Just one more reason among many to download and use TrueCrypt. I've been using it for a long time now, and as long as it is as strong as it claims, I have been generally happy with its performance.
On the topic though, I recently traveled to a foreign country and had my laptop with me. No one searched nuthin'. I even had a pair of sharp multi-tool scissors with me in the laptop bag, in the cabin, the whole way, and no one ever even caught it... At least 8 flights internationally....except a month later, when I took the very same laptop from Texas to Florida, the scissors were confiscated on a flight then. Go figure.
I'm sure it is GW Bush's and Bill Gate's fault colluding with the RIAA somehow... I just haven't figure it out yet.
Apparently, part of the business strategy of selling electric cars is to let the customers drive them around for a year and then recall them for no apparent reason, with no option for the customer to keep them.
I bet you guys actually did real work in HS English class. Did you not learn how to properly plagiarize?
10 PRINT "Hello world." 20 END
*** BECOMES ***
13 REM \\\This code originally created by ME! 16 MESSAGE_PART_ONE$ = "HELLO" 17 MESSAGE_PART_TWO$ = "WORLD" 21 MESSAGE_CONCAT$ = LCASE$(MESSAGE_PART_ONE$) + " " + LCASE$(MESSAGE_PART_TWO$) + "." 25 MID$(MESSAGE_CONCAT$,1,1) = UCASE$(MID$(MESSAGE_CONCAT$,1,1) 28 OPEN "TXT.OUT" FOR OUTPUT AS #1 31 PRINT #1, MESSAGE_CONCAT$ 33 CLOSE #1 36 SHELL "TYPE TXT.OUT" 39 GOTO 500 500 END
Guess what you open source. Let someone else make it efficient again, and it becomes original code and if it happens to look identical to what you had at the company, you have version differences to back up that you came up with it on your own.
It's a very BASIC skill, really.:-)
See, in copyright law, it is perfectly fine for two people to have a copyright on exactly the same text, so long as they came up with it independently.
Being in the US, I have become so paranoid now that I encrypt everything with TrueCrypt. Whether it's MP3's, DVDs or pr0n or just simply my web browser cache, it all goes into the encrypted file. Long hard password and keyfiles, and then I also use hidden volumes.
And one big big big reason I use encryption: Usenet. I often use NewsBin to indiscriminately download all the binaries in a given group. I think this is very dangerous. And many times you get some very illegal junk you just don't want lying around -- but I can't get to it for several days to manually filter through it. ISPs get the benefit of being an ISP and not having to filter their caches for content; I do not get that same benefit. If I get caught with something I shouldn't have, it's jail time.
So if it comes up that I had inadvertently downloaded some kiddie pr0n through Usenet newsgroup (which is often mixed in with legitimate stuff), and my machine gets searched, I want some protection. And both: the things I downloaded and the things I have deleted simply CAN NOT be found.
It occurs to me that perhaps we're getting mixed up on the the meaning of the term "download." Perhaps you mean that "download" is transferring and storing a file.
My definition of "download" stops at the act of transferring (who knows if the file is stored/kept or not).
I did read the court outcomes and opinions. She wasn't being slapped for merely downloading. She was being slapped for possessing them. I think they knew she had them because of how she downloaded them (probably trapped by downloading from them using KaZaa or such).
If she had downloaded the songs and then immediately deleted them, or at least had them no where to be found, I think it would be a different outcome.
In that case I am sure they would have seen her downloading songs from them, searched her computer and other items, and scratched their heads going "wha?" and that would be the end of it. No wait, what am I thinking... this is the RIAA... they probably would have tried to sue anyway.
I must disagree with you. The page you linked to does not say that DOWNLOADING is illegal, but "copyright infringement via P2P" might be illegal. Two totally different things. And I think in this context, they mean the provider, not the downloader.
Here are two reasons why simply downloading can't be illegal:
1. Let's say that you duplicate the iTunes store exactly -- same Apple logo and everything. Only difference is that you made the domain name slightly different. And all of the mp3s you sell are counterfeit copies. Now comes me, unsuspecting customer thinking I am actually at the real iTunes store, and I buy several MP3s. Oops! Copyright infringement has taken place, sure enough... but what exactly did the customer do that was illegal exactly?
