I don't have the link handy, but do you remember the story from a while ago about voting machines in some district that, after about 32,000 votes, would start to count down, and everyone ended up with negative amounts of votes?
The size of variables seems to count for a lot. I, too, wondered if the 'reboot counter' (is there such a thing?) was capped at 128, which I would expect was a reasonable cap. (32K, however, is not a reasonable cap for a number of votes...)
I think they're only filtering out stuff that's being heavily abused.
To argue by way of analogy... I'm getting bombarded with comment spam (on the blogs I run) about Cialis, so I added a quick filter to reject any comments that contain "Cialis," and my spam comments fell off a lot. Cialis is known in medical circles as Tadalafil. A spammer could post about Tadalafil, and it'd get posted fine. But by banning just a couple of the common phrases, 95% of the spam getting posted is being rejected as soon as they hit submit. (Or before they blindly POST the data without ever requesting the form, as seems to happen often.) It's a cost benefit analysis, of the time for me to whip up a new filter (and the increased load on my server) versus the time for me to click "Delete" when some oddball spam comment is added.
It's not necessarily a major conspiracy in which Yahoo is more concerned with protecting Muslims than Jews. (Or that they dislike Muslims more than Jews.) I think it's just that there's been a surge in anti-Islamic and anti-Arab sentiments lately, while it's mostly just the same loonies that are anti-Semitic. They're just filtering out the most common, most offensive names.
I got a Treo a couple weeks back, and while I love it overall, I've found that if I do much typing, my wrists start to hurt. (I seem to recall seeing this referred to before as "Blackberry Syndrome" or something?) My thumbs, however, are fine. I wonder if there's a risk for carpal tunnel from prolonged use?
OT: Giving people unlimited data but charging for text messages is asinine.
So you're going to help the poor by cutting welfare and eliminating the public schools that give their children the basic skills necessary to get a job?
Yes, there are some people who abuse welfare, and many private schools offer a better education than private schools. But there are also people who don't abuse welfare, and actively try to get a good job and get off welfare. And given how dumb so many of the people I meet are, I can't imagine what will happen to those that can't afford private schools when we eliminate them. If helping the poor and the sick, and educating our citizens is a "blight" that's "sheer evil cruelty," I can't even find words for the elimination of these programs.
Don't get me wrong. There's incredible amounts of room for improvement in our nation. But I don't understand how any of your ideas will help anything. (Except for your taxes.)
So is google.org going to start by shutting down or opening up google.cn?
So that the Chinese people have no search results at all instead of censored-but-so-noted search results? (I'm aware there are other search engines, but they, too, are forced to censor.)
I'd love it if Google.org could help out with the situation. But, as mighty as Google is, Google can't just stand up to the Chinese government and win.
I used to be really big in advocating that everyone I know switch to Linux, and looked forward to the day when Linux was the dominant desktop OS, and when Microsoft filed for bankruptcy.
Over time, though, I started to question why it mattered. I prefer to work on a Linux platform. But what did it matter if someone else preferred to work on a Windows platform? What did I gain by getting people to use Linux?
I still don't really understand the motivation. Personally, I decided that not only did I have nothing to gain by getting others to switch, but that I almost preferred it being a lesser-known platform. I'll gladly help people out if they want to learn Linux, and if people ask me for my opinions on operating systems, I'll complain of all the Windows problems and play up how much I love Linux on servers. But I no longer think it'd be great to get my mom to become a Linux user, and if people tell me they prefer Windows, I don't try to argue.
So what is it, then, that causes people to so passionately advocate Linux? Why does it matter?
I ran Geeklog for my personal website. I was really surprised one day when my post ended up talking about airplane ****pits. (I'd think that anyone that can be trusted to post articles could also be posted to not post "censored" content?)
Another time, I got really frustrated with the language filters on a forum I used to run, and set a filter to "censor" various letters of the alphabet and replace them with others. I wouldn't recommend trying this one, as it meant that all posts on the forum were complete gibberish, and it tooks me ages to go back and change them all. (You can't really script it, because you might have change E to T, but that doesn't mean that all T's should be E's.)
And I can't forget the time iTunes recommend an audiobook of the classic story, Moby ****.
