I think the counter-argument goes like this (no "profit" jokes, please):
1.).XXX domain is created to allow easy filtering of porn sites.
2.).XXX domain is filtered, as its charter implies
3.) Porn sites on non-XXX domains are either more harshly regulated or forcefully eliminated. People see them as deceptive or uncooperative to a system set up for their benefit.
4.) Non-porn (by their owner's discretion), but objectionable sites start to fall into the category of No. 3. Sites with possibly legitimate non-pornographic, but offensive, content get strongarmed into dooming themselves to the "XXX" label or getting the axe.
The fear with things like this, the RSACi ratings, and the PMRC stickers is that they start with the freer intentions of "self-rating by community standards", it may still devolve into outside censorship from people saying "They're not using the rating system right! Punish them!" (Think "Meta-moderation" on Slashdot applied to censorship.)
Spawn a new window with no chrome, and make your own fake chrome in it with the SSL padlock active. It's not a 100% solution, but a 100% solution isn't really necessary.
Failing that, just try to BS them into thinking it's secure. "BankOne cares about your security. This logo [image] means that your transaction is being transferred to our Secure Server (128-bit SSL Encryption)." Then put that logo on a fake "Status bar" looking frame at the bottom of the page.
That might not work, though, as I'd imagine the database knows the numbers of which cards were printed (or has at least enough sense to not make sequential numbers valid).
An alternate theory, though:
Someone shoplifts a pile of unused cards (or "borrows" them from a stock pile, if they're staff), scans and dupes them, then re-glues and re-shelves them at the store. Wait a few days for the cards to get bought (especially effective if you planned it right just before a holiday), and use the dupes to buy stuff.
In that case, though, I would say that spread would be more important than speed. If education is your goal, then subsidize public consoles (borrowable computers from libraries?), medium-speed wide-range wireless, and diverse, multi-focused computer training.
For the most part, knowledge is easily available through dialup (or at least 128k).
Well... it started as a reply, before the rant...
on
Mozilla.org Relaunched
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I'd say HTML coding's gone up in quality, not down. Aside from a few errant copies of FrontPage floating around (you know who you are), the introduction of the stricter-formatted XHTML has given quality-concious designers something they can put faith in.
Instead of malformed tables possibly breaking the whole page, XHTML means that the page HAS to be formatted correctly, and with that, it damned well better work with all the browsers out there. The more strict standard makes less guesswork for HTML tool developers, by making them share a well-defined (enforced, even) common expectation of the language.
I'll grant that there are quite a few strays still out there making half-baked HTML 4 pages with MSIE "fudgingly compliant" features, but most web designers worth their professional (or cred-bearing amateur) salt know they have to code to standards. The others, well... the web is open and free... and they will either get by on other merits or wither in mediocraty.
My big wish: I'd just like to see a new, widely-supported extension of CSS that actually has some layout tools, and doesn't involve convoluted and counterintuitive "hacks" to get by. Sure, a lot of people say "let the browser, not the creator, determine the layout", but on the modern Web, let's face it: Design can be content. Give us tools for (even strict, my-way-or-highway) layout, for those who want it.
What also doesn't make sense is why they used client-side Javascript for the rotating screenshot image, when they're already doing server-side scripting to include the latest RSS information, or why they have the screenshot as the background image for a DIV instead of an inline IMG.
It's just a shot in the dark, but I imagine it's the same reason you mentioned about the UA string. If you change your UA string, it will change the UA header getting sent to the server, and server-side scripting would get the modified info.
By using client-side Javascript, and the fact that JavaScript still knows what OS it's on, they can more accurately post the right picture, deftly getting by even a modified UA string.
Of course, it might be something else entirely, but it's a decent explanation.
I was off-campus, and my parents' Homeowner's insurance covered me when a bunch of stuff got stolen from a friend's car. I ended up getting the highest estimate on everything I could find, then buying most of the replacements on clearance... I think I came out about even, even after the $200 deductible, although I'm still sore about the unique items I lost (a few Zip disks full of work and a carrying case decorated with about 3 years of stickers and various ephemera)
It's true, though. I've found that as I've been online longer, I've gained the ability to read IM, chat, and online dialogue with a suprising level of success at filling in the meaning.
