm not of the belief that one can maintain a high level of productivity when other areas of their lives are radically changing. This isn't any indictment of the value of having a family; it's just my opinion based on my own experience, and it just seems to make a lot of sense. Certain types of jobs require high levels of commitment that often cut into other social and interpersonal worlds.
patent "the process of acquiring a patent in lieu of creating an original process, and as a means by which to provide a false sense of value in a venture and as a weapon to employ litigous intimidation to stifle competition"?
I'm sure it could be worded appropriately so the USPTO has no clue (not that they ever had one), and then we can let the fun begin.
I just got a spam message that had this at the bottom:
This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this message in error, you are hereby notified that we do not consent to any reading, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy the transmitted information.
Of course, all the header info is forged, so now I'm freaking out since I can't get in touch with them to let them know that this sensitive penis creme enlargement trade secret information may have fallen into the wrong hands!
I refuse to buy any Sony products because they deliberately cripple the functionality and quality of the still image-taking capabilities in their video cameras in order to sell more still cameras. Screw you Sony. You could make a great video camera that also doubles as an equally-competent still camera but you don't, so don't ever expect me to buy your products.
should wait until SCO wins their case. Then their stock will undoubtedly go up and they'll be rolling in dough... right?
Reminds me of the bully in school who picks on you every day and challenges you to a fight, and then when you finally agree to meet him after school, he's not there.
SCO's investors should hang by them until all their bones are ashes. Take a cue from the Bush administration and never say you've made a mistake. Stay the course... thousand points of light.. etc... We're all taking notes you stupid moron investement bankers.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey that's good stuff... I love the bottom line:
TCO:
35 user setup..
Linux/MySQL: $5.00
Windows 2003 & SQL Server 2000 Setup: $13,570.00
That's a lot of staplers!
The Libertarian agenda is fundamentally flawed.
The majority of people who claim to be "Libertarian" adhere to an idealistic abstraction that says, "Government is too big and too much in everyone's lives" which is something that almost everyone can agree on. But the party does NOT have a realistic plan as to how to get from point A to point B.
You can't have an entire political party revolving around something like pot legalization, which is unfortunately probably one of the cornerstone agendas of the party, and yet another reason why they don't have any realistic, practical plan for "making government smaller". They're high.
Define 'essential services'. Most of the time, your 'essential' is not the same as mine... and so long as government continues to be about taking from one person and giving it to another person, Libertarians will continue to talk about reducing government.
Roads, electricity & utility regulation, environmental & health regulation.. there are literally tens of thousands of benefits the American people get from government that they have come to expect, that the Libertarians don't want to address. They want to make government smaller, but when you ask them, for example, whether or not abolishing the EPA and letting corporations self-regulate their industry and pollution is practical or beneficial, they respond, "Um, I'll get back to you on that."
Your average libertarian can't reconcile even the most basic ideals. They typically agree that corporations if left unregulated will act irresponsibly, but at the same time, they resent government regulation. You can't have it both ways.
If you went through a line item list of government-subsidized services, your average person would consider almost 70% or more "essential", and if they didn't, once they saw the repurcussions of, for example, housing or transportation departments eradicated and the responsibilities dumped on the state and the states raising taxes out the wazoo to compensate and how bad everything would get, they'd change their tune.
The Libertarians are smoking crack.
If Diebold machines get in the 2004 primary election, we're all screwed if we're not voting for Bush. Think about it.
If by some chance, Kerry wins the election, I predict all our critiques and cynacism will end up being used against us, as the mainstream media will suddenly ressurrect the Diebold story and use it as fodder to throw the whole election process into question, and likely land it back on the steps of the supreme court. I know that sounds like a ridulous assertion, but so was what happened last election.
With no paper trail to verify, and the media going apeshit because Bush has been dethroned, it wouldn't be unrealistic to have yet another major election up in the air.
I'm voting for Michael Badnarik Libertarian, who is also on almost all of the ballots
1. Your vote would be better served if it was cast for the tooth fairy.
2. The Libertarians have no clue. They want "less government" but when you ask them how they'll maintain so many essential services for the people, they have no idea. I spoke with Harry Browne and he gave me the run-around. In theory, Libertarianism is nice, just like in theory it would be cool to be invisible or fly through the air like superman, but in either case, the likelihood that any of those ideas are practical is nonexistent.
