Consider this article. Spam can be largely solved via technical means.
I read the article - it won't stop spam. The author says that the confimation is a step that spammers "do not and will not take" - how does he come to that conclusion, exactly? What's to stop a spammer from setting up an autoresponder to get past it? - Oh yeah, and say goodbye to legitimate anonymous email, too.
If none of it gets through, then the incentive to spam in the first place is removed.
You're talking about this as if its the first time anyone has tried a technological method to stop spam.. There have been LOTS of other methods tried, and what has the result been? Spammers adjusting their methods to get around them, not spammers quitting.
I think that it's been proven that technological solutions have no effect on spam, except to make email less useful.
Laws don't stop crime, they won't stop spam either.
Laws don't stop crime, but they do reduce the amount of it. Laws may not stop spam, but they will surely go a long way to reducing it.
To paraphrase you;
"If you throw spammers in jail, then the incentive to spam in the first place is removed."
Spammers aren't bothered violating current laws, why does anyone think they won't ignore new anti-spam laws?
The thing is, if you ask spammers, they'll tell you that they're not violating any laws..
That's why we need a clear message that what they are doing is wrong - they need to be shown, without any doubt, that they are indeed breaking the law.
His German Shepard saw the phone sitting on the coffee table and thought it would make a good chew toy.
The coffee table, or the cell phone?:o)
True story - I have a border collie (picture here for the curious) - when he was about 5 months old, we woke up one morning to discover the plastic coffee table strewn, in very tiny bits, across the living room.. Boomer had decided that night that hard plastic tasted good, and proceeded to attempt to eat it..
We took him to daycare that day, and when we went to pick him up, the owners brought out a plastic bag, and showed us his stool.. they were very concerned, because he'd been pooping out bits of hard plastic all day..
You can only infringe copyrights if you are given a license by the holder of the copyright.
I think you mean "you can only infringe copyright if you are NOT given a license by copyright holder" - and it's partially true. You are only infringing copyright if you make (and distribute) copies.. you do not need a license to use copyrighted material.
Code comments *are* copyright-able
IIRC, the judge in the BSD case disagreed.
prove that SCO doesn't own the copyright to what it says it owns
No - this is wrong on two counts. First, you can't prove something you don't know, so SCO would have to disclose what code it thinks it owns before anyone else can do anything. Second, the burden of proof is the other way around - SCO must prove that it owns the copyright to what it says it owns. (Linus et al. are innocent of copyright infringment unless proven guilty.)
there is a presumption that SCO does own the copyright to what it says it owes, it is up to the anti-SCO forces to prove otherwise
No, that is completely backwards. (Insert lame in-soviet-russia joke here:o)
prove that SCO has waived their claims to copyright infringement
Until/unless SCO comes up with something substantial, there is nothing to prove, and no need to prove it.
Some people are saying that SCO waived their rights by publishing their own version of Linux, but this is dubious
Actually, it's quite sound - sound enough that IBM included it in their counter-suit against SCO. (So it's not just 'some people' - it's IBM's lawyers.. lawyers which are very good at what they do - as evidenced by their track record.)
they claim someone else infringed their copyrights and placed the code there.
That would only matter if SCO stopped distributing the Linux Kernel. Since they continue to distribute it (it's still available on their website) over a year after they claim to have discovered it, and months after they filed a claim, the GPL is the only thing allowing them to do so. They are either in violation of copyright, or their alleged infringing code is covered under the GPL.
Did SCO really need to use some simple transliteration to make use not be able to read their other comment? What was the point?
Probably because the comments would be easy to search for - (alleged) humans (lawyers?) would remember english text easier than (bastardized and uncompilable) source code.. and they think that if someone can remember it, they would be able to google for it, and discover that SCO is lying..
So they mask the english text, thinking "nobody will be able to remember this" - not counting on the fact that reporters frequently carry cameras, which would be capable of remembering the text for them.
Not according to the judge in the BSD case. He ruled that comments were not part of the source code.
The damages would likely be less if the value of the IP is less but it is out and out theft nonetheless.