It's kind of the same problem with counterfeit clothing with real labels on them. If the customer buys them, how can they know if they are legit or not? Yes, some trademark infringing has taken place; but who is the guilty one? Suppose the customer knows that they are counterfeit before they buy?
Another problem is that the customer has no idea what valid contracts the vendor has with the copyright/trademark holders -- and it isn't their duty to know.
2. Let us say that you have a web site and make available for download an MP3 that you say is your original work. I come along and download this file, only to discover that it is in fact one of Madonna's songs. Aside from the idea that subjecting me to Madonna should be criminal... what exactly did I do wrong? How could I have possibly known to avoid infringing a copyright in this case?
Perhaps it is analogous to downloading child pr0n. The act of downloading itself is perhaps not illegal, but if you store the images on your drive, that is certainly criminal. So maybe it is with the other things: once you discover they are fakes/counterfeits, it becomes your obligation to destroy them? I honestly do not know the true answer, but 'yes' is my heart's answer.
P.S. This is not legal advice, and I was trained and work as a paralegal in intellectual property.
Big deal. I saw McGuyver do it with a 9V battery, a white LED, part of his calculator watch, 2 paper clips, a piece of bubble gum (and its aluminum wrapper), and a magnifying glass, and it was HD.
I think you have judged me most unfairly. Sometimes I do not really know where I got some things. Ever heard of a gift? I don't always get a gift receipt (and I'm not going to ask the giver for one if it isn't provided). But if I need to make an exchange, I need an exchange! So I walk to the counter and I explain that I do not know if I got this item here, and will they let me return/exchange it. If they say yes, I fail to see how this is lying or fraud.
And how am I killing the "Customer is always right" policy? On the contrary; because of this, my first choice on where to buy something is now Wal-Mart because I know the return policy. I think Wal-Mart *know* this and uses it to their advantage. I will no longer buy electronics from Best Buy, Circuit City, Office Max, or Office Depot (if I can first get the item at Wal-Mart) because those places' return policy is sometimes 30 days, sometimes 7 days! Wal-Mart has no date limitation that I know of, and that is the way it should be in my opinion.
Sorry, but I am going to bring my business to whomever has the best offer for me, where I can get the most for my dollar. (That is usually Wal-Mart.)
I know there is a lot of hatred for Wal-Mart. I don't like them and I don't like going there either. But, let me tell you something... I will continue to shop there because their returns policy is crazy-in-my-favor. I have taken back things that were bought well over a year ago. I have taken things back with no receipt, no tags, and they still gave me back what I *said* I paid. I think I have even taken back things that I purchased at another store. As long as Wal-Mart carries it? I seem to get the money back.
Now try that with Office Max or Office Depot. I have purchased things that didn't work out and when I went to return them, found they only had a 30-day policy -- even with a receipt. WTF?
Until someone has returns policies like Wal-Mart... I'll keep going because I know I can take it back.
Yes, the temperature readings are facts; but the theory of global warming is not. Indeed, over the past 50 years, it has been shown a gentle warming of.5C. That is not statistically significant, and you know that. But you are making the leap that since temperature readings are facts, then so must be global warming.
Looking at only 50 years of temperatures and making an assumption without knowing all the variables is as silly as building a trend from a single Spring season and saying "the trend shows that the temperatures will continue to get warmer forever!"
It is only recently that we discovered that el Nino seems to cause general warming trends on a cycle larger than one year.
True, you might possibly push the temperature aggregately -- assuming there were no other natural environmental factors (direct sun flares, enormous crashing asteroids, Yellowstone exploding, etc.). Frankly I think if Hillary Clinton would shut her mouth that might help the situation the most.
But speaking of aggregately, that only works if you get everyone to lower emissions. Even if you could get everyone in, say, America to zero emissions... what about China? What about every other budding nation that is just now coming into their Industrial Revolutions, and starting to consume more gas and coal? Then what Americans did will make a hair's bit of difference on global warming.