Do us all a favor and wake up and smell the napalm and don't promote ridiculous candidates with ridiculous agendas.
two whole ISPs... by today's journalistic standards, the guy definitely did his research!
All the while this CEO got paid a huge salary:
Management blamed the slow sales on a "lack of SCOsource licensing revenue." SCOsource is the Linux users' shakedown program. Apparently, no one is paying up. It took in $11,000 last quarter. That's not a typo. President and CEO Darl McBride paid more lip service to "increasing shareholder value," but you really have to wonder about the viability of his vision when his firm's most engrossing initiative brings in less money than the guys who mow lawns in my neighborhood. By the way, McBride was paid more than $1 million last year -- most of it in cash -- to preside over this impending disaster.
It really is sickening. And there seems to be no hope in sight for regulatory reform in this area, when public companies can perform goofy shit like this with impunity.
I admit this application is very creative and interesting. However, as much as I find it amusing to look at, it also seems to be a great example of unproductive, wasted, metaphors further encouraging the ADHD'ification of the populace.
Do we really need web site traffic represented as little people wandering around?
This to me seems ultimately as useful as Microsoft's stupid talking paperclip. Yea, it's amusing for the first few days, then it becomes an inefficient, time-wasting distraction. In other words, corporate America will probably love it.
is that with as many comments as people have posted, they aren't nearly as repetitive as one might think. It's utterly amazing how many legitimate issues there are with Windows, and I'm certain we haven't even come close to touching on them all even after 1000+ comments.
... sigh... I could go on and on, there really doesn't seem to be any end to the issues of this OS. I think the biggest problem is most users today simply do not know how much better things could be because they've never seen any alternative.
A few that come to mind for me include:
* The help system is downright insulting. How many times have you been presented with a checkbox of options and pressed the help key only to get instructions on the proper procedure to click a check box? Is that what Microsoft intended to dedicate the F1 key for? "To select one of the options click on the box" - Jesus!
* With few exceptions (i.e. Eudora), most applications take a Borg-like approach towards installation, assimilating themselves so deep into the OS that you can't ever remove them, and you most certainly can't copy an app from one directory to another (a common and painless procedure in Unix) without making the whole thing break, or worse, crashing the OS.
* And of course, every person who installs any new program has the added anxiety of wondering if the new application:
a) Will even install properly without freezing up
b) Won't disable or break other applications
c) Run rampant with unrequested file associations
d) Install some unnecessary "startup agent" that hogs memory and contacts the mothership
* I don't know a single Windows user who hasn't had to run Windows at least twice to get a proper installation, or any Windows user who hasn't at one point or another had to completely wipe their hard drive and start over when some ill-behaved application took the whole OS down with it. I have NEVER had to do this with any flavor of Unix.
* Users even live in fear of Microsoft Update, wondering if the next patch to fix their system will actually break it.
* Two words: memory leaks! They're everywhere, and nobody really seems to ever be able to fix things to the point where any decent continued use of the system doesn't eventually require a reboot to make the system not run like dog shit after awhile.
* Speaking of reboots... why? You don't need to do reboots with Unix except in the most major/dire of circumstances. Under Windows, 95% of most software, plugins or anything require a reboot.
* No symlink. Such a simple, wonderful feature of Unix that would obviously make Microsoft's OS's explode and throw shrapnel at the user.
* No respect for software autonomy. Microsoft's desire is to be everything to everybody. As a result each new iteration of their OSes tends to be more bloated and bundled with tons of crap you don't want, don't need, or can't extricate from the OS to make it run efficiently.
* No respect for develoeprs. Any developer for Microsoft OSes has to safely assume that each new version of their OS might completely put an end to their software's ability to run, versatility, performance and everything else. There's a reason why there's better quality software for the Unix community: no self-respecting developer that really cares about the future of his code wants to subject his work or himself to the uncertain future that lies ahead when developing apps under Windows platforms.
