And, what kind of retard actually believes that it's a good thing for the government to try to artificially alter the price of a commodity like gasoline, probably the commodity with the most negative impact on the environment and the world in general, rather than letting market forces dictate the price?
Market Forces? That's a euphemism for the troops in Iraq, right?
While "MS Embraces $STANDARD" is certainly rather unusual news (rather, instances of "MS Embraces $STANDARD" that aren't immediately followed by "and Extends" are), I'm not sure that this is actually a big strategic change for MS.
Hey, give them time. They haven't hardly had any time at all to come up with incompatible extensions, they don't even have a product out yet. I'm sure they'll come up with their usual high quality subtle inconsistencies and undocumented XML blobs in no time.
But the expelled matter doesn't magically fall back.
It's not magic, it's just turbulence. "Orbits" in a galaxy aren't ever going to be stable over cosmological time scales... and the ring outside the empty zone is still the densest part of the galaxy. It's going to spread out and flatten until the average density around the black hole starts increasing again, no?
When ethics, rules, laws, etc. get in the way of making money, either weigh the risk and ignore them, or (if you have the means) try to change them. The goal is not to follow rules. The goal is to maximize ROI.
Yes, we're perfectly well aware that fines for breaking laws is often treated as a cost of doing business. That applies to laws about paying employees what they're owed, honoring agreements with employees, and so on. Oddly enough, these kinds of things go along well with each other.
And in any case, I think you're a lot more cynical than you should be. Companies are run by people, not programs, and the kinds of people you really want to work with tend to have an aversion, when it comes right down to it, to breaking the law. If they don't, how stable could ANY job with them possibly be?
Whether you go along with them or not, you're already on quicksand, and you should be looking for another gig.
I have in the past had this kind of discussion with managers. I've never yet had to go beyond "you know, that's probably illegal, and I don't feel right about doing it even if it is legal"... what I found out was that they didn't actually realize that they were pushing the envelope.
If I had to go beyond that, it'd be time to get that resume out on the street again.
Black holes do radiate particles (search for "hawking radiation" on Wikipedia)
The hawking radiation from a galactic sized black hole is negligible.
As matter falls into the black hole, it gets superheated and radiates lots of EM.
Indeed, that's my point. One the black hole has cleared its surroundings to the point where it's no longer growing, then the radiation emitted from this source will drop until it starts growing again.
The energy to blow away the dust and gas from the black hole comes from infalling dust and gas. In the absence of infalling dust and gas the black hole doesn't emit any energy at all. So once it reaches this limit, and clears out the nearby vicinity of the hole, what keeps its neighborhood clear? It's no longer taking in matter, the radiation pressure drops, and the expelled matter eventually returns to start te growth again, no?
This all sounds like the T-Tauri stage in stellar evolution... except that the star continues to radiate, and the black hole doesn't.
That particular person wasn't charged with a felony for violating TOS, the felony was for violating TOS with intent to cause harm.
And this article is all about someone violating TOS to engage in theft of services.
In other words, why do we need to prosecute this woman for "violating TOS with intent to cause harm" when violating TOS wouldn't be an act with legal repercussions otherwise?
I'm not the prosecutor, and I'm not in agreement with the prosecutor. I am simply noting that its far from certain that violating the TOS of a site with intent to steal the services of that site is legal.
When you're dealing with spammers, an AC counts as a sock puppet. It's SOP for them, leaving anonymous defenses of spamming on forums. What's surprising is that some spammers seem to have mod points now.
If double-tapping on a name cancels the vote, that's a bug.
If double-tapping on a name resets it to a default, that's a BIG bug.
If the guys who configured the machines for that county knew about that bug, and arranged the names so that when people double-tap they get the candidate they want, that's fraud.
Spam is unsolicited broadcast messages to people you don't know.
