You must not have noticed that there were $18,000 damages involved as a result his intrusion into and theft of services of a network that he did not have any right to use
Exactly. $18,000 may be small potatoes to AOL, IBM, Microsoft or slashdot, but to a small struggling company it could mean they go bust. I have no idea what the size of the victim company is, but a small company suffering the same fate could go under and people would lose their jobs.
We need a deterrent against doing this; a real deterrent. And that means real punishment. ---------------------------
Spam, on the other hand, wastes nothing other than a miniscule amount of bandwidth and the electrons required to transmit it.
The company whose site I am currently working on had not locked down their SMTP server correctly. A spammer proceeded to send thousands of emails through it, and in the process stalled the server.
The server was not used for the delivery of most email, but for a specialised subsection. It was 2 weeks before somebody noticed that we'd had no sign-ups to the specialised website.
So not only did I and a colleague waste a morning clearing the mess up and locking the machine down properly, but the company probably lost a fair bit of business because of the bad impression the potential customers got (we didn't answer them for a fortnight).
Yes, it is partly the company's fault for having an open SMTP relay exposed. But just cos it's there doesn't mean you can nick it and run away laughing.
IMHO spam costs more than snail-mail spam; it's just different people who pick up the tab.
"The Delux DVD plays about every media possible, and boasts a handful of features only found in high-end players. What makes this unit special is that it ships with over 720 classic arcade games that are playable through the unit. That's right, I will be able to play all my old favorites such as California Games, and Spy vs Spy. All of this at a cost of under $US300.
If anyone can point out any paragraph anywhere on the net that looks more like it came straight from a company catalogue, I will be impressed.
The other paragraphs, IMHO, look like they are tailored to the target audience (geeks with money).
Is it worth the money? The debate will rage on, no doubt. Me, I won't be sending money to a company I believe spammed. It's just the principle of the thing
As a side-line, how long do you think it will be before we see spam which is sent by rival companies, simply to blacken the names of their competitors?
---------------------------
Spot on. If you don't want your domain name to be public, use an IP address on its own instead.
Removing registration would open the door to widescale abuse - people would be able to register names that are libellous and have no comeback at all. Online harrassment could enter a whole new era.
If you want to publish in the public domain, you have to be accountable, or go through a publisher who is acountable (but willing to protect your anonymity in the interest of freedom of speech).
If anything, I'd be in favour of more information about domain owners, even if it was held confidentially by a trusted thrid party and released only with good cause (eg the domain suddenly starts hosting child pr0n or making death threats). ---------------------------
Get real! You're living in pure fantasy land. Tell your fictious boss to take a long walk off a short peer, along with a promise (no threats) that you will sue his ass off and hand it to the media for disection
That's great and fine today. And tomorrow. Let's go ahead and create a voting system that means that everybody can vote over the net (ie everone's ballot is an absentee ballot).
Now what happens in the future? What happens if 100 years from now (or 200 or 300) the US elects a facist or a communist to power? Or just a very very corrupt person (yeah even more corrupt than say Nixon or any other politician)? Couldn't happen, eh? Of course not. Republics always stay as republics. Just ask Caesar.
If a corrupt government is ever elected (or has corrupt supports at the election management level), it is much easier for them to rig an electronic ballot than to intimidate individual voters and then all the counters. Do you really think, for example, that Mugabe would have been forced out of power in Zimbabwe if the ballot had ben done electronically?
If you install a system which has the potential to be abused, you install the potential (and the means) for that abuse.
I'm not saying that manual voting makes the overthrow of legitimate government impossible; just that a fully electronic vote (in whatever form) makes the process of interfering with a ballot a great deal simpler for the people who would be in a position to do so. ---------------------------
You got yer maths the wrong way round. When you've deducted those not in the US, and those under age, then you have people eligible to vote.
Of THOSE, one third are Rebuplican or Democrat, or misc minor party (given stats at the previous election). That leaves about 660 per state according to my quick calculation.
Those extra 160 people make all the difference. ---------------------------
Let me get this straight.. you are seriously suggesting that a politician is better than another politician because one politician is alledged to have lied?
I'd hope a review would give more of a clue about the nature of such a strange world
What and give away some of the best bits of his books? I suggest you have a read of one or two.. "Reaper Man", maybe, to see what Death is like. As a person. ---------------------------
However, it goes completely against the existing standards regarding cruel and unusual punishment. That's a slippery slope to start going down.
In more ways than one. If you say it's OK to experiment on category X of people, that's the only hurdle you have to cross. Elect the wrong guy to power, and it's a much smaller step to allow experimentation on category Y (say, people who don't like your politics, who are now defined as crimminals).
Animal Rights people will proclaim that since we've currently defined Category X as animals, it's only a small step to category Y. That argument holds about as much water as saying that animals have the same rights as humans. Until the first fox is arresnted and given a trial by a jury of its peers for rabbit murder, animals don't have and don't deserve the same rights.
I'm NOT saying I hate animals and think it's OK to treat them cruely (I think people who beat and mistreat animals SHOULD be locked up and forbidden contect with animals in future). I'm just trying to show a different perspective on it.
Animal testing is an odd one. I don't feel totally comfortable with it from a moral point of view, but I feel a lot easier about it than letting untested drugs be given to children.
Perhaps an agreement to be used in testing for a reduced sentence?
Isn't that the arrangement students already have with the drug manufacturers...?
---------------------------
Slashdot Mirror
You must not have noticed that there were $18,000 damages involved as a result his intrusion into and theft of services of a network that he did not have any right to use
Exactly. $18,000 may be small potatoes to AOL, IBM, Microsoft or slashdot, but to a small struggling company it could mean they go bust. I have no idea what the size of the victim company is, but a small company suffering the same fate could go under and people would lose their jobs.