Actually, as SCO refuses to disclose the alleged infringing code, the damages will be zero, as SCO is demonstrating that any infringing code is worthless. (If it wasn't worthless, SCO would do everything possible to get it removed from the kernel.)
SCO has made their point very well with the identical comments.
Considering that SCO hasn't made any alleged infringing code (with or without comments) publically available, there has been _NO_ point made at all.
Only the most blind advocate would suspect that somebody wrote new code in a black box and then stole comments that coincidentally happened to match correctly.
The fact that independant people who have signed NDAs, and are given two snippets of code, the origin of which they have no knowledge of, say "the comments are the same" really proves nothing...
There is stolen code in Linux.
Please provide proof of that statement. So far, there has been NO PROOF. At all. Until there is, it's a really large leap to say that SCO is 100% right.
A reasonable advocate would be working on a method to right now to find coders who have NEVER seen either the SCO code, the licensed IBM code or the stolen Linux code and begin a process of writing true black-box replacements.
No, a reasonable advocate would ask SCO for a detailed listing of all of the alleged infringing code. That's been done. SCO has refused.
It's impossible to 'write true black-box replacements' when nobody knows what to replace.
when the courts inevitably rule that the offending code cannot be used in ANY release
Why would a court rule that? SCO has not provided any proof, they continue to distribute any alleged infringing code themselves under the GPL.
I wrote an application so that staff in our college could go to a web page and send mail to the students of our college [...] this got flagged by places like Hotmail and Yahoo as spam because I had just bcc'ed a large number of people.
I call bullshit.
Unless your university was subcontracting it's email services to Hotmail and Yahoo, there is no way they'd know you were BCC'ing anyone, because (by definition), BCCs aren't seen by the recipient (either the user or mailserver.)
If you're gonna make shit up about email, at least learn a little bit about how it works first.
I'm sorry, a what?!?!?!. There really is no such thing.
how am I supposed to send both spam complying with the Louisiana law (including "adv-adult") and the Michigan law (containing "ADV:" as the first four characters?)
Simple - you find out in which state the recipient lives, and use the appropriate subject.
Can't do that? then maybe you shouldn't be spamming.
I hope no new state laws are introduced, these are making it really tough to stay profitable.
As each state and locality implement their own variant, some requiring "ADV:" in the subject line, some requiring "ADULT:" and this one requiring "adv-adult", all a spammer will have to do is claim that he can't possibly satisfy all of the constraints.
Not true.
Nobody is saying that "you must satisfy all constraints for all users" - they're saying that "for state X, you must use contstraint X, and for state Y, you must use constraint Y, etc.", which is not impossible at all.
The spammer just has to be careful that he doesn't send a spam with the wrong header to the wrong state... otherwise he can be prosecuted (or sued, depending on the nature of the law he violated.)
Now, the spammer might just say "I don't know which state they're in" - to which a judge would reply "then you shouldn't have sent them your spam."
Not that any of this will be effective.
I disagree - as more of these laws become enacted and used, spammers will start to think twice, and then go back to whatever scams they did to make money before they discovered the internet.
How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. These laws are our first bite.
this argument as put forward by SCO's councel seems pretty damned thin. Anorexic. Thin-sliced deli meat.
No, it's not thin, it's transparent. Invisible. Non-existant. A fart in a sewer.
I'm wondering why everyone is posting in a manner that suggests they didn't even understand the argument?
Perhaps because they do understand the argument, and the conclusion it draws is so laughably stupid it's unbelieveable.
What SCO is claiming is that since the JPL is not a recognized framework under the law
Yes, and this is the part that falls under "laughably stupid" - no contract that hasn't been to court is a "recognized framework" - but that doesn't mean that every contract that hasn't been validated by a judge is invalid.
any contradiction between the two should result in what U.S. copyright law saying winning out.
And (again) this is NOT a logical conclusion - people give up their rights in contracts every day. The NDA that SCO wants people to sign to see the alleged infringing code forces people to give up their right to free speech - does this mean that the NDA is unenforcable? Of course not.
They then further say that since U.S. copyright law allows for only one backup copy, any provision stating otherwise in the JPL is null and void under U.S. copyright law.
