You're missing the point. It's not about whether they are allowed to do business in China, and it's not about whether they obey the law when they do. They are allowed to do business in China and they do have to obey the laws there. No argument.
What it's about is whether or not they are acting ethically.
If you do bad things because the law says you must, well, you're still a bad person. If a company does bad things, then they are a bad company. Law be damned, a simple statement of "it's the law" does not excuse their, nor anybody else's, actions.
Yes, they should obey the law. However, in this case they should suspend all Chinese operations and pull out of the country, and make it damned clear why they're doing so. What they are doing is wrong, even though it's the law. Instead of blindly obeying unjust laws, they should refuse and put themselves in a position where they don't have to obey those unjust laws.
And yes, it's a matter of degree as well. Google is wrong to censor their results to China as well, however they're not actually imprisioning anybody for free speech via the action of censoring their search results either. Censorship is bad, but actually helping to lock away reporters is one hell of a lot worse.
It's good to bring our influences to China and we should continue to do so and not prohibit it. But when having our companies in China means betraying our principles and ethics, then we also need to step back and stop doing those things.
And yes, I personally will no longer use Yahoo services in any way at all because of this. I've already cancelled my account with them. Nor will I use any of their services in the future until they pull their operations out of China. Maybe you have no principles, but I do.
I don't think corporations are somehow beyond the law of the country they operate in, nor should they be.
True. However, obeying a bad law or a bad government still makes you a bad person. You don't an ethical pass for doing bad things because the law says that you must do bad things.
They should stop offering their services to that country. If the people in that country don't like it, they can change the government and/or laws.
All this hue and cry of censorship seems to be simply because people don't understand the system.
A story reaches the front page by people "digging" that story. The total number of "diggs" is listed on the page.
However, a story can be yanked from the front page by people who mark it as lame or inaccurate or spam, or whatever. These numbers are NOT listed.
So when a story is yanked back off, there is no visibility as to WHY it was yanked off the front page. Lots of people seem to think that the admins do it themselves, when in fact it's some algorithim taking it off because enough people marked it down.
If they made this information visible, then there'd be less complaining. Instead of having several options like lame and so forth, they should have a simple button marked "Bury" to allow people to say that the story is stupid (or whatever they feel). Put a counter next to the bury link, to show how many people don't like it. Then when a story is autoyanked from the front page, there will be visibility. People won't have room to complain, because the story clearly got buried from people marking it down.
The REAL reason people are complaining is because of a poor user interface, not censorship.
That is not democracy, I can't believe that anybody would rationalize something like "Well it was pulled off the page because it was getting negative reviews" when hundreds of people are obviously not finding any problem with the story since they are "Digging" it.
It's not a matter of "negative reviews". See that pulldown menu on each story that says "report this story as lame" and so forth? People using that are burying the story. And unlike "diggs", you don't see a counter of "lames" and so forth.
Doesn't matter if hundreds of people digg a story if hundreds more mark it as lame.
As has been stated (and proven) many times, when enough users mark a story as lame/inaccurate/whatever, stories get taken back OFF the front page. I've had this happen. I've watched this happen. This is not the editors doing anything it's built into the system itself.
If the admins pulled it, the story would simply not be there at all. They've done this in the past. The fact that the story you point to is still there at all just shows that the editors did not do it.
Obviously there is an ethical argument that maybe Yahoo should not be doing business in China but in the absence of any US laws prohibiting them from operating Chinese search engines and given the fact China represents a huge market its easy to see why Yahoo has decided to do business there.
So, it's okay to help a totalitarian regime wrongly imprision people, as long as you do it for money?
I'm not sure you really understand what an "ethical argument" means.
My point WAS that alcohol is ridiculously easy to make too, and if you get ahold of some 'shine, it's usually "contaminated with nasties" as well.
A sort of side point was that you only tend to get 'shine in places where alcohol is illegal, like dry counties and such. Making a thing illegal is what drives the homemade crap variety of substance creation, when a thing is legal, it tends to be made by companies, in mass production facilities, and with things like quality controls in place to prevent that sort of dangerous contamination.