It doesn't matter if you offer an "opt out" option or not... giving people "one bite at the apple" with an opt-out mechanism doesn't change the nature of the process, because there are too many potential spammers for "one bite" to scale. In the average city there are at the very least tens of thousands of businesses, organizations, and activist individuals who can make a good case that they should have the right to spam you with a valid "opt-out" address. On the Internet, every city on the earth is next door to you, that's millions of "legitimate" spammers... if "one bite" was acceptable. That's just not manageable.
If they already know you, if they already have some kind of relationship to you, that cuts the number of entities that can make an argument that they should be able to send you a single opt-out message from millions down to dozens. THAT's manageable.
That's the difference between a legitimate (if possibly annoying) email and spam.
When best-buy sends you an e-mail about their latest deals, that's spam.
It may be spam, or it may not be. If you gave them your email address in the course of your business relationship with them, it's not spam. Because you're not someone they don't know.
We'll see. There's at least one case where violation of a TOS is being argued as "unauthorized access to a computer system". This one is still in the pipeline, but I sure wouldn't risk it.
Slashdot Mirror
It's Microsoft, nobody expects you to RTFA.
What about people using Safari or Internet Explorer? I guess they're not used to their browser crashing randomly
To really match the IE experience they need to have it randomly install a botnet node on your computer instead.
This sounds awfully like the compulsory music licensing for radio broadcast, if I'm understanding it correctly. Am I understanding it correctly?
And, what kind of retard actually believes that it's a good thing for the government to try to artificially alter the price of a commodity like gasoline, probably the commodity with the most negative impact on the environment and the world in general, rather than letting market forces dictate the price?
Market Forces? That's a euphemism for the troops in Iraq, right?
Cost of bailout: Up to $700B
Cost of Bush's War: At least $600B
Hmmm...
I guess it's time to update the saying. "A hundred billion here, a hundred billion there, pretty soon you're talking real money..."
Try "direct mail has a cost that limits its abusiveness more than spam, therefore it doesn't need to be restricted as much".
What's the security boundary between customers based on? Virtual machines?
Windows provides all the components required from an operating system. Perhaps you're thinking about DOS?
While "MS Embraces $STANDARD" is certainly rather unusual news (rather, instances of "MS Embraces $STANDARD" that aren't immediately followed by "and Extends" are), I'm not sure that this is actually a big strategic change for MS.
Hey, give them time. They haven't hardly had any time at all to come up with incompatible extensions, they don't even have a product out yet. I'm sure they'll come up with their usual high quality subtle inconsistencies and undocumented XML blobs in no time.
But the expelled matter doesn't magically fall back.
It's not magic, it's just turbulence. "Orbits" in a galaxy aren't ever going to be stable over cosmological time scales... and the ring outside the empty zone is still the densest part of the galaxy. It's going to spread out and flatten until the average density around the black hole starts increasing again, no?
When ethics, rules, laws, etc. get in the way of making money, either weigh the risk and ignore them, or (if you have the means) try to change them. The goal is not to follow rules. The goal is to maximize ROI.
Yes, we're perfectly well aware that fines for breaking laws is often treated as a cost of doing business. That applies to laws about paying employees what they're owed, honoring agreements with employees, and so on. Oddly enough, these kinds of things go along well with each other.
And in any case, I think you're a lot more cynical than you should be. Companies are run by people, not programs, and the kinds of people you really want to work with tend to have an aversion, when it comes right down to it, to breaking the law. If they don't, how stable could ANY job with them possibly be?
Whether you go along with them or not, you're already on quicksand, and you should be looking for another gig.
I have in the past had this kind of discussion with managers. I've never yet had to go beyond "you know, that's probably illegal, and I don't feel right about doing it even if it is legal"... what I found out was that they didn't actually realize that they were pushing the envelope.
If I had to go beyond that, it'd be time to get that resume out on the street again.
Black holes do radiate particles (search for "hawking radiation" on Wikipedia)
The hawking radiation from a galactic sized black hole is negligible.
As matter falls into the black hole, it gets superheated and radiates lots of EM.
