If you are of a religious bent, a true story is that she (the storyteller) had the "boss from hell" who would go on a major profane tirade on any little imaginary event. Eventually, whenever he blew up, she told him she was praying for him (she actually would being the type of person she was). That stopped him in his tracks.
Have persistent objects between program invocations. It's so tedious and buggy to have to write to a file when a program ends and then read it again when you start it up again.
The classic "yelling 'Fire!' in a theater" example is a case where saying something untrue that puts others in danger can be a criminal act.
This is a very important point. Speech has never been completely free. Slander, libel, and fraud come to mind as other counterexamples. The question is where to draw the line.
The classic "yelling 'Fire!' in a theater" example is a case where saying something untrue that puts others in danger can be a criminal act.
This is a very important point. Speech has never been completely free. Slander, libel, and fraud come to mind as other counterexamples. The question is where to draw the line.
Europe has suffered much more horribly than the US over these issues so naturally they want to draw the line in a different spot.
1. Add another line in the header that specifies the host where the message originated, and implement a way to ask the host whether it sent the message, e.g, something like an MD5 hash of the message.
2. Once you can verify the source of the message, then you can enforce spam laws and identify zombies.
We can't expect KDE, GNOME, or OO to suddenly trim down to where we can run them on old PCs. Someone else will need to "scratch an itch" to accomplish this task.
If we are thinking of third-world countries, I would think that there are certainly enough programmers in those areas (considering the outsourcing boom) to accomplish this mission.
There shouldn't be "hundreds" of programs in Office potentially sending out your info over the Internet. Each and every one of them is a security hole. Have we learned nothing yet about secure software?
I had about the same thought. With textbook prices skyrocketing and computers plummeting, e-books at some point can have a big price advantage. Also, students do not need state-of-the-art notebooks for reading.
For an individual company, this makes sense. Cheaper labor results in lower costs and higher profit. Consumers enjoy the lower costs, and stockholders enjoy the higher profits.
If every company does this, it's a disaster. The jobs your consumers used to hold are gone, and they can't buy your stuff anymore. Up to now, individual industries have outsourced leaving the vast majority of consumers unaffected, but a significant percentage feeling the pain. Now every company can do this, and the pain will be felt by a much larger number.
I fear there is a real potential for a spiraling deflation. At some point, consumers won't be able to afford products, which means companies will outsource more jobs, and so on. At some point it will level off, but your average American is not going to be happy to have it level off toward the level of India and China.
Copying is a fundamental operation of computers, and when computers copy bits, they don't know whether they are "good" bits or "bad" bits. From this point of view, Dell supports child porn as much as Freenet does. Everybody in the computer industry are supplying tools that make it easy to copy these images from computer to computer.
That said, if I buy a Dell computer, I can control (more or less) what gets copied. I can make moral/ethical choices about how the computer is used.
The problem with Freenet is that if I become part of Freenet, I have no control over the content on my computer. If I take my responsibility as an Internet citizen anywhere seriously, I want to prevent things I don't want to happen. I don't my computer to be a source of spam, to be used by crackers (been victimized once), or to be a source of information I object to. To be a part of Freenet means that I rate free speech as a higher good than my responsibility to be a source of good information. Sorry, I don't see free speech as an absolute good, and neither does any moral system that I am aware of.
Yes, tools are amoral. That's why we need to be able to make moral decisions about their use. A Dell computer can be used for bad things, but I can (try to) prevent my computer from doing that. However, if I become part of Freenet, I can't take any prevention measures. That is what the difference is.
Why doesn't he just look at the scores of the individual words in his filter? Why doesn't he compare those to the score of the spam message? Isn't is a no-brainer that if you add enough ham words that you will outscore the spam words?
What is so hard and confusing about THIS method:
People vote by checking off a box on a sheet of paper. People fold this paper over and hand it to a poll worker, and watch while this worker places the folded piece of paper in a locked strongbox. Poll worker has a clicker to count the number of votes placed in the box. When the polls are closed, a public counting occurs, where a third-party counts all of the votes up. If the number doesn't add up to the clicker number, they count again. Once their count has been confirmed, representatives of the various candidates are allowed to count it themselves, if they want, again under observation. If their number doesn't agree with the third-party number, they can dispute the count. Otherwise, the people present sign off that they witnessed the counting.
