I'm not suggesting that those living in rural areas are uneducated rednecks. While they definitely exist, and I doubt their need for a computer, the other rural inhabitants are also likely to not have much use for a PC. Computerized farming, or computer-aided farming? Maybe. But frankly a roving vehicle filled with gaming PCs glorifying the Internet is hardly going to be of practical use (remember the price factor) to these people. Do they care about Linux and Open Source? Probably not. Do they care about Microsoft and Bill Gates? Probably not. They want whatever computers they have to work reliably. A visit from a techno bus will not change that. And may I remind you of the issue of broadband that is likely going to be tied to this new technology on parade.
I see this project as a way to bring technology to the young people in rural areas. But realize that if the areas being visited poorer for whatever reasons, a computer won't be high on the list of necessary household items. The children of this world are our future, and technology is a fantastic way to enable them to express themselves and to learn everything they desire... but ensure they can afford it and make use of it.
a mobile IT bus to bring technology to rural areas
Is this like introducing fire to early humans? Or is it like selling freezers to Eskimos? Are those living in rural areas really going to benefit from this?
I think we can all agree that broadband connections in many urban areas are either severely lacking or extremely expensive... so why would they be any cheaper in rural areas? Sure, there could be a community effort to bring broadband to all, but I'm guessing this bus is not going to be visiting those communities anyways. Local telcos are forced to sell rural telephone lines below cost (offset by higher prices in urban areas); however, broadband does not fall under this regulation.
So one day, suddenly the mobile-tech bus drives up and stops next to Billy Bob's house. Billy Bob doesn't know anything about computers and probably is not going to understand the possibilities of them. But if Billy Bob has children, they may be very much interested in the mobile-tech bus and the goodies inside. But how does the mobile-tech bus really do anything for the rural inhabitants? It's like parading around in a Ferrari and saying, "Gee, isn't this cool? You could have this, but you can't afford it... sorry."
So now you've managed to generate some interest in computers and broadband in rural areas, but they still won't be able to make use of it.
I'd like to offer you a solution to the problem, but I cannot. I would recommend that you build your mobile-tech bus while at the same time working with local ISPs or government to promote broadband, etc so hopefully when the bus shows up, you're not trying to sell freezers to Eskimos -- instead, you have a plan for dispersing the technology to those who you're hoping will benefit from it.
That's not misleading. In the 80s, it just meant they can't even get the first step right.
"We try harder." [Avis Car Rental]
Good. I'll try just as hard to pay my bill.
"Just slightly ahead of our time." [Panasonic]
In some ways, this one might be the worst of them all. Many innovations have been ahead of their time yet fallen by the wayside. Just because it's better doesn't mean it will last (BetaMax). Maybe they should change their name to "Gamble your paycheck on our product's longevity."
It's not designed for you, it's not being marketed to you, so why are you complaining that it doesn't fit the bill?
Stupid is right. But that's the same kind of mentality those paranoid dillusional types have when they think that the NSA is spying on them. In actuality, they're the most boring people alive and don't do anything even remotely illegal, but somehow they think that they're so important, and so special, that they're being watched at all times.
I remember reading PlanetUnreal a while back and they posted the specs required for Unreal II (and I assume Unreal Tournament 2). They were likely preliminary guesses, but they serve as a good indicator of the direction the developers are going.
The idea was that you could actually run the newest generation of Unreal games on slower hardware than Unreal Tournament. Yes, slower. I think it actually spec'd a Pentium 233, but I can't recall exactly.
Apparently the new engine does exactly what the Kyro cards do. It only draws what is necessary, thus allowing older hardware to still play the game. I don't know how this will affect Kyro cards where they have a price-performance advantage.
I also remember reading about how Unreal was going to use ATI's TruForm (I think) technology to change expressions and the like on models. So that would be one advantages of having a brand new high end graphics card...
Here in California the list of people eligible for jury duty are drawn from the drivers license and state ID databases, as well as the voter registration. In the past it was just voter registration (the theory being only a citizen is registered to vote and only citizens can be on a jury). The problem was that people weren't registering to vote because they didn't want to go to jury duty.
