If we cant get them to lock down their mail servers, how can we get them to install this?
We don't need them to install this. They are its intended victims. If you have an open relay, the spam comes from you. TarProxy doesn't cut off or blacklist, it just makes it expensive to send spam. These "absent sysadmins" are going to have to show up at work and lock themselves down. Then they will magically stop being penalised. I don't give a damn about the spam they recieve, just that which they forward.
I guess since they cannot censor books they dislike out of existence, they'll just persecute people who read them. Nice end-run.
If Muhammed Atta drank double-mocha latte's at Starbucks on a daily basis, and I order the same thing, does that make me a terrorist?
Do you shop at a grocery store that has higher prices than most but then gives you "savings" if you use their "rewards card?" That's a great scam. You aren't paying much (if any) less than I am at another store, and you're giving them customer data for free. They track your buying patterns and sell the info. Yes, it's unpopular as hell on/., but you've got to admit it's opt-in as hell.
Of course, not all the data gets sold. A lot of it gets given to Ashcroft. Things that he'd have a damn hard time getting a warrant to sieze are getting handed to him by companies that see your private information as an asset of theirs. Of course, it is- you opted in. Just hope that you don't like (or have company coming that likes) the same food Atta liked. Make sure you don't rent the same movies he saw, either. No, it won't make you a terrorist, but it will make Ashcroft suspect that you are one. We've got people in custody; citizens being held without being charged. Ashcroft hasn't even told us who most of them are. They don't have access to lawyers (I'm still trying to find a downside to that one). If you don't mind all that, then by all means, opt in. If it isn't your idea of what the Constitution says ought to be happening, or even if you're worried that a bad person might smoke the same brand of cigarettes that you do, then try to help.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center has a nice page listing ways the companies get (and how they profit from) your data with tips to protect yourself.
He has many times professed a *desire* to be underestimated and has also professed to have as low an opinion of "intelectuals" as they have of him. I think he takes a perverse joy when his "hostile relationship with the English language" irks them.
I'm not an intellectual, I just believe in clear communication. If Bush is the answer to anything, it's probably the dumbest fucking question you'll ever hear.
Actually, I would like to see a law that anyone who gathers personally identifiable information on an individual has to gain your permission before selling it.
Or something along those lines. If not permission, then at least notification. Any request for your credit report is logged on your credit report, and I don't see why this should be any easier. It's all personal, sensitive data that can be used to fuck up your life, and your real information is more dangerous to you than your credit information.
If there was no right to privacy, there would be no logic to the right protecting you from illegal search and seizure and/or self incrimination.
Wrong. Illegal search almost always involves trespass or trespass to chattel. Illegal seizure involves theft. Self-incrimination involves forcing someone to speak. None of them require a right to privacy.
Wrong, yourself. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." Illegal search and seizure are searches and seizures conducted by the government in an illegal manner. It has nothing to do with trespass laws or even jaywalking. It has everything to do with my right to be secure in my person, etc. My right to privacy, if you will. I know there are a lot of people who think that because the word privacy isn't in there, it isn't a right. Fine:
Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The Constitution doesn't limit me to what the government allows, it limits the government to what its citizens decided to allow. The Bill of Rights is simply a list of specific limitations to what the government can do. The founders knew what the assholes in D.C. were going to try to pull, and wanted to put a brake on it. I don't think they would have put in the Interstate Commerce clause if they knew how badly that was going to be perverted.
TurboTax does a good job of preparing your tax's and making sure you don't screw up and get audited by the IRS.
Screwing up and getting audited are two entirely different things. Not being self employed and not having lots o'deductions will just about always keep you from being audited. Until you get audited, screw up all you want. I'm shocked that my state returns (back when I worked in one of those states) didn't get me the Nobel for literature.
The question I have is that, since it is pretty obvious that writing to the boot sector is a bad idea. So what should Intuit do?
Stop. I don't care how much they get pirated. Using a borrowed copy once convinced me that it was worth using, so I've bought it ever since. Unfortunately, I've already bought it this year. It'll take them until '04 to notice losing my business. With their mind set, they'll probably attribute that lost sale to piracy.
Most people outside of the US have a very limited use for a software that handles the US IRS forms. So please explain again, why someone outside of the US should spend his time on TurboTax?
Well, we have already established the extraterritoriality of our copyrighted Digital Millenium series of laws. The next in the series, the Digital Millenium Taxation Act, is scheduled for Bush's signature late this spring. Iraq only thinks it knows what it's in for. They will be in for a very rude awakening on 15 April 2004.