Look, global warming might be true and real. You can even tell me "I told you so" later if it is. But my point is that it is NOT a fact, yet. Maybe in your mind there is overwhelming evidence. I am skeptical.
Hmmm? Since when was "global warming" a solid fact? I think not (yet). In fact, it is quite hotly debated among scientific circles: 1)whether it even exists, 2)what man does to influence it, 3)what natural phenomenon(s) influence(s) it, 4)what we can do to reverse its effects. (We can't even change the course of a single thunderstorm yet, so reversing change to the climate globally seems like an exercise in futility, doesn't it?)
We don't even know if the sun might cause more "global warming" effects than any pollution man can make. Or volcano eruptions.
Even the accuracy of the evidence supporting global warming has been under attack lately.
Now, even if "global warming" does not exist, does this lessen the reason to reduce pollution any? Certainly not. Why not have cleaner water and air? Those are just logically good things to have anyway. But using "global warming" as the reason seems faddish and trendy to me, and not based on objectivity at all.
Just because the guy who invented the internet says it is a fact does not necessarily make it one.
Ah, who am I kidding... this is slashdot. We haven't been scientific for years.
I have had an idea for stopping SPAM for awhile; I think it would work...
I observe that nearly 100% of my SPAM messages are from email addresses that do not really exist. In fact, that is how I would differentiate between "SPAM" and being on someone's rightful advertising list (for something legitimately obtained).
So, here's my idea:
SCENARIO 1: Mr. Spammer sends me an email message. My email client silently receives it and says, "hm.. I don't know this person." So, it replies back with a special message containing a serial number or special word with instructions saying, "You are unknown to me. Simply reply to this message, and your original will get through." (Perhaps I have no idea that the first message was even received, and didn't know that my computer just sent another message out on my behalf begging for a reply.)
If the original "From" email address isn't legitimate, then Mr. Spammer's message will die and I will simply never see it.
If I get a bounce-back message, I may not see that because most bounce-backs usually include the original message (so it would have the original serial number/special code), and the email program would just go "hm... I guess it was SPAM."
If Mr. Spammer does get the message, then I at least have a verifiable identity, and later I can ask him politely to stop sending me SPAM or I can simply block the address for any future messages from him. But at least I know for certain where the message came from!
If Mr. Spammer has an email client with this feature, neither he nor I may ever know that this conversation took place between our email programs. It could be done transparently. It could also be done at the mail server level, so old email programs don't even have to be upgraded.
If Mr. Spammer has an old email client or old email server without this feature, it still works because he can still use his old program to reply to my email program's auto-generated one with the serial number/special code.
SCENARIO 2: My long-lost pal, "Bob" found my email address and sends me a first email message. I do not know of Bob's email address... it's "out-of-the-blue" and kinda looks like SPAM.
So, my email program replies to Bob and says, "hm... I do not know you. Please reply to this email!" (and of course, there is the special serial number/special code).
If Bob's email program is the same or has this feature, he has no idea he gets this message back from me, so his email program simply replies back and he is validated: I see his original message.
If Bob's email program is not the same, or doesn't have this feature, he can manually reply.
- If I were a SPAMMER, I could not think of any way around this. It is retro-compatible, and works with existing technologies, can be added seamlessly to new email programs and servers, and doesn't require new laws to be passed (except maybe just an update to an RFC). It will not cause false-positives, nor false-negatives. It tacks-on verifiable addressing (which is what email needs).
The worst I can think that will happen is that Bob's original email will be delayed a short time; but if he has this automatic feature too, he could be verified within seconds or minutes. But once his address is trusted, there will be no delay.
if you want my eyes on your site you better make it nice for me to use.
A) You're right, we don't really care. I hate to say it, but if I can't grab your attention with slightly more than minimal programming effort... you aren't worth the effort. There are also billions of people on the 'net.
B) Are you not pointing out that format IS important to you?
Then use scalable vector graphics. Using raster graphics for page layout and icons is as backwards as using tables for layout.