Well, that's been fixed and now the DMV databases are used as well... but now non-citizens are often asked to come in for jury duty (if you're called you can write a letter stating you're not a citizen and you're excused -- just make sure you tell them you're not a citizen otherwise you'll just create problems for yourself).
So a friend of mine (who is a citizen) is the kind of person who doesn't want to go to jury duty so he is not registered to vote and does not have any form of state-sponsored ID... no driver's license or ID card.
My understanding is that is 100% illegal, because once you turn 18 you are supposed to have some sort of valid ID. And let me tell you he doesn't carry his passport around with him.
From the article:
Although votes cast after 21 December are suspect, this latest episode illustrates the importance of Web services -- at least to suppliers, anyway.
That sounds a lot like a horoscope or fortune cookie to me.
The best horoscope, or other predictive statements which are phrased very vaguely in order to "come true," that I've heard so far came from the UC San Diego's student-run paper The Koala which stated (paraphrased):
You will meet someone today. You will either like them or dislike them.
Wow.
Now look back at the article's statement. Seems like a +5, Insightful statement right? Read it again. Of course the web products are important to those who are selling them! It would be rediculous to think the opposite, especially when that company is Microsoft and it's well known the OS division is basically betting the farm on.NET.
(By the way, will Sun say they're the "dot" in.NET?)
For clients of the consulting firm where I work, every single client who has a PacBell PPPoE connection and uses the PacBell software (WinPoet, I think, but I didn't look at it closely, I try not to work on customers' home computers;)) has endless problems. Now we recommend they buy some sort of DSL router (Linksys usually). But that's kind of expensive...
<Seinfeld>
Oh, you wanted it to work? Well that's extra!
</Seinfeld>
...who the hell came up with PPPoE? It's the one reason a lot of people I know don't have broadband. Let me explain:
1. DSL install is complete, but PPPoE software doesn't work, or error reporting is terrible so while the tech claims the line is good at the MPOE, the PPPoE still fails. Thanks to PPPoE, there is no means to test the line beyond trusting what the tech says.
2. Customer has a Mac, and techs don't know anything about Macs. PPPoE software doesn't work.
3. PPPoE software is incredibly unstable, even on Windows 2000.
Why do we even have PPPoE? I just don't see the point. Why cause your customers (and your bottom line) endless hours of pain and suffering calling your tech support lines? No wonder they're busy all the time and reps are run ragged.
DHCP works great. So do static IPs. Just give out a private range. There's no reason home users need a public IP, and as a ISP you can sell that as "firewalled" if you want. Connections can still be logged where necessary. Since you can make up all of the non-public IPs you want (essentially) there's no problem of IPs being "overused." Those who have a real need for a static, public IP can pay for one (complain if you want, I know I would... but that's called the market system -- if you don't pay, you don't play).
So here I am sitting at the end of my PacBell DSL, with static IP, which I've had for three years. My cost is $40 a month. Maybe I was just lucky I got in at the get-go and PacBell can't change my service now. But frankly, I don't see what the big deal is. I'm one of the few people who has had a PacBell DSL line and thought it was great.
In fact, I can't remember there being a single time where I needed to call PacBell support and speak to a rep. I've called at most five times over the past three years to check the system status when my line was down. Only once was it down for more than two hours.
Maybe I'm just lucky. Maybe my phone lines are higher quality (I'm 12,000 feet or so from the nearest CO). Maybe it's because I have a static IP so it just works like it should.
" The District Court noted that at the time respondent sought an accommodation from petitioner,
she admitted that she was able to do the manual tasks required by her original two jobs in QCIO.
App. to Pet. for Cert. A--36. In addition, according to respondent's deposition testimony, even
after her condition worsened, she could still brush her teeth, wash her face, bathe, tend her flower
garden, fix breakfast, do laundry, and pick up around the house. App. 32--34. The record also
indicates that her medical conditions caused her to avoid sweeping, to quit dancing, to occasionally
seek help dressing, and to reduce how often she plays with her children, gardens, and drives long
distances. Id., at 32, 38--39. But these changes in her life did not amount to such severe
restrictions in the activities that are of central importance to most people's daily lives that they
establish a manual-task disability as a matter of law. On this record, it was therefore inappropriate
for the Court of Appeals to grant partial summary judgment to respondent on the issue whether
she was substantially limited in performing manual tasks, and its decision to do so must be
reversed."