How does he appear illiterate? I'd like to know because it looked fine to me.
Hmm... That's a toughie. Scroll up the screen a bit to my previous post (#5309647). It says:
Hmm... That's a toughie. Scroll up the screen a bit to my previous post (#5261089). It says:...
Anonymous boy took offense at me because he was somehow unable to read the part where I said that credit checks can be important and something that looks bad for a loan won't look bad for a job. You appear to have serious issues with reading, too. I know there are places that can help you with that.
Do you see the dilemma? Yes, it's not the future employer's problem to deal with - it's mine. It was a situation that developed OUT of my control, though. Why should I be judged on that?
Feel free to flame.
Hmm... That's a toughie. Scroll up the screen a bit to my previous post (#5261089). It says: If you are realistically looking at a job that reqires a credit check (or any serious background check), then it probably won't hurt you. A low score that can be explained (my wife's company went under and we lost our health insurance) is bad for a loan, not a job.
The employer is looking for a bad decision making history. In a sensitive position it also opens you up to being compromised by bribery. Your history looks like it has nothing to do with anything you did wrong. It looks bad for a loan, but not for a job.
Why should I be judged on that? Feel free to flame.
I'll judge you on your apparent illiteracy, you jackass.
Her parents were damned bound and determined to have a son named Michael. Four girls later they finally gave up on getting a boy, and named the last girl Michael.
This may come to a shock to you, but my heritage has very little to do with my self identity.
Your heritage is why you are what you are. You are your mother and father, as well as all of their parents, etc. Good or bad is subjective. If you like who you are, then be proud of your heritage- it made you.
Paying a debt is actually fulfilling a contract. A car loan and a mortgage are secured loans. If you're too bad a risk to get a secured loan, What do I want to spend on you? What return will I get on training you any putting my company in your hands? You might be the best burger flipper out there, but not be dependable enough to make assistant supervisor. If I'm hiring you for something higher up and I don't know you, I want every bit of information I can find.
Obviously the cause of so much violence is the widespread availability of guns.
You confuse cause and symptom, that tragic mistake commited by the US society is costing people in your country their lifes every day.
Obviously the cause of such a silly comparison is the fact that you have an axe to grind.
In the US any retard can kill somebody else, they could not if they did not have a gun.
Obviously, you haven't met our millions of drunk drivers with SUVs.
In the UK most people killed by fire arms are criminals killing each other...
Funny, most killings in the US are by criminals, too- killing being, by and large, a criminal act. Guns are an easy tool, and if I decide that you're dying today then it's over and the lack of a gun isn't going to matter. The problem is idiots wanting to kill people, the symptom it the tool they choose to do it with. It was an armed citizenry that threw the UK's silly monarchy out, and Samuel Colt who made all men equal. All things considered, we're better off keeping them.
Why do you consider software to be the problem when it is simply the tool used by some to violate a law (I know, I ask from the US, where they actually do this)? Do you take personal responsibility for your own actions or blame something else? I'll bet that you take credit for your own accomplishments, don't you? Dishonesty is a problem, too: minimizing it starts with being honest with yourself.
Basing employment on credit ratings is pretty iffy, and we may actually see legislation making it illegal in the future if there's enough public outcry. Maybe. But for now it's legal.
It actually makes sense in some places. If you are too risky for a car loan, why should I take a bigger risk by putting my company's future in your hands? It's more information to help the hiring decision. I'm already getting your employment, education and living history. Credit shows your follow through (or lack of same) and whether you make continually good decisions.
If you are realistically looking at a job that reqires a credit check (or any serious background check), then it probably won't hurt you. A low score that can be explained (my wife's company went under and we lost our health insurance) is bad for a loan, not a job.
...army made of guiltless individuals would feel no shame to turn on their own citizens.
Which is precisely my point. Guilt is irrelevant in the face of motivation. Everyone is responsible for their own actions, and every young private is taught that. If you want them to fire into a crowd, you're going to have to convince them of the rightness and legality of it. If they believe that they're doing the right thing and the law allows it, then feelings of guilt don't enter into it. Any civilian who worries about the moral makeup of the military is personally to blame, because they've neglected to alter it by chipping in. It isn't that hard.
a guiltless soldier will kill americans enmasse if we ever rise up off our damn yokes against the government. an ordinary soldier might defect and join the populace if the entire civilian population revolts against a police state.
