What, exactely, are those boobs saying that is being censored?
Well, if they're being censored (which they are) then (by definition) they're not saying anything, are they?
Is there anything they can communicate in a printed sentence or a speech
Perhaps you need to re-read your constitution. The First Amendment mentions expression, not just speech.
that's of any importance?
Whether something is "of importance" or not is irrelevant. The First Amendment doesn't mention that something must be "of importance" to garner protection. All expression is protected.
Take it to extreams to see how rediculous this crying about 'censorship' is.
It's not 'rediculous' (it's also not ridiculous, either.)
WHAT EXACTLY are they saying that is being 'censored'?
They are saying that the moral tone of the United States is too conservative, and that there's nothing wrong with showing a nipple on television.
They're saying that the US needs to shed it's puritanical views that a 1-inch piece of skin is 'bad'.
Say Janet wants to lay down and rub her labia while Justin masterbates into a paper bag on national prime time Sunday night TV that anybody can tune in - isn't that 'censorship' as well?
If they believe it has artistic merit, and it's banned by the government, then yes - it is indeed censorship (pretty much by definition.)
It's been said that the First Amendment exists not to protect what's popular, but to protect what's unpopular. This is a perfect example.
You get sued if you misuse information you gained in your former employment.
But the thing is - he's not using information he gained in his former employment.
He didn't get the information while he was employed there - he got it after he left, from a website that is available to non-employees.
forbid use of inside knowledge to harm other companies
But it's not inside knowledge - if it was inside knowledge, then (by definition) it would be kept inside. The fact that Air Canada releases this information to outside individuals means that (again, by definition) it can't be 'inside' knowledge.
how you obtain the information is irrelevant
No, it's not - otherwise a company could take any group of facts, brand them as 'private', and then sue anybody who discovers it on their own.
As someone else pointed out, the same information could have been retreived by simply going to the departure gates and counting the number of people boarding the planes - are you suggesting that doing this is also illegal? After all, if it doesn't matter how you got the data, then any way you get the data would be illegal.
BTW, if your assertion that it doesn't matter how you get data is correct, wouldn't that make reverse-engineering illegal in Denmark? (After all, you're getting 'private' information, and then using it to help another company.)
Which logic is that? Certainly not any that was posted here.
if you leave your front door unlocked, and I walk in and take your stuff, it's OK, because you allowed me access to it
No. More like: if I gave you a key to my front door, and told you to take whatever you wanted from my fridge, and you come in, clean out the fridge, and sell it to the market across the street, then it's OK, because I gave you access to it.
Which it would be (because I have given you permission.)
he was clearly in the wrong with his actions
Not necessarily. If he had an agreement that he wouldn't give/sell the information to anyone, then you may have a point, but if there was no such agreement, then he's quite clearly not in the wrong.
I don't think this qualifies as insider information, but more appropriately called company proprietary, or company confidential information
If it was proprietary, or confidential, then the company should have had measures in place to keep it that way. You can't give something to someone with no strings attached, and then cry foul when they use it for something you don't like.
although I can keep track of whether or not I'm copying from anyone, I can't keep track of all the possibilities of all the patents I may someday be accused of violating.
This is the single biggest proof that the patent system is broken.
Most people (here) know that the only reason that patents exist is to "promote progress in science and the useful arts." - So let's see how this is doing:
If you're a technology 'creator' (programmer, engineer, whatever) ask any patent lawyer, and he'll tell you not to go looking up patents, because it can get you into trouble.
So, if looking up patents can get you into trouble, how the hell is this promoting progress?!?!?!
If he came here (assuming he could get a flight that didn't stopover in the US), and they tried to extradite him, all he'd have to do is claim refugee status. By the time the trial came up to examine his claim, he'd be safely back in Oz.:o)
Id be happy to accept all mail from www.*.mail if I could be sure it wasn't spam.
So would I - the problem is that's a *HUGE* 'if'.
Here's what will happen if the.mail domain gains widespread acceptance:
Spammer (say, someone like Monsterhut) will buy one of these domains. Spammer will set it up, then immediately start spamming with it.
Then, when they get a warning from the registrar, they'll file a lawsuit against the registrar, claiming that they're not spamming, and they'll get a preliminary injunction against the registrar, stopping them from following through on the suspension.
The lawsuit will take a year or two to wend it's way through the courts, during which time, the spammer happily continues spamming.
To get around the fact that people will start adding a "whitelist exception" to block this particular.mail domain, the spammer will go and get another domain (and another, and another), and start all over again.
The end result? The.mail domain becomes useless.
Yes, it would be nice to have a domain you can guarantee isn't spam, but (to paraphrase Suzie Derkins,) as long as you're dreaming, you might as well wish for a pony.