In other words, tough luck lady. Be happy you aren't really disabled, and be happy the USA doesn't break unnecessarily litigious people's legs (try that disability for a lifetime).
If her typing skills were so vitally important to her livelihood that she felt the need to sue (oh, and she might get a big settlement too, but I'm sure that didn't factor in) for her rights under the ADA, she should have gotten appropriate insurance. Just like an Olympic sprinter might get his or her legs insured.
The courts need to stop protecting people from their own stupidity.
Well, if I was due my back pay, I'd sure as hell walk off with whatever I could. Be happy to give it back, but it'll cost the exact amount of back pay I'm due.
It all depends on how much the information is worth...
Criminal courts are decided by the principle of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" so you can decide for yourself if this is really innocent until proven guilty.
Civil courts are decided by a "preponderance of evidence" or for those non-legal types, "the other guy has more convincing evidence than you"
That's why OJ Simpson was not convicted his criminal case (murder) but he did lose the civil case (wrongful death).
My point: Communications and tech have been regulated for YEARS. So while you're pondering if criminalizing spam MAY set a bad precident, existing technology and communication monopolies are doing everything to criminalize and patent truely liberating technology (Ultra-Wide-Band) (DSL without the telcos): (That is before they figure out how to use it for thier own advantage)
I hope you don't live in the US because if you do I'm sure there's a socialist country somewhere that's just waiting for people like you.
I'm not trying to be mean or sarcastic. But what you've just stated is completely moronic. You don't understand anything about capitalism and the incentive to make a profit. I've met far too many people like you that don't understand these things. It is okay to have a monopoly and make a profit, but at the same time (if you believe in these things) there is a time and a place for a company to act responsibly.
With that said, please explain to me, in your world of consumer-run "liberating technology" who will pay for the development and/or organization of the network (so it actually works)? Oh, that's right, the exact same people who want to use it. Fine. So we've got a "nice guy" who sets his neighborhood up with ultra-wide-band. Then he moves. Or maybe he realizes his neighbors are fucking jerks and keep hounding him over stupid issues. Maybe he has a real job (can we assume this? How is he, and his neighbors, able to afford the hardware?) and doesn't have the time.
Time == Money
If I make $125 an hour working for an "evil" corporation and I decide to instead setup ultra-wide-band connection for my neighborhood, they just got $125 worth of service, at least, out of me. Why? Because I'm losing $125 because I didn't go to work... so if they don't pay me, I lose.
Sometimes a monopoly just works. There are reasons monopolies are allowed (eg, encourage innovation in medicine, for example; force standardization where it is necessary or where competition between differing standards could harm consumers (power generation in CA)). But realize too that monopolies are often regulated when they are established by the government.
Yes, there is corruption in the system. But for most of us the system works well enough (and nothing is perfect -- you should know that). If you don't like it move to Afghanistan or Argentina (as an example) and try out their political/social/economic system and see if you'd like to come back.
I can tell you this, and if you've read this far perhaps you can take note and remember this:
Someone will always pay, and that someone is you.
Just because you don't pay or your friends don't pay doesn't mean it was perfectly free. In all likelihood you're paying for it in a way that isn't obvious.
I agree with you regarding the reply to... however none of the people I communicate with via email use that feature. What I'd really like to do is to deny the message (550 error) with text that states I Reply-To and From must be the same.
I have some plans to eliminate spam which should make my email box much more managable. Unfortunately I don't have the skill to make the appropriate changes, but perhaps a Sendmail guru can help:
How can I setup Sendmail to deny all emails where the Reply To: != From: address?
Filtering for message subjects which begin with "ADV:"
How can I verify that the sender's domain (or parent if they have a tertiary level domain such as neal@cowboy.slashdot.org) has a valid MX record?
On a side note, I don't understand the comments on who is donating to political parties in order to gain support for pro-spam policies.
