Why don't we just create a system where we all only accept mail that has been PGP encrypted with our public keys? That way spammers will have to burn through a whole lot of clock cycles to get their crap out
Not to mention making mailing lists completely useless.
It should teach people to stay skeptical at stuff they read on the Internet.
Just think, the guy who posted that might have just started a new Urban Legend.. I can see the two people who modded it "interesting" propagating it to all their friends, until a year from now, USA Today lists it in a sidebar on a computing article..
Anyone else feel that the Matrix Reloaded Heineken commercial just makes the Matrix franchise appear "cheap"?
I suppose it might, if you don't get satire... I saw that commercial the other night and laughed my ass off..
(To me) it appears that they're parodying themselves, in regards to the amount of merchandising going on.. almost like the Watchkowski brothers taking a shot at the studio..
My PTR is a long simple name ( foo-bar-baz.nycap.rr.com or something ) but my domains are registered with another registry.
So why not simply change your HELO to "foo-bar-baz.nycap.rr.com"? (which, technically, it should be anyway, as that would be the canonical name for your IP address.)
Now--to me, at least--that certainly DOES seem as though Bruce is claiming to be a representative, and not an evangelist...
So, other than this, do you have any other references - say, ones posted before Patman's post? Before Bruce's informal reply to that (which appears to have been posted while I was replying.)
Second, Bruce states here (again, informally) that he represents "a reasonable portion" of the Free Software community - and from the responses in this message, I'd say he was right. (There are even posts in here saying "Bruce Perens speaks for me on the subject of software patents.") Note he didn't say "I represent all OS developers", or anythign like that. From reading these comments, I'd say that was a statement of fact.
Finally, do you have any references where Bruce Perens states to an external party that he represents the "Open Source" movement? You know, some document lobbying for something or other, where he claims to represent us? Didn't think so.
I find it funny that Bruce claims that this guy is a 'fake'.
I find it funny that this is addressed in the article (as well as numerous times in the comments here), and that even though you (evidently) didn't read it, you still think you're qualified to criticize Mr. Perens.
I don't recall electing Bruce to any position representing me as a free software user.
You know what, neither do I.
Perhaps that's why he doesn't claim to be. (He's always claimed to be an 'evangelist', not a 'representative'.
it sure as hell doesn't make him a 'fake' anything.
It most cetrainly does.
When someone claims to represent the opinions of a group of people, and he doesn't - and in fact presents an incorrect view of the vast majority of that group, that's fake - pretty much by definition.
I'll ignore your straw man (and hence, troll) for a moment, but did you actually read the article?
If this is the case they why the fear of patents
Read the article. It sums this up quite nicely.
Specifically, here's what you should be looking for:
Since we do not collect royalties from the distribution of our own software, we have no funds to pay royalties to patent holders. Rather than sue us to collect money, expect patent holders to sue Open Source developers to restrain them from distributing their software or carrying out further development.
While we can sometimes work around a patented algorithm that we know about, the Open Source developer is not able to defend himself from patent infringement claims, even invalid ones. In the U.S., the cost of a patent infringement defense often exceeds US$500,000
We are especially threatened by royalty-bearing software patents that are embedded in industry standards. In many cases, it is impossible to achieve compliance with a standard without infringing upon the patented algorithms that are specified by that standard.
the BEST response is: "I'm sorry, he's dead. Can I take a message?"
This is, indeed, the best response..
In the late 80's, I started getting phone calls for "Leanne" - they came at all hours of the day and night, and from different people.. Since I'd had the phone number for 3 years, I could only assume that this "Leanne" person couldn't remember her own phone number.
After a couple of weeks of this, I was woken up at 3:30 in the morning by one of these calls.. when they asked for Leanne, I told them "No, I'm sorry - she's dead."
The response was shock - "what happened"
So I told them that Leanne was hit by a bus on the way home..
The (of course) asked if there was anything they could do.. and I said - "Yes, can you call all of her friends and let them know?"
And that was the last call for "Leanne" I ever got.
I don't see the "lack of knowledge" in this area being a major one.
I think you've never had to deal with an average user.
Most people don't know that they can change their homepage, because they don't want to know. When the computer crashes, or locks up, they get someone to fix it for them. And the next time it happens, they get that someone to fix it again.
Note I'm not saying this is a bad thing - when I have to fix someone's computer, I don't berate them for not knowing something.. they shouldn't have to know most of the stuff that geeks think everybody should know..