They didn't just find and report the holes, they exploited them, THEN reported them.
Not according to the article.
Seems that they found and reported the holes, but nobody listened, so they then exploited the holes, and presented proof.
This would be akin to you noticing your neighbor left the keys in his car and you decided to take it for a ride before telling him about it.
No, this would be like noticing your neighbour left his keys in his car, telling him about it, him not believing you, so you go get the keys and give them to him.
The problem with TELUS is that none of their support scripts end with "Problem is on TELUS' side, send for resolution" or even "Transfer to someone who knows what a 'DHCP' is without looking it up"
My sister got Telus DSL a couple of weeks ago (against my recommendation.) I sat talking with a support "technician" for over an hour, before he decided that the problem was probably that they had not actually connected her to the DSLAM.
Yup. When you call Telus, the support rep has no way to check that you've even been connected.
That is Telus's problem
Re:Wow, they requested this?
on
Spam Bits
·
· Score: 1
So you're theorizing that every spam is being sent by people who have no experience in the business of sending spam.
No, I'm not. I just re-read my post, and nowhere did I say anything that even remotely resembles that.
*sigh*
What I said was (again) even with zero return, people will still spend money if they think the return will be non-zero.
send a copy along with $20 to the Library of Congress (the qualified third party)
There is no need to send your copy to the Library of Congress to receive copyright protection. You only need to send your copy if you want to sue someone for infringement, and you want to collect monetary damages. Oh, and you don't need to send the whole thing, just part of it will be fine.
Welcome to 2004 - where have you been for the last 20 years?
James Randi is a 'science' lunatic - he is as bad (if not worse) than the people he attempts to discredit. When presented with a situation that science cannot explain, he steadfastly refuses to believe that there is no scientific explanation, and will create wild fantasies of his own to 'explain' that which has no explanation. He's the equivalent of the people who phone and believe in the psychic hotline.
I saw a TV show on a person in the UK who claims to be a 'water diviner' - he is employed by a drilling company, who has a 100% guarantee on their services. This man (a former geophysicist) claims that he has the ability to find underground sources of water - he boasts an 80% accuracy rate, and in most cases will tell you how far down to drill, as well as the amount of water (in cubic feet per minute) the well will produce.
The TV program decided to test him (albeit in a non-scientific way) - they found a golf course that wanted wells dug, and they hired this company to dig them. The guy walked around on the course for awhile, and pointed out two places to dig. He was correct in both cases.
The program producers then contacted Mr. Randi to get his opinion. After watching the tape, he goes off on how this man is obviously a fraud, and that because he's a geophysicist, he's obviously using his knowledge of geology to find the water!
I know a few geophysicist, and they tell me - without question - that there is no way they can tell where underground streams are simply by walking out onto a field.
I lost all respect for Mr. Randi after seeing that program.
"The US Treasury does not make $1m bills, which only go as high as $100."
Are they saying that they do make $1M bills then, but that they only go up to $100?
Or are they saying that the US treasury doesn't make $1M bills that are only worth $100. (Maybe the Treasury department has been taken over by the Department of Redundancy Department?)
what struck me as particularly funny, is that with only one exception ("Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity"), every single one of those points describes behaviour exhibited by Darl McBride in public!
Slashdot Mirror
AmigaOS does exactly that.
You can even do things like:orin addition to(or etc.) to copy a file from a to b.
So now you know.
What, exactely, are those boobs saying that is being censored?
Well, if they're being censored (which they are) then (by definition) they're not saying anything, are they?
Is there anything they can communicate in a printed sentence or a speech
Perhaps you need to re-read your constitution. The First Amendment mentions expression, not just speech.
that's of any importance?
Whether something is "of importance" or not is irrelevant. The First Amendment doesn't mention that something must be "of importance" to garner protection. All expression is protected.
Take it to extreams to see how rediculous this crying about 'censorship' is.
It's not 'rediculous' (it's also not ridiculous, either.)
WHAT EXACTLY are they saying that is being 'censored'?
They are saying that the moral tone of the United States is too conservative, and that there's nothing wrong with showing a nipple on television.
They're saying that the US needs to shed it's puritanical views that a 1-inch piece of skin is 'bad'.
Say Janet wants to lay down and rub her labia while Justin masterbates into a paper bag on national prime time Sunday night TV that anybody can tune in - isn't that 'censorship' as well?
If they believe it has artistic merit, and it's banned by the government, then yes - it is indeed censorship (pretty much by definition.)
It's been said that the First Amendment exists not to protect what's popular, but to protect what's unpopular. This is a perfect example.
That is such crap.
Not really.
I don't understand how international currency exchange rates work
That may be - but are you asserting that nobody knows how they work? Because that's what you replied to. ("... what we don't understand.")