Advertising a drug like GHB as being "healthier" than alcohol at normal levels is pretty screwed up man, seeing as it's ridiculously easy to make and as a result most of the stuff that you could buy on the street is made by some skeg bastard in his garage and is contaminated with nasties.
That depends. Are the 'rebels' a foreign superpowers military that is overthrowing the dictator under the guise of motives that turn out to be completely fraudulent and more likely than not just going to exploit your national resources and establish a puppet government?
No, actually the 'rebels' are mostly a group of independant freedom fighters run by a quazi-religious organization of people with supernatural abilities and are attempting to regain democratic control of an empire (with the quazi-religious group being the appointed guardians of that empire) despite the fact that the senate was stupid enough to vote the dictator into his position anyway by giving him emergency powers in response to a perceived threat (that the dictator himself helped create), and which powers he maintains by using a army of mostly ineffective but nevertheless cheap fighters who were cloned from a bounty hunter and by using an extremely powerful (but sadly mangled) and corrupted person from the quazi-religious group, and who has awesome supernatural powers, bad fashion sense, and a propensity for building weapons on a truly immense scale.
Yeah, the reason some people are bullied is because they dress differently than their peers. Or act differently. Or are smarter. Or are just unlucky enough to piss some asshole off.
Sorry, but no. Nobody has ever been bullied because they are different or smart or fat or thin or what-the-hell-ever. Those are excuses, not reasons.
The reason people are bullied is actually quite simple: They're easy to bully.
Bullies aren't looking for a challenge, you know. They're looking to impress their peers, like everybody else on the playground. Being a bully impresses athe other bullies. It's almost like a group building exercise. Peer pressure and all that.
But the reason they focus on one individual is because that individual is the least likely to fight back and probably the least likely to win such a fight in any case. If the victim fought back, then there's a possible chance for the bully to be humiliated in front of the peers he's trying to impress.
The actual "reason" you're talking about is an excuse. It's not the real reason they pick on the victim, it's just something to latch onto and make fun of. It's a way to hurt the victim verbally/emotionally. EVERYBODY at that age has something along these lines that can be made fun of. There are no perfect children out there. The choice of victim is based on instinct mostly, and humans have evolved to see weakness pretty well. Bullies pick their specific victims because they're most likely to get away with it with that victim.
Meanwhile, people who want to add original content which is meaningful gets pushed out of the rankings because they are not SEO experts. It is like money ruined search results because there is competition, not for good quality, but for advertising money.
How does Google respond? They sandbox all new domains for 6 months to 1 year. That screws new people, and protects the old. Why did Google do that? A local astronomy group purchased a domain, and they can't get listed on Google no matter what they try. Yahoo lists them, but Google won't.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but... I purchased a domain back in September or October or thereabouts. Threw some stuff on it, set up Google Sitemaps to index it, and my page was on Google in about 2 weeks. I get lots of incoming traffic from search results.
You don't need to be a SEO to get stuff listed, you just have to do a little research. 1. Create a Google Sitemap. If your page is dynamically generated, then the sitemap can be too, and you can have it ping google to tell them that you've updated your sitemap. It helps them index your site faster and it prevents them from spidering your whole site every so often. http://www.google.com/webmasters/sitemaps 2. Make sure you submit the URL to the spider: http://www.google.com/addurl/?continue=/addurl 3. Google, in particular, likes content it can understand. Design the site with XHTML+CSS instead of using tables for layout an other such old school stuff, and your results will dramatically improve. While the "Web 2.0" name is overused, it actually does improve your Google results because the design style tends to lend itself well to clean markup that the spiders can understand.
But really, patience is all it takes. All evidence says that they don't "sandbox" new domains, and that SEOs are pretty much worthless.
im not very good at programming. but apart from using fgets which gcc says is dangerous...what is the nastiness in question here?
printf(stuf) is dangerous because "stuf" is being used as the format specifier to printf.