What I took away from the article is that he's proposing a central authority (or a series thereof) that say "someone@somewhere.com is a real person's e-mail address." He is not proposing that you only accept mail from those who've already sent you mail; he's proposing that everyone in the world who uses e-mail be in this whitelist.
I'm not usually one to say "RTFA," but the majority of the comments right now have nothing to do with the article.
I do something similar, except I haven't had the luck you have. I have my own domain, and tend to give everyone their own address. Amazon gets amazon@mydomain, Slashdot gets slashdot@mydomain, etc. Only friends and family know my 'real' address. And yet I get a bunch of spam there.
But I've gathered is that someone I know got a virus or whatnot that started harvesting addresses and sent them off to spammers. This is the simplest way I could think of that this could happen. (I now get spam at some really obscure addresses that almost no one should know existed. Unfortunately, they're not limited enough that only one person would know about them.)
I don't really know what's going on, but I'm convinced that there are now address-harvesting viruses/worms going around.
Many hosting companies can fit 300+ clients onto one server. It's not uncommon for someone to signup and start using the account for spam. Most hosting companies take a very strict stance on this, and will immediately close the account. But spammers know they'll get a bit of spamming in before they're stopped.
The problem is that the hosting company could show that their server wasn't being used for spam, but there's nothing stopping someone from beginning to use it that way. Not only would your method still allow spam, but it would, in theory, mark the spam as being entirely legitimate e-mail. Now imagine the e-mail wasn't spam, but phishing e-mails, marked as having come from an approved server.
In addition, a server could 'turn' bad. I could register a server, and for a month or whatnot show you that I wasn't a spammer. One day I could just start spewing spam. $25/year really wouldn't be an impediment to too many spammers.
Plus, some random organization (the e-mail certifiers) would be making a boatload of money, and would essentially have complete control over who could send mail and who couldn't. (Technically, people could ignore this whitelist. Just like you could, technically, ignore the existing.com database and start your own.)
And there are plenty of valid reasons for running your own mailserver. My home ISP used to suck. My school now uses Lotus, which seems to not allow POP/IMAP access, and insists on a bloated e-mail client that really doesn't work well in anything but IE. (Even though it's supposed to.) There are spam filters, but they're not catching any of my spam; in fact, the only mail that it ever caught was a couple messages from one of my professors. Is this not a valid reason to run my own mailserver?
I'm sorry, but I really don't feel that this idea is as good in reality as it looks on paper.
Suppose, just suppose, that the "Copyright-Ed" course was taught by a good teacher, someone who actually got students to think about copyrights. "How long should a copyright last?" "Are copyrights really valuable to society?" "How is copyright infringement different from theft?"
Nothing ever works out this well, but imagine if it could. This could turn out really well, with a whole mass of people starting to question some of the more absurd copyright/patent 'abuses.'
Why was this information even printed out? I can't think of any reason that they would need to print full credit card numbers out. This sounds like an incredibly foolish thing to have happened.
a private company takes reasearch into their own hands.
This doesn't bother me at all. They're not going out and arresting people, they're simply proactively protecting their trade secrets. And if they had run to the police the second they found something with a name suggesting it was theirs, we'd have millions of frivilous lawsuits going on. (The RIAA is known for this, but does anyone else remember someone getting a scary letter from either SPA/Microsoft because they hosted OpenOffice, which was mistaken--based on filename--for Microsoft Office?)
Second is they they use an anti-spy law.
That is strange. However, the guy either violated that law, or Microsoft is really dumb: if they lose, they can't try again under a different law. It does make a little sense, maybe: he's selling their trade secrets, which is a form of corporate espionage, although it sounds like he's pretty far removed from the actual espionage.
What is the law that fits this and will put him away for the longest period of time?
Slashdot Mirror
You just Slashdotted the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office.
;)
Just wait until the Secret Service comes for you.
I realize you're being entirely sarcastic, but have you seen some of the stuff out there? There's a lot more than tasteful nudity.
I don't have the link handy, but do you remember the story from a while ago about voting machines in some district that, after about 32,000 votes, would start to count down, and everyone ended up with negative amounts of votes?
The size of variables seems to count for a lot. I, too, wondered if the 'reboot counter' (is there such a thing?) was capped at 128, which I would expect was a reasonable cap. (32K, however, is not a reasonable cap for a number of votes...)
