I can tell you that nobody at my place of work will ever bet troubled by election spam. Or any other for that matter.
As of last week our core group no longer uses email. We agreed, as a group, that email is not productive as compared to a combination of paper memos, phone calls, faxes and runners. The amount of spam that we had to sift through and the money and effort to fight it wasn't worth the trouble.
Sure, we could have spent some more and tried to filter it better. But our focus is supposed to be on other things (emergency management, law enforcement, etc.) and not fighting spam.
So I guess the spammers win.
Or did they? They just lot a small part of their audience. Not that they'll notice. But I wonder how many others will give up on it like we've done.
I learned about this a while back on that one site......you know the one. Slashdot. CowboyNeal should read it sometime. They have some great material there, maybe they could us it for stories on this site.
The author of that article argues against against a concept of many uninterested strangers reviewing code. I get that. That author seems to assume that a product would be engineered based on code that was downloaded from public domain without detailed inspection by the engineers responsible for the product. Well duh, that would be pretty stupid and I find it hard to imagine any product of the type he mentions being engineered in such a way.
The author does not seem to address the fact that such a product would demand detailed review of the code by the engineering team. That would be good engineering practice, but it doesn't seem to be mentioned.
Instead, the author seems to imply that closed source would the better solution. The idea that an engineer should trust code that he has never seen is alien to me. I can't imagine how anyone would think that such a thing improves reliability or security.
Forgive me, I am not a software expert, I am not worthy.
But...
I thought one of the major point of open source software was the ability to examine that source code. Upon examination, if an error or security problem was detected, such an error could be fixed by the user.
Is this not the case?
With the assumption I've made, all the cards are on the table. I further assumed that close source software would be more secure than open source only if the user was also the programmer and the source was never revealed to anyone. Close source software from a third party would be completely untrustworthy...for all of the reasons mentioned in this article.
Too true. I guess the thing about the GOP is that there is some sort of hope that it would be an investment that will pay off down the line. Not much of a hope but at least it's a dream.
The alternative is to be told by the Dems that you're too stupid to have money or even to have hope. Instead we should be thankful to have them support us. Thank you Master, may I have another?
No, I'm not too happy with what either party has become. Neither seems to have much respect for the hows and whys of this country. The GOP is only slightly more "on track" than the Dems.
Maybe if I were rich enough I would like the feudal system the Dems prefer.
Maybe if I hadn't lived in the real world so long I would be able to believe that it's possible to please everyone all the time and be "Everyman" like the GOP.
Ok oh wise one. So when someone makes a mistake like that they should not correct it? That would be illegal but you're saying they should do the illegal thing instead?
Whoa dude, hold up on that clue thing for a minute.
Do a google on that law firm. Then come back and tell us they're not "ambulance chasers".
And read the press release again. There hasn't been anyone harmed here. That law firm is looking for some patsy to put their name on their trumped up charges.
I've got to ask you, how is someone harmed if the price of a stock dips? I tend to look at that as a good thing since it allows me to purchase more stock for my money. Was someone forced to sell their stock at a loss here?
They're gonna sue RedHat for making their stock a good buy?
Or are they gonna sue because RedHat corrected a mistake?
Or are they gonna sue because RedHat failed to cover up their mistake?
What part of this am I missing?
I'm sure it will all make sense when the price of oil drops and this law firm takes the oil companies to court because people will be charged less for at the pump.
If you were stupid enough to sell for less than what you purchased the stock for, that's your own problem. Maybe take your parents to court instead, that's more reasonable. It's their fault for producing a genetic defective such as yourself.
You should be thanking Red Hat instead for correcting their errors and admitting their mistake publicly. The fact that the stock price declined, which allowed you to purchase more stock per dollar, was a bonus to the rest of us. Too bad you were too stupid to understand that.
" Unfortunately, to install any of these versions without wiping out most Windows installations, you'll need to buy a third-party program to partition your hard drive."
Nobody told me that! I've installed Mandrake 8.0, 9.0, 9.1, 9.2 and 10.0 on computers with pre-existing Windows 95, 98, 98SE, ME, 2K and XP. Not once have I ever required anything but the Mandrake and Windows CD's.
So now I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop. I guess all those computers are going to burst into flame or something because I didn't purchase a third party program?
If you had RTFA you would know that it wasn't about the technical details of some new surgery. Far from it.
For those who wont RTFA, it was mostly about doctors in India helping children from Pakistan. And for thost who won't read anything but/. you might be interested to know that India and Pakistan aren't the most friendly of neighbors. So things like this are good for improving the way people in those two countries think about each other.