Now, normally you use printf like this: printf("%s", stuf), which says to print the string contained in stuf to stdout. But with the printf(stuf) line, you can carefuly craft what is in stuf to make it execute arbitrary code. The key to doing this lies in the %n specifier.
If you were to do printf("Ha!%n",&some_int), then not only would the word "Ha!" be printed to the screen, but the contents of some_int would get set to 3, since that's how many characters were printed and that's what %n is telling it to do.
Now, say I pass in "%X" as stuf. My output will be a number. What number is that? Why, it's the return address of printf, because %X is really telling it to print the contents of the next address on the stack, and that address happens to be a return address (since we didn't pass in real arguments to printf). If I therefore carefully craft my string, I can not only overwrite that return addres using %n, but I can overwrite it with a pointer to a location which will be executed when printf returns by varying the length of my string. And I can easily vary the length of my string by doing some things like %.1234x in there, which will happily stick 1234 characters in my string easily and add 1234 to n.
Once I know the return address, I can work out where my string buffer is actually being stored, and then I can include my exploit code in that string itself, and execute it right from there.
Short version is that passing format specifier strings to printf as anything other than literals is dangerous unless you know exactly what the format specifier string really is.
Amazon invites a couple of people to speak about corporate blogging, that being the general idea of having your own employees have blogs to talk about the company. Amazon CTO asks them some pointed questions during the presentation, which CTO considers to be rather obvious questions. The speakers are unable to answer his questions in an adequete manner, and consider the CTO to be "rude", as do some others at the presentation. CTO counters by saying that he didn't mean to be "rude", but felt that the presentation was just fluff and "ra-ra-ra" type of cheerleading. And then everybody blogs about it complaining back and forth.
If you care, then pick a side and argue it. If you don't care, then you're 99.9999% of the population.
This problem is basically what SPF was designed to fix.
I too had this problem for a while, and adding a correct SPF record to my DNS, specifying where I sent email from my domain from, actually worked quite well. I still get a few bounces, but not nearly as many as I got without it.
Google also provides the correct SPF record to use if you use this GMail for domains thing.
2) I was not able to find a good way to add a header on top of the GMail hosted site. It would be nice to include some navigational buttons to get you back into the site. Currently, we just created a subdomain and pointed that to a directory that meta refreshes the page to our Google hosted site. (If anyone has any advice, please let me know)
I almost hate to suggest this, but you could put an html file in that directory which loads the navigational buttons in a header frame and loads the gmail page in the lower frame. Frames are an ugly hack, but seems like it would work.
I was kind of shocked a while back when I visited my aunt and discovered that one of my cousins was three but unable to read. Well, actually what I was shocked about was their total lack of desire to teach the child. I fully credit my own dad with teaching me to read before I turned two by the simple expedient of sitting me on his lap and reading to me while pointing to words. After a few months I appearantly worked it out, because I have no memory of ever not being able to read. My earliest memory is of sitting at the living room table, reading a book (and knowing not to color it up), while Sesame Street played on the TV. I was about 2.5 years old, and according to them, had been reading for almost a year by that point.
Any parents out there: The biggest favor you can ever do for you kid is to teach them to read early. Not only will this improve their speech, it will get them into the habit of reading, which means that they will learn much, much faster as you won't have to tell them every little thing. It will also make them annoyingly good at Trivial Pursuit, which is always an invaluable skill.:)
"Every book is a children's book if the kid can read!" - Mitch Hedberg
As i have pointed out, my concerns about doing this is with violating laws as they stand.
I prefer to consider them guidelines.
Here's my problem with the law: It's rigid. It is a rigid and unflexible architecture designed to describe pretty much all aspects of human behavior. However, because of that rigidity, it cannot account for situations that were not thought of by the people who wrote it. Therefore it is always behind the actual reality of human behavior, which is in a constant state of change. And the rate of that change is increasing as well.