And this is their second unbelievably bone-headed, colossaly stupid statement.. The US copyright law allows for one backup copy without the permission of the copyright holder (and this is not entirely correct.) Note that key phrase. The GPL is exactly what gives them that permission.
Those two points, when taken together, is their argument. And contrary to what so many seem to be saying, it is a logical conclusion to draw.
It's only logical if you decide to throw away the concept that people are free to enter into contracts as they see fit - which is ludicrous.
It has NO logic behind it. At all.
it does make sense on the surface
If you define "the surface" as "believe everything they say, without applying any kind of logic-check to it at all", then you may be correct. But as soon as you decide to engage your brain, you see that it's totally and completely without merit of any kind.
The GPL is a license that allows people to use a work
No, actually, the GPL is a license that allows people to distribute copies of a work, and to make their own derivatives. It does not cover use, as you do not need a license to use (view, enjoy) a work.
they would not be able to demonstrate a check out and a build that would match any binaries they shipped.
No?
You think it's just a coincidence that the "smoking gun" they keep showing under NDA happens to be comments? Didn't one of the analyists say that some of the code was different, but the comments were the same?
Gentlemen, don your tinfoil hat, if you please:
What if SCO, in it's zeal to drum up evidence, finds code in Linux and Unixware that do similar things, or looks similar.. they then take the comments from Linux, and put them into Unixware..
Then (as you say) they fake up their repositories, and viola - instant compilable code that will (with the same compiler and settings) pass the publically-available-binary test.
I'm sorry that you haven't learned to read or interpret pictures yet.
And I'm sorry that you missed my point.
That point is: the original poster is using icon _NAMES_ soley as a usability metric, and claiming that the Mac is better than other OSes because of it.
Here's his quote: "As long as by reading the name you know what it does."
This would prevent people from making remarks like "is iCal used for managing calorie inputs" because they would be presented with a little picture of a calendar.
Gee, ya think?!?!?!
Perhaps you hadn't noticed, (possibly because you're being tucked away in your little Mac-only land) but KDE (and Windows) have those too.
Even Joe User, who you're pathetically trying to imitate
I'm not trying to imitate anyone - and I don't know anyone called Joe.
What I'm saying is that using icon names soley as a usability metric is wrong
Why not? As I said, I do not require a license to use a piece of software, just like I don't need a license to read a book. Unless you can show me a law that states that you need a license to use a copyrighted work, please STFU.
Licenses aren't governed by copyright law, they are governed by contract law.
What's your point? If I don't agree with a contract, the contract is null and void. How, exactly does not agreeing to a contract have any effect on something I already own?
Under such you can be tied to terms far more restrictive than copyrights.
Only if I agree to it. But if I don't (as I have said repeatedly) agree to the license, then there is nothing they can do. (again) as I have said - I bought it, it's mine, to do with as I see fit.
Calculator, Chess, Clock, DVD Player, iCal, iChat, Image Capture, iMovie, Internet Connect, iPhoto, iSync, iTunes
Why are there two calculators? Or is iCal used for managing calorie inputs when you're on a diet?
What does iMovie do? Does it play movies, or does it turn your computer into a movie camera?
What about iPhoto? It controls your digitial camera, right? (Although why you'd ever need it is beyond me - I use my digital camera when it's not plugged into the computer - it's much easier that way.)
iSync? Does that control the refresh rate of your monitor? Or does it provide a drum beat for you to play along with? (Hmm, maybe not - I suppose I'd be confused about that, as that's something that iTunes would do... but then, you do have two calculators, right?)
The only one that is installed by default that would confuse a new user would be "Safari."
"under the proposed directive, EU Member States will have to criminalise street music"
Emphasis mine.
This is already illegal:
Perhaps - however, it is not a criminal offense, it's a civil one. What you're doing it turning something from a civil matter (COTT charges the appropriate fees) into a criminal one (the police charge the infringer with a crime) - this removes the burden of responsibility from the copyright holder - if they're wrong, and the alleged infringer is innocent, they haven't lost anything (which will lead to more people being accused of copyright infringement).. And to top it all off, the innocent party gets hosed, and the public is left footing the bill.
