Which is why they probably won't give a shit about this project. The integrated iTunes app is what's so user friendly - this is nice and all, but not nearly as useful.
(Note: I still haven't used iTMS because I don't want any DRM'd tracks. But my iPod kicks ass.)
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses ( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected (*) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks ( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it ( ) Users of email will not put up with it (*) Microsoft will not put up with it (*) The police will not put up with it ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it ( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email (*) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses (*) Asshats (*) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email ( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches ( ) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft (*) Technically illiterate politicians (*) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering (*) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(*) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Sending email should be free ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses (*) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I don't want the government reading my email (*) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. (*) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
People choose to work at overseas suppliers of the US (and EU) companies. Nobody is being forced at gunpoint to work there.
It's absolutely correct that the comparative advantage of economies changes over time, and economies generally become stronger in more skilled labor as they grow. For a very simplistic example, South Korea was primarily making low-cost goods like clothing after the war; then they were making cars and steel; and now they are the leading maker of DRAMs and a leader in semiconductors more generally. The standard of living has consistently grown over the years, supposed "exploitation" in the early years notwithstanding, to the point now where South Korea is a member of the OECD and has the highest utilization of broadband internet in the world.
Right after the war, yes, Korea did participate in the so-called race to the bottom - but it was the only way to get their economy moving again from a dead stop. By growing low-skilled industries first, they were able to lay the foundation for high-skilled industries that dominate now.
What is happening with IT outsourcing is simply another example of this trend. It's definitely disruptive for the economies of countries losing high-skilled jobs, and it raises important questions about whether it should be encouraged via tax breaks (as Sen. Kerry is pointing out in the campaign) and about the quality of public education required to keep competitive. But to suggest that it's bad for the economies where the jobs are being created is just absurd.
And it is blindingly obvious that it was chosen to draw fire from Microsoft. Maybe not to the hard-core unix geeks still wishing people think of X Window System when they hear "windows," but to anyone else.
So, as expected, Microsoft played its part in this little Kabuki drama, and Lindows aka Linspire got its free publicity. And bully for them, I guess.
But to suggest that they picked the name for any other reason is sheer folly.
No, it's Pleasanton. They're all suburban SUV drivers who are so concerned about their kids that they drive them all to school even though it's walking distance away.
It has an easily recognized, non-geeky name, and people can figure out what the heck it is from said name. Did anyone get sued for that?
I mean, yes, I know it's k3w1 to call your codec "Ogg Vorbis," but wouldn't a name like "Free Compressed Audio Codec" be a bit easier to get people to support and use? (There is something called "Free Lossless Audio Codec" - in a big shocker, it is obvious what it does.)
And as for "Lindows," this is the most moronic name I have seen in many years. Of course Robertson picked an intentionally confusing name - he wanted to have a big fight with Microsoft, for the free publicity.
Well, now he's got it, and he has to start over with naming. To which I say: tough cookies.
If you're in the US, your employer almost certainly violated overtime laws. Even if you're salaried, if you are specifically told the hours you must work, it is quite possible that a judge would determine that you were actually hourly and entitled to time and a half.
IANAL but I bet you could find one to take your case. But do it now before your employer goes bankrupt!
It's was quite boring to go on ellection where one could only vote for one candidate and for one party. People haven't been coming. Then, in order to bring people on ellections, authorities arranged free drinks.
Even in a two party system, this would be a nice enhancement!
Slashdot Mirror
Takes too long anyway.
(Note: I still haven't used iTMS because I don't want any DRM'd tracks. But my iPod kicks ass.)
No, he outsourced grammar to the Indian guy, and he's not working right now.
Your post advocates a
( ) technical (*) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
(*) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
(*) Microsoft will not put up with it
(*) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
(*) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(*) Asshats
(*) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
(*) Technically illiterate politicians
(*) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
(*) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(*) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
(*) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
(*) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
(*) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
Pray I don't alter it any further.
Four legs good, two legs better!
Which means, of course, that advertisers don't give a flying fuck about them.
Doubtful that a German decision would be considered by any court in the US.
then again, she's the one who portscanned me before we met. hee!
It's absolutely correct that the comparative advantage of economies changes over time, and economies generally become stronger in more skilled labor as they grow. For a very simplistic example, South Korea was primarily making low-cost goods like clothing after the war; then they were making cars and steel; and now they are the leading maker of DRAMs and a leader in semiconductors more generally. The standard of living has consistently grown over the years, supposed "exploitation" in the early years notwithstanding, to the point now where South Korea is a member of the OECD and has the highest utilization of broadband internet in the world.
Right after the war, yes, Korea did participate in the so-called race to the bottom - but it was the only way to get their economy moving again from a dead stop. By growing low-skilled industries first, they were able to lay the foundation for high-skilled industries that dominate now.
What is happening with IT outsourcing is simply another example of this trend. It's definitely disruptive for the economies of countries losing high-skilled jobs, and it raises important questions about whether it should be encouraged via tax breaks (as Sen. Kerry is pointing out in the campaign) and about the quality of public education required to keep competitive. But to suggest that it's bad for the economies where the jobs are being created is just absurd.
Does this mean that the liquid will be pissed out by an ice sculpture of David?
So, as expected, Microsoft played its part in this little Kabuki drama, and Lindows aka Linspire got its free publicity. And bully for them, I guess. But to suggest that they picked the name for any other reason is sheer folly.
he's a mac user. shouldn't he use BBEdit?
And, don't forget, Howard is on Infinity. Clear Channel was happy to have an excuse to drop a program they were paying syndication fees for.
They deserve whatever they get.
Maybe so, but unlike "Lindows" I am not a software package.
It has an easily recognized, non-geeky name, and people can figure out what the heck it is from said name. Did anyone get sued for that?
I mean, yes, I know it's k3w1 to call your codec "Ogg Vorbis," but wouldn't a name like "Free Compressed Audio Codec" be a bit easier to get people to support and use? (There is something called "Free Lossless Audio Codec" - in a big shocker, it is obvious what it does.)
And as for "Lindows," this is the most moronic name I have seen in many years. Of course Robertson picked an intentionally confusing name - he wanted to have a big fight with Microsoft, for the free publicity.
Well, now he's got it, and he has to start over with naming. To which I say: tough cookies.
Maybe now they will pick a name that, oh I dunno, makes sense? OSS developers always seem to pick the most moronic names.
IANAL but I bet you could find one to take your case. But do it now before your employer goes bankrupt!
ashcroft is the goatse man. scary but true.
you're right, though, oddly enough slashdot isn't nearly weird enough on april fool's. the stories can't be the whole picture.
Can someone build a PeopleGoAwaytor (tm)?
it's the blogosphere. do not fuck with the blogosphere!
these are the perpetrators of the Tiananmen massacre. do you really think they would hesitate to block a few websites?
It's was quite boring to go on ellection where one could only vote for one candidate and for one party. People haven't been coming. Then, in order to bring people on ellections, authorities arranged free drinks.
Even in a two party system, this would be a nice enhancement!