Oh that's a ridiculous thing to say. And it's a cop-out. Most of the graphics are from photographs; they CAN'T be vectors. Besides, I'm not even sure how to use vector images with DreamWeaver anyway without rasterizing.
And tables worked just fine for layout, thank you very much. At least I had it figured out so that if I *did* want a page to be scalable... I could do so pretty easily. Now supposedly that method is predicated and everything must be done with CSS instead. Suuure. Nope. That ain't how it works.
If you do any advertising at all, and you want to pop out large volumes of pages with photos on them, then the fastest/easiest/best-looking way is to design your page with PhotoShop, slice the image up, export to DreamWeaver, and knock-out where you need the content to be. Add your forms/scripting and Boom I'm done. Pay me and both the client and me are happy.
Now what can I use to position things that easily with CSS?
You have to understand, when I make a layout, I'm making a picture (a jpeg) to show the client. That's what they review before I even write one single line of HTML. So the end result BETTER look like what we agreed on.
And furthermore, if I have a really cool font that I want on the page, CSS just don't cut it. Only way I know to practically do it is with Flash, and that has its own set of problems I try to avoid.
Now I'm ranting about a certain class of web pages. Yes, there are tons of web sites where graphical appeal comes way behind browser-compatibility and usability. Ecommerce and highly data-driven web sites, etc. I'm not talking about those.
I'm talking about the Mom'n'Pop $300 "web presence" special. I am simply not spending much time on those sites or they become unprofitable real quick.
Slashdot Mirror
Er... sorry, I'm not into "waterports."
Just one more reason among many to download and use TrueCrypt. I've been using it for a long time now, and as long as it is as strong as it claims, I have been generally happy with its performance.
...except a month later, when I took the very same laptop from Texas to Florida, the scissors were confiscated on a flight then. Go figure.
On the topic though, I recently traveled to a foreign country and had my laptop with me. No one searched nuthin'. I even had a pair of sharp multi-tool scissors with me in the laptop bag, in the cabin, the whole way, and no one ever even caught it... At least 8 flights internationally.
I'm sure it is GW Bush's and Bill Gate's fault colluding with the RIAA somehow... I just haven't figure it out yet.
Apparently, part of the business strategy of selling electric cars is to let the customers drive them around for a year and then recall them for no apparent reason, with no option for the customer to keep them.
I wonder when it will happen this time.
I'm sure it's Bush's fault. Somehow.
What can I say. I needed the karma.
I bet you guys actually did real work in HS English class. Did you not learn how to properly plagiarize?
:-)
10 PRINT "Hello world."
20 END
*** BECOMES ***
13 REM \\\This code originally created by ME!
16 MESSAGE_PART_ONE$ = "HELLO"
17 MESSAGE_PART_TWO$ = "WORLD"
21 MESSAGE_CONCAT$ = LCASE$(MESSAGE_PART_ONE$) + " " + LCASE$(MESSAGE_PART_TWO$) + "."
25 MID$(MESSAGE_CONCAT$,1,1) = UCASE$(MID$(MESSAGE_CONCAT$,1,1)
28 OPEN "TXT.OUT" FOR OUTPUT AS #1
31 PRINT #1, MESSAGE_CONCAT$
33 CLOSE #1
36 SHELL "TYPE TXT.OUT"
39 GOTO 500
500 END
Guess what you open source. Let someone else make it efficient again, and it becomes original code and if it happens to look identical to what you had at the company, you have version differences to back up that you came up with it on your own.
It's a very BASIC skill, really.
See, in copyright law, it is perfectly fine for two people to have a copyright on exactly the same text, so long as they came up with it independently.
Now a patent is another ball of wax...
Being in the US, I have become so paranoid now that I encrypt everything with TrueCrypt. Whether it's MP3's, DVDs or pr0n or just simply my web browser cache, it all goes into the encrypted file. Long hard password and keyfiles, and then I also use hidden volumes.