SPAM absolutely does not need to be fought in the courts when the markets can work this out on their own (as we see w/ these filters)
Yes, absolutely does - just like any other sociopathic behaviour. We need clearly defined rules of what is and is not acceptable. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but "the market" is not working anything out - spam is getting worse, not better, and things such as filters make it worse, by hiding the problem (hint: even though your filters hide your spam from you, you're still paying for it.)
In the end we'll have better technology for sorting and filtering emails
This is the fundamental flaw in your reasoning - you can't solve a social problem with technology.
Legislation would only be valid in the country in which the legislation was enacted so spammers could simply move their operations to a SPAM friendly country.
This argument is fundamentally flawed. "Moving operations" won't do anything - they could still be prosecuted if they stay in the country... and so the question becomes: how many spammers would physically move to another country - permanently - just so they could spam? No, it's more likely they'd just go back to whatever scam they had before they began spamming.
Also, what constitues spam?
The definition of spam is "Unsolicited bulk email". That's pretty simple.
What if I only send 10,000 emails out?
Then it's bulk. If it's unsolicited, then it's spam.
What if I change the email each time I send it so it's unique to you?
Is it unsolicited bulk email? If so, then it's spam.
What if I'm not selling anything?
So? IF IT'S BULK, UNSOLICITED EMAIL THEN IT'S SPAM
What if someone comrpomised my system and sent all the emails from my PC?
Then you're not the one spamming, are you?
Why shouldn' ISPs be liable too...
If the ISPs are condoning the spam, then they probably should be liable. If that's the case, then there will be a paper trail.
why are they letting people send those SPAMs... let's sue them too... somebody get a rope!!
If you feel you can't win an argument except by inciting a (hysterical) straw man, then you've already lost.
Spam is a social problem - it doesn't matter what technologies you come up with, spammers will find a way around them. We need to start social remedies to the spam problem.
spammers should love Bayesian filtering, it takes the presure off them while allowing them to reach exactly the same number of marks with a mailing.
I'm afraid you've made the cardinal mistake of thinking that spammers follow logic.
First question: Why do people install filters on their mailboxes?
Answer: To stop spam.
Now, take a look at any interview with any spammer.. you'll note that when they're asked, the spammer will say "I don't send it to people who don't want it."
They'll also say "we're always coming up with ways to bypass filters."
Now, you'd think that with the two statements, that one of them is false - however (besides the fact that spammers lie), any sociologist will tell you that the spammer actually believes he's telling the truth in each of these statements..
How he justifies it in his mind is that he believes that even though someone has installed a spam filter, that this person only wants to filter spam from other spammers - that his spam is somehow "special".
Spammers are sociopaths, and like all sociopaths, they believe the rules do not apply to them.
If spammers weren't sociopaths, and were capable of applied logic, then they'd realize that any filter (not just Bayseian) would benefit them.. but then, if they weren't sociopaths, they wouldn't be spammers in the first place.
leaving a disk in a C64 drive could erase it, and had happened to me
Huh? I've been using the C64 since 1984 (and still do today) - I've written all manner of software for it, banging the hardware, and even programmed for the 1541 and 1581.. I ran the most popular C64 BBS my town ever had (to the point of taking out the local telephone exchange due to the large number of callers to my number), and helped set up over a dozen others.. I've turned my C64 (and/or floppy disks on) numerous times with disks in the drives, and this is the first time I've ever heard anyone make your claim.
I somehow think that you've been misinformed about this, and perhaps that you think that it happened to you (if you really did lose a disk, it was just co-incidence.)
Slashdot Mirror
Legislation is not the only way to go.
I disagree. It's the best way to go.
Consider this article. Spam can be largely solved via technical means.
I read the article - it won't stop spam. The author says that the confimation is a step that spammers "do not and will not take" - how does he come to that conclusion, exactly? What's to stop a spammer from setting up an autoresponder to get past it? - Oh yeah, and say goodbye to legitimate anonymous email, too.
If none of it gets through, then the incentive to spam in the first place is removed.
You're talking about this as if its the first time anyone has tried a technological method to stop spam.. There have been LOTS of other methods tried, and what has the result been? Spammers adjusting their methods to get around them, not spammers quitting.