People I know (whose speech patterns are better known to me, naturally) are easier, but I can still (usually) pick the sarcasm out of a pile o' text.
So what about everyone else... you know... The ones who researched and recruited the band in the first place... Those who made the band popular enough to get it on your radar... The people who design the cover art... The accounting department that makes sure everyone gets paid on time... Logistics folks who get things out to the right places at the right times... The heat and water bill at the offices...
IRC was around, but it was more of a room-based as opposed to person-to-person-centric system. Sure, you had notify lists and the like, but it wasn't centered around that nearly as much as IM.
There's that, plus the fact that ICQ was the first wide-scale IM client. Unfortunately, it died a death of bloat. The fact that it had a hundred memory-gobbling, lag inducing, epileptically flashing "features" was probably a larger nail in its coffin than the inconvenience of ICQ numbers.
I was a fan of ICQ up until v2000. It had a lot more useful features, and a History mechanism that couldn't be beat. Then, they dropped the good logging mechanism and started adding a whole bunch of useless "search bar" type of garbage that just slowed the program up.
Luckily, that's when Trillian started to hit the scene. The funny thing is, I have Trillian Pro, and it's loaded up with plugins like an RSS reader and all kinds of search crap... but it's less intrusive and more integrated, and I find it to be a benefit.
Hopefully now, if Google IM takes off, Trillian will start supporting Jabber natively (instead of via a plugin).
You've got it backwards. The recipient gives the challenge to the sender, then the sender (spammer) has to solve the problem. It's a unique problem every time.
Like this:
First, the recipient either takes some time to generate new tokens (problem+solution sets), or simply reuses tokens it has recieved and solved.
The sender sends them an email, and the recipient replies with the "problem" part of the token. The sender chugs away for a while trying to solve the problem. Once they solve it, they have a problem and solution, a complete pair which they can cache and use as their own challenge to people sending them mail, without having to recalculate it every time.
No matter who's actually responsible, or what actually happened, the immediate net effect is going to be dictated by what people see on the evening news.
The counterpoint to that, though, is that the employee is working as an agent of the company, not as an agent of themselves. If they have been disallowed, as an agent of the company, from distributing the software outside the company, then the company has not "distributed" the software.
Not that I'm a lawyer, or even have an iota of a clue about this subject (hey, this is/.), but I'd imagine that would be the most likely counterpoint.
Maybe you (or someone) can clear this up for me. I'm completely unschooled in economics, and this has always confused me:
What I don't understand is how a gold-backed standard is any better than an unbacked standard. Although gold is rare, its "worth" seems to be greatly overinflated. In a pickle, I could do more with some steel or rubber, for example, but all I'm guaranteed is gold. Doesn't that just transfer the "belief of worth" from dollars to gold?
Along the same lines, value of a nation is not simply its gold. It is held also in thousands of different desirable products and services. Why should a currency, which transfers value, be tied to a stockpile of one valuable material?
Doesn't a more abstract currency, if regulated and applied correctly, more properly represent its actual use and nature?
Funny. I see the exact opposite. Copyright defends against the physical ease of copying content, which takes considerably more effort to produce than to copy, so the authors can be compensated by some meausre of control.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the counter-argument goes like this (no "profit" jokes, please):
.XXX domain is created to allow easy filtering of porn sites.
.XXX domain is filtered, as its charter implies
1.)
2.)
3.) Porn sites on non-XXX domains are either more harshly regulated or forcefully eliminated. People see them as deceptive or uncooperative to a system set up for their benefit.
4.) Non-porn (by their owner's discretion), but objectionable sites start to fall into the category of No. 3. Sites with possibly legitimate non-pornographic, but offensive, content get strongarmed into dooming themselves to the "XXX" label or getting the axe.