And one big big big reason I use encryption: Usenet. I often use NewsBin to indiscriminately download all the binaries in a given group. I think this is very dangerous. And many times you get some very illegal junk you just don't want lying around -- but I can't get to it for several days to manually filter through it. ISPs get the benefit of being an ISP and not having to filter their caches for content; I do not get that same benefit. If I get caught with something I shouldn't have, it's jail time.
So if it comes up that I had inadvertently downloaded some kiddie pr0n through Usenet newsgroup (which is often mixed in with legitimate stuff), and my machine gets searched, I want some protection. And both: the things I downloaded and the things I have deleted simply CAN NOT be found.
You pay $XX dollars?
My cable company charges me XXX dollars. (Because it's an obscene amount.)
It occurs to me that perhaps we're getting mixed up on the the meaning of the term "download." Perhaps you mean that "download" is transferring and storing a file.
My definition of "download" stops at the act of transferring (who knows if the file is stored/kept or not).
I did read the court outcomes and opinions. She wasn't being slapped for merely downloading. She was being slapped for possessing them. I think they knew she had them because of how she downloaded them (probably trapped by downloading from them using KaZaa or such).
If she had downloaded the songs and then immediately deleted them, or at least had them no where to be found, I think it would be a different outcome.
In that case I am sure they would have seen her downloading songs from them, searched her computer and other items, and scratched their heads going "wha?" and that would be the end of it. No wait, what am I thinking... this is the RIAA... they probably would have tried to sue anyway.
I must disagree with you. The page you linked to does not say that DOWNLOADING is illegal, but "copyright infringement via P2P" might be illegal. Two totally different things. And I think in this context, they mean the provider, not the downloader.
Here are two reasons why simply downloading can't be illegal:
1. Let's say that you duplicate the iTunes store exactly -- same Apple logo and everything. Only difference is that you made the domain name slightly different. And all of the mp3s you sell are counterfeit copies. Now comes me, unsuspecting customer thinking I am actually at the real iTunes store, and I buy several MP3s. Oops! Copyright infringement has taken place, sure enough... but what exactly did the customer do that was illegal exactly?
It's kind of the same problem with counterfeit clothing with real labels on them. If the customer buys them, how can they know if they are legit or not? Yes, some trademark infringing has taken place; but who is the guilty one? Suppose the customer knows that they are counterfeit before they buy?
Another problem is that the customer has no idea what valid contracts the vendor has with the copyright/trademark holders -- and it isn't their duty to know.
2. Let us say that you have a web site and make available for download an MP3 that you say is your original work. I come along and download this file, only to discover that it is in fact one of Madonna's songs. Aside from the idea that subjecting me to Madonna should be criminal... what exactly did I do wrong? How could I have possibly known to avoid infringing a copyright in this case?
Perhaps it is analogous to downloading child pr0n. The act of downloading itself is perhaps not illegal, but if you store the images on your drive, that is certainly criminal. So maybe it is with the other things: once you discover they are fakes/counterfeits, it becomes your obligation to destroy them? I honestly do not know the true answer, but 'yes' is my heart's answer.
P.S. This is not legal advice, and I was trained and work as a paralegal in intellectual property.
What's the problem? I don't drink, so I have nothing to hide.
Grrrrrr.... Funny: me as a db admin -- creating databases for a living -- but I sure am against other peoples' databases. Ain't it a hoot?
See? I told you your vote doesn't matter.
Not really for the same reason I said... but anyway.
Yeah, but we don't want to hear about any craters YOU'RE observing...
Big deal. I saw McGuyver do it with a 9V battery, a white LED, part of his calculator watch, 2 paper clips, a piece of bubble gum (and its aluminum wrapper), and a magnifying glass, and it was HD.
I think you have judged me most unfairly. Sometimes I do not really know where I got some things. Ever heard of a gift? I don't always get a gift receipt (and I'm not going to ask the giver for one if it isn't provided). But if I need to make an exchange, I need an exchange! So I walk to the counter and I explain that I do not know if I got this item here, and will they let me return/exchange it. If they say yes, I fail to see how this is lying or fraud.