And it's Yahoo's right to not allow you to use their services to promote that hate.
I think they're only filtering out stuff that's being heavily abused.
To argue by way of analogy... I'm getting bombarded with comment spam (on the blogs I run) about Cialis, so I added a quick filter to reject any comments that contain "Cialis," and my spam comments fell off a lot. Cialis is known in medical circles as Tadalafil. A spammer could post about Tadalafil, and it'd get posted fine. But by banning just a couple of the common phrases, 95% of the spam getting posted is being rejected as soon as they hit submit. (Or before they blindly POST the data without ever requesting the form, as seems to happen often.) It's a cost benefit analysis, of the time for me to whip up a new filter (and the increased load on my server) versus the time for me to click "Delete" when some oddball spam comment is added.
It's not necessarily a major conspiracy in which Yahoo is more concerned with protecting Muslims than Jews. (Or that they dislike Muslims more than Jews.) I think it's just that there's been a surge in anti-Islamic and anti-Arab sentiments lately, while it's mostly just the same loonies that are anti-Semitic. They're just filtering out the most common, most offensive names.
I got a Treo a couple weeks back, and while I love it overall, I've found that if I do much typing, my wrists start to hurt. (I seem to recall seeing this referred to before as "Blackberry Syndrome" or something?) My thumbs, however, are fine. I wonder if there's a risk for carpal tunnel from prolonged use?
OT: Giving people unlimited data but charging for text messages is asinine.
I didn't know anyone from SCO posted here.
You know, keeping all the jokes in one thread so people like me don't have to put up with them... It's Brilliant!
So you're going to help the poor by cutting welfare and eliminating the public schools that give their children the basic skills necessary to get a job?
Yes, there are some people who abuse welfare, and many private schools offer a better education than private schools. But there are also people who don't abuse welfare, and actively try to get a good job and get off welfare. And given how dumb so many of the people I meet are, I can't imagine what will happen to those that can't afford private schools when we eliminate them. If helping the poor and the sick, and educating our citizens is a "blight" that's "sheer evil cruelty," I can't even find words for the elimination of these programs.
Don't get me wrong. There's incredible amounts of room for improvement in our nation. But I don't understand how any of your ideas will help anything. (Except for your taxes.)
So is google.org going to start by shutting down or opening up google.cn?
So that the Chinese people have no search results at all instead of censored-but-so-noted search results? (I'm aware there are other search engines, but they, too, are forced to censor.)
I'd love it if Google.org could help out with the situation. But, as mighty as Google is, Google can't just stand up to the Chinese government and win.
I used to be really big in advocating that everyone I know switch to Linux, and looked forward to the day when Linux was the dominant desktop OS, and when Microsoft filed for bankruptcy.
Over time, though, I started to question why it mattered. I prefer to work on a Linux platform. But what did it matter if someone else preferred to work on a Windows platform? What did I gain by getting people to use Linux?
I still don't really understand the motivation. Personally, I decided that not only did I have nothing to gain by getting others to switch, but that I almost preferred it being a lesser-known platform. I'll gladly help people out if they want to learn Linux, and if people ask me for my opinions on operating systems, I'll complain of all the Windows problems and play up how much I love Linux on servers. But I no longer think it'd be great to get my mom to become a Linux user, and if people tell me they prefer Windows, I don't try to argue.
So what is it, then, that causes people to so passionately advocate Linux? Why does it matter?
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.
(Care of this site.)
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.
(Care of this site.)
I ran Geeklog for my personal website. I was really surprised one day when my post ended up talking about airplane ****pits. (I'd think that anyone that can be trusted to post articles could also be posted to not post "censored" content?)
Another time, I got really frustrated with the language filters on a forum I used to run, and set a filter to "censor" various letters of the alphabet and replace them with others. I wouldn't recommend trying this one, as it meant that all posts on the forum were complete gibberish, and it tooks me ages to go back and change them all. (You can't really script it, because you might have change E to T, but that doesn't mean that all T's should be E's.)
And I can't forget the time iTunes recommend an audiobook of the classic story, Moby ****.
Who wouldn't try clicking on a movie icon?
;)
People who've been scarred and learned their lesson from clicking random links (like goatse) in the past?