While I don't believe that the previous poster's definition fits everything 100%, he does raise an interesting point.
It is unreasonable for him to empty the fridge.
Unreasonable for whom? To me, sure - to him, possibly not.
One could probably argue a smll claims settllement successfully on such a case.
yes, and one could probably defend a small claims case successfully on such a case.
It would entirely depend upon the judge, and the skill of the people presenting each side of the case.
You get sued if you misuse information you gained in your former employment.
But the thing is - he's not using information he gained in his former employment.
He didn't get the information while he was employed there - he got it after he left, from a website that is available to non-employees.
forbid use of inside knowledge to harm other companies
But it's not inside knowledge - if it was inside knowledge, then (by definition) it would be kept inside. The fact that Air Canada releases this information to outside individuals means that (again, by definition) it can't be 'inside' knowledge.
how you obtain the information is irrelevant
No, it's not - otherwise a company could take any group of facts, brand them as 'private', and then sue anybody who discovers it on their own.
As someone else pointed out, the same information could have been retreived by simply going to the departure gates and counting the number of people boarding the planes - are you suggesting that doing this is also illegal? After all, if it doesn't matter how you got the data, then any way you get the data would be illegal.
BTW, if your assertion that it doesn't matter how you get data is correct, wouldn't that make reverse-engineering illegal in Denmark? (After all, you're getting 'private' information, and then using it to help another company.)
According to this logic
Which logic is that? Certainly not any that was posted here.
if you leave your front door unlocked, and I walk in and take your stuff, it's OK, because you allowed me access to it
No. More like: if I gave you a key to my front door, and told you to take whatever you wanted from my fridge, and you come in, clean out the fridge, and sell it to the market across the street, then it's OK, because I gave you access to it.
Which it would be (because I have given you permission.)
he was clearly in the wrong with his actions
Not necessarily. If he had an agreement that he wouldn't give/sell the information to anyone, then you may have a point, but if there was no such agreement, then he's quite clearly not in the wrong.
I don't think this qualifies as insider information, but more appropriately called company proprietary, or company confidential information
If it was proprietary, or confidential, then the company should have had measures in place to keep it that way. You can't give something to someone with no strings attached, and then cry foul when they use it for something you don't like.
A minor nitpick:
a discriminatory levy
The copyright levy is actually non-discriminatory; you have to pay it whether you use the media for copying music or not.
although I can keep track of whether or not I'm copying from anyone, I can't keep track of all the possibilities of all the patents I may someday be accused of violating.
This is the single biggest proof that the patent system is broken.
Most people (here) know that the only reason that patents exist is to "promote progress in science and the useful arts." - So let's see how this is doing:
If you're a technology 'creator' (programmer, engineer, whatever) ask any patent lawyer, and he'll tell you not to go looking up patents, because it can get you into trouble.
So, if looking up patents can get you into trouble, how the hell is this promoting progress?!?!?!
The patent system is broken, plain and simple.
"MS IE is not CSS compliant"
Which version?
Version 6.0 (The latest.)
MS was obviously aware that 5.0 wasn't up to spec. So they patched it.
Yes, and it's still not up to spec.
They did obviously fix the problems
No, they obviously did not.
Can he safely go to Canada for example?
:o)
If he came here (assuming he could get a flight that didn't stopover in the US), and they tried to extradite him, all he'd have to do is claim refugee status. By the time the trial came up to examine his claim, he'd be safely back in Oz.
if you have multiple whitelists, you OR them, while if you have multiple blacklists, you AND them.
Erhm - what?!?!
You're saying that if you have multiple blacklists, you don't block something unless it's on all of them?!?!
I mean, if you have five blacklists, but only four of them say that someone is a spammer, then the mail isn't spam?!?!?
I think you mean "If you have multiple blacklists, you OR them"
Id be happy to accept all mail from www.*.mail if I could be sure it wasn't spam.
.mail domain gains widespread acceptance:
.mail domain, the spammer will go and get another domain (and another, and another), and start all over again.
.mail domain becomes useless.
So would I - the problem is that's a *HUGE* 'if'.
Here's what will happen if the
Spammer (say, someone like Monsterhut) will buy one of these domains. Spammer will set it up, then immediately start spamming with it.
Then, when they get a warning from the registrar, they'll file a lawsuit against the registrar, claiming that they're not spamming, and they'll get a preliminary injunction against the registrar, stopping them from following through on the suspension.
The lawsuit will take a year or two to wend it's way through the courts, during which time, the spammer happily continues spamming.
But don't take my word on this - it's already happened - go read about it for yourself.