I think that it's been proven that technological solutions have no effect on spam, except to make email less useful.
Laws don't stop crime, they won't stop spam either.
Laws don't stop crime, but they do reduce the amount of it. Laws may not stop spam, but they will surely go a long way to reducing it.
To paraphrase you;
"If you throw spammers in jail, then the incentive to spam in the first place is removed."
Spammers aren't bothered violating current laws, why does anyone think they won't ignore new anti-spam laws?
The thing is, if you ask spammers, they'll tell you that they're not violating any laws..
That's why we need a clear message that what they are doing is wrong - they need to be shown, without any doubt, that they are indeed breaking the law.
His German Shepard saw the phone sitting on the coffee table and thought it would make a good chew toy.
:o)
The coffee table, or the cell phone?
True story - I have a border collie (picture here for the curious) - when he was about 5 months old, we woke up one morning to discover the plastic coffee table strewn, in very tiny bits, across the living room.. Boomer had decided that night that hard plastic tasted good, and proceeded to attempt to eat it..
We took him to daycare that day, and when we went to pick him up, the owners brought out a plastic bag, and showed us his stool.. they were very concerned, because he'd been pooping out bits of hard plastic all day..
You can only infringe copyrights if you are given a license by the holder of the copyright.
:o)
I think you mean "you can only infringe copyright if you are NOT given a license by copyright holder" - and it's partially true. You are only infringing copyright if you make (and distribute) copies.. you do not need a license to use copyrighted material.
Code comments *are* copyright-able
IIRC, the judge in the BSD case disagreed.
prove that SCO doesn't own the copyright to what it says it owns
No - this is wrong on two counts. First, you can't prove something you don't know, so SCO would have to disclose what code it thinks it owns before anyone else can do anything. Second, the burden of proof is the other way around - SCO must prove that it owns the copyright to what it says it owns. (Linus et al. are innocent of copyright infringment unless proven guilty.)
there is a presumption that SCO does own the copyright to what it says it owes, it is up to the anti-SCO forces to prove otherwise
No, that is completely backwards. (Insert lame in-soviet-russia joke here
prove that SCO has waived their claims to copyright infringement
Until/unless SCO comes up with something substantial, there is nothing to prove, and no need to prove it.
Some people are saying that SCO waived their rights by publishing their own version of Linux, but this is dubious
Actually, it's quite sound - sound enough that IBM included it in their counter-suit against SCO. (So it's not just 'some people' - it's IBM's lawyers.. lawyers which are very good at what they do - as evidenced by their track record.)
they claim someone else infringed their copyrights and placed the code there.
That would only matter if SCO stopped distributing the Linux Kernel. Since they continue to distribute it (it's still available on their website) over a year after they claim to have discovered it, and months after they filed a claim, the GPL is the only thing allowing them to do so. They are either in violation of copyright, or their alleged infringing code is covered under the GPL.
Did SCO really need to use some simple transliteration to make use not be able to read their other comment? What was the point?
Probably because the comments would be easy to search for - (alleged) humans (lawyers?) would remember english text easier than (bastardized and uncompilable) source code.. and they think that if someone can remember it, they would be able to google for it, and discover that SCO is lying..
So they mask the english text, thinking "nobody will be able to remember this" - not counting on the fact that reporters frequently carry cameras, which would be capable of remembering the text for them.
Of course stealing comments is IP infringement.
Not according to the judge in the BSD case. He ruled that comments were not part of the source code.
The damages would likely be less if the value of the IP is less but it is out and out theft nonetheless.
Actually, as SCO refuses to disclose the alleged infringing code, the damages will be zero, as SCO is demonstrating that any infringing code is worthless. (If it wasn't worthless, SCO would do everything possible to get it removed from the kernel.)
SCO has made their point very well with the identical comments.
Considering that SCO hasn't made any alleged infringing code (with or without comments) publically available, there has been _NO_ point made at all.
Only the most blind advocate would suspect that somebody wrote new code in a black box and then stole comments that coincidentally happened to match correctly.
The fact that independant people who have signed NDAs, and are given two snippets of code, the origin of which they have no knowledge of, say "the comments are the same" really proves nothing...
There is stolen code in Linux.
