Guns have tons of legitimate uses that cannot be carried out with any other tool
Do you really believe this, or are you just trolling?
There is only one thing that you can do with a gun that you cannot do with any other tool: shooting things.
hunting
Yes, because everybody knows that human beings didn't become hunters until the gun was invented, right?
And all those lions, polar bears, wolves, hyenas, cheetash, tigers, etc.. all use guns, right?
sport shooting
Using guns for the sake of using guns. Brilliant.
defense
This one kills me (no pun intended:o) defense!?!?!?! Against what?
Guns.
A knife or a bat are useful for defense too, and unlike a gun, they have more than one use.
It's interesting that everything you adamantly state cannot be done without a gun can be done without one - except "shooting a gun".
P2P networks have no legitimate uses at all that cannot be (better!) carried out with another tool.
A P2P network, is useful for the distribution of information - better, in fact, than any other method, because you're not limited to a single distribution point. Redundancy is built into the system, which makes it better suited for wide distribution of files.
Thats a feeble excuse for switching to Vorbis regardless of the merits of this format. It's like saying "They found vulnerabilities in Apache so i'm gonna change my webserver to something else"
Wouldn't it be more like "They found vulnerabilities in Apache, so I'm not going to use HTML anymore."
OK, still not perfect, as HTML is served, not processed by Apache.. but a little closer, and (bonus!) even more absurd:o)
Freedom of speech is the right to say whatever you want.
It is not, and should not be "the right to force people to listen to you", nor "the right to force people to pay you to speak, even if they don't want to".
good, elegant solutions to things like 1-click ordering can be more difficult to produce than it may first appear (emphasis mine)
This is the problem. You're not supposed to get a patent on something because it's hard to make, you're supposed to get a patent on it because it's hard to discover.
Both the 1-click and this are both simple excercises in using technology developed by others to do exactly what the technology was designed for.
Cookies were invented by Netscape. They store information on the client's computer. Basically, Amazon got a patent on using cookies to store information.
Bezos' defense is that "it took them lots of work to make".. well, that's what copyright is for.
Re:What a waste(no pun intended)...
on
Tornado in a Can
·
· Score: 1
Isn't that the secret sauce on a Big Mac?
Not according to the Simpsons..
"We're almost out of special sauce - go put this jar of mayonaise in the sun."
Re:I can't believe rational people support this...
on
HOWTO: Annoy a Spammer
·
· Score: 1
I realize that you're trolling here, but I'll answer your points one by one..
1. It is environmentally irresponsible in the extreme
No, it isn't. The items being delivered are being created anyway, whether Mr. Ralsky gets them or not. If Mr. Ralsky sends them to the landfill, then one can argue that it's actually doing environmental good, as it will be taking surplus carbon from the environment, which will offset the burning of a similar amount of fossil fuels.
2. It is in fact illegal. Impersonating someone else in order to sign them up to receive mail is mail fraud.
Since you don't know what he's receiving, you don't know how he was signed up. I've seen lots of sign ups that say "tell a friend".
3. It is a waste of the time and resources of the companies that send out the spam and the people who have to deliver it.... Isn't this just what you accuse Ralsky of doing when he "steals bandwidth"?
This is an absurd comparison in the extreme. It is nothing like the theft of bandwidth, because nothing is being stolen. In case you hadn't noticed, the companies that are sending their marketing materials are doing so because they want to. If they didn't want to send their products, they wouldn't. Spam victims have no such option.
4. It is a disproportionate response. Because you have to delete some emails each day that takes you all of a few minutes, the appropriate response is to totally shut down one particular spammer's ability to read his own relevant physical mail by ensuring he must sift through thousands of pieces each day?
No, it isn't. He's now on the recieving end of exactly what I (and many others) go through each and every day. He (and people like him) have made email useless for many people.
5. It is totally ineffective. If you have a complaint about receiving spam, take it up with your elected officials.
No, it isn't. It's quite effective. In case you didn't know, Mr. Ralsky has been convicted of stock market crimes, and he has claimed that he wants to hack into other people's computers to send them spam ("right past firewalls" is the phrase he used.) Existing laws haven't stopped him, why do you think that new ones would?
This isn't pretty, it isn't effective, and it isn't ethical
Yes, it is pretty, it is effective. Whether it's ethical or not is beside the point, as your own quote says:
So long as money can be made in this entirely legal business, no matter how annoying it is, there will always be someone who spams.
So long as satisfaction can be had with this entirely leagal endeavour, we will keep doing it.
In my experience, the Debian installer is a nightmare. It's completely non-intuitive, and difficult to navigate.