Just where do you think they get soldiers from? On top of that, 54% of the army is in the reserve components, distinguishable from the populace only by their shorter hair, and sometimes not even that. It's everyone's military, folks. If it's full of the conservative and uneducated, then it's your own damn fault for not joining (hint: it's easy to excel when you're surrounded by conservatives and uneducated)
My favorite example of this is Bill Clinton. He had all the work in place to dodge the draft, but did it discreetly so as not to damage his political future. He wanted to lead americans, just not ones whose lives depended on good leadership. How much better off would the world be if he had stepped up to that responsibility and met that need? We wouldn't have had to scrape the bottom of the barrel until we found Bill Calley. No one today would know the name My Lai, because nothing would have happened there. It makes me sick that he was the one who decorated the soldiers who tried to stop the atrocity for two reasons- it shouldn't have taken that long, and he and others like him could have prevented it in the first place.
The guiltlessness problem that we have here is among civilians. They blame an institution for the actions of its members while refusing to take ownership of it and change its demographics. Face it- we all own the military, just as we own its reputation. Being too good or too busy to join reduces its potential. Do you actually want the world to see of us only the people that you think aren't as good or valuable as you? Most people do, because they get to point to what happens and congratulate themselves on being smart enough not to join.
Maybe this will help. The last formal function I had to go to had a series of toasts, and there was a noticeable drop in volume when they got to the "to the president of the United States." That made me feel better about being in than I have in a while.
Before I go, buswolley, I have to clarify something else. You need to throw off your yoke. The only damn thing you need to rise up off of is your ass. Maybe you aren't really the kind of person we need after all.
Really, the only thing Americans can do avert this terrible trend is to stop electing lawyers to political office:-)
You don't need the smiley at the end.
Remember the Dilbert when a lawyer told him he needed to set up a trust fund? Dilbert called it a painful, complicated process that he'd need a lawyer for because of a complicated, painful process created by lawyers.
Do what you can- stop voting for incumbents! Everybody hates Congress but love their local congresscritters. They don't see that their local politician isn't the same guy once he gets to DC.
Cars are the worst. I once opened a friends car ( same make, model as mine ) with my keys. I think the car manufactuers must only have 50 or so lock variations. More reason to go to retinal scans.
I did that myself, once. Borrowed a friend's car, got halfway down the block before noticing that the music playing was definitely not hers- and then noticed that none of the rest of the stuff in the car was, either. The car was the same color and only three spaces away from hers.
You don't give the car companies or math a chance here, though. Each pin has 4 depths of cutting, and each key (for this one company) has 8 pins. 4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4= 65,536 possible unique keys. No, they use less than that so the key codes have no relationship to the actual combinations, but it still works. Now they have keys with transponder chips in them that have to be programmed to the vehicle, too. The dealer can cut a key for anything, but they need to actually have the car on hand to program a key for it- and a lot fewer people are authorised (or able) to program than can cut.
Don't forget, terrorists do research. Imagine an office building where someone can get taken on as a cleaner in one of the less sensitive office suites, without security checks. Obviously they get a key to that suite.
Slashdot Mirror
We don't need them to install this. They are its intended victims. If you have an open relay, the spam comes from you. TarProxy doesn't cut off or blacklist, it just makes it expensive to send spam. These "absent sysadmins" are going to have to show up at work and lock themselves down. Then they will magically stop being penalised. I don't give a damn about the spam they recieve, just that which they forward.
If Muhammed Atta drank double-mocha latte's at Starbucks on a daily basis, and I order the same thing, does that make me a terrorist?
Do you shop at a grocery store that has higher prices than most but then gives you "savings" if you use their "rewards card?" That's a great scam. You aren't paying much (if any) less than I am at another store, and you're giving them customer data for free. They track your buying patterns and sell the info. Yes, it's unpopular as hell on /., but you've got to admit it's opt-in as hell.
Of course, not all the data gets sold. A lot of it gets given to Ashcroft. Things that he'd have a damn hard time getting a warrant to sieze are getting handed to him by companies that see your private information as an asset of theirs. Of course, it is- you opted in. Just hope that you don't like (or have company coming that likes) the same food Atta liked. Make sure you don't rent the same movies he saw, either. No, it won't make you a terrorist, but it will make Ashcroft suspect that you are one. We've got people in custody; citizens being held without being charged. Ashcroft hasn't even told us who most of them are. They don't have access to lawyers (I'm still trying to find a downside to that one). If you don't mind all that, then by all means, opt in. If it isn't your idea of what the Constitution says ought to be happening, or even if you're worried that a bad person might smoke the same brand of cigarettes that you do, then try to help.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center has a nice page listing ways the companies get (and how they profit from) your data with tips to protect yourself.