The fear with things like this, the RSACi ratings, and the PMRC stickers is that they start with the freer intentions of "self-rating by community standards", it may still devolve into outside censorship from people saying "They're not using the rating system right! Punish them!" (Think "Meta-moderation" on Slashdot applied to censorship.)
Spawn a new window with no chrome, and make your own fake chrome in it with the SSL padlock active. It's not a 100% solution, but a 100% solution isn't really necessary.
Failing that, just try to BS them into thinking it's secure. "BankOne cares about your security. This logo [image] means that your transaction is being transferred to our Secure Server (128-bit SSL Encryption)." Then put that logo on a fake "Status bar" looking frame at the bottom of the page.
Isn't Slashdot a blog?
That might not work, though, as I'd imagine the database knows the numbers of which cards were printed (or has at least enough sense to not make sequential numbers valid).
An alternate theory, though:
Someone shoplifts a pile of unused cards (or "borrows" them from a stock pile, if they're staff), scans and dupes them, then re-glues and re-shelves them at the store. Wait a few days for the cards to get bought (especially effective if you planned it right just before a holiday), and use the dupes to buy stuff.
Even better:
Make a script that checks IMDB, then simulates an Apache "Directory Listing" and updates it with script-served garbage.
For extra points, get them to bite on 100k files that the "Directory Listing" says are 10MB.
(starts coding...)
In that case, though, I would say that spread would be more important than speed. If education is your goal, then subsidize public consoles (borrowable computers from libraries?), medium-speed wide-range wireless, and diverse, multi-focused computer training.
For the most part, knowledge is easily available through dialup (or at least 128k).
I'd say HTML coding's gone up in quality, not down. Aside from a few errant copies of FrontPage floating around (you know who you are), the introduction of the stricter-formatted XHTML has given quality-concious designers something they can put faith in.
Instead of malformed tables possibly breaking the whole page, XHTML means that the page HAS to be formatted correctly, and with that, it damned well better work with all the browsers out there. The more strict standard makes less guesswork for HTML tool developers, by making them share a well-defined (enforced, even) common expectation of the language.
I'll grant that there are quite a few strays still out there making half-baked HTML 4 pages with MSIE "fudgingly compliant" features, but most web designers worth their professional (or cred-bearing amateur) salt know they have to code to standards. The others, well... the web is open and free... and they will either get by on other merits or wither in mediocraty.
My big wish: I'd just like to see a new, widely-supported extension of CSS that actually has some layout tools, and doesn't involve convoluted and counterintuitive "hacks" to get by. Sure, a lot of people say "let the browser, not the creator, determine the layout", but on the modern Web, let's face it: Design can be content. Give us tools for (even strict, my-way-or-highway) layout, for those who want it.
What also doesn't make sense is why they used client-side Javascript for the rotating screenshot image, when they're already doing server-side scripting to include the latest RSS information, or why they have the screenshot as the background image for a DIV instead of an inline IMG.
It's just a shot in the dark, but I imagine it's the same reason you mentioned about the UA string. If you change your UA string, it will change the UA header getting sent to the server, and server-side scripting would get the modified info.
By using client-side Javascript, and the fact that JavaScript still knows what OS it's on, they can more accurately post the right picture, deftly getting by even a modified UA string.
Of course, it might be something else entirely, but it's a decent explanation.
Yes, but "More Slick" still ne "More Sleek", which was the point which (I'm pretty sure) the GPP was trying to make.
The first steps in this whole process involves reading, processing, and understanding the post. Then you hit "Reply" and take it from there.
I was off-campus, and my parents' Homeowner's insurance covered me when a bunch of stuff got stolen from a friend's car. I ended up getting the highest estimate on everything I could find, then buying most of the replacements on clearance... I think I came out about even, even after the $200 deductible, although I'm still sore about the unique items I lost (a few Zip disks full of work and a carrying case decorated with about 3 years of stickers and various ephemera)
Well, that and an italic tag or two...
It's true, though. I've found that as I've been online longer, I've gained the ability to read IM, chat, and online dialogue with a suprising level of success at filling in the meaning.