Debian has the dubious honor of being the only distro I have given up on before I finished installing it. (I've tried about a dozen of them.)
You sound like you know what you're doing with a command line; if you want something that lets you get under the hood, try Slackware. It installs easily (much easier than Debian, IMHO.) although it doesn't have apt-get, so upgrades are a little more monotonous.
I'm using Slack 8.0 now (at work), and my desktop at home is 8.1. You can download the ISOs and be up and running in no time.
You mean like how a cow that flies is called a bird?
It's not possible to copyright an idea. You can patent an idea, and then it's called a patent. Copyrights and patents are two different things, and are covered by different laws.
ABN AMRO "de Bank" (ie. the Bank), copyrighted the italic printing of the article
No, they didn't. They got a trademark on it. This is also different from a patent, and (again) is covered by different laws.
I just happen to be an American, however I am also stationed overseas in Japan
Maybe instead of determining eligibilty via IP address, they should ask "who won the world series in 1940?", like they do in those old war movies, when they're trying to determine if someone is a spy:o)
I just checked my RBL filters on my mailserver - so far this week, they have blocked 4155. (no, that is not an extra '5' at the end - my mail server has blocked over four thousand pieces of spam in the past 5 days.) Now, this number isn't just my account, but includes everyone in this 16-person office.
There is really no difference between the difference Linux distros, its all what you choose to use.
Not true.
Some distros (well, ONE distro) uses BSD-style init, where as some distros (well, "all the other ones that are still being maintained) use SysV-style init..
As someone who does hands-on administration, I prefer BSD-style, as it makes determining what's running startup much easier, and configuration is straightforward (/etc/rc.d/rc.inet1 is for your network interfaces,/etc/rc.d/rc.inet2 is for your network daemons.)
SysV is easier if you're using an automated tool, because the tool doesn't have to parse files - everything is taken care of via the big mess-o-symlinks in/etc/rc.d/rc.[1-5] (although I find it odd that you have your config scripts in one location, and the data for those scripts in another.)
the opensource mindset is "someone will look at this and email me a patch if i fucked up". Lovely.
And you somehow think this is worse than "nobody CAN look at this and tell me if I fucked up"?
Free software is free if you don't value your time.
How come you're changing the subject? (We WERE talking about Open Source, not Free software.)
Free software is Free whether you value your time or not. Free software is not about zero-cost, it's about FREEDOM - as in the FREEDOM to see the code, and the FREEDOM to make changes to it.
the man has stated, repeatedly, that his wife and children will get none of the money and it will all go to charity
Yes, because everybody believes whatever comes out of his mouth. It's not like he's ever lied under oath or anything. (Look for "the computer wrote it")
What he has or hasn't said is one thing; what he'll actually do is another. Maybe he's lying, maybe not - but the only way to find out is to wait until he's kicked the bucket.
Slashdot Mirror
The FSF condones mixing Free and non-Free software now?
No, but they do address the point on their website.
Discussing something is not the same as condoning it.
for the record, man does bag a hell of a lot more since guns were involved in hunting
I still fail to see exactly how you can rationally claim that a gun is the only tool that can be used for hunting.
You're contradicting yourself.
If you've ever tried sport shooting, it's very difficult.
Yes, I have tried sport shooting, and yes, it's difficult. But it's still using guns for the sake of using guns. Being difficult doesn't change that.
How about assholes who try to steal some shit from your house in the dead of night? You really want to get close enough in to use a bat or a knife?
Again, how (exactly) does this mean that a gun is the ONLY tool that can be used?
I'm willing to bet that you were raised in a) a city, or b) a city surburb.
You may be willing to bet it, and you'd be wrong.
I grew up in a rural town (population less than 800). I took gun safety, and hunting in school.
And I still believe that most people don't need them.
Guns have tons of legitimate uses that cannot be carried out with any other tool
:o) defense!?!?!?! Against what?
Do you really believe this, or are you just trolling?
There is only one thing that you can do with a gun that you cannot do with any other tool: shooting things.
hunting
Yes, because everybody knows that human beings didn't become hunters until the gun was invented, right?
And all those lions, polar bears, wolves, hyenas, cheetash, tigers, etc.. all use guns, right?
sport shooting
Using guns for the sake of using guns. Brilliant.
defense
This one kills me (no pun intended
Guns.
A knife or a bat are useful for defense too, and unlike a gun, they have more than one use.
It's interesting that everything you adamantly state cannot be done without a gun can be done without one - except "shooting a gun".
P2P networks have no legitimate uses at all that cannot be (better!) carried out with another tool.