Yes, I see. Restrictor plates snd rednecks who can only turn left.
Banked turns! I forgot the banked turns!
I'm not an intellectual, I just believe in clear communication. If Bush is the answer to anything, it's probably the dumbest fucking question you'll ever hear.
Or something along those lines. If not permission, then at least notification. Any request for your credit report is logged on your credit report, and I don't see why this should be any easier. It's all personal, sensitive data that can be used to fuck up your life, and your real information is more dangerous to you than your credit information.
Wrong. Illegal search almost always involves trespass or trespass to chattel. Illegal seizure involves theft. Self-incrimination involves forcing someone to speak. None of them require a right to privacy.
Wrong, yourself. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." Illegal search and seizure are searches and seizures conducted by the government in an illegal manner. It has nothing to do with trespass laws or even jaywalking. It has everything to do with my right to be secure in my person, etc. My right to privacy, if you will. I know there are a lot of people who think that because the word privacy isn't in there, it isn't a right. Fine:
Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The Constitution doesn't limit me to what the government allows, it limits the government to what its citizens decided to allow. The Bill of Rights is simply a list of specific limitations to what the government can do. The founders knew what the assholes in D.C. were going to try to pull, and wanted to put a brake on it. I don't think they would have put in the Interstate Commerce clause if they knew how badly that was going to be perverted.
Screwing up and getting audited are two entirely different things. Not being self employed and not having lots o'deductions will just about always keep you from being audited. Until you get audited, screw up all you want. I'm shocked that my state returns (back when I worked in one of those states) didn't get me the Nobel for literature.
The question I have is that, since it is pretty obvious that writing to the boot sector is a bad idea. So what should Intuit do?
Stop. I don't care how much they get pirated. Using a borrowed copy once convinced me that it was worth using, so I've bought it ever since. Unfortunately, I've already bought it this year. It'll take them until '04 to notice losing my business. With their mind set, they'll probably attribute that lost sale to piracy.
Heh. A Windows box that doesn't need rebooting? That'll be the day.
Well, we have already established the extraterritoriality of our copyrighted Digital Millenium series of laws. The next in the series, the Digital Millenium Taxation Act, is scheduled for Bush's signature late this spring. Iraq only thinks it knows what it's in for. They will be in for a very rude awakening on 15 April 2004.
Hmm... That's a toughie. Scroll up the screen a bit to my previous post (#5309647). It says: Hmm... That's a toughie. Scroll up the screen a bit to my previous post (#5261089). It says:...
Anonymous boy took offense at me because he was somehow unable to read the part where I said that credit checks can be important and something that looks bad for a loan won't look bad for a job. You appear to have serious issues with reading, too. I know there are places that can help you with that.
Hmm... That's a toughie. Scroll up the screen a bit to my previous post (#5261089). It says:
If you are realistically looking at a job that reqires a credit check (or any serious background check), then it probably won't hurt you. A low score that can be explained (my wife's company went under and we lost our health insurance) is bad for a loan, not a job.
The employer is looking for a bad decision making history. In a sensitive position it also opens you up to being compromised by bribery. Your history looks like it has nothing to do with anything you did wrong. It looks bad for a loan, but not for a job.
Why should I be judged on that? Feel free to flame.
I'll judge you on your apparent illiteracy, you jackass.
The name Linus is not among the top 1,000 names for 1990-2001.
Hint: Michelle.
I'd always feel like a bit of a fraud, as if who I really were just wasn't good enough. Kind of schizophrenic, when you think about it.
It's about marketing, which, yes, is fraud.
Your heritage is why you are what you are. You are your mother and father, as well as all of their parents, etc. Good or bad is subjective. If you like who you are, then be proud of your heritage- it made you.
Paying a debt is actually fulfilling a contract. A car loan and a mortgage are secured loans. If you're too bad a risk to get a secured loan, What do I want to spend on you? What return will I get on training you any putting my company in your hands? You might be the best burger flipper out there, but not be dependable enough to make assistant supervisor. If I'm hiring you for something higher up and I don't know you, I want every bit of information I can find.
You confuse cause and symptom, that tragic mistake commited by the US society is costing people in your country their lifes every day.
Obviously the cause of such a silly comparison is the fact that you have an axe to grind.