Lots of people don't change the oil in their car - they get a mechanic to do it (this includes me, BTW, although not because I don't know how.)
If someone uses IE on a regular basis and suddenly can't use IE, they'll figure out how to use it again.
Again, I have to conclude by this that you don't know any average users.
The average user will try a few times, then simply not use it any more, until they can get someone to fix it for them. This person might tell them how to fix it, but the user will forget, because they don't do it often enough to remember.
if I remember right (I probably don't) the code in question infringes on Caldera...erm, SCO's patents.
Two things.
First, you don't remember right - the SCO filing says that IBM is releasing SCO's "intellectual property" (without actually defining what that term means - if they'd meant patents, they would have said patents.)
Secondly, even if they meant "patents" when they said "intellectual property" (30-some-odd times in the filing,) they are SOL, because the GPL also says that by releasing patent-covered code under the GPL, you give everyone who uses said code a royalty-free license to use the it.
Either way, by continuing to distribute their own version of Linux, they've screwed themselves.
The only problem might be that it was just a large network - anyone could see all the other computers on the network, and access shared folders (like newer versions of Windows set up by default).
You forget why region codes were introduced in the first place
No, you just haven't realized that it's an excuse, not a reason.
There's no reason movie studios can't release movies simultaneously in all regions.
This can lead to a situation where a movie is available stateside on DVD before it has even been shown in Europe.
If international distribution is really the reason region codes exist, why are movies like Jaws (1975), Gone With the Wind (1939), or The Maltese Falcon (1941) region-coded? Are you suggesting that these movies have yet to be released in Europe?
I can imagine lines of people, somewhere in $EUROPEAN_CITY, desparately waiting in line to see Lee Marvin in The Dirty Dozen, 35 years after it was released in the US.
Region Coding is simply a way for movie studios to create artifical boundaries, to practice predatory pricing.
punching the high-density hole on a DD floppy- that was risky.
Yeah, I remember that one - but (for those of us in Amiga-land) you could use the HD floppies in the Amiga's DD drive.. contrary to what salesmen at various computer stores would tell us (I remember one guy trying to convince me that the "tracks are different" - so I asked him to show me.. and he said "oh, they're too small to see without a microscope"..)
*sigh*
Then there was the time someone convinced a "friend" that his new 1581 drive (Commodore's 3.5" floppy for the c64/128) would work just like his 1541 (ie. he could drill a hole in the disks, and turn them over to get twice the storage..)
I had a good laugh when he brought it to me when he couldn't get the disk out afterwards.
you'll not be able to send email unless you a) either have a real domain that you can send email from (like with MX server etc.), or b) use the JoeOutlookIdiot@hisisp.com account. In the first case you'll know who the company is since they use their own domain
And how (exactly) will that stop spam? Domain names are $8 a year - you seriously think that an additional $8 every few months will deter a spammer?
And the other half of the problem is that people believe that spam is a technological problem.
We created this technology, and now that it does exactly what it was designed it to do
That's just it. It does do exactly what it was designed to do.
A poor subway design allowed for a mischievious kid to shutdown the whole system with a stick of chewing gum.
Even if this story is true, it's completely beside the point.
There is no way to stop sociopaths from spamming, without making email useless in the process.
The only thing I've seen that might prevent them is to turn email into the electronic equivalent of snail-mail, ie. sender pays per message sent... this would make email practically useless for most people, and still wouldn't stop spam.
Spam is not a technological problem, in any way, shape, or form.
Slashdot Mirror
Why don't we just create a system where we all only accept mail that has been PGP encrypted with our public keys? That way spammers will have to burn through a whole lot of clock cycles to get their crap out
Not to mention making mailing lists completely useless.
It should teach people to stay skeptical at stuff they read on the Internet.
Just think, the guy who posted that might have just started a new Urban Legend.. I can see the two people who modded it "interesting" propagating it to all their friends, until a year from now, USA Today lists it in a sidebar on a computing article..
Anyone else feel that the Matrix Reloaded Heineken commercial just makes the Matrix franchise appear "cheap"?
I suppose it might, if you don't get satire... I saw that commercial the other night and laughed my ass off..
(To me) it appears that they're parodying themselves, in regards to the amount of merchandising going on.. almost like the Watchkowski brothers taking a shot at the studio..
But anyone who takes an honest look at total TCO will see that MS/Intel's price point can't be beat.