We attempted to build some flexibility into law with things like judges and juries. Their function was to read the rigid law and understand the supposed violations of that law, and then apply some flexibility according to current standards of behavior and such, thus keeping the law up to date. The system of "precedent" is wholly based on such a notion.
But then we invented lawyers, and they fucked it all up.
Ask any lawyer about what the function of a jury is, and they will tell you that the jury is not supposed to think, but that they are supposed to apply the law as it reads, word for word. They can cite precedent that says so. They will argue it until their last dying breath. It was drilled into them in law school. They don't question it, they *know* it to be true.
And that is of course total nonsense, because any idiot can read the law and apply it word for word. You don't need 12 people picked off the street to do that. No, the purpose of the jury is to bring social standards into the courtroom. The judge applies the law, the jury applies common sense, despite whatever the common sense happens to be at the time.
And that's why I'm against the whole notion of "law". It completely fails in it's purpose and design if you actually think that you're supposed to apply it exactly as it says. Doing that is not fair and it is not just.
So no, I say fuck the law. If you want to work to change the law, more power to you. I won't waste my time. Instead, I simply work outside the law when I find it necessary to do so. I feel no need for laws to protect me, but I'll accept any laws you feel necessary to protect you. However, I will only obey those laws when it suits me to do so. Hey, call me a rational anarchist.
If you already have a paypal account, just log into it and go to your profile. If you go to edit your phone numbers, there's an "Activate for payments" link beside it.
It's also important to note that you only have to activate to be able to SEND money to other people. If you have a paypal account, and have put in your phone number and such, then people can send payments to your number and it will know it is you. You may need to activate in order to receive the payment though.
Actually, from further reading, you can send money to any phone number. If the number is not in paypal's system, it will call the number and attempt to get them to sign up for a paypal account to receive the money, basically.
As i see the problem, ISPs are immune to prossecution for the shit people spew on thier networks because they don't have an active knowledge or control on it. Maybe going after them with somethign like a DMCA notice were once they are informed about thier networks (or computers on it) damaging other systems and not longer immune after they are made aware of the situation. In this situation, I provide valid logs claiming that computers with these ip adresses at these times are working in a botnet then they have to take action to inform thier customers, disconect them, or suffer a lawsuite and maybe even criminal penalties.
See, I dislike this notion completely, and I'll tell you why: The end result of such actions are worse than the disease.
As soon as you start making ISPs and network providers liable for what their customers send out, the first thing that's going to happen is that those same ISPs will start blocking everything from their customers but port 80 traffic. You'll turn the entire internet into a receive only system. Only corporations with the cash to shell out for a direct network drop will be able to provide content. Yes, it's going this way already, but making ISPs liable for what their customers send out only leads to those ISPs stopping their customers from sending out anything, and they'll do it in a totally heavy handed and blanket manner.
Stopping spam is not worth destroying the network's ability to connect.
However, you might want to look at history and recognize the fact that vigilantes have historically tended to be prosecuted more often than those whom they fight against. I'm just being realistic here.
You have a point, but I think there's an important difference here. I'm not advocating fucking over zombie machines. I'm advocating disabling the zombies on those machines *without* messing with the rest of the machines themselves. Yes, technically it's illegal. However, I think anybody would be hard pressed to argue that such an action was immoral or wrong.
If you want to launch a program that will wipe the hard drive of any zombie computer clean
See, that's exactly what I'm *not* talking about. Why is it that any suggestion of fighting the zombie networks by using them is met with instant cries of "Vigilante scum!" or similar? There's a real difference between having a zombie shut itself down without harming anything else and "wiping the hard drives".
btw, are you the otto on EE?
Probably not, without knowing exactly what "EE" is. But then again, who knows. I get around and don't tend to use other aliases.
Slashdot Mirror
You're missing the point. It's not about whether they are allowed to do business in China, and it's not about whether they obey the law when they do. They are allowed to do business in China and they do have to obey the laws there. No argument.
What it's about is whether or not they are acting ethically.
