It's right to be highly cynical about journalists, but they are explicit: "Carlson, "a disgruntled Phillies fan," hacked into computers of unsuspecting users and from those computers launched spam e-mail attacks"
More importantly, it's in the indictment as well: "sending thousands of email messages from the victim's computers"
Perhaps you could spend 30 seconds clicking on the provided links next time.
And neither will they ever need more than 640K of RAM.
The problem with using empirical evidence is that it's dealing with then. This is now. In the future we will have quantum computers with enough storage space to calculate (or just lookup) a winning path from any possible position.
Computers will inevitably surpass meat brains. The real question is: when, and what sort of computer?
The product is slipping, the publisher is beating at the door, it's full of bugs, and you don't know what to do next.
Leak the source!
It's win-win. You get it reviewed, you flush out any vulnerabilities, and you get the publisher off your backs. And it's not your fault, because a wizard - sorry, evil cracker - did it.
I can't believe that nobody has thought of this before. Next year, everyone will be leaking their code!
Hey, do you work in one of those places where cowardly, incompetent spiteful management really don't shoot the messenger? Wow, what's that like?
By the way, it sounds like I'm complaining, but I'm not really. It turns out that I get paid the same no matter what I do, so it all works out in the end.
>the passion with which you are pursuing this so-called "urbanlegend busting" is far more interesting to me.
You're confusing passion with persistence. Are journalists passionate when they ask a politician the same question over and over until they actually get an answer to the question that they asked? That's thoroughness.
>Take a look back at the responses you've given. Take a look at their condescending nature.
Something that you should realise is that this is my thread. If people want to provide unrelated anecdotes or opinions, they can do so in their own threads. When they provide them as a non-answer to a question that I asked, I get to point that out. Them's the rules.
>Take particular note of the way you taunt and talk down to people who aren't rigorously "following" your constraints on what you deem to be logical responses to your comment.
Ah, I taunt them because they're morons with poor reading comprehension. Our only point of disagreement is whether that's acceptable or not. It is, because I say so. You're welcome to handle things differently in your threads.
> I always find a good deep breath and a nice walk will help with getting some clarity.
You must live in a world where you very rarely get straight answers. ABC called, they're looking for a new White House reporter.
>Unfortunately for you, you're not going to be able to prove either way whether unsubscribing has any effect,
And where did I try to do that? I asked for evidence that unsubscribing has a harmful effect. That's all that I asked. Nothing else. No evidence has been provided, only anecdote, assertion, and a non-credible commercial press piece.
It must really cut you up that your belief system is based on that. I'll send a prayer to the Unicorn for you.
Just because it supports our position doesn't mean that we should apply lower standards. SGI, please show us the source. If it is, as you say, all in the public domain, you have no reason not to.
>"Weiss praised the tack SGI has taken with its letter, saying that Altmaier's response has helped mitigate SCO's allegations. "I thought it was one of the best responses (to SCO) that I had seen. Instead of getting deeply offensive and heaping abuse on SCO, they took a more productive approach, attempting to see what the claims might be," he said.
I believe that it's completely the wrong approach. Why do SCO's job for them? Why validate their claims even to the extent of admitting that there might be something there to be refuted? Until SCO shows us the source, there is no case to answer. SGI's next move should be to send SCO a bill for doing their job for them.
Thirdly, is SCO really admitting that these are the only three pieces of code that are the same as (same as != copied from) System V? Really? 200 lines? They want $1300 per CPU (that's the long term price, $699 is the "sale price") for 200 lines of code? $6.50 per line?
Well, you heard it from them. Now, work out how many lines of code you have in the kernels that SCO sold for years, and send them your bill. $6.50 per line, per CPU.
>You're requiring non-anecdotal evidence on a discussion board ? For what reason ?
Mostly to tweak brittle zealots such as yourself who insist on confusing belief with evidence. Still, I don't really blame you. The Invisible Pink Unicorn in the Sky probably told you what to think.
> What is your point with this verification of unsubscribe/replying ?
It's urban legend busting. There are whole sites dedicated to it.
>What does either answer help, or provide to this discussion,
This discussion is about the veracity of this one claim. You're thinking about other discussion related to this story.
>besides your own little semantic tantrum about pointing out Allman's statement to be untrue.
It's not a semantic tantrum, I'm questioning the basic veracity of it. Veracity is not a matter of semantics. And I didn't call it untrue, I called it bullshit. See, that's a semantic argument.