And how am I killing the "Customer is always right" policy? On the contrary; because of this, my first choice on where to buy something is now Wal-Mart because I know the return policy. I think Wal-Mart *know* this and uses it to their advantage. I will no longer buy electronics from Best Buy, Circuit City, Office Max, or Office Depot (if I can first get the item at Wal-Mart) because those places' return policy is sometimes 30 days, sometimes 7 days! Wal-Mart has no date limitation that I know of, and that is the way it should be in my opinion.
Sorry, but I am going to bring my business to whomever has the best offer for me, where I can get the most for my dollar. (That is usually Wal-Mart.)
Ah, got something that can finally run Vista, did you?
I know there is a lot of hatred for Wal-Mart. I don't like them and I don't like going there either. But, let me tell you something... I will continue to shop there because their returns policy is crazy-in-my-favor. I have taken back things that were bought well over a year ago. I have taken things back with no receipt, no tags, and they still gave me back what I *said* I paid. I think I have even taken back things that I purchased at another store. As long as Wal-Mart carries it? I seem to get the money back.
Now try that with Office Max or Office Depot. I have purchased things that didn't work out and when I went to return them, found they only had a 30-day policy -- even with a receipt. WTF?
Until someone has returns policies like Wal-Mart... I'll keep going because I know I can take it back.
This just looks like a pyramid scheme to me...
Yes, the temperature readings are facts; but the theory of global warming is not. Indeed, over the past 50 years, it has been shown a gentle warming of .5C. That is not statistically significant, and you know that. But you are making the leap that since temperature readings are facts, then so must be global warming.
Looking at only 50 years of temperatures and making an assumption without knowing all the variables is as silly as building a trend from a single Spring season and saying "the trend shows that the temperatures will continue to get warmer forever!"
It is only recently that we discovered that el Nino seems to cause general warming trends on a cycle larger than one year.
True, you might possibly push the temperature aggregately -- assuming there were no other natural environmental factors (direct sun flares, enormous crashing asteroids, Yellowstone exploding, etc.). Frankly I think if Hillary Clinton would shut her mouth that might help the situation the most.
But speaking of aggregately, that only works if you get everyone to lower emissions. Even if you could get everyone in, say, America to zero emissions... what about China? What about every other budding nation that is just now coming into their Industrial Revolutions, and starting to consume more gas and coal? Then what Americans did will make a hair's bit of difference on global warming.
Look, global warming might be true and real. You can even tell me "I told you so" later if it is. But my point is that it is NOT a fact, yet. Maybe in your mind there is overwhelming evidence. I am skeptical.
Hmmm? Since when was "global warming" a solid fact? I think not (yet). In fact, it is quite hotly debated among scientific circles: 1)whether it even exists, 2)what man does to influence it, 3)what natural phenomenon(s) influence(s) it, 4)what we can do to reverse its effects. (We can't even change the course of a single thunderstorm yet, so reversing change to the climate globally seems like an exercise in futility, doesn't it?)
We don't even know if the sun might cause more "global warming" effects than any pollution man can make. Or volcano eruptions.
Even the accuracy of the evidence supporting global warming has been under attack lately.
Now, even if "global warming" does not exist, does this lessen the reason to reduce pollution any? Certainly not. Why not have cleaner water and air? Those are just logically good things to have anyway. But using "global warming" as the reason seems faddish and trendy to me, and not based on objectivity at all.
Just because the guy who invented the internet says it is a fact does not necessarily make it one.
Ah, who am I kidding... this is slashdot. We haven't been scientific for years.
Almost!
Texas is the only state that can still secede. And we will if we have to.
I wonder if those are lamb or beef gyros...
(Yes I know it is bad.)
I have had an idea for stopping SPAM for awhile; I think it would work...
I observe that nearly 100% of my SPAM messages are from email addresses that do not really exist. In fact, that is how I would differentiate between "SPAM" and being on someone's rightful advertising list (for something legitimately obtained).