Myself and a friend of mine both came from the DOS world. We both developed commercial software. When Windows came along, I went to Unix; he went to Windows. I have systems I configured 8 years ago that are still going strong and doing their job; I have software programs that were written 9 years ago that are still viable and marketable today and in use online. OTOH, he's had to completely rewrite his code countless times; he's constantly battling with customers over tech support issues that are beyond his control, that don't have to do with his software. Sounds fun.
What always amused me endlessly was that for the first few years of Windows existence what was the NUMBER ONE APPLICATION?
Berkley Systems' screensaver.
You know you have a winning OS when the most popular application sold for it addresses what your computer should do when you're not using it.
And what was the second most popular Windows application?
An un-installer.
I rest my case.
As a developer, I can't stand writing software for Windows. The hassels you run into trying to support your products are simply nightmarish. I have friends who develop commercial Windows software and all they ever do is complain about how the vast majority of tech support they provide has absolutely nothing to do with their products, and is more likely the result of problems with other applications or the operating system itself. Life is too short to program for an environment that is so rife with problems and buck-passing from one vendor to another.
how long would it take for a spamming network to generally remove my email address from their infrastructure, as "a dead email", if I turn it off for a while to let the spam bounce off?
I tried that on-and-off over the years and it's never made even the slightest difference. I used to create temporary e-mail addresses to track the dissemination of mailing lists. I would get flooded, and then turn the e-mail off. I could turn it back on six months later and it would take about ten minutes before I had inbound spam.
Ironically, I believe content-based filtering techniques have contributed to the proliferation of spam and have forced the spammers to abandon the idea of "cleaning" their mailing lists.
So many messages they send are filtered out without giving them any indication the message wasn't delivered that it's simply not practical any more for them to worry about whether or not their messages are properly delivered. They just ramp up the quantity and frequency to compensate.
This is one of the many problems I have with content-based filtering systems. They actually encourage spammers to send out more spam and negate the value of smtp error messages. If you knew that a message accepted for delivery was a relatively safe assumption that it would end up in the user's mailbox, you might have more incentive to clear out bad addresses. In fairness, SMTP servers using RBLs are also using 550 (mailbox unavailable) error messages, which have also forced the spammers to not trust the "user not found" feedback they get. But by far, the biggest problem still seems to be that Spammers have this false sense of security that their messages might be read when mail systems accept their messages and later filter them based on content. In fact, these schemes actually validate the integrity of their mailing lists.
This "study" is dubious at best IMO. They don't show any details on how they came up with the statistic of 80% spam originating from zombie PCs. They just declare this as if it were factual. While I agree that the percentage of spam coming from hijacked broadband PCs is definitely increasing, I think their figures are not accurate.
Based on my own statistics, which I've begun compiling over the last year, the source of spam and amount has remained fairly consistent. In terms of the number of spam messages, the lion's share of spam continues to originate from APNIC address space (China, Korea, Etc.) -- now whether or not these systems are zombies, I don't know but I am more inclined to believe that they're not. There are spammers who have made arrangements with some ISPs overseas who seem to be able to rotate their source IP in a very large chunk of address space.
I see at least 40% of spam coming from APNIC blocks and other assorted International spam havens. The second largest chunk of spam sources seem to be: Southwest Bell, TDE, SBC and others -- these likely include a combination of zombie PCs and ISP deals.
Now I'd buy the 80% figure IF you cut out the Chinese and Korean sources, and maybe most ISPs these days are now blocking big chunks of class B space in lieu of the signal-to-noise ratio they're generating. Then it makes sense, but this "study" is no "study" - it's more like a press release without any substance.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize that zombie PCs are becoming more of a force in the spam industry. And why is that? It's because ISPs are starting to blacklist IP space -- it has NOTHING to do with content-based filtering (which I keep saying is a waste of time). So yea, we can expect more DUL PCs to be compromised, but based on my analysis of my own logs, there has not been the radical shift in spam sources that the article implies.
All ISPs need to do is block port 25 traffic. If you want to run your own SMTP server, then you should make special arrangements and be on a separate IP block that your ISP regulates differently.
This will solve the spam problem and the worm problem.
Most competent ISPs are already blocking port 25, and that in combination with RBLs is making the most effective effort in addressing these problems.
Now that the net is mainstream, idiot users are unavoidable. The least a responsible ISP can do is block traffic that is in most cases against their TOS in the first place. ISPs that refuse to do this should be wholesale blacklisted.