>The point is so minor that it warrants no more than about 2 seconds thought.
The passion with which it is defended by people who have absolutely no evidence beyond anecdote and "Well, 'cause" makes it particularly interesting. The more stubborn the legend, the fun it is to burst.
Oh, and I'm a jerk because I disagree with you. That's the definition of jerk.
There are evil spammers out there. What I'm questioning is their practical ability to become more evil simply because you're verified an address.
>There's no way any study can be "verifiable". You verify studies by repeating them
Which is it to be?
It would be a lot more credible (as an anecdote) if it provided the raw data, including email logs.
On the other hand, you're an Anonymous Coward, so are probably not the sort of bottom feeding pond scum that would be interested in anything as useless as credibility or verifiability.
Thanks for the anecdote. Now, how exactly does that relate to my question, which is how unsubscribing from an address that's already on a spam list can possible make it worse?
Do you have an answer to that question, or would you like to fire up another anecdote about a different question?
>I'd give them priority in my runs, for example, so email to those addresses was more likely to get out if some of my runs were cut off.
Thank you. Now, was that so very hard? That's the first and only actual answer that I've received to the original question.
How often do spammers get their connections cut? What proportion of their spam gets lost that way? Do they start over with their new connection, or pick up spamming at the point where they left off? I know that you don't know any of this this, which is rather what I'm pointing out.
>It doesn't matter, anyway - whats important is what they do NOT do with them, which is remove them.
No, that's a subject for a completely different discussion. I never said nor implied that replying would make it better, I asked how ir could (and whether it does) make it worse.
No, but I use the network fileserver and one of the lunix boxen to perform builds. If it runs out of space, I can't build. My short term solution is to clear up space by sending myself enough of my own data to make room on the main fileserver.
I never said that it made sense, just that I'm doing it.
Of course, it would make more sense for the users with GB of data to get rid of some of it, or for the admin to implement quotas. But those users tend not to be the ones with customer deliberables, and, hey, it turns out that the sysadmin gets paid the same regardless of whether we can work or not. So in practice, it's the people with actual deliverables that have to sort out the problems.
The best solution of all would be for one of us to complain to management. That would be great, because whoever did it would be surplussed in short order, and the rest of us could have their disk space!
I hope you got a decent cut from this "sponsored by" infomercial, because you're now on my shit list along with those duping buffoons michael and Taco. Or is your share just from the ads that get served on Slashdot to everyone that's currently pointing out what a lazy, slipshod muppet you are? Hey, subscribers; did you enjoy paying to read this infomercial before anyone else did? Did that give you a warm fuzzy?
On the bright side, at least Hemos got to post this first. When michael or Taco dupes it later, Slashdot will have hit its nadir.
Coward, it's unverifiable because it contains no figures, no details, no logs, no evidence of any sort.
If an unsupported assertion by an interested commercial party that gets paid by the word is all the evidence that there is, then I'm going to consider that there is no actual evidence at all.
I don't have to do my own experiments. There's no grounds for considering them necessary.
Anecdote: A short account of an interesting or humorous incident.
As in anecdotal: Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis.
As in, it's an anecdote when I say that I fucked your momma in the ass last night. It becomes testimony when I swear to it in court, and it becomes credible when I produce the pictures of her broken, bleeding, sobbing body.
> They harvest verified email addresses and track them seperatly (and in addition to) ones they harvest from un-verifed sources like lists they buy from other spammers, the web, or usenet.
Look, I'm going to type this very, very slowly to make it easy for you.
Ten trillion is more than twice a hundred, and is also statistically significant. Three is more than twice one, and is not. Neither of them are verifiable, nor are they remotely credible without at a minimum full email logs, or corroboration from an independent organisation not paid by the word.
What parts of "figures", "statistics", "details" and "verifiable" did you fail to comprehend?
Slashdot Mirror
>Did he really "hack" into thier accounts
It's right to be highly cynical about journalists, but they are explicit: "Carlson, "a disgruntled Phillies fan," hacked into computers of unsuspecting users and from those computers launched spam e-mail attacks"
More importantly, it's in the indictment as well: "sending thousands of email messages from the victim's computers"
Perhaps you could spend 30 seconds clicking on the provided links next time.
+lots insightful. SCOX is dropping so they'll have to come up with something new. Perhaps they'll claim to own MacOS X?
That's spelled "criticise" in all civilised parts of the world.