Please provide proof of that statement. So far, there has been NO PROOF . At all. Until there is, it's a really large leap to say that SCO is 100% right.
A reasonable advocate would be working on a method to right now to find coders who have NEVER seen either the SCO code, the licensed IBM code or the stolen Linux code and begin a process of writing true black-box replacements.
No, a reasonable advocate would ask SCO for a detailed listing of all of the alleged infringing code. That's been done. SCO has refused.
It's impossible to 'write true black-box replacements' when nobody knows what to replace.
when the courts inevitably rule that the offending code cannot be used in ANY release
Why would a court rule that? SCO has not provided any proof, they continue to distribute any alleged infringing code themselves under the GPL.
Please take your troll somewhere else.
I wrote an application so that staff in our college could go to a web page and send mail to the students of our college [...] this got flagged by places like Hotmail and Yahoo as spam because I had just bcc'ed a large number of people.
I call bullshit.
Unless your university was subcontracting it's email services to Hotmail and Yahoo, there is no way they'd know you were BCC'ing anyone, because (by definition), BCCs aren't seen by the recipient (either the user or mailserver.)
If you're gonna make shit up about email, at least learn a little bit about how it works first.
As a law-abiding spammer
I'm sorry, a what?!?!?! . There really is no such thing.
how am I supposed to send both spam complying with the Louisiana law (including "adv-adult") and the Michigan law (containing "ADV:" as the first four characters?)
Simple - you find out in which state the recipient lives, and use the appropriate subject.
Can't do that? then maybe you shouldn't be spamming.
I hope no new state laws are introduced, these are making it really tough to stay profitable.
I think that's the point.
As each state and locality implement their own variant, some requiring "ADV:" in the subject line, some requiring "ADULT:" and this one requiring "adv-adult", all a spammer will have to do is claim that he can't possibly satisfy all of the constraints.
Not true.
Nobody is saying that "you must satisfy all constraints for all users" - they're saying that "for state X, you must use contstraint X, and for state Y, you must use constraint Y, etc.", which is not impossible at all.
The spammer just has to be careful that he doesn't send a spam with the wrong header to the wrong state... otherwise he can be prosecuted (or sued, depending on the nature of the law he violated.)
Now, the spammer might just say "I don't know which state they're in" - to which a judge would reply "then you shouldn't have sent them your spam."
Not that any of this will be effective.
I disagree - as more of these laws become enacted and used, spammers will start to think twice, and then go back to whatever scams they did to make money before they discovered the internet.
How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. These laws are our first bite.
this argument as put forward by SCO's councel seems pretty damned thin. Anorexic. Thin-sliced deli meat.
No, it's not thin, it's transparent. Invisible. Non-existant. A fart in a sewer.
I'm wondering why everyone is posting in a manner that suggests they didn't even understand the argument?
Perhaps because they do understand the argument, and the conclusion it draws is so laughably stupid it's unbelieveable.
What SCO is claiming is that since the JPL is not a recognized framework under the law
Yes, and this is the part that falls under "laughably stupid" - no contract that hasn't been to court is a "recognized framework" - but that doesn't mean that every contract that hasn't been validated by a judge is invalid.
any contradiction between the two should result in what U.S. copyright law saying winning out.
And (again) this is NOT a logical conclusion - people give up their rights in contracts every day. The NDA that SCO wants people to sign to see the alleged infringing code forces people to give up their right to free speech - does this mean that the NDA is unenforcable? Of course not.
They then further say that since U.S. copyright law allows for only one backup copy, any provision stating otherwise in the JPL is null and void under U.S. copyright law.
And this is their second unbelievably bone-headed, colossaly stupid statement.. The US copyright law allows for one backup copy without the permission of the copyright holder (and this is not entirely correct.) Note that key phrase. The GPL is exactly what gives them that permission.
Those two points, when taken together, is their argument. And contrary to what so many seem to be saying, it is a logical conclusion to draw.
It's only logical if you decide to throw away the concept that people are free to enter into contracts as they see fit - which is ludicrous.
It has NO logic behind it. At all.
it does make sense on the surface
If you define "the surface" as "believe everything they say, without applying any kind of logic-check to it at all", then you may be correct. But as soon as you decide to engage your brain, you see that it's totally and completely without merit of any kind.