That's just it. It's not hard and confusing enough. It doesn't use the latest technology. There's no way for either party to fix the election. For example, how are the
dead going to vote under this method?
Slashdot Mirror
Somebody, please stop the horror.
The color A69D78 makes headers and links nearly unreadable. Does anybody else feel the same?
This is way too optimistic. I think it will be more like 2030.
To the contrary, the SMTP protocol has worked far too well. Person A can send email from person B to person C. It saves person B a lot of bother!
If you are of a religious bent, a true story is that she (the storyteller) had the "boss from hell" who would go on a major profane tirade on any little imaginary event. Eventually, whenever he blew up, she told him she was praying for him (she actually would being the type of person she was). That stopped him in his tracks.
For me at least, upgrading from RH9 to FC1 was pretty easy. Going from FC1 to FC2 was much harder (dual boot bug, no boot floppy, among other things).
Unrestricted integer size (e.g., Lisp bignums)
Have persistent objects between program invocations. It's so tedious and buggy to have to write to a file when a program ends and then read it again when you start it up again.
This is only been proposed in one of the two US legistlatures. There are a few hurdles to pass before it becomes law, if ever.
1. Add another line in the header that specifies the host where the message originated, and implement a way to ask the host whether it sent the message, e.g, something like an MD5 hash of the message.
2. Once you can verify the source of the message, then you can enforce spam laws and identify zombies.
3. ISPs need to cut off zombies once identified.
We can't expect KDE, GNOME, or OO to suddenly trim down to where we can run them on old PCs. Someone else will need to "scratch an itch" to accomplish this task. If we are thinking of third-world countries, I would think that there are certainly enough programmers in those areas (considering the outsourcing boom) to accomplish this mission.
I do that, too, but I was using xmodmap. The change to xf86config will apply to all users.
There shouldn't be "hundreds" of programs in Office potentially sending out your info over the Internet. Each and every one of them is a security hole. Have we learned nothing yet about secure software?
I had about the same thought. With textbook prices skyrocketing and computers plummeting, e-books at some point can have a big price advantage. Also, students do not need state-of-the-art notebooks for reading.
For plain text, I love Emacs, but both vi and emacs have too much of a learning curve compared to any reasonable point-and-clicky thingy.
If every company does this, it's a disaster. The jobs your consumers used to hold are gone, and they can't buy your stuff anymore. Up to now, individual industries have outsourced leaving the vast majority of consumers unaffected, but a significant percentage feeling the pain. Now every company can do this, and the pain will be felt by a much larger number.
I fear there is a real potential for a spiraling deflation. At some point, consumers won't be able to afford products, which means companies will outsource more jobs, and so on. At some point it will level off, but your average American is not going to be happy to have it level off toward the level of India and China.
IBM has had some experience with trying to impose a proprietary standard when there a good, open one. Anybody remember IBM's token rings?
A lot of this might be due to many Linux distributions trying to be user-friendly with the default configuration leaving too many services running.
That said, if I buy a Dell computer, I can control (more or less) what gets copied. I can make moral/ethical choices about how the computer is used.
The problem with Freenet is that if I become part of Freenet, I have no control over the content on my computer. If I take my responsibility as an Internet citizen anywhere seriously, I want to prevent things I don't want to happen. I don't my computer to be a source of spam, to be used by crackers (been victimized once), or to be a source of information I object to. To be a part of Freenet means that I rate free speech as a higher good than my responsibility to be a source of good information. Sorry, I don't see free speech as an absolute good, and neither does any moral system that I am aware of.
Yes, tools are amoral. That's why we need to be able to make moral decisions about their use. A Dell computer can be used for bad things, but I can (try to) prevent my computer from doing that. However, if I become part of Freenet, I can't take any prevention measures. That is what the difference is.
I agree this is one of the best interviews Slashdot has done. I will be hard put to hate all this evil outsourcing now.
Why doesn't he just look at the scores of the individual words in his filter? Why doesn't he compare those to the score of the spam message? Isn't is a no-brainer that if you add enough ham words that you will outscore the spam words?