Really? Here is a report of a study that claims exactly the opposite.
Your statement is demonstratably false.
maybe she likes to listen to music while working.
Then why mount? You don't mount a music CD.
That's called abiogenesis
:o)
Really? I thought abiogenesis was the R&D of Sony's robotic dog.
Oh, no - that would be AIBOgenesis.
My bad
My PTR is a long simple name ( foo-bar-baz.nycap.rr.com or something ) but my domains are registered with another registry.
So why not simply change your HELO to "foo-bar-baz.nycap.rr.com"? (which, technically, it should be anyway, as that would be the canonical name for your IP address.)
Now--to me, at least--that certainly DOES seem as though Bruce is claiming to be a representative, and not an evangelist...
So, other than this, do you have any other references - say, ones posted before Patman's post? Before Bruce's informal reply to that (which appears to have been posted while I was replying.)
Second, Bruce states here (again, informally) that he represents "a reasonable portion" of the Free Software community - and from the responses in this message, I'd say he was right. (There are even posts in here saying "Bruce Perens speaks for me on the subject of software patents.") Note he didn't say "I represent all OS developers", or anythign like that. From reading these comments, I'd say that was a statement of fact.
Finally, do you have any references where Bruce Perens states to an external party that he represents the "Open Source" movement? You know, some document lobbying for something or other, where he claims to represent us? Didn't think so.
I find it funny that Bruce claims that this guy is a 'fake'.
I find it funny that this is addressed in the article (as well as numerous times in the comments here), and that even though you (evidently) didn't read it, you still think you're qualified to criticize Mr. Perens.
I don't recall electing Bruce to any position representing me as a free software user.
You know what, neither do I.
Perhaps that's why he doesn't claim to be. (He's always claimed to be an 'evangelist', not a 'representative'.
it sure as hell doesn't make him a 'fake' anything.
It most cetrainly does.
When someone claims to represent the opinions of a group of people, and he doesn't - and in fact presents an incorrect view of the vast majority of that group, that's fake - pretty much by definition.
I'll ignore your straw man (and hence, troll) for a moment, but did you actually read the article?
If this is the case they why the fear of patents
Read the article. It sums this up quite nicely.
Specifically, here's what you should be looking for:
Since we do not collect royalties from the distribution of our own software, we have no funds to pay royalties to patent holders. Rather than sue us to collect money, expect patent holders to sue Open Source developers to restrain them from distributing their software or carrying out further development.
While we can sometimes work around a patented algorithm that we know about, the Open Source developer is not able to defend himself from patent infringement claims, even invalid ones. In the U.S., the cost of a patent infringement defense often exceeds US$500,000
We are especially threatened by royalty-bearing software patents that are embedded in industry standards. In many cases, it is impossible to achieve compliance with a standard without infringing upon the patented algorithms that are specified by that standard.
the BEST response is: "I'm sorry, he's dead. Can I take a message?"
This is, indeed, the best response..
In the late 80's, I started getting phone calls for "Leanne" - they came at all hours of the day and night, and from different people.. Since I'd had the phone number for 3 years, I could only assume that this "Leanne" person couldn't remember her own phone number.
After a couple of weeks of this, I was woken up at 3:30 in the morning by one of these calls.. when they asked for Leanne, I told them "No, I'm sorry - she's dead."
The response was shock - "what happened"
So I told them that Leanne was hit by a bus on the way home..
The (of course) asked if there was anything they could do.. and I said - "Yes, can you call all of her friends and let them know?"
And that was the last call for "Leanne" I ever got.
My Favoutite:
"Can you hold on for a moment?" - then put the phone down, and continue whatever you were doing.
You can check every 10 - 15 minutes (if I'm watching TV, I'll check during the commercials) to see if they're still there..
Watch this movie
For the love of Jebus, no..
Read the book.
Even though Forsythe co-wrote the screenplay, the movie sucked.
I don't see the "lack of knowledge" in this area being a major one.
I think you've never had to deal with an average user.
Most people don't know that they can change their homepage, because they don't want to know. When the computer crashes, or locks up, they get someone to fix it for them. And the next time it happens, they get that someone to fix it again.
Note I'm not saying this is a bad thing - when I have to fix someone's computer, I don't berate them for not knowing something.. they shouldn't have to know most of the stuff that geeks think everybody should know..
Lots of people don't change the oil in their car - they get a mechanic to do it (this includes me, BTW, although not because I don't know how.)