Looking for prior art? Why do it the hard way? Post pending patents here, and believe me, we'll help.
And neither will they ever need more than 640K of RAM.
The problem with using empirical evidence is that it's dealing with then. This is now. In the future we will have quantum computers with enough storage space to calculate (or just lookup) a winning path from any possible position.
Computers will inevitably surpass meat brains. The real question is: when, and what sort of computer?
The product is slipping, the publisher is beating at the door, it's full of bugs, and you don't know what to do next.
Leak the source!
It's win-win. You get it reviewed, you flush out any vulnerabilities, and you get the publisher off your backs. And it's not your fault, because a wizard - sorry, evil cracker - did it.
I can't believe that nobody has thought of this before. Next year, everyone will be leaking their code!
>No it isn't, you're just the messenger
Hey, do you work in one of those places where cowardly, incompetent spiteful management really don't shoot the messenger? Wow, what's that like?
By the way, it sounds like I'm complaining, but I'm not really. It turns out that I get paid the same no matter what I do, so it all works out in the end.
>the passion with which you are pursuing this so-called "urbanlegend busting" is far more interesting to me.
You're confusing passion with persistence. Are journalists passionate when they ask a politician the same question over and over until they actually get an answer to the question that they asked? That's thoroughness.
>Take a look back at the responses you've given. Take a look at their condescending nature.
Something that you should realise is that this is my thread. If people want to provide unrelated anecdotes or opinions, they can do so in their own threads. When they provide them as a non-answer to a question that I asked, I get to point that out. Them's the rules.
>Take particular note of the way you taunt and talk down to people who aren't rigorously "following" your constraints on what you deem to be logical responses to your comment.
Ah, I taunt them because they're morons with poor reading comprehension. Our only point of disagreement is whether that's acceptable or not. It is, because I say so. You're welcome to handle things differently in your threads.
> I always find a good deep breath and a nice walk will help with getting some clarity.
You must live in a world where you very rarely get straight answers. ABC called, they're looking for a new White House reporter.
Oh, by the way: found any evidence yet?
>Unfortunately for you, you're not going to be able to prove either way whether unsubscribing has any effect,
And where did I try to do that? I asked for evidence that unsubscribing has a harmful effect. That's all that I asked. Nothing else. No evidence has been provided, only anecdote, assertion, and a non-credible commercial press piece.
It must really cut you up that your belief system is based on that. I'll send a prayer to the Unicorn for you.
Just because it supports our position doesn't mean that we should apply lower standards. SGI, please show us the source. If it is, as you say, all in the public domain, you have no reason not to.
>"Weiss praised the tack SGI has taken with its letter, saying that Altmaier's response has helped mitigate SCO's allegations. "I thought it was one of the best responses (to SCO) that I had seen. Instead of getting deeply offensive and heaping abuse on SCO, they took a more productive approach, attempting to see what the claims might be," he said.
I believe that it's completely the wrong approach. Why do SCO's job for them? Why validate their claims even to the extent of admitting that there might be something there to be refuted? Until SCO shows us the source, there is no case to answer. SGI's next move should be to send SCO a bill for doing their job for them.
Thirdly, is SCO really admitting that these are the only three pieces of code that are the same as (same as != copied from) System V? Really? 200 lines? They want $1300 per CPU (that's the long term price, $699 is the "sale price") for 200 lines of code? $6.50 per line?
Well, you heard it from them. Now, work out how many lines of code you have in the kernels that SCO sold for years, and send them your bill. $6.50 per line, per CPU.
>You're requiring non-anecdotal evidence on a discussion board ? For what reason ?
Mostly to tweak brittle zealots such as yourself who insist on confusing belief with evidence. Still, I don't really blame you. The Invisible Pink Unicorn in the Sky probably told you what to think.
>Why are you such a jerk ?
We'll come back to this one.
> What is your point with this verification of unsubscribe/replying ?
It's urban legend busting. There are whole sites dedicated to it.
>What does either answer help, or provide to this discussion,
This discussion is about the veracity of this one claim. You're thinking about other discussion related to this story.
>besides your own little semantic tantrum about pointing out Allman's statement to be untrue.
It's not a semantic tantrum, I'm questioning the basic veracity of it. Veracity is not a matter of semantics. And I didn't call it untrue, I called it bullshit. See, that's a semantic argument.
>The point is so minor that it warrants no more than about 2 seconds thought.