In the US any retard can kill somebody else, they could not if they did not have a gun.
Obviously, you haven't met our millions of drunk drivers with SUVs.
In the UK most people killed by fire arms are criminals killing each other...
Funny, most killings in the US are by criminals, too- killing being, by and large, a criminal act. Guns are an easy tool, and if I decide that you're dying today then it's over and the lack of a gun isn't going to matter. The problem is idiots wanting to kill people, the symptom it the tool they choose to do it with. It was an armed citizenry that threw the UK's silly monarchy out, and Samuel Colt who made all men equal. All things considered, we're better off keeping them.
Why do you consider software to be the problem when it is simply the tool used by some to violate a law (I know, I ask from the US, where they actually do this)? Do you take personal responsibility for your own actions or blame something else? I'll bet that you take credit for your own accomplishments, don't you? Dishonesty is a problem, too: minimizing it starts with being honest with yourself.
It actually makes sense in some places. If you are too risky for a car loan, why should I take a bigger risk by putting my company's future in your hands? It's more information to help the hiring decision. I'm already getting your employment, education and living history. Credit shows your follow through (or lack of same) and whether you make continually good decisions.
If you are realistically looking at a job that reqires a credit check (or any serious background check), then it probably won't hurt you. A low score that can be explained (my wife's company went under and we lost our health insurance) is bad for a loan, not a job.
Which is precisely my point. Guilt is irrelevant in the face of motivation. Everyone is responsible for their own actions, and every young private is taught that. If you want them to fire into a crowd, you're going to have to convince them of the rightness and legality of it. If they believe that they're doing the right thing and the law allows it, then feelings of guilt don't enter into it. Any civilian who worries about the moral makeup of the military is personally to blame, because they've neglected to alter it by chipping in. It isn't that hard.
Just where do you think they get soldiers from? On top of that, 54% of the army is in the reserve components, distinguishable from the populace only by their shorter hair, and sometimes not even that. It's everyone's military, folks. If it's full of the conservative and uneducated, then it's your own damn fault for not joining (hint: it's easy to excel when you're surrounded by conservatives and uneducated)
My favorite example of this is Bill Clinton. He had all the work in place to dodge the draft, but did it discreetly so as not to damage his political future. He wanted to lead americans, just not ones whose lives depended on good leadership. How much better off would the world be if he had stepped up to that responsibility and met that need? We wouldn't have had to scrape the bottom of the barrel until we found Bill Calley. No one today would know the name My Lai, because nothing would have happened there. It makes me sick that he was the one who decorated the soldiers who tried to stop the atrocity for two reasons- it shouldn't have taken that long, and he and others like him could have prevented it in the first place.
The guiltlessness problem that we have here is among civilians. They blame an institution for the actions of its members while refusing to take ownership of it and change its demographics. Face it- we all own the military, just as we own its reputation. Being too good or too busy to join reduces its potential. Do you actually want the world to see of us only the people that you think aren't as good or valuable as you? Most people do, because they get to point to what happens and congratulate themselves on being smart enough not to join.
Maybe this will help. The last formal function I had to go to had a series of toasts, and there was a noticeable drop in volume when they got to the "to the president of the United States." That made me feel better about being in than I have in a while.
Before I go, buswolley, I have to clarify something else. You need to throw off your yoke. The only damn thing you need to rise up off of is your ass. Maybe you aren't really the kind of person we need after all.
You don't need the smiley at the end.
Remember the Dilbert when a lawyer told him he needed to set up a trust fund? Dilbert called it a painful, complicated process that he'd need a lawyer for because of a complicated, painful process created by lawyers.
Do what you can- stop voting for incumbents! Everybody hates Congress but love their local congresscritters. They don't see that their local politician isn't the same guy once he gets to DC.
I did that myself, once. Borrowed a friend's car, got halfway down the block before noticing that the music playing was definitely not hers- and then noticed that none of the rest of the stuff in the car was, either. The car was the same color and only three spaces away from hers.
You don't give the car companies or math a chance here, though. Each pin has 4 depths of cutting, and each key (for this one company) has 8 pins. 4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4= 65,536 possible unique keys. No, they use less than that so the key codes have no relationship to the actual combinations, but it still works. Now they have keys with transponder chips in them that have to be programmed to the vehicle, too. The dealer can cut a key for anything, but they need to actually have the car on hand to program a key for it- and a lot fewer people are authorised (or able) to program than can cut.
An office building... like the White House?