From my understanding, the majority of spam is completely useless... even if I wanted to buy that timeshare in Afghanistan and use it as a base of operations to make $63,924 (first month!) sending marketing material to Al Qaeda members. There was some enterprising reporter (in LA, IIRC) that actually followed up to 200 or so spam emails trying to buy the product or the like, and 95% it was fake.
So what the hell is the point? If the spammer's time is worth nothing, they should try Linux instead. But their time is worth something and they're wasting it sending spam that they can't even make money from. Maybe they just use it to see who responds and then sell those addresses. But if that's true, and only 50% of the people respond, then eventually that list of emails gets really short... and since I can buy millions of email addresses for $39.95 I don't see how these spammers can afford to give anything to politicians.
Maybe that spammers are trying to get you to send them your credit card and then they run off on a giant shopping spree at your expense... but if that is the case then there would be even more anti-spam legislation.
Re:has the targeted demographic really changed?
on
Attack of the Clones
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Well, I wouldn't say that I "originally saw it as a child" because I was well past the "age of Star Wars" when I really got into it. I'd say it was in high school, so maybe I was 15 or so. Yes, I did know about Star Wars before that but I was more into things like GI Joe and Transformers.
Now I'm almost 23 and I will happily sit down and watch Episodes 4 thru 6 in one sitting. They're fabulous movies and just because I've gotten older doesn't mean that I still have to be a child to appreciate them.
The movies have been analyzed over and over by critic after critic, but the movies have a certain charm to them. They're like Aladdin; the target audience may be children (debatable) but I think that adults get more out of the movie than their kids. Episodes 4 thru 6 were more of an epic tale for the 20th century, and not just something trying to capture the interest of a 8 year old child.
For whatever reason, Lucas has lost sight of the original vision of his filmmaking career... look at American Graffiti or Episodes 4 thru 6, and even the Indiana Jones trilogy (if you want to stretch things). Now compare to more recent works by Lucas, in comparison to the Lord Of The Rings trilogy. LOTR has quite a large budget, and has many well known actors, but still managed to save that "filmmaking innocence" that is sincerely lacking in Hollywood.
Whether Lucas lost it or has simply abandoned it of his own will, I cannot say. But I can tell you that I will be buying the LOTR DVD but have yet to buy Episode 1 on DVD... despite being a self proclaimed "Star Wars nut." Now tell me who's the target market...
I wonder how loud this is. It's pretty small so I just don't anticipate it having much natural airflow. Since it's a Pentium III (rather than a Celeron, or even Pentium (@.13 micron?)) it will generate a good amount of heat. So it must have a fan. But small fans trying to move a lot of air tend to be quite noisy (and irritating due to higher pitch).
The design is interesting and hopefully we will see more computers like this, but I don't find myself all that impressed yet. I want a system like the one shown, but one that relies on passive cooling. Frankly, size isn't a concern for me, make it rack mountable or a bit taller and maybe twice as wide. I'll mount it on its side PS2-style and have a nice quiet server (or desktop). With some good PS2-style design (eg, designed to stand on its side or lay flat) you could have a Mac-ish computer... one where it was both functional but also designed to fit into a room; something designed to not look like a plain computer box. Something you could put in your living room and not feel like a complete computer nerd when friends came over.
Actually, one thing that can be very very helpful is to also write down your assumptions for each function. What format are you assuming the variables will be in when passed to a function? What if they're passed incorrectly? What if someone tries to "hack" the function? How would they go about doing it via a form submittal (for example)?
This is a good exercise and should lead to much more secure code.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me clarify some points that I tried to make.
I'm not suggesting that those living in rural areas are uneducated rednecks. While they definitely exist, and I doubt their need for a computer, the other rural inhabitants are also likely to not have much use for a PC. Computerized farming, or computer-aided farming? Maybe. But frankly a roving vehicle filled with gaming PCs glorifying the Internet is hardly going to be of practical use (remember the price factor) to these people. Do they care about Linux and Open Source? Probably not. Do they care about Microsoft and Bill Gates? Probably not. They want whatever computers they have to work reliably. A visit from a techno bus will not change that. And may I remind you of the issue of broadband that is likely going to be tied to this new technology on parade.