Don't forget his amazing performance in the Napster case..
The GPL is a license that allows people to use a work
No, actually, the GPL is a license that allows people to distribute copies of a work, and to make their own derivatives. It does not cover use, as you do not need a license to use (view, enjoy) a work.
they would not be able to demonstrate a check out and a build that would match any binaries they shipped.
No?
You think it's just a coincidence that the "smoking gun" they keep showing under NDA happens to be comments? Didn't one of the analyists say that some of the code was different, but the comments were the same?
Gentlemen, don your tinfoil hat, if you please:
What if SCO, in it's zeal to drum up evidence, finds code in Linux and Unixware that do similar things, or looks similar.. they then take the comments from Linux, and put them into Unixware..
Then (as you say) they fake up their repositories, and viola - instant compilable code that will (with the same compiler and settings) pass the publically-available-binary test.
I'm sorry that you haven't learned to read or interpret pictures yet.
And I'm sorry that you missed my point.
That point is: the original poster is using icon _NAMES_ soley as a usability metric, and claiming that the Mac is better than other OSes because of it.
Here's his quote: "As long as by reading the name you know what it does."
This would prevent people from making remarks like "is iCal used for managing calorie inputs" because they would be presented with a little picture of a calendar.
Gee, ya think ?!?!?!
Perhaps you hadn't noticed, (possibly because you're being tucked away in your little Mac-only land) but KDE (and Windows) have those too.
Even Joe User, who you're pathetically trying to imitate
I'm not trying to imitate anyone - and I don't know anyone called Joe.
What I'm saying is that using icon names soley as a usability metric is wrong
What was it that featured "Biclops: The Man with Two Eyes" as a superhero?
What about the classic line from "The Yellow Submarine"?
"Look out, it's a cyclops!"
"It can't be a cyclops, it's got two eyes."
"Look out, it's a bicyclops!"
What if I didn't agree to the 'license'?
Then you don't have the right to use the software
Why not? As I said, I do not require a license to use a piece of software, just like I don't need a license to read a book. Unless you can show me a law that states that you need a license to use a copyrighted work, please STFU.
Licenses aren't governed by copyright law, they are governed by contract law.
What's your point? If I don't agree with a contract, the contract is null and void. How, exactly does not agreeing to a contract have any effect on something I already own?
Under such you can be tied to terms far more restrictive than copyrights.
Only if I agree to it. But if I don't (as I have said repeatedly) agree to the license, then there is nothing they can do. (again) as I have said - I bought it, it's mine, to do with as I see fit.
the study is based on two BIG flaws...
1)The computer is largely preconfigured
How is that a flaw? They're studying ease of use, not ease of administration.
2)Use of the computer is mostly restricted to specific applications in a practically homogenous surronding.
Hmm, you mean it was exactly the same as the desktop computers of any large corporation? Again, not a flaw.
Real ease of use that neither Windows XP or Linux have
And neither does the Mac, at least if you're using application names as a usability metric.
Calculator, Chess, Clock, DVD Player, iCal, iChat, Image Capture, iMovie, Internet Connect, iPhoto, iSync, iTunes
Why are there two calculators? Or is iCal used for managing calorie inputs when you're on a diet?
What does iMovie do? Does it play movies, or does it turn your computer into a movie camera?
What about iPhoto? It controls your digitial camera, right? (Although why you'd ever need it is beyond me - I use my digital camera when it's not plugged into the computer - it's much easier that way.)
iSync? Does that control the refresh rate of your monitor? Or does it provide a drum beat for you to play along with? (Hmm, maybe not - I suppose I'd be confused about that, as that's something that iTunes would do... but then, you do have two calculators, right?)
The only one that is installed by default that would confuse a new user would be "Safari."
No, it's not the only one.
stay sharp, great for tough steak/cinderblocks
:o)
Remind me to say "no", the next time you invite me over for dinner.
An undisclosed Fortune 500 company paid an undisclosed amount for an undisclosed number of licenses for undisclosed code in the Linux kernel.
Is anyone else skeptical? Or is it just me?