First, you can deny that you originated the traffic
This might work in the US, but would this be a good excuse in China? (I honestly know nothing about their legal system.)
What I took away from the article is that he's proposing a central authority (or a series thereof) that say "someone@somewhere.com is a real person's e-mail address." He is not proposing that you only accept mail from those who've already sent you mail; he's proposing that everyone in the world who uses e-mail be in this whitelist.
I'm not usually one to say "RTFA," but the majority of the comments right now have nothing to do with the article.
I do something similar, except I haven't had the luck you have. I have my own domain, and tend to give everyone their own address. Amazon gets amazon@mydomain, Slashdot gets slashdot@mydomain, etc. Only friends and family know my 'real' address. And yet I get a bunch of spam there.
But I've gathered is that someone I know got a virus or whatnot that started harvesting addresses and sent them off to spammers. This is the simplest way I could think of that this could happen. (I now get spam at some really obscure addresses that almost no one should know existed. Unfortunately, they're not limited enough that only one person would know about them.)
I don't really know what's going on, but I'm convinced that there are now address-harvesting viruses/worms going around.
I don't think this would work in practice.
.com database and start your own.)
Many hosting companies can fit 300+ clients onto one server. It's not uncommon for someone to signup and start using the account for spam. Most hosting companies take a very strict stance on this, and will immediately close the account. But spammers know they'll get a bit of spamming in before they're stopped.
The problem is that the hosting company could show that their server wasn't being used for spam, but there's nothing stopping someone from beginning to use it that way. Not only would your method still allow spam, but it would, in theory, mark the spam as being entirely legitimate e-mail. Now imagine the e-mail wasn't spam, but phishing e-mails, marked as having come from an approved server.
In addition, a server could 'turn' bad. I could register a server, and for a month or whatnot show you that I wasn't a spammer. One day I could just start spewing spam. $25/year really wouldn't be an impediment to too many spammers.
Plus, some random organization (the e-mail certifiers) would be making a boatload of money, and would essentially have complete control over who could send mail and who couldn't. (Technically, people could ignore this whitelist. Just like you could, technically, ignore the existing
And there are plenty of valid reasons for running your own mailserver. My home ISP used to suck. My school now uses Lotus, which seems to not allow POP/IMAP access, and insists on a bloated e-mail client that really doesn't work well in anything but IE. (Even though it's supposed to.) There are spam filters, but they're not catching any of my spam; in fact, the only mail that it ever caught was a couple messages from one of my professors. Is this not a valid reason to run my own mailserver?
I'm sorry, but I really don't feel that this idea is as good in reality as it looks on paper.
Suppose, just suppose, that the "Copyright-Ed" course was taught by a good teacher, someone who actually got students to think about copyrights. "How long should a copyright last?" "Are copyrights really valuable to society?" "How is copyright infringement different from theft?"
Nothing ever works out this well, but imagine if it could. This could turn out really well, with a whole mass of people starting to question some of the more absurd copyright/patent 'abuses.'
I got:
Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.
the first few times I tried to view this article. Are we sure Slashdot isn't infected?
I have to admit that I'm not positive what a "home health aide" does, but I'm pretty sure it's not "helping houses."
Why was this information even printed out? I can't think of any reason that they would need to print full credit card numbers out. This sounds like an incredibly foolish thing to have happened.
Looks like this will be a .Mac clone for Windows. How original.
.Mac clone into is product.
Actually, I believe Microsoft will be the first OS vendor to implement a
a private company takes reasearch into their own hands.
This doesn't bother me at all. They're not going out and arresting people, they're simply proactively protecting their trade secrets. And if they had run to the police the second they found something with a name suggesting it was theirs, we'd have millions of frivilous lawsuits going on. (The RIAA is known for this, but does anyone else remember someone getting a scary letter from either SPA/Microsoft because they hosted OpenOffice, which was mistaken--based on filename--for Microsoft Office?)
Second is they they use an anti-spy law.
That is strange. However, the guy either violated that law, or Microsoft is really dumb: if they lose, they can't try again under a different law. It does make a little sense, maybe: he's selling their trade secrets, which is a form of corporate espionage, although it sounds like he's pretty far removed from the actual espionage.
What is the law that fits this and will put him away for the longest period of time?
Nothing out of the ordinary here.