If you do bad things because the law says you must, well, you're still a bad person. If a company does bad things, then they are a bad company. Law be damned, a simple statement of "it's the law" does not excuse their, nor anybody else's, actions.
Yes, they should obey the law. However, in this case they should suspend all Chinese operations and pull out of the country, and make it damned clear why they're doing so. What they are doing is wrong, even though it's the law. Instead of blindly obeying unjust laws, they should refuse and put themselves in a position where they don't have to obey those unjust laws.
And yes, it's a matter of degree as well. Google is wrong to censor their results to China as well, however they're not actually imprisioning anybody for free speech via the action of censoring their search results either. Censorship is bad, but actually helping to lock away reporters is one hell of a lot worse.
It's good to bring our influences to China and we should continue to do so and not prohibit it. But when having our companies in China means betraying our principles and ethics, then we also need to step back and stop doing those things.
And yes, I personally will no longer use Yahoo services in any way at all because of this. I've already cancelled my account with them. Nor will I use any of their services in the future until they pull their operations out of China. Maybe you have no principles, but I do.
I don't think corporations are somehow beyond the law of the country they operate in, nor should they be.
True. However, obeying a bad law or a bad government still makes you a bad person. You don't an ethical pass for doing bad things because the law says that you must do bad things.
They should stop offering their services to that country. If the people in that country don't like it, they can change the government and/or laws.
All this hue and cry of censorship seems to be simply because people don't understand the system.
A story reaches the front page by people "digging" that story. The total number of "diggs" is listed on the page.
However, a story can be yanked from the front page by people who mark it as lame or inaccurate or spam, or whatever. These numbers are NOT listed.
So when a story is yanked back off, there is no visibility as to WHY it was yanked off the front page. Lots of people seem to think that the admins do it themselves, when in fact it's some algorithim taking it off because enough people marked it down.
If they made this information visible, then there'd be less complaining. Instead of having several options like lame and so forth, they should have a simple button marked "Bury" to allow people to say that the story is stupid (or whatever they feel). Put a counter next to the bury link, to show how many people don't like it. Then when a story is autoyanked from the front page, there will be visibility. People won't have room to complain, because the story clearly got buried from people marking it down.
The REAL reason people are complaining is because of a poor user interface, not censorship.
That is not democracy, I can't believe that anybody would rationalize something like "Well it was pulled off the page because it was getting negative reviews" when hundreds of people are obviously not finding any problem with the story since they are "Digging" it.
It's not a matter of "negative reviews". See that pulldown menu on each story that says "report this story as lame" and so forth? People using that are burying the story. And unlike "diggs", you don't see a counter of "lames" and so forth.
Doesn't matter if hundreds of people digg a story if hundreds more mark it as lame.
As has been stated (and proven) many times, when enough users mark a story as lame/inaccurate/whatever, stories get taken back OFF the front page. I've had this happen. I've watched this happen. This is not the editors doing anything it's built into the system itself.
If the admins pulled it, the story would simply not be there at all. They've done this in the past. The fact that the story you point to is still there at all just shows that the editors did not do it.
Obviously there is an ethical argument that maybe Yahoo should not be doing business in China but in the absence of any US laws prohibiting them from operating Chinese search engines and given the fact China represents a huge market its easy to see why Yahoo has decided to do business there.
So, it's okay to help a totalitarian regime wrongly imprision people, as long as you do it for money?
I'm not sure you really understand what an "ethical argument" means.
"Increase my killing power, eh?"
My point WAS that alcohol is ridiculously easy to make too, and if you get ahold of some 'shine, it's usually "contaminated with nasties" as well.
A sort of side point was that you only tend to get 'shine in places where alcohol is illegal, like dry counties and such. Making a thing illegal is what drives the homemade crap variety of substance creation, when a thing is legal, it tends to be made by companies, in mass production facilities, and with things like quality controls in place to prevent that sort of dangerous contamination.
Advertising a drug like GHB as being "healthier" than alcohol at normal levels is pretty screwed up man, seeing as it's ridiculously easy to make and as a result most of the stuff that you could buy on the street is made by some skeg bastard in his garage and is contaminated with nasties.