I see this project as a way to bring technology to the young people in rural areas. But realize that if the areas being visited poorer for whatever reasons, a computer won't be high on the list of necessary household items. The children of this world are our future, and technology is a fantastic way to enable them to express themselves and to learn everything they desire... but ensure they can afford it and make use of it.
a mobile IT bus to bring technology to rural areas
Is this like introducing fire to early humans? Or is it like selling freezers to Eskimos? Are those living in rural areas really going to benefit from this?
I think we can all agree that broadband connections in many urban areas are either severely lacking or extremely expensive... so why would they be any cheaper in rural areas? Sure, there could be a community effort to bring broadband to all, but I'm guessing this bus is not going to be visiting those communities anyways. Local telcos are forced to sell rural telephone lines below cost (offset by higher prices in urban areas); however, broadband does not fall under this regulation.
So one day, suddenly the mobile-tech bus drives up and stops next to Billy Bob's house. Billy Bob doesn't know anything about computers and probably is not going to understand the possibilities of them. But if Billy Bob has children, they may be very much interested in the mobile-tech bus and the goodies inside. But how does the mobile-tech bus really do anything for the rural inhabitants? It's like parading around in a Ferrari and saying, "Gee, isn't this cool? You could have this, but you can't afford it... sorry."
So now you've managed to generate some interest in computers and broadband in rural areas, but they still won't be able to make use of it.
I'd like to offer you a solution to the problem, but I cannot. I would recommend that you build your mobile-tech bus while at the same time working with local ISPs or government to promote broadband, etc so hopefully when the bus shows up, you're not trying to sell freezers to Eskimos -- instead, you have a plan for dispersing the technology to those who you're hoping will benefit from it.
"Quality is Job 1" [Ford]
That's not misleading. In the 80s, it just meant they can't even get the first step right.
"We try harder." [Avis Car Rental]
Good. I'll try just as hard to pay my bill.
"Just slightly ahead of our time." [Panasonic]
In some ways, this one might be the worst of them all. Many innovations have been ahead of their time yet fallen by the wayside. Just because it's better doesn't mean it will last (BetaMax). Maybe they should change their name to "Gamble your paycheck on our product's longevity."
From the article:
(referring to Ive) He often struggles for words, sounding like a man trying to describe God to a world without religion.
How many ways can one interperet that?
One might be God == Jobs and "a world without religion" == the unwashed Windows masses.
Or is it simply a metaphor for how futile it is trying to tech your mother how to program her VCR?
It's not designed for you, it's not being marketed to you, so why are you complaining that it doesn't fit the bill?
Stupid is right. But that's the same kind of mentality those paranoid dillusional types have when they think that the NSA is spying on them. In actuality, they're the most boring people alive and don't do anything even remotely illegal, but somehow they think that they're so important, and so special, that they're being watched at all times.
Whoops, that URL is wrong... should be:
www.planetunreal.com
I couldn't find the article either, perhaps someone else has a link to it...
I remember reading PlanetUnreal a while back and they posted the specs required for Unreal II (and I assume Unreal Tournament 2). They were likely preliminary guesses, but they serve as a good indicator of the direction the developers are going.
The idea was that you could actually run the newest generation of Unreal games on slower hardware than Unreal Tournament. Yes, slower. I think it actually spec'd a Pentium 233, but I can't recall exactly.
Apparently the new engine does exactly what the Kyro cards do. It only draws what is necessary, thus allowing older hardware to still play the game. I don't know how this will affect Kyro cards where they have a price-performance advantage.
I also remember reading about how Unreal was going to use ATI's TruForm (I think) technology to change expressions and the like on models. So that would be one advantages of having a brand new high end graphics card...
It is fairly simple and easy to use. (If you are familiar with Unix).
Is it just me or does that qualifying statement completely negate the previous statement?
Of course it's "simple" and "easy to use" if you already know what you're doing.