The passion with which it is defended by people who have absolutely no evidence beyond anecdote and "Well, 'cause" makes it particularly interesting. The more stubborn the legend, the fun it is to burst.
Oh, and I'm a jerk because I disagree with you. That's the definition of jerk.
Oh, please be gentle. Abuse from anonymous cowards makes me and Baby Jesus cry.
There are evil spammers out there. What I'm questioning is their practical ability to become more evil simply because you're verified an address.
>There's no way any study can be "verifiable". You verify studies by repeating them
Which is it to be?
It would be a lot more credible (as an anecdote) if it provided the raw data, including email logs.
On the other hand, you're an Anonymous Coward, so are probably not the sort of bottom feeding pond scum that would be interested in anything as useless as credibility or verifiability.
Thanks for the anecdote. Now, how exactly does that relate to my question, which is how unsubscribing from an address that's already on a spam list can possible make it worse?
Do you have an answer to that question, or would you like to fire up another anecdote about a different question?
>I'd give them priority in my runs, for example, so email to those addresses was more likely to get out if some of my runs were cut off.
Thank you. Now, was that so very hard? That's the first and only actual answer that I've received to the original question.
How often do spammers get their connections cut? What proportion of their spam gets lost that way? Do they start over with their new connection, or pick up spamming at the point where they left off? I know that you don't know any of this this, which is rather what I'm pointing out.
>It doesn't matter, anyway - whats important is what they do NOT do with them, which is remove them.
No, that's a subject for a completely different discussion. I never said nor implied that replying would make it better, I asked how ir could (and whether it does) make it worse.
No, but I use the network fileserver and one of the lunix boxen to perform builds. If it runs out of space, I can't build. My short term solution is to clear up space by sending myself enough of my own data to make room on the main fileserver.
I never said that it made sense, just that I'm doing it.
Of course, it would make more sense for the users with GB of data to get rid of some of it, or for the admin to implement quotas. But those users tend not to be the ones with customer deliberables, and, hey, it turns out that the sysadmin gets paid the same regardless of whether we can work or not. So in practice, it's the people with actual deliverables that have to sort out the problems.
The best solution of all would be for one of us to complain to management. That would be great, because whoever did it would be surplussed in short order, and the rest of us could have their disk space!
I hope you got a decent cut from this "sponsored by" infomercial, because you're now on my shit list along with those duping buffoons michael and Taco. Or is your share just from the ads that get served on Slashdot to everyone that's currently pointing out what a lazy, slipshod muppet you are? Hey, subscribers; did you enjoy paying to read this infomercial before anyone else did? Did that give you a warm fuzzy?
On the bright side, at least Hemos got to post this first. When michael or Taco dupes it later, Slashdot will have hit its nadir.
>If they've filled the disks then they need more space, why on earth are you fucking about in this bizarre way?
Because the truly bizarre part is that it becomes my fault if I can't get work done because we've run out of space. Welcome to the corporate world.
Coward, it's unverifiable because it contains no figures, no details, no logs, no evidence of any sort.
If an unsupported assertion by an interested commercial party that gets paid by the word is all the evidence that there is, then I'm going to consider that there is no actual evidence at all.
I don't have to do my own experiments. There's no grounds for considering them necessary.
Anecdote: A short account of an interesting or humorous incident.
As in anecdotal: Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis.
As in, it's an anecdote when I say that I fucked your momma in the ass last night. It becomes testimony when I swear to it in court, and it becomes credible when I produce the pictures of her broken, bleeding, sobbing body.
> They harvest verified email addresses and track them seperatly (and in addition to) ones they harvest from un-verifed sources like lists they buy from other spammers, the web, or usenet.
Look, I'm going to type this very, very slowly to make it easy for you.
And. Then. They. Do. What. With. Them?
Ten trillion is more than twice a hundred, and is also statistically significant. Three is more than twice one, and is not. Neither of them are verifiable, nor are they remotely credible without at a minimum full email logs, or corroboration from an independent organisation not paid by the word.
What parts of "figures", "statistics", "details" and "verifiable" did you fail to comprehend?
> No, it's not an anecdote, which is why I put it in quotes
Yes, it is an anecdote, which is why I didn't. Gosh, this is fun.
>It is testimony.
In what sense?
Are you familiar with the phrase "cognitive dissonance"? Do you know what it means, or are you repressing that comprehension?
Where did I say that it did?