I take it you've never had moonshine.
That depends. Are the 'rebels' a foreign superpowers military that is overthrowing the dictator under the guise of motives that turn out to be completely fraudulent and more likely than not just going to exploit your national resources and establish a puppet government?
No, actually the 'rebels' are mostly a group of independant freedom fighters run by a quazi-religious organization of people with supernatural abilities and are attempting to regain democratic control of an empire (with the quazi-religious group being the appointed guardians of that empire) despite the fact that the senate was stupid enough to vote the dictator into his position anyway by giving him emergency powers in response to a perceived threat (that the dictator himself helped create), and which powers he maintains by using a army of mostly ineffective but nevertheless cheap fighters who were cloned from a bounty hunter and by using an extremely powerful (but sadly mangled) and corrupted person from the quazi-religious group, and who has awesome supernatural powers, bad fashion sense, and a propensity for building weapons on a truly immense scale.
It's Persephone. It's nicknamed Rupert, after some astronomer's parrot.
If you've found yourself in this position, what things did you do to cope?
I cursed a lot. Instead of calling somebody "more challenging", say he's an "asshole". It helps.
Therefore, we shouldn't punish the bullies, muggers, murderers.
I didn't say that at all. If you're simply going to make shit up, then there's little point in attempting to have a conversation with you.
Yeah, the reason some people are bullied is because they dress differently than their peers. Or act differently. Or are smarter. Or are just unlucky enough to piss some asshole off.
Sorry, but no. Nobody has ever been bullied because they are different or smart or fat or thin or what-the-hell-ever. Those are excuses, not reasons.
The reason people are bullied is actually quite simple: They're easy to bully.
Bullies aren't looking for a challenge, you know. They're looking to impress their peers, like everybody else on the playground. Being a bully impresses athe other bullies. It's almost like a group building exercise. Peer pressure and all that.
But the reason they focus on one individual is because that individual is the least likely to fight back and probably the least likely to win such a fight in any case. If the victim fought back, then there's a possible chance for the bully to be humiliated in front of the peers he's trying to impress.
The actual "reason" you're talking about is an excuse. It's not the real reason they pick on the victim, it's just something to latch onto and make fun of. It's a way to hurt the victim verbally/emotionally. EVERYBODY at that age has something along these lines that can be made fun of. There are no perfect children out there. The choice of victim is based on instinct mostly, and humans have evolved to see weakness pretty well. Bullies pick their specific victims because they're most likely to get away with it with that victim.
Simple, really.
Meanwhile, people who want to add original content which is meaningful gets pushed out of the rankings because they are not SEO experts. It is like money ruined search results because there is competition, not for good quality, but for advertising money.
How does Google respond? They sandbox all new domains for 6 months to 1 year. That screws new people, and protects the old. Why did Google do that? A local astronomy group purchased a domain, and they can't get listed on Google no matter what they try. Yahoo lists them, but Google won't.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but... I purchased a domain back in September or October or thereabouts. Threw some stuff on it, set up Google Sitemaps to index it, and my page was on Google in about 2 weeks. I get lots of incoming traffic from search results.
You don't need to be a SEO to get stuff listed, you just have to do a little research.
1. Create a Google Sitemap. If your page is dynamically generated, then the sitemap can be too, and you can have it ping google to tell them that you've updated your sitemap. It helps them index your site faster and it prevents them from spidering your whole site every so often. http://www.google.com/webmasters/sitemaps
2. Make sure you submit the URL to the spider: http://www.google.com/addurl/?continue=/addurl
3. Google, in particular, likes content it can understand. Design the site with XHTML+CSS instead of using tables for layout an other such old school stuff, and your results will dramatically improve. While the "Web 2.0" name is overused, it actually does improve your Google results because the design style tends to lend itself well to clean markup that the spiders can understand.