Here in California the list of people eligible for jury duty are drawn from the drivers license and state ID databases, as well as the voter registration. In the past it was just voter registration (the theory being only a citizen is registered to vote and only citizens can be on a jury). The problem was that people weren't registering to vote because they didn't want to go to jury duty.
Well, that's been fixed and now the DMV databases are used as well... but now non-citizens are often asked to come in for jury duty (if you're called you can write a letter stating you're not a citizen and you're excused -- just make sure you tell them you're not a citizen otherwise you'll just create problems for yourself).
So a friend of mine (who is a citizen) is the kind of person who doesn't want to go to jury duty so he is not registered to vote and does not have any form of state-sponsored ID... no driver's license or ID card.
My understanding is that is 100% illegal, because once you turn 18 you are supposed to have some sort of valid ID. And let me tell you he doesn't carry his passport around with him.
From the article:
.NET.
.NET?)
Although votes cast after 21 December are suspect, this latest episode illustrates the importance of Web services -- at least to suppliers, anyway.
That sounds a lot like a horoscope or fortune cookie to me.
The best horoscope, or other predictive statements which are phrased very vaguely in order to "come true," that I've heard so far came from the UC San Diego's student-run paper The Koala which stated (paraphrased):
You will meet someone today. You will either like them or dislike them.
Wow.
Now look back at the article's statement. Seems like a +5, Insightful statement right? Read it again. Of course the web products are important to those who are selling them! It would be rediculous to think the opposite, especially when that company is Microsoft and it's well known the OS division is basically betting the farm on
(By the way, will Sun say they're the "dot" in
Congratulations, you're front page news!
(On Slashdot.org, though)
Or perhaps they transmitted DeCSS source code so some intelligent life may make use of it...
Ah, the problem of the Internet (one recent example of this general problem). Once you give people something for "free" they come to expect it.
"What? You want to charge me for it?!?! You fucking capitalist pig!"
"I have a family to feed, and a mortgage to pay."
"Fuck you, I have porn to download while my mom and dad are at work!"
For clients of the consulting firm where I work, every single client who has a PacBell PPPoE connection and uses the PacBell software (WinPoet, I think, but I didn't look at it closely, I try not to work on customers' home computers ;)) has endless problems. Now we recommend they buy some sort of DSL router (Linksys usually). But that's kind of expensive...
<Seinfeld>
Oh, you wanted it to work? Well that's extra!
</Seinfeld>
This is a job for... a service contract!
...who the hell came up with PPPoE? It's the one reason a lot of people I know don't have broadband. Let me explain:
1. DSL install is complete, but PPPoE software doesn't work, or error reporting is terrible so while the tech claims the line is good at the MPOE, the PPPoE still fails. Thanks to PPPoE, there is no means to test the line beyond trusting what the tech says.
2. Customer has a Mac, and techs don't know anything about Macs. PPPoE software doesn't work.
3. PPPoE software is incredibly unstable, even on Windows 2000.
Why do we even have PPPoE? I just don't see the point. Why cause your customers (and your bottom line) endless hours of pain and suffering calling your tech support lines? No wonder they're busy all the time and reps are run ragged.
DHCP works great. So do static IPs. Just give out a private range. There's no reason home users need a public IP, and as a ISP you can sell that as "firewalled" if you want. Connections can still be logged where necessary. Since you can make up all of the non-public IPs you want (essentially) there's no problem of IPs being "overused." Those who have a real need for a static, public IP can pay for one (complain if you want, I know I would... but that's called the market system -- if you don't pay, you don't play).
So here I am sitting at the end of my PacBell DSL, with static IP, which I've had for three years. My cost is $40 a month. Maybe I was just lucky I got in at the get-go and PacBell can't change my service now. But frankly, I don't see what the big deal is. I'm one of the few people who has had a PacBell DSL line and thought it was great.
In fact, I can't remember there being a single time where I needed to call PacBell support and speak to a rep. I've called at most five times over the past three years to check the system status when my line was down. Only once was it down for more than two hours.
Maybe I'm just lucky. Maybe my phone lines are higher quality (I'm 12,000 feet or so from the nearest CO). Maybe it's because I have a static IP so it just works like it should.