We need a deterrent against doing this; a real deterrent. And that means real punishment.
---------------------------
Spam, on the other hand, wastes nothing other than a miniscule amount of bandwidth and the electrons required to transmit it.
The company whose site I am currently working on had not locked down their SMTP server correctly. A spammer proceeded to send thousands of emails through it, and in the process stalled the server.
The server was not used for the delivery of most email, but for a specialised subsection. It was 2 weeks before somebody noticed that we'd had no sign-ups to the specialised website.
So not only did I and a colleague waste a morning clearing the mess up and locking the machine down properly, but the company probably lost a fair bit of business because of the bad impression the potential customers got (we didn't answer them for a fortnight).
Yes, it is partly the company's fault for having an open SMTP relay exposed. But just cos it's there doesn't mean you can nick it and run away laughing.
IMHO spam costs more than snail-mail spam; it's just different people who pick up the tab.
Theft is theft.
---------------------------
Once again, slashdot provides that vital bit of business information to get me through the day.
---------------------------
"The Delux DVD plays about every media possible, and boasts a handful of features only found in high-end players. What makes this unit special is that it ships with over 720 classic arcade games that are playable through the unit. That's right, I will be able to play all my old favorites such as California Games, and Spy vs Spy. All of this at a cost of under $US300.
If anyone can point out any paragraph anywhere on the net that looks more like it came straight from a company catalogue, I will be impressed.
The other paragraphs, IMHO, look like they are tailored to the target audience (geeks with money).
Is it worth the money? The debate will rage on, no doubt. Me, I won't be sending money to a company I believe spammed. It's just the principle of the thing
As a side-line, how long do you think it will be before we see spam which is sent by rival companies, simply to blacken the names of their competitors?
---------------------------
Spot on. If you don't want your domain name to be public, use an IP address on its own instead.
Removing registration would open the door to widescale abuse - people would be able to register names that are libellous and have no comeback at all. Online harrassment could enter a whole new era.
If you want to publish in the public domain, you have to be accountable, or go through a publisher who is acountable (but willing to protect your anonymity in the interest of freedom of speech).
If anything, I'd be in favour of more information about domain owners, even if it was held confidentially by a trusted thrid party and released only with good cause (eg the domain suddenly starts hosting child pr0n or making death threats).
---------------------------
Get real! You're living in pure fantasy land. Tell your fictious boss to take a long walk off a short peer, along with a promise (no threats) that you will sue his ass off and hand it to the media for disection
That's great and fine today. And tomorrow. Let's go ahead and create a voting system that means that everybody can vote over the net (ie everone's ballot is an absentee ballot).
Now what happens in the future? What happens if 100 years from now (or 200 or 300) the US elects a facist or a communist to power? Or just a very very corrupt person (yeah even more corrupt than say Nixon or any other politician)? Couldn't happen, eh? Of course not. Republics always stay as republics. Just ask Caesar.
If a corrupt government is ever elected (or has corrupt supports at the election management level), it is much easier for them to rig an electronic ballot than to intimidate individual voters and then all the counters. Do you really think, for example, that Mugabe would have been forced out of power in Zimbabwe if the ballot had ben done electronically?
If you install a system which has the potential to be abused, you install the potential (and the means) for that abuse.
I'm not saying that manual voting makes the overthrow of legitimate government impossible; just that a fully electronic vote (in whatever form) makes the process of interfering with a ballot a great deal simpler for the people who would be in a position to do so.
---------------------------
You got yer maths the wrong way round. When you've deducted those not in the US, and those under age, then you have people eligible to vote.
Of THOSE, one third are Rebuplican or Democrat, or misc minor party (given stats at the previous election). That leaves about 660 per state according to my quick calculation.
Those extra 160 people make all the difference.
---------------------------
I'm going to patent patenting.
---------------------------
Let me get this straight.. you are seriously suggesting that a politician is better than another politician because one politician is alledged to have lied?
Wow.
---------------------------
Dunno what I'd build one on...
But I sure would love to fight a Battle Bot based on Windows. Any version. Bring it on.
---------------------------
...anyone remember a company called "Atari"...?
Anyone remember the way they treated the people who used their computers?
Is this a 68000 thing?
---------------------------
I'd hope a review would give more of a clue about the nature of such a strange world
What and give away some of the best bits of his books? I suggest you have a read of one or two.. "Reaper Man", maybe, to see what Death is like. As a person.
---------------------------
However, it goes completely against the existing standards regarding cruel and unusual punishment. That's a slippery slope to start going down.
In more ways than one. If you say it's OK to experiment on category X of people, that's the only hurdle you have to cross. Elect the wrong guy to power, and it's a much smaller step to allow experimentation on category Y (say, people who don't like your politics, who are now defined as crimminals).
Animal Rights people will proclaim that since we've currently defined Category X as animals, it's only a small step to category Y. That argument holds about as much water as saying that animals have the same rights as humans. Until the first fox is arresnted and given a trial by a jury of its peers for rabbit murder, animals don't have and don't deserve the same rights.
I'm NOT saying I hate animals and think it's OK to treat them cruely (I think people who beat and mistreat animals SHOULD be locked up and forbidden contect with animals in future). I'm just trying to show a different perspective on it.
Animal testing is an odd one. I don't feel totally comfortable with it from a moral point of view, but I feel a lot easier about it than letting untested drugs be given to children.
Perhaps an agreement to be used in testing for a reduced sentence?
Isn't that the arrangement students already have with the drug manufacturers...?
---------------------------