Puleeze.
What forum do you think you're posting in?
One final word: I hope I never have someone as prejudiced as yourself for a manager. Discarding the majority of the working population because of one bad employee... sheesh.
You've taken my comments out of context and exaggerated them. I am not prejudiced in any sort of general manner.. quite the contrary. Obviously an employee with children can be a benefit too (due to the increased likelihood of stability vocationally because of their famile committments). But it all depends upon the circumstances. SOME types of jobs are less ideal for people starting a family. A classic example of this are grass-roots startups.
Does anyone think for a moment if Bill Gates got married and had children in the early days of he and Allan working on the Altair, that Microsoft might even exist today, much less to the degree it does now?
Ironically, one of the historical driving forces in the inception of the tech industry was either because of, or as a result of talented people banding together and working on tech projects in lieu of pursuing social idioms. I'm not trying to reinforce the inaccurate stereotype of nerds not being able to get dates, but there is some truth to the fact that the less distrction one has in this industry, the more productive they can often be, and in the vast majority of cases of successful startups, this was the case, especially in the early days.
It's circumstantial.
If you want to be the best violinist you can be; if you also want to be a great plumber and you split your energy between both of them, it doesn't take a wise man to recognize that your potential violin virtuosity will be lessened. In some cases this could mean the difference between success and failure *depending upon the scenario*.
Why is this such an unpalatable concept for people to recognize?
I had another similar experience. I was forming a start-up and hired as VP an excellent sales guy. He was a monster and the company grew rapidly, then he got married to a woman who had three kids and started taking off work at 3pm to watch his children's little-league games. That's noble and wonderful, but it had a substantive impact on the company at its early stage of development. There are some types of roles that are more suited towards people with more energy to dedicate. This obviously might not apply when you're working for a big company, but it does apply in some situations, and the tech industry has historically been driven by lots of small, innovative start-ups that were primarily run by people who invested the time normal people might divert towards famile and social pursuits, to their careers... and it made a difference. A manager's first priority is to the venture - if the venture fails, he certainly cannot provide for his employees' welfare in the first place.
Good straw man argument there, dude. And yes, you are an asshole.
I wouldn't normally respond to a reply like this but it really illustrates what I find so annoying these days about the way people reason. Just because I offend your sensibilities, I'm an asshole? I was just being honest. You're being overly PC and denying the reality that peoples priorities change and this has an impact on their motivation and productivity. It's really sad when people are called names just because they will admit the obvious, no matter how truthful and politically-incorrect it may be.
Don't mean to repeat myself, but the critical importance of this IMO necessitates this...
Al Gore's speech last week touched on some of the issues here and I think he expressed them poignantly. Everyone should see this speech. video [c-span.org] or audio [rbn.com].
"President Bush is claiming the unilateral right to do that to any American citizen he believes is an "enemy combatant." Those are the magic words. If the President alone decides that those two words accurately describe someone, then that person can be immediately locked up and held incommunicado for as long as the President wants, with no court having the right to determine whether the facts actually justify his imprisonment.
Now if the President makes a mistake, or is given faulty information by somebody working for him, and locks up the wrong person, then it's almost impossible for that person to prove his innocence - because he can't talk to a lawyer or his family or anyone else and he doesn't even have the right to know what specific crime he is accused of committing. So a constitutional right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness that we used to think of in an old-fashioned way as "inalienable" can now be instantly stripped from any American by the President with no meaningful review by any other branch of government.
How do we feel about that? Is that OK?
Here's another recent change in our civil liberties: Now, if it wants to, the federal government has the right to monitor every website you go to on the internet, keep a list of everyone you send email to or receive email from and everyone who you call on the telephone or who calls you - and they don't even have to show probable cause that you've done anything wrong. Nor do they ever have to report to any court on what they're doing with the information. Moreover, there are precious few safeguards to keep them from reading the content of all your email.
Everybody fine with that?
If so, what about this next change?
For America's first 212 years, it used to be that if the police wanted to search your house, they had to be able to convince an independent judge to give them a search warrant and then (with rare exceptions) they had to go bang on your door and yell, "Open up!" Then, if you didn't quickly open up, they could knock the door down. Also, if they seized anything, they had to leave a list explaining what they had taken. That way, if it was all a terrible mistake (as it sometimes is) you could go and get your stuff back.