" The District Court noted that at the time respondent sought an accommodation from petitioner,
she admitted that she was able to do the manual tasks required by her original two jobs in QCIO.
App. to Pet. for Cert. A--36. In addition, according to respondent's deposition testimony, even
after her condition worsened, she could still brush her teeth, wash her face, bathe, tend her flower
garden, fix breakfast, do laundry, and pick up around the house. App. 32--34. The record also
indicates that her medical conditions caused her to avoid sweeping, to quit dancing, to occasionally
seek help dressing, and to reduce how often she plays with her children, gardens, and drives long
distances. Id., at 32, 38--39. But these changes in her life did not amount to such severe
restrictions in the activities that are of central importance to most people's daily lives that they
establish a manual-task disability as a matter of law. On this record, it was therefore inappropriate
for the Court of Appeals to grant partial summary judgment to respondent on the issue whether
she was substantially limited in performing manual tasks, and its decision to do so must be
reversed."
In other words, tough luck lady. Be happy you aren't really disabled, and be happy the USA doesn't break unnecessarily litigious people's legs (try that disability for a lifetime).
If her typing skills were so vitally important to her livelihood that she felt the need to sue (oh, and she might get a big settlement too, but I'm sure that didn't factor in) for her rights under the ADA, she should have gotten appropriate insurance. Just like an Olympic sprinter might get his or her legs insured.
The courts need to stop protecting people from their own stupidity.
Well, if I was due my back pay, I'd sure as hell walk off with whatever I could. Be happy to give it back, but it'll cost the exact amount of back pay I'm due.
It all depends on how much the information is worth...
I hope she's not using your computer in the mean time... that's got trouble written all over it.
Innocent until proven guilty?
Criminal courts are decided by the principle of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" so you can decide for yourself if this is really innocent until proven guilty.
Civil courts are decided by a "preponderance of evidence" or for those non-legal types, "the other guy has more convincing evidence than you"
That's why OJ Simpson was not convicted his criminal case (murder) but he did lose the civil case (wrongful death).
My point: Communications and tech have been regulated for YEARS. So while you're pondering if criminalizing spam MAY set a bad precident, existing technology and communication monopolies are doing everything to criminalize and patent truely liberating technology (Ultra-Wide-Band) (DSL without the telcos): (That is before they figure out how to use it for thier own advantage)
I hope you don't live in the US because if you do I'm sure there's a socialist country somewhere that's just waiting for people like you.
I'm not trying to be mean or sarcastic. But what you've just stated is completely moronic. You don't understand anything about capitalism and the incentive to make a profit. I've met far too many people like you that don't understand these things. It is okay to have a monopoly and make a profit, but at the same time (if you believe in these things) there is a time and a place for a company to act responsibly.
With that said, please explain to me, in your world of consumer-run "liberating technology" who will pay for the development and/or organization of the network (so it actually works)? Oh, that's right, the exact same people who want to use it. Fine. So we've got a "nice guy" who sets his neighborhood up with ultra-wide-band. Then he moves. Or maybe he realizes his neighbors are fucking jerks and keep hounding him over stupid issues. Maybe he has a real job (can we assume this? How is he, and his neighbors, able to afford the hardware?) and doesn't have the time.
Time == Money
If I make $125 an hour working for an "evil" corporation and I decide to instead setup ultra-wide-band connection for my neighborhood, they just got $125 worth of service, at least, out of me. Why? Because I'm losing $125 because I didn't go to work... so if they don't pay me, I lose.
Sometimes a monopoly just works. There are reasons monopolies are allowed (eg, encourage innovation in medicine, for example; force standardization where it is necessary or where competition between differing standards could harm consumers (power generation in CA)). But realize too that monopolies are often regulated when they are established by the government.
Yes, there is corruption in the system. But for most of us the system works well enough (and nothing is perfect -- you should know that). If you don't like it move to Afghanistan or Argentina (as an example) and try out their political/social/economic system and see if you'd like to come back.
I can tell you this, and if you've read this far perhaps you can take note and remember this:
Someone will always pay, and that someone is you.