But really, patience is all it takes. All evidence says that they don't "sandbox" new domains, and that SEOs are pretty much worthless.
After reading that, I no longer even want to VISIT the Netherlands.
Thanks for the warning!
im not very good at programming. but apart from using fgets which gcc says is dangerous...what is the nastiness in question here?
printf(stuf) is dangerous because "stuf" is being used as the format specifier to printf.
Now, normally you use printf like this: printf("%s", stuf), which says to print the string contained in stuf to stdout. But with the printf(stuf) line, you can carefuly craft what is in stuf to make it execute arbitrary code. The key to doing this lies in the %n specifier.
If you were to do printf("Ha!%n",&some_int), then not only would the word "Ha!" be printed to the screen, but the contents of some_int would get set to 3, since that's how many characters were printed and that's what %n is telling it to do.
Now, say I pass in "%X" as stuf. My output will be a number. What number is that? Why, it's the return address of printf, because %X is really telling it to print the contents of the next address on the stack, and that address happens to be a return address (since we didn't pass in real arguments to printf). If I therefore carefully craft my string, I can not only overwrite that return addres using %n, but I can overwrite it with a pointer to a location which will be executed when printf returns by varying the length of my string. And I can easily vary the length of my string by doing some things like %.1234x in there, which will happily stick 1234 characters in my string easily and add 1234 to n.
Once I know the return address, I can work out where my string buffer is actually being stored, and then I can include my exploit code in that string itself, and execute it right from there.
Short version is that passing format specifier strings to printf as anything other than literals is dangerous unless you know exactly what the format specifier string really is.
Amazon invites a couple of people to speak about corporate blogging, that being the general idea of having your own employees have blogs to talk about the company. Amazon CTO asks them some pointed questions during the presentation, which CTO considers to be rather obvious questions. The speakers are unable to answer his questions in an adequete manner, and consider the CTO to be "rude", as do some others at the presentation. CTO counters by saying that he didn't mean to be "rude", but felt that the presentation was just fluff and "ra-ra-ra" type of cheerleading. And then everybody blogs about it complaining back and forth.
If you care, then pick a side and argue it.
If you don't care, then you're 99.9999% of the population.
This problem is basically what SPF was designed to fix.
I too had this problem for a while, and adding a correct SPF record to my DNS, specifying where I sent email from my domain from, actually worked quite well. I still get a few bounces, but not nearly as many as I got without it.
Google also provides the correct SPF record to use if you use this GMail for domains thing.
2) I was not able to find a good way to add a header on top of the GMail hosted site. It would be nice to include some navigational buttons to get you back into the site. Currently, we just created a subdomain and pointed that to a directory that meta refreshes the page to our Google hosted site. (If anyone has any advice, please let me know)
I almost hate to suggest this, but you could put an html file in that directory which loads the navigational buttons in a header frame and loads the gmail page in the lower frame. Frames are an ugly hack, but seems like it would work.
I was kind of shocked a while back when I visited my aunt and discovered that one of my cousins was three but unable to read. Well, actually what I was shocked about was their total lack of desire to teach the child. I fully credit my own dad with teaching me to read before I turned two by the simple expedient of sitting me on his lap and reading to me while pointing to words. After a few months I appearantly worked it out, because I have no memory of ever not being able to read. My earliest memory is of sitting at the living room table, reading a book (and knowing not to color it up), while Sesame Street played on the TV. I was about 2.5 years old, and according to them, had been reading for almost a year by that point.
:)
Any parents out there: The biggest favor you can ever do for you kid is to teach them to read early. Not only will this improve their speech, it will get them into the habit of reading, which means that they will learn much, much faster as you won't have to tell them every little thing. It will also make them annoyingly good at Trivial Pursuit, which is always an invaluable skill.
"Every book is a children's book if the kid can read!" - Mitch Hedberg
As i have pointed out, my concerns about doing this is with violating laws as they stand.
I prefer to consider them guidelines.