A P2P network, is useful for the distribution of information - better, in fact, than any other method, because you're not limited to a single distribution point. Redundancy is built into the system, which makes it better suited for wide distribution of files.
Any given algorithm is immuteable, because once it is changed, it's a different algorithm
Once it's changed? So you can change it?
As Twirlip said, immutable means cannot be changed.
So if you can change something ("once it's changed") then it's not immutable.
all that money could have gone into tanks and bombs to bomb other countries and free us all from "terror"
OK, so is this a good thing or a bad thing?
Thats a feeble excuse for switching to Vorbis regardless of the merits of this format. It's like saying "They found vulnerabilities in Apache so i'm gonna change my webserver to something else"
:o)
Wouldn't it be more like "They found vulnerabilities in Apache, so I'm not going to use HTML anymore."
OK, still not perfect, as HTML is served, not processed by Apache.. but a little closer, and (bonus!) even more absurd
I believe that speech ought to remain free
I also believe that speech ought to remain free.
However, spam is not free speech
Freedom of speech is the right to say whatever you want.
It is not, and should not be "the right to force people to listen to you", nor "the right to force people to pay you to speak, even if they don't want to".
Spam is not free speech.
what all geeks are in need of. A girlfriend.
I sure hope nobody gets me a girlfried.. my wife would be pissed.
Caveat Lector!
:o)
Wasn't that Hannibal's brother?
How do you suggest incorporating a GPL video player into a proprietary game, exactly?
fork()
Just like the FSF suggests.
good, elegant solutions to things like 1-click ordering can be more difficult to produce than it may first appear (emphasis mine)
This is the problem. You're not supposed to get a patent on something because it's hard to make, you're supposed to get a patent on it because it's hard to discover.
Both the 1-click and this are both simple excercises in using technology developed by others to do exactly what the technology was designed for.
Cookies were invented by Netscape. They store information on the client's computer. Basically, Amazon got a patent on using cookies to store information.
Bezos' defense is that "it took them lots of work to make".. well, that's what copyright is for.
Isn't that the secret sauce on a Big Mac?
Not according to the Simpsons..
"We're almost out of special sauce - go put this jar of mayonaise in the sun."
I realize that you're trolling here, but I'll answer your points one by one..
... Isn't this just what you accuse Ralsky of doing when he "steals bandwidth"?
1. It is environmentally irresponsible in the extreme
No, it isn't. The items being delivered are being created anyway, whether Mr. Ralsky gets them or not. If Mr. Ralsky sends them to the landfill, then one can argue that it's actually doing environmental good, as it will be taking surplus carbon from the environment, which will offset the burning of a similar amount of fossil fuels.
2. It is in fact illegal. Impersonating someone else in order to sign them up to receive mail is mail fraud.
Since you don't know what he's receiving, you don't know how he was signed up. I've seen lots of sign ups that say "tell a friend".
3. It is a waste of the time and resources of the companies that send out the spam and the people who have to deliver it.
This is an absurd comparison in the extreme. It is nothing like the theft of bandwidth, because nothing is being stolen. In case you hadn't noticed, the companies that are sending their marketing materials are doing so because they want to. If they didn't want to send their products, they wouldn't. Spam victims have no such option.
4. It is a disproportionate response. Because you have to delete some emails each day that takes you all of a few minutes, the appropriate response is to totally shut down one particular spammer's ability to read his own relevant physical mail by ensuring he must sift through thousands of pieces each day?
No, it isn't. He's now on the recieving end of exactly what I (and many others) go through each and every day. He (and people like him) have made email useless for many people.
5. It is totally ineffective. If you have a complaint about receiving spam, take it up with your elected officials.
No, it isn't. It's quite effective. In case you didn't know, Mr. Ralsky has been convicted of stock market crimes, and he has claimed that he wants to hack into other people's computers to send them spam ("right past firewalls" is the phrase he used.) Existing laws haven't stopped him, why do you think that new ones would?
This isn't pretty, it isn't effective, and it isn't ethical
Yes, it is pretty, it is effective. Whether it's ethical or not is beside the point, as your own quote says:
So long as money can be made in this entirely legal business, no matter how annoying it is, there will always be someone who spams.
So long as satisfaction can be had with this entirely leagal endeavour, we will keep doing it.
In my experience, the Debian installer is a nightmare. It's completely non-intuitive, and difficult to navigate.
Debian has the dubious honor of being the only distro I have given up on before I finished installing it. (I've tried about a dozen of them.)