Just because you don't pay or your friends don't pay doesn't mean it was perfectly free. In all likelihood you're paying for it in a way that isn't obvious.
I agree with you regarding the reply to... however none of the people I communicate with via email use that feature. What I'd really like to do is to deny the message (550 error) with text that states I Reply-To and From must be the same.
How can I setup Sendmail to deny all emails where the Reply To: != From: address?
Filtering for message subjects which begin with "ADV:"
How can I verify that the sender's domain (or parent if they have a tertiary level domain such as neal@cowboy.slashdot.org) has a valid MX record?
On a side note, I don't understand the comments on who is donating to political parties in order to gain support for pro-spam policies.
From my understanding, the majority of spam is completely useless... even if I wanted to buy that timeshare in Afghanistan and use it as a base of operations to make $63,924 (first month!) sending marketing material to Al Qaeda members. There was some enterprising reporter (in LA, IIRC) that actually followed up to 200 or so spam emails trying to buy the product or the like, and 95% it was fake.
So what the hell is the point? If the spammer's time is worth nothing, they should try Linux instead. But their time is worth something and they're wasting it sending spam that they can't even make money from. Maybe they just use it to see who responds and then sell those addresses. But if that's true, and only 50% of the people respond, then eventually that list of emails gets really short... and since I can buy millions of email addresses for $39.95 I don't see how these spammers can afford to give anything to politicians.
Maybe that spammers are trying to get you to send them your credit card and then they run off on a giant shopping spree at your expense... but if that is the case then there would be even more anti-spam legislation.
Well, I wouldn't say that I "originally saw it as a child" because I was well past the "age of Star Wars" when I really got into it. I'd say it was in high school, so maybe I was 15 or so. Yes, I did know about Star Wars before that but I was more into things like GI Joe and Transformers.
Now I'm almost 23 and I will happily sit down and watch Episodes 4 thru 6 in one sitting. They're fabulous movies and just because I've gotten older doesn't mean that I still have to be a child to appreciate them.
The movies have been analyzed over and over by critic after critic, but the movies have a certain charm to them. They're like Aladdin; the target audience may be children (debatable) but I think that adults get more out of the movie than their kids. Episodes 4 thru 6 were more of an epic tale for the 20th century, and not just something trying to capture the interest of a 8 year old child.
For whatever reason, Lucas has lost sight of the original vision of his filmmaking career... look at American Graffiti or Episodes 4 thru 6, and even the Indiana Jones trilogy (if you want to stretch things). Now compare to more recent works by Lucas, in comparison to the Lord Of The Rings trilogy. LOTR has quite a large budget, and has many well known actors, but still managed to save that "filmmaking innocence" that is sincerely lacking in Hollywood.
Whether Lucas lost it or has simply abandoned it of his own will, I cannot say. But I can tell you that I will be buying the LOTR DVD but have yet to buy Episode 1 on DVD... despite being a self proclaimed "Star Wars nut." Now tell me who's the target market...
I wonder how loud this is. It's pretty small so I just don't anticipate it having much natural airflow. Since it's a Pentium III (rather than a Celeron, or even Pentium (@ .13 micron?)) it will generate a good amount of heat. So it must have a fan. But small fans trying to move a lot of air tend to be quite noisy (and irritating due to higher pitch).
The design is interesting and hopefully we will see more computers like this, but I don't find myself all that impressed yet. I want a system like the one shown, but one that relies on passive cooling. Frankly, size isn't a concern for me, make it rack mountable or a bit taller and maybe twice as wide. I'll mount it on its side PS2-style and have a nice quiet server (or desktop). With some good PS2-style design (eg, designed to stand on its side or lay flat) you could have a Mac-ish computer... one where it was both functional but also designed to fit into a room; something designed to not look like a plain computer box. Something you could put in your living room and not feel like a complete computer nerd when friends came over.
Actually, one thing that can be very very helpful is to also write down your assumptions for each function. What format are you assuming the variables will be in when passed to a function? What if they're passed incorrectly? What if someone tries to "hack" the function? How would they go about doing it via a form submittal (for example)?
This is a good exercise and should lead to much more secure code.