But that's all changed now. Starting two years ago, federal agents were given broad new statutory authority by the Patriot Act to "sneak and peak" in non-terrorism cases. They can secretly enter your home with no warning - whether you are there or not - and they can wait for months before telling you they were there. And it doesn't have to have any relationship to terrorism whatsoever. It applies to any garden-variety crime. And the new law makes it very easy to get around the need for a traditional warrant - simply by saying that searching your house might have some connection (even a remote one) to the investigation of some agent of a foreign power. Then they can go to another court, a secret court, that more or less has to give them a warrant whenever they ask.
Three weeks ago, in a speech at FBI Headquarters, President Bush went even further and formally proposed that the Attorney General be allowed to authorize subpoenas by administrative order, without the need for a warrant from any court.
What about the right to consult a lawyer if you're arrested? Is that important?
Attorney General Ashcroft has issued regulations authorizing the secret monitoring of attorney-client conversations on his say-so alone; bypassing procedures for obtaining prior judicial review for such monitoring in the rare instances when it was permitted in the past. Now, whoever is in custody has to assume that the government is always listening to consultations between them and their lawyers.
Does
I thought it was a fair comment too. I can only assume moderators with kids who want special treatment didn't like what I had to say.
The bottom line is you can't have it all. If you want to be a great parent, something has to give. There apparently are people out there who think they can have their cake and eat it too, and with all due respect, that's bullshit. If you are raising children and you think you can be just as productive a worker doing so as you were before you had kids YOU ARE DELUSIONAL!
I was incredibly supportive of this employee. I let him leave whenever he wanted to attend to family matters; I let him work from home a lot; I gave him gifts for the family (including a really nice stroller). I don't consider myself a bad boss. I'm not saying this situation would be the same with another employee in the same circumstance, but it's just my experience. Obviously everyone with kids is going to tear me a new ass for even suggesting the notion that anyone with a major life change who doesn't get back massages from his boss can't continue to be the best employee evah.... get over it..
I had an employee's wife get pregnant about a year into him working for me. At that point, he basically became useless. He no longer had the passion for the job he once had. He slacked off and spent half his time researching things and creating goofy personal home pages chronicling the development of his child. I think having children is one of those fundamental things in life that creates a paradigm shift in peoples' motivation. As a result, I would always prefer an employee that doesn't have children over one that does, especially in a case where the family is about to have their first baby. I guess it depends upon the industry you're in, but I do agree, programming takes quite a lot of concentration and commitment and I'm not of the belief that one can maintain a high level of productivity when other areas of their lives are radically changing. This isn't any indictment of the value of having a family; it's just my opinion based on my own experience, and it just seems to make a lot of sense. Certain types of jobs require high levels of commitment that often cut into other social and interpersonal worlds.
patent "the process of acquiring a patent in lieu of creating an original process, and as a means by which to provide a false sense of value in a venture and as a weapon to employ litigous intimidation to stifle competition"?
I'm sure it could be worded appropriately so the USPTO has no clue (not that they ever had one), and then we can let the fun begin.
I just got a spam message that had this at the bottom:
This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this message in error, you are hereby notified that we do not consent to any reading, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy the transmitted information.
Of course, all the header info is forged, so now I'm freaking out since I can't get in touch with them to let them know that this sensitive penis creme enlargement trade secret information may have fallen into the wrong hands!
I refuse to buy any Sony products because they deliberately cripple the functionality and quality of the still image-taking capabilities in their video cameras in order to sell more still cameras. Screw you Sony. You could make a great video camera that also doubles as an equally-competent still camera but you don't, so don't ever expect me to buy your products.
should wait until SCO wins their case. Then their stock will undoubtedly go up and they'll be rolling in dough... right?
Reminds me of the bully in school who picks on you every day and challenges you to a fight, and then when you finally agree to meet him after school, he's not there.
SCO's investors should hang by them until all their bones are ashes. Take a cue from the Bush administration and never say you've made a mistake. Stay the course... thousand points of light.. etc... We're all taking notes you stupid moron investement bankers.