Indeed, that's my point. One the black hole has cleared its surroundings to the point where it's no longer growing, then the radiation emitted from this source will drop until it starts growing again.
The energy to blow away the dust and gas from the black hole comes from infalling dust and gas. In the absence of infalling dust and gas the black hole doesn't emit any energy at all. So once it reaches this limit, and clears out the nearby vicinity of the hole, what keeps its neighborhood clear? It's no longer taking in matter, the radiation pressure drops, and the expelled matter eventually returns to start te growth again, no?
This all sounds like the T-Tauri stage in stellar evolution... except that the star continues to radiate, and the black hole doesn't.
That particular person wasn't charged with a felony for violating TOS, the felony was for violating TOS with intent to cause harm.
And this article is all about someone violating TOS to engage in theft of services.
In other words, why do we need to prosecute this woman for "violating TOS with intent to cause harm" when violating TOS wouldn't be an act with legal repercussions otherwise?
I'm not the prosecutor, and I'm not in agreement with the prosecutor. I am simply noting that its far from certain that violating the TOS of a site with intent to steal the services of that site is legal.
When you're dealing with spammers, an AC counts as a sock puppet. It's SOP for them, leaving anonymous defenses of spamming on forums. What's surprising is that some spammers seem to have mod points now.
If double-tapping on a name cancels the vote, that's a bug.
If double-tapping on a name resets it to a default, that's a BIG bug.
If the guys who configured the machines for that county knew about that bug, and arranged the names so that when people double-tap they get the candidate they want, that's fraud.
Whether or not some people are "click happy".
Cool, I'll add that to my collection of 300/1200/56k/PEP modem sounds. :)
They absolutely need to rename the language.
I suggest Beginner's All-purpose Scripted Internet Code, or "BASIC".
Either a sock puppet or someone who is improbably naive.
But your fuel tax pays for the road that goes in front of the billboard. So yes, you ARE paying to see that billboard.
You would pay the same amount whether the billboard was there or not.
The electric company is using the taxes and profit from YOUR electric bill to run poles and wires to that billboard
No, the billboard owner is.
They're also paying property taxes, usually at an extremely high rate, as well as up-front fees.
If they don't pay tax and power bills in your city, talk to your local representatives.
The cost of a telemarketing operation is high enough that it doesn't have the scaling problems of spam.
Spam is unsolicited broadcast messages to people you don't know.
It doesn't matter if you offer an "opt out" option or not... giving people "one bite at the apple" with an opt-out mechanism doesn't change the nature of the process, because there are too many potential spammers for "one bite" to scale. In the average city there are at the very least tens of thousands of businesses, organizations, and activist individuals who can make a good case that they should have the right to spam you with a valid "opt-out" address. On the Internet, every city on the earth is next door to you, that's millions of "legitimate" spammers... if "one bite" was acceptable. That's just not manageable.
If they already know you, if they already have some kind of relationship to you, that cuts the number of entities that can make an argument that they should be able to send you a single opt-out message from millions down to dozens. THAT's manageable.
That's the difference between a legitimate (if possibly annoying) email and spam.
When best-buy sends you an e-mail about their latest deals, that's spam.
It may be spam, or it may not be. If you gave them your email address in the course of your business relationship with them, it's not spam. Because you're not someone they don't know.
Not abiding by a website's TOS is not "illegal".
We'll see. There's at least one case where violation of a TOS is being argued as "unauthorized access to a computer system". This one is still in the pipeline, but I sure wouldn't risk it.
See http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/07/07/1824228.shtml
The TOS isn't a contract.
I wouldn't want to play musical lawyers on that basis.
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/07/07/1824228.shtml
Violating a web site's TOS is unlikely to be illegal.
It has already been treated as unauthorized access to a computer system in existing cases.
There's nothing inherent in spam that says, "Hey, I'm accessing a computer illegally!"
Even before botnets, spam was unacceptable.
The damage caused by spam was already clear a decade ago.
The fact that there may be spammers who are not using botnets is a straw man. They do not have clean hands either.