I see, so even though I ask a question and raise a point for discussion, since it does not conform to the socialist and/or communist views of the majority of/. readers my post is marked as flamebait.
What message? You don't actually take that seriously do you? I thought the only one who was taking it seriously was Moore himself. Even the president and the GOP aren't taking it seriously.
Everyone I know saw it as a poorly done work that would have gone nowhere except for the hype.
You would think that was true. It's logical, right? And it would be the safe thing to do.
But, it doesn't work that way.
They are required to give you badge number and maybe a last name. You have no way of knowing if they are legit from that. Zero, zip, nada. You can't tell.
Not too many years back there was a series of crimes, including at least one rape, that were committed by a man wearing a uniform. He had a badge and a car with a light bar and siren.
How the hell would you be able to tell the difference?
No, you're thinking of the VHF FM band...that is exactly the case there.
On the AM radio band the tower IS the antenna. What you see sticking up in the air is usually insulated from ground right at the base, the part you see is actually hot. Therefore the tower itself radiates and is engineered to be a certain height as part of antenna design.
I'm all for reducing government control in our lives. But how exactly do you propose that the spectrum would be regulated?
Keep in mind that the authors "higest bidder" suggestion won't work for things like public safety...unless you want to pay way more than you do now in taxes.
It's actually worse than that. I deal mostly with frequencies up to around 500 MHz and even that crosses international borders. Everything I do must be approved by both the FCC and Canada.
Yeah, we would be real popular with the anarchy that would come from lack of regulation.
Slashdot Mirror
I can tell you that nobody at my place of work will ever bet troubled by election spam. Or any other for that matter.
As of last week our core group no longer uses email. We agreed, as a group, that email is not productive as compared to a combination of paper memos, phone calls, faxes and runners. The amount of spam that we had to sift through and the money and effort to fight it wasn't worth the trouble.
Sure, we could have spent some more and tried to filter it better. But our focus is supposed to be on other things (emergency management, law enforcement, etc.) and not fighting spam.
So I guess the spammers win.
Or did they? They just lot a small part of their audience. Not that they'll notice. But I wonder how many others will give up on it like we've done.
I learned about this a while back on that one site......you know the one. Slashdot. CowboyNeal should read it sometime. They have some great material there, maybe they could us it for stories on this site.
Perhaps we're reading different articles. The one that was linked to from the main story doesn't cover the issue at all.
I'm reading from: http://www.designnews.com/article/CA435615.html
The author of that article argues against against a concept of many uninterested strangers reviewing code. I get that. That author seems to assume that a product would be engineered based on code that was downloaded from public domain without detailed inspection by the engineers responsible for the product. Well duh, that would be pretty stupid and I find it hard to imagine any product of the type he mentions being engineered in such a way.
The author does not seem to address the fact that such a product would demand detailed review of the code by the engineering team. That would be good engineering practice, but it doesn't seem to be mentioned.
Instead, the author seems to imply that closed source would the better solution. The idea that an engineer should trust code that he has never seen is alien to me. I can't imagine how anyone would think that such a thing improves reliability or security.
Forgive me, I am not a software expert, I am not worthy.
But...
I thought one of the major point of open source software was the ability to examine that source code. Upon examination, if an error or security problem was detected, such an error could be fixed by the user.
Is this not the case?
With the assumption I've made, all the cards are on the table. I further assumed that close source software would be more secure than open source only if the user was also the programmer and the source was never revealed to anyone. Close source software from a third party would be completely untrustworthy...for all of the reasons mentioned in this article.
What the hell have I missed here?
At my desk.
And I thought I was the only one to have done that. I've read it on the tower and in the shelter.
then I thought "piss on it"
Too true. I guess the thing about the GOP is that there is some sort of hope that it would be an investment that will pay off down the line. Not much of a hope but at least it's a dream.
The alternative is to be told by the Dems that you're too stupid to have money or even to have hope. Instead we should be thankful to have them support us. Thank you Master, may I have another?
Right.
So after looking at RedHat's stock profile you think that it's RedHat's fault that anyone lost money in their stock during the period in question?
"...you can limit your losses and sell."
Yup. Or not. That's your choice. But to say that RedHat forced anyone to sell stock during that period is......
Well, it seems pretty stupid to me. I'll let you choose your own word though.
No, I'm not too happy with what either party has become. Neither seems to have much respect for the hows and whys of this country. The GOP is only slightly more "on track" than the Dems.