People I know (whose speech patterns are better known to me, naturally) are easier, but I can still (usually) pick the sarcasm out of a pile o' text.
So what about everyone else... you know... The ones who researched and recruited the band in the first place... Those who made the band popular enough to get it on your radar... The people who design the cover art... The accounting department that makes sure everyone gets paid on time... Logistics folks who get things out to the right places at the right times... The heat and water bill at the offices...
IRC was around, but it was more of a room-based as opposed to person-to-person-centric system. Sure, you had notify lists and the like, but it wasn't centered around that nearly as much as IM.
Being able to use the program at full tilt without a manual... isn't that a pinnacle of usability?
There's that, plus the fact that ICQ was the first wide-scale IM client. Unfortunately, it died a death of bloat. The fact that it had a hundred memory-gobbling, lag inducing, epileptically flashing "features" was probably a larger nail in its coffin than the inconvenience of ICQ numbers.
I was a fan of ICQ up until v2000. It had a lot more useful features, and a History mechanism that couldn't be beat. Then, they dropped the good logging mechanism and started adding a whole bunch of useless "search bar" type of garbage that just slowed the program up.
Luckily, that's when Trillian started to hit the scene. The funny thing is, I have Trillian Pro, and it's loaded up with plugins like an RSS reader and all kinds of search crap... but it's less intrusive and more integrated, and I find it to be a benefit.
Hopefully now, if Google IM takes off, Trillian will start supporting Jabber natively (instead of via a plugin).
Bad analogy on line 1 (beastiality)
Until animals can sufficiently eloquently convey their willingness or lack thereof, they really don't fit in the category of "willing participant."
Better analogy: polygamy. Personally, I don't find that to be a legally jurisdictable problem, either.
As for your banana-eating habits, it's weird, yes, but if you seem to like it, I guess it's right for you. Go to town, ya banana-snortin' freak!
> If its the former, then you're racist; fine.
Wow... way to completely lop off one side of the argument.
Why should Apple have any say in how Real encodes?
You've got it backwards. The recipient gives the challenge to the sender, then the sender (spammer) has to solve the problem. It's a unique problem every time.
Like this:
First, the recipient either takes some time to generate new tokens (problem+solution sets), or simply reuses tokens it has recieved and solved.
The sender sends them an email, and the recipient replies with the "problem" part of the token. The sender chugs away for a while trying to solve the problem. Once they solve it, they have a problem and solution, a complete pair which they can cache and use as their own challenge to people sending them mail, without having to recalculate it every time.
If that's the case, you just put a disclaimer on the list, and drop any attempts that take too long. If they don't whitelist, they don't get the mail.
No matter who's actually responsible, or what actually happened, the immediate net effect is going to be dictated by what people see on the evening news.
The counterpoint to that, though, is that the employee is working as an agent of the company, not as an agent of themselves. If they have been disallowed, as an agent of the company, from distributing the software outside the company, then the company has not "distributed" the software.
/.), but I'd imagine that would be the most likely counterpoint.
Not that I'm a lawyer, or even have an iota of a clue about this subject (hey, this is
Maybe you (or someone) can clear this up for me. I'm completely unschooled in economics, and this has always confused me:
What I don't understand is how a gold-backed standard is any better than an unbacked standard. Although gold is rare, its "worth" seems to be greatly overinflated. In a pickle, I could do more with some steel or rubber, for example, but all I'm guaranteed is gold. Doesn't that just transfer the "belief of worth" from dollars to gold?
Along the same lines, value of a nation is not simply its gold. It is held also in thousands of different desirable products and services. Why should a currency, which transfers value, be tied to a stockpile of one valuable material?
Doesn't a more abstract currency, if regulated and applied correctly, more properly represent its actual use and nature?
RTFA?
Funny. I see the exact opposite. Copyright defends against the physical ease of copying content, which takes considerably more effort to produce than to copy, so the authors can be compensated by some meausre of control.
Bah. Should'a just killed 'im with sword.