You sound like you know what you're doing with a command line; if you want something that lets you get under the hood, try Slackware. It installs easily (much easier than Debian, IMHO.) although it doesn't have apt-get, so upgrades are a little more monotonous.
I'm using Slack 8.0 now (at work), and my desktop at home is 8.1. You can download the ISOs and be up and running in no time.
Guess how much they charge for web hosting..
:o)
Umm, $4.95 a month?
Copyright on an idea is called a patent
You mean like how a cow that flies is called a bird?
It's not possible to copyright an idea. You can patent an idea, and then it's called a patent. Copyrights and patents are two different things, and are covered by different laws.
ABN AMRO "de Bank" (ie. the Bank), copyrighted the italic printing of the article
No, they didn't. They got a trademark on it. This is also different from a patent, and (again) is covered by different laws.
Windows 2000 is easier to set up, administer, and use than Linux.
Set up? Depends on the distro.
Use? For desktop apps, perhaps.
But administer!??!
Hold it right there buddy.
Unix and Linux is MUCH easier to administer, as everything is nicely separated, instead of glommed together into one big mess.
Even an internal report from Microsoft itself says that it's difficult to tell which parts are dependent on which other parts.
Win2k is harder to administer than pretty much any other OS.
Everyone else was doing this-
No, they weren't.
Jamie Zawinksi's home page mentions something about finishing Netscape 1.0 in time for SGI to ship it with Irix 5.3.
So you're saying that SGI wrote Netscape?
Or are you saying that Netscape 1.0 was integrated into Irix 5.3, so that you couldn't remove it?
You're completely and totally wrong.
MS wrote IE, and gave it away, and made it essentially uninstallable soley to squash Netscape.
In other words, they used their monopoly in one market to gain a foothold (and now a majority) in another unrelated market.
I just happen to be an American, however I am also stationed overseas in Japan
:o)
Maybe instead of determining eligibilty via IP address, they should ask "who won the world series in 1940?", like they do in those old war movies, when they're trying to determine if someone is a spy
Hmm, you're in Japan, and you're a Marine..
Who DID win the world series in 1940?
who actually gets loads of spam every day?
After filtering, I get about 10-20 spams per day.
I just checked my RBL filters on my mailserver - so far this week, they have blocked 4155. (no, that is not an extra '5' at the end - my mail server has blocked over four thousand pieces of spam in the past 5 days.) Now, this number isn't just my account, but includes everyone in this 16-person office.
Spam is a problem.
There is really no difference between the difference Linux distros, its all what you choose to use.
/etc/rc.d/rc.inet2 is for your network daemons.)
/etc/rc.d/rc.[1-5] (although I find it odd that you have your config scripts in one location, and the data for those scripts in another.)
Not true.
Some distros (well, ONE distro) uses BSD-style init, where as some distros (well, "all the other ones that are still being maintained) use SysV-style init..
As someone who does hands-on administration, I prefer BSD-style, as it makes determining what's running startup much easier, and configuration is straightforward (/etc/rc.d/rc.inet1 is for your network interfaces,
SysV is easier if you're using an automated tool, because the tool doesn't have to parse files - everything is taken care of via the big mess-o-symlinks in
the opensource mindset is "someone will look at this and email me a patch if i fucked up". Lovely.
And you somehow think this is worse than "nobody CAN look at this and tell me if I fucked up"?
Free software is free if you don't value your time.
How come you're changing the subject? (We WERE talking about Open Source, not Free software.)
Free software is Free whether you value your time or not. Free software is not about zero-cost, it's about FREEDOM - as in the FREEDOM to see the code, and the FREEDOM to make changes to it.
Take your FUD and trolling somewhere else.
Are you sure you aren't me?
Or me.
He pretty much described me to a 'T'.
I wonder how many people here fit that bill..
the man has stated, repeatedly, that his wife and children will get none of the money and it will all go to charity
Yes, because everybody believes whatever comes out of his mouth. It's not like he's ever lied under oath or anything. (Look for "the computer wrote it")
What he has or hasn't said is one thing; what he'll actually do is another. Maybe he's lying, maybe not - but the only way to find out is to wait until he's kicked the bucket.
to use the cliched analogy of a car, i just want to get to my destination
Yeah, because when I get into my car, I just say "take me to work", and it drives me there all by itself..
Err, wait - no, it doesn't. I still need to start it, put it in drive, use the accelerator, brake, and steering wheel, and navigate intelligently.
i don't want to fuss with the tire pressure or change the oil first for every trip.
"I don't want to install the CPU, plug in the video card and mouse, and install the OS every time before I start my app."
Your analogy isn't clichéd, it's horribly broken.