So, here's my idea:
SCENARIO 1:
Mr. Spammer sends me an email message. My email client silently receives it and says, "hm.. I don't know this person." So, it replies back with a special message containing a serial number or special word with instructions saying, "You are unknown to me. Simply reply to this message, and your original will get through." (Perhaps I have no idea that the first message was even received, and didn't know that my computer just sent another message out on my behalf begging for a reply.)
If the original "From" email address isn't legitimate, then Mr. Spammer's message will die and I will simply never see it.
If I get a bounce-back message, I may not see that because most bounce-backs usually include the original message (so it would have the original serial number/special code), and the email program would just go "hm... I guess it was SPAM."
If Mr. Spammer does get the message, then I at least have a verifiable identity, and later I can ask him politely to stop sending me SPAM or I can simply block the address for any future messages from him. But at least I know for certain where the message came from!
If Mr. Spammer has an email client with this feature, neither he nor I may ever know that this conversation took place between our email programs. It could be done transparently. It could also be done at the mail server level, so old email programs don't even have to be upgraded.
If Mr. Spammer has an old email client or old email server without this feature, it still works because he can still use his old program to reply to my email program's auto-generated one with the serial number/special code.
SCENARIO 2:
My long-lost pal, "Bob" found my email address and sends me a first email message. I do not know of Bob's email address... it's "out-of-the-blue" and kinda looks like SPAM.
So, my email program replies to Bob and says, "hm... I do not know you. Please reply to this email!" (and of course, there is the special serial number/special code).
If Bob's email program is the same or has this feature, he has no idea he gets this message back from me, so his email program simply replies back and he is validated: I see his original message.
If Bob's email program is not the same, or doesn't have this feature, he can manually reply.
- If I were a SPAMMER, I could not think of any way around this. It is retro-compatible, and works with existing technologies, can be added seamlessly to new email programs and servers, and doesn't require new laws to be passed (except maybe just an update to an RFC). It will not cause false-positives, nor false-negatives. It tacks-on verifiable addressing (which is what email needs).
The worst I can think that will happen is that Bob's original email will be delayed a short time; but if he has this automatic feature too, he could be verified within seconds or minutes. But once his address is trusted, there will be no delay.
What do you all think?
What are you talking about! I have one that works flawlessly every single time. It always faithfully says:
"Hello, world!"
if you want my eyes on your site you better make it nice for me to use.
A) You're right, we don't really care. I hate to say it, but if I can't grab your attention with slightly more than minimal programming effort... you aren't worth the effort. There are also billions of people on the 'net.
B) Are you not pointing out that format IS important to you?
Then use scalable vector graphics. Using raster graphics for page layout and icons is as backwards as using tables for layout.
Oh that's a ridiculous thing to say. And it's a cop-out. Most of the graphics are from photographs; they CAN'T be vectors. Besides, I'm not even sure how to use vector images with DreamWeaver anyway without rasterizing.
And tables worked just fine for layout, thank you very much. At least I had it figured out so that if I *did* want a page to be scalable... I could do so pretty easily. Now supposedly that method is predicated and everything must be done with CSS instead. Suuure. Nope. That ain't how it works.
If you do any advertising at all, and you want to pop out large volumes of pages with photos on them, then the fastest/easiest/best-looking way is to design your page with PhotoShop, slice the image up, export to DreamWeaver, and knock-out where you need the content to be. Add your forms/scripting and Boom I'm done. Pay me and both the client and me are happy.
Now what can I use to position things that easily with CSS?
You have to understand, when I make a layout, I'm making a picture (a jpeg) to show the client. That's what they review before I even write one single line of HTML. So the end result BETTER look like what we agreed on.
And furthermore, if I have a really cool font that I want on the page, CSS just don't cut it. Only way I know to practically do it is with Flash, and that has its own set of problems I try to avoid.
Now I'm ranting about a certain class of web pages. Yes, there are tons of web sites where graphical appeal comes way behind browser-compatibility and usability. Ecommerce and highly data-driven web sites, etc. I'm not talking about those.
I'm talking about the Mom'n'Pop $300 "web presence" special. I am simply not spending much time on those sites or they become unprofitable real quick.