To get around the fact that people will start adding a "whitelist exception" to block this particular
The end result? The
Yes, it would be nice to have a domain you can guarantee isn't spam, but (to paraphrase Suzie Derkins,) as long as you're dreaming, you might as well wish for a pony.
there isn't anyone who is secure enough, trustworthy enough, powerful enough and smart enough to pull off a system that would work
:o) /me ducks
What about Network Solutions?
In the Canadian wilderness?
:o)
Umm, I live in Edmonton - does that count?
They didn't just find and report the holes, they exploited them, THEN reported them.
Not according to the article.
Seems that they found and reported the holes, but nobody listened, so they then exploited the holes, and presented proof.
This would be akin to you noticing your neighbor left the keys in his car and you decided to take it for a ride before telling him about it.
No, this would be like noticing your neighbour left his keys in his car, telling him about it, him not believing you, so you go get the keys and give them to him.
The problem with TELUS is that none of their support scripts end with "Problem is on TELUS' side, send for resolution" or even "Transfer to someone who knows what a 'DHCP' is without looking it up"
My sister got Telus DSL a couple of weeks ago (against my recommendation.) I sat talking with a support "technician" for over an hour, before he decided that the problem was probably that they had not actually connected her to the DSLAM.
Yup. When you call Telus, the support rep has no way to check that you've even been connected.
That is Telus's problem
So you're theorizing that every spam is being sent by people who have no experience in the business of sending spam.
No, I'm not. I just re-read my post, and nowhere did I say anything that even remotely resembles that.
*sigh*
What I said was (again)
even with zero return, people will still spend money if they think the return will be non-zero.
I don't know how much clearer I can make that.
Nice try at a straw man, though.
I think you'll note that nowhere did I say that dowsing was real, just that this guy claims it's real.
did NOT dismiss dowsing out of hand, he has tested it.
He tested it, and then used that test to dismiss it out of hand.
Not the mark of someone with an open mind.
how exactly is a geophysicist getting 80% supposed to impress me?
Perhaps you should read the whole post.
It's not just "random" - he tells how deep to drill, as well as how much water will be produced, with an 80% success rate.
.. and hasn't been since the Berne Convention.
send a copy along with $20 to the Library of Congress (the qualified third party)
There is no need to send your copy to the Library of Congress to receive copyright protection. You only need to send your copy if you want to sue someone for infringement, and you want to collect monetary damages. Oh, and you don't need to send the whole thing, just part of it will be fine.
Welcome to 2004 - where have you been for the last 20 years?
James Randi Educational Foundation
James Randi is a 'science' lunatic - he is as bad (if not worse) than the people he attempts to discredit. When presented with a situation that science cannot explain, he steadfastly refuses to believe that there is no scientific explanation, and will create wild fantasies of his own to 'explain' that which has no explanation. He's the equivalent of the people who phone and believe in the psychic hotline.
I saw a TV show on a person in the UK who claims to be a 'water diviner' - he is employed by a drilling company, who has a 100% guarantee on their services. This man (a former geophysicist) claims that he has the ability to find underground sources of water - he boasts an 80% accuracy rate, and in most cases will tell you how far down to drill, as well as the amount of water (in cubic feet per minute) the well will produce.
The TV program decided to test him (albeit in a non-scientific way) - they found a golf course that wanted wells dug, and they hired this company to dig them. The guy walked around on the course for awhile, and pointed out two places to dig. He was correct in both cases.
The program producers then contacted Mr. Randi to get his opinion. After watching the tape, he goes off on how this man is obviously a fraud, and that because he's a geophysicist, he's obviously using his knowledge of geology to find the water!
I know a few geophysicist, and they tell me - without question - that there is no way they can tell where underground streams are simply by walking out onto a field.
I lost all respect for Mr. Randi after seeing that program.
Will a million dollar bill do as downpayment?
Hehe.. from your link:
"The US Treasury does not make $1m bills, which only go as high as $100."
Are they saying that they do make $1M bills then, but that they only go up to $100?
Or are they saying that the US treasury doesn't make $1M bills that are only worth $100. (Maybe the Treasury department has been taken over by the Department of Redundancy Department?)
She.
:o)
Ahh, my apologies.
I'll give it to you for $20, one time only deal
Deal. Hoo boy, can't wait to tell the wife!
you can paypal the money to me
Ack - sorry, I don't use paypal, it's too easy to get scammed.
Can I send you cash via the post office?
Great site...
:o)
what struck me as particularly funny, is that with only one exception ("Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity"), every single one of those points describes behaviour exhibited by Darl McBride in public!
Wow... it explains so much.
Are you saying the Brooklyn Bridge does not exist?
:o)
Of course not! Otherwise he wouldn't be following his own advice!
BTW, I wonder how much he wants for it.