If someone uses IE on a regular basis and suddenly can't use IE, they'll figure out how to use it again.
Again, I have to conclude by this that you don't know any average users.
The average user will try a few times, then simply not use it any more, until they can get someone to fix it for them. This person might tell them how to fix it, but the user will forget, because they don't do it often enough to remember.
if I remember right (I probably don't) the code in question infringes on Caldera...erm, SCO's patents.
Two things.
First, you don't remember right - the SCO filing says that IBM is releasing SCO's "intellectual property" (without actually defining what that term means - if they'd meant patents, they would have said patents.)
Secondly, even if they meant "patents" when they said "intellectual property" (30-some-odd times in the filing,) they are SOL, because the GPL also says that by releasing patent-covered code under the GPL, you give everyone who uses said code a royalty-free license to use the it.
Either way, by continuing to distribute their own version of Linux, they've screwed themselves.
Simple, right click on the IE icon, and choose Properties. Change the homepage setting from there.
But how many IE users would know to do that?
Probably only a tiny fraction of the number that even know you can change the homepage at all - which (from my experience) isn't a whole lot.
$2 per year is nothing worth worrying about, but $2 a month seems unreasonable.
It's per month.
DSL is a type of Internet connectivity, while Ethernet is a type of generic computer connectivity.
No, it's not.
DSL is just as much "general computer connectivity" as ethernet. Just because most providers use it solely for IP, doesn't mean that's all it can do.
DSL can be used to send anything - IP, IPX, Appletalk, whatever higher-level protocol you want.
The only problem might be that it was just a large network - anyone could see all the other computers on the network, and access shared folders (like newer versions of Windows set up by default).
He'll have the same problem with DSL.
You forget why region codes were introduced in the first place
No, you just haven't realized that it's an excuse, not a reason.
There's no reason movie studios can't release movies simultaneously in all regions.
This can lead to a situation where a movie is available stateside on DVD before it has even been shown in Europe.
If international distribution is really the reason region codes exist, why are movies like Jaws (1975), Gone With the Wind (1939), or The Maltese Falcon (1941) region-coded? Are you suggesting that these movies have yet to be released in Europe?
I can imagine lines of people, somewhere in $EUROPEAN_CITY, desparately waiting in line to see Lee Marvin in The Dirty Dozen, 35 years after it was released in the US.
Region Coding is simply a way for movie studios to create artifical boundaries, to practice predatory pricing.
punching the high-density hole on a DD floppy- that was risky.
Yeah, I remember that one - but (for those of us in Amiga-land) you could use the HD floppies in the Amiga's DD drive.. contrary to what salesmen at various computer stores would tell us (I remember one guy trying to convince me that the "tracks are different" - so I asked him to show me.. and he said "oh, they're too small to see without a microscope"..)
*sigh*
Then there was the time someone convinced a "friend" that his new 1581 drive (Commodore's 3.5" floppy for the c64/128) would work just like his 1541 (ie. he could drill a hole in the disks, and turn them over to get twice the storage..)
I had a good laugh when he brought it to me when he couldn't get the disk out afterwards.
they're using a third party's intellectual property in the context of the parody
Who's the third party? American McGee?
I've never heard of him (them?) - but I laughed out loud when I saw the parody.
To me it was pretty clear that they were parodying Strawberry Shortcake.
But I did some reading on American McGee, and the whole thing is even funnier.
you'll not be able to send email unless you a) either have a real domain that you can send email from (like with MX server etc.), or b) use the JoeOutlookIdiot@hisisp.com account. In the first case you'll know who the company is since they use their own domain
And how (exactly) will that stop spam? Domain names are $8 a year - you seriously think that an additional $8 every few months will deter a spammer?
And the other half of the problem is that people believe that spam is a technological problem.
We created this technology, and now that it does exactly what it was designed it to do
That's just it. It does do exactly what it was designed to do.
A poor subway design allowed for a mischievious kid to shutdown the whole system with a stick of chewing gum.
Even if this story is true, it's completely beside the point.
There is no way to stop sociopaths from spamming, without making email useless in the process.
The only thing I've seen that might prevent them is to turn email into the electronic equivalent of snail-mail, ie. sender pays per message sent... this would make email practically useless for most people, and still wouldn't stop spam.
Spam is not a technological problem, in any way, shape, or form.
Unfortunately eBay would call that "Auction Interference" and may suspend you for it.
So create a fake account first.