Sorry, I'm not allowed to disclose that.
"under the proposed directive, EU Member States will have to criminalise street music"
Emphasis mine.
This is already illegal:
Perhaps - however, it is not a criminal offense, it's a civil one. What you're doing it turning something from a civil matter (COTT charges the appropriate fees) into a criminal one (the police charge the infringer with a crime) - this removes the burden of responsibility from the copyright holder - if they're wrong, and the alleged infringer is innocent, they haven't lost anything (which will lead to more people being accused of copyright infringement).. And to top it all off, the innocent party gets hosed, and the public is left footing the bill.
SPAM absolutely does not need to be fought in the courts when the markets can work this out on their own (as we see w/ these filters)
Yes, absolutely does - just like any other sociopathic behaviour. We need clearly defined rules of what is and is not acceptable. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but "the market" is not working anything out - spam is getting worse, not better, and things such as filters make it worse, by hiding the problem (hint: even though your filters hide your spam from you, you're still paying for it.)
In the end we'll have better technology for sorting and filtering emails
This is the fundamental flaw in your reasoning - you can't solve a social problem with technology.
Legislation would only be valid in the country in which the legislation was enacted so spammers could simply move their operations to a SPAM friendly country.
This argument is fundamentally flawed. "Moving operations" won't do anything - they could still be prosecuted if they stay in the country... and so the question becomes: how many spammers would physically move to another country - permanently - just so they could spam? No, it's more likely they'd just go back to whatever scam they had before they began spamming.
Also, what constitues spam?
The definition of spam is "Unsolicited bulk email". That's pretty simple.
What if I only send 10,000 emails out?
Then it's bulk. If it's unsolicited, then it's spam.
What if I change the email each time I send it so it's unique to you?
Is it unsolicited bulk email? If so, then it's spam.
What if I'm not selling anything?
So? IF IT'S BULK, UNSOLICITED EMAIL THEN IT'S SPAM
What if someone comrpomised my system and sent all the emails from my PC?
Then you're not the one spamming, are you?
Why shouldn' ISPs be liable too...
If the ISPs are condoning the spam, then they probably should be liable. If that's the case, then there will be a paper trail.
why are they letting people send those SPAMs... let's sue them too... somebody get a rope!!
If you feel you can't win an argument except by inciting a (hysterical) straw man, then you've already lost.
Spam is a social problem - it doesn't matter what technologies you come up with, spammers will find a way around them. We need to start social remedies to the spam problem.
spammers should love Bayesian filtering, it takes the presure off them while allowing them to reach exactly the same number of marks with a mailing.
I'm afraid you've made the cardinal mistake of thinking that spammers follow logic.
First question: Why do people install filters on their mailboxes?
Answer: To stop spam.
Now, take a look at any interview with any spammer.. you'll note that when they're asked, the spammer will say "I don't send it to people who don't want it."
They'll also say "we're always coming up with ways to bypass filters."
Now, you'd think that with the two statements, that one of them is false - however (besides the fact that spammers lie), any sociologist will tell you that the spammer actually believes he's telling the truth in each of these statements..
How he justifies it in his mind is that he believes that even though someone has installed a spam filter, that this person only wants to filter spam from other spammers - that his spam is somehow "special".
Spammers are sociopaths, and like all sociopaths, they believe the rules do not apply to them.
If spammers weren't sociopaths, and were capable of applied logic, then they'd realize that any filter (not just Bayseian) would benefit them.. but then, if they weren't sociopaths, they wouldn't be spammers in the first place.
leaving a disk in a C64 drive could erase it, and had happened to me
Huh? I've been using the C64 since 1984 (and still do today) - I've written all manner of software for it, banging the hardware, and even programmed for the 1541 and 1581.. I ran the most popular C64 BBS my town ever had (to the point of taking out the local telephone exchange due to the large number of callers to my number), and helped set up over a dozen others.. I've turned my C64 (and/or floppy disks on) numerous times with disks in the drives, and this is the first time I've ever heard anyone make your claim.
I somehow think that you've been misinformed about this, and perhaps that you think that it happened to you (if you really did lose a disk, it was just co-incidence.)