Here's my problem with the law: It's rigid. It is a rigid and unflexible architecture designed to describe pretty much all aspects of human behavior. However, because of that rigidity, it cannot account for situations that were not thought of by the people who wrote it. Therefore it is always behind the actual reality of human behavior, which is in a constant state of change. And the rate of that change is increasing as well.
We attempted to build some flexibility into law with things like judges and juries. Their function was to read the rigid law and understand the supposed violations of that law, and then apply some flexibility according to current standards of behavior and such, thus keeping the law up to date. The system of "precedent" is wholly based on such a notion.
But then we invented lawyers, and they fucked it all up.
Ask any lawyer about what the function of a jury is, and they will tell you that the jury is not supposed to think, but that they are supposed to apply the law as it reads, word for word. They can cite precedent that says so. They will argue it until their last dying breath. It was drilled into them in law school. They don't question it, they *know* it to be true.
And that is of course total nonsense, because any idiot can read the law and apply it word for word. You don't need 12 people picked off the street to do that. No, the purpose of the jury is to bring social standards into the courtroom. The judge applies the law, the jury applies common sense, despite whatever the common sense happens to be at the time.
And that's why I'm against the whole notion of "law". It completely fails in it's purpose and design if you actually think that you're supposed to apply it exactly as it says. Doing that is not fair and it is not just.
So no, I say fuck the law. If you want to work to change the law, more power to you. I won't waste my time. Instead, I simply work outside the law when I find it necessary to do so. I feel no need for laws to protect me, but I'll accept any laws you feel necessary to protect you. However, I will only obey those laws when it suits me to do so. Hey, call me a rational anarchist.
If you already have a paypal account, just log into it and go to your profile. If you go to edit your phone numbers, there's an "Activate for payments" link beside it.
It's also important to note that you only have to activate to be able to SEND money to other people. If you have a paypal account, and have put in your phone number and such, then people can send payments to your number and it will know it is you. You may need to activate in order to receive the payment though.
Actually, from further reading, you can send money to any phone number. If the number is not in paypal's system, it will call the number and attempt to get them to sign up for a paypal account to receive the money, basically.
As i see the problem, ISPs are immune to prossecution for the shit people spew on thier networks because they don't have an active knowledge or control on it. Maybe going after them with somethign like a DMCA notice were once they are informed about thier networks (or computers on it) damaging other systems and not longer immune after they are made aware of the situation. In this situation, I provide valid logs claiming that computers with these ip adresses at these times are working in a botnet then they have to take action to inform thier customers, disconect them, or suffer a lawsuite and maybe even criminal penalties.
See, I dislike this notion completely, and I'll tell you why: The end result of such actions are worse than the disease.
As soon as you start making ISPs and network providers liable for what their customers send out, the first thing that's going to happen is that those same ISPs will start blocking everything from their customers but port 80 traffic. You'll turn the entire internet into a receive only system. Only corporations with the cash to shell out for a direct network drop will be able to provide content. Yes, it's going this way already, but making ISPs liable for what their customers send out only leads to those ISPs stopping their customers from sending out anything, and they'll do it in a totally heavy handed and blanket manner.
Stopping spam is not worth destroying the network's ability to connect.
However, you might want to look at history and recognize the fact that vigilantes have historically tended to be prosecuted more often than those whom they fight against. I'm just being realistic here.
You have a point, but I think there's an important difference here. I'm not advocating fucking over zombie machines. I'm advocating disabling the zombies on those machines *without* messing with the rest of the machines themselves. Yes, technically it's illegal. However, I think anybody would be hard pressed to argue that such an action was immoral or wrong.
If you want to launch a program that will wipe the hard drive of any zombie computer clean
See, that's exactly what I'm *not* talking about. Why is it that any suggestion of fighting the zombie networks by using them is met with instant cries of "Vigilante scum!" or similar? There's a real difference between having a zombie shut itself down without harming anything else and "wiping the hard drives".
btw, are you the otto on EE?
Probably not, without knowing exactly what "EE" is. But then again, who knows. I get around and don't tend to use other aliases.