Maybe if I were rich enough I would like the feudal system the Dems prefer.
Maybe if I hadn't lived in the real world so long I would be able to believe that it's possible to please everyone all the time and be "Everyman" like the GOP.
Ok oh wise one. So when someone makes a mistake like that they should not correct it? That would be illegal but you're saying they should do the illegal thing instead?
Whoa dude, hold up on that clue thing for a minute.
Do a google on that law firm. Then come back and tell us they're not "ambulance chasers".
And read the press release again. There hasn't been anyone harmed here. That law firm is looking for some patsy to put their name on their trumped up charges.
I've got to ask you, how is someone harmed if the price of a stock dips? I tend to look at that as a good thing since it allows me to purchase more stock for my money. Was someone forced to sell their stock at a loss here?
So you're saying that the SEC rules are a bad thing? Or are you saying that there should be no motivation for people to do the right thing?
You would prefer instead that a company, such as RedHat, be allowed, if not encouraged, to hide such errors?
Well, there is the alternative. You could vote Kerry/Edwards and put some of the evil doers into that office.
Hmmm....the fox watching the chickens?
They're gonna sue RedHat for making their stock a good buy?
Or are they gonna sue because RedHat corrected a mistake?
Or are they gonna sue because RedHat failed to cover up their mistake?
What part of this am I missing?
I'm sure it will all make sense when the price of oil drops and this law firm takes the oil companies to court because people will be charged less for at the pump.
Wrong!
If you were stupid enough to sell for less than what you purchased the stock for, that's your own problem. Maybe take your parents to court instead, that's more reasonable. It's their fault for producing a genetic defective such as yourself.
You should be thanking Red Hat instead for correcting their errors and admitting their mistake publicly. The fact that the stock price declined, which allowed you to purchase more stock per dollar, was a bonus to the rest of us. Too bad you were too stupid to understand that.
That's ok, more profit for the rest of us.
" Unfortunately, to install any of these versions without wiping out most Windows installations, you'll need to buy a third-party program to partition your hard drive."
Nobody told me that! I've installed Mandrake 8.0, 9.0, 9.1, 9.2 and 10.0 on computers with pre-existing Windows 95, 98, 98SE, ME, 2K and XP. Not once have I ever required anything but the Mandrake and Windows CD's.
So now I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop. I guess all those computers are going to burst into flame or something because I didn't purchase a third party program?
The average /. reader can't see.
/. you might be interested to know that India and Pakistan aren't the most friendly of neighbors. So things like this are good for improving the way people in those two countries think about each other.
If you had RTFA you would know that it wasn't about the technical details of some new surgery. Far from it.
For those who wont RTFA, it was mostly about doctors in India helping children from Pakistan. And for thost who won't read anything but
I see, so even though I ask a question and raise a point for discussion, since it does not conform to the socialist and/or communist views of the majority of /. readers my post is marked as flamebait.
Yes, well then.
What message? You don't actually take that seriously do you? I thought the only one who was taking it seriously was Moore himself. Even the president and the GOP aren't taking it seriously.
Everyone I know saw it as a poorly done work that would have gone nowhere except for the hype.
Yeah, you could do that. So then you sit for a half hour or more....waiting. It's dark, it's just you and someone who claims to be a cop. Waiting.
None for me thanks.
You would think that was true. It's logical, right? And it would be the safe thing to do.
But, it doesn't work that way.
They are required to give you badge number and maybe a last name. You have no way of knowing if they are legit from that. Zero, zip, nada. You can't tell.
Not too many years back there was a series of crimes, including at least one rape, that were committed by a man wearing a uniform. He had a badge and a car with a light bar and siren.
How the hell would you be able to tell the difference?
For me, it's easy: trust nobody.
No, you're thinking of the VHF FM band...that is exactly the case there.
On the AM radio band the tower IS the antenna. What you see sticking up in the air is usually insulated from ground right at the base, the part you see is actually hot. Therefore the tower itself radiates and is engineered to be a certain height as part of antenna design.
I'm all for reducing government control in our lives. But how exactly do you propose that the spectrum would be regulated?
Keep in mind that the authors "higest bidder" suggestion won't work for things like public safety...unless you want to pay way more than you do now in taxes.
It's actually worse than that. I deal mostly with frequencies up to around 500 MHz and even that crosses international borders. Everything I do must be approved by both the FCC and Canada.
Yeah, we would be real popular with the anarchy that would come from lack of regulation.