I haven't seen anywhere in the anti-spam laws that says you have a positive duty to stop spam.
We're not talking about a positive duty to stop spam - we're talking about aiding and abetting.
If you set up a device specifically to allow spam to pass through it, and the spammer is breaking the law by sending the spam, then you're breaking the law. You know that a law is being broken, and you know that your property is being used to do it (in fact, you've made a positive step to ensure the spam is sent.)
I don't think it's a huge stretch to claim that by deliberately facilitating illegal spam, you should be subject to the same law.
None taken, but I think you might want to work on your reading comprehension - it might reduce the amount you have to add that disclaimer in the future.
but his name clearly violates the policy, and even he admits that
OK, where did I say that his name *didn't* violate the policy? For that matter, where did I mention the naming policy at all?
I don't see how that qualifies as "heinous."
Please show where I said that it did.
I used the word "heinous" only once, in referring to things Blizzard has done in the past. As this is a current discussion, that qualifier pretty much excludes it.
Believe me that was not my intent, nor do I want it to appear as such.
That's too bad, because I think this is a good use for your "fame", and your position in the community. You have a position of respect - regardless of how some/.'ers (myself included) occasionally poke fun at you.
Blizzard has done some heinous things in the past, and they just don't care, because there is nobody they have to answer to. They make their customers (you know, their whole entire reason for being) feel powerless. Their attitude is "Don't like it? Tough. We have something you want, and we don't care about your feelings. Pay us and shut up."
There are (at least three) people here who are chasitsing you for this - but unlike most of the rest of us, you might actually have a chance of making Blizzard change for the better. I believe it would be a welcome change by everybody.
I'm glad you posted this "rant", and I respect the belief that using your position to affect change might be abuse of power, but I disagree with that view.
In the words of Uncle Ben: "with great power comes great responsibility." This doesn't mean "don't use your power", it means "use your power responsibly."
If you could change Blizzard so that they listened to their customers, would that change be for the greater good? I think so.
the school is a private school, and they can limit membersip on any criteria, for any reason or none at all, virtually without exception
Then your country is even more fscked than I thought.
In the city I live (Edmonton, Canada) the law states that a landlord can evict someone for no reason. The reasoning is that it's privately held land, and the owner should have the right to limit to evict tenants on any criteria (pretty much what you just said.)
A few years ago, a woman in an apartment complex complained to the health board that there was cat shit in the playground sandbox. She had complained to the management, but nothing was ever done about it. The health board fined the landlord, and ordered them to clean it up and keep it clean.
The landlord eviced the woman, with "no reason" given. The woman took the landlord to court, stating that she was being evicted because she had complained. She won.
In the judgement, the court said that while the landlord had the right to evict someone for no reason, if there *was* a reason, that reason had to be legally sound - and that they didn't have the right to evict someone for exercising their rights.
What use is it to have "guaranteed" rights if a private organization can arbitrarily restrict services to you for exercising them?
Bingo. First thing I thought of when I heard this.
While it's *possible* this is a virus (as others have said), I'd look at hardware first. A bad tranciever will generate more bad traffic than a virus could ever hope to.
On the off chance that you're not a troll, I'll respond here.
The point here is that software programming is more complex than flipping burgers.
No, the point is that flipping burgers for a fast-food chain is in no way comparable to being paid to do something you would already be doing, rather than having to give up that thing you love to go work in a fast-food joint.
It is an insult that they even throw a paltry couple thousand at these guys who are doing real, complex engineering of software.
So, rather than "insulting" them, Google should have done nothing, and let the programmers languish?
Isn't that chip on your shoulder getting a little heavy for you?
if you think a site with headlines like, "Study Reveals Pittsburgh Unprepared For Full-Scale Zombie Attack" is real then you have much bigger problems
And if *you* think that dogs eat aeroplanes, then you should see a psychiatrist.
The argument was nobody would believe that Onion stories are real. I have provided proof that *SOMEONE* thinks that story was real. Seriously - read the article - the paper still believed it *AFTER* they were told it was fake. When they finally figured out they'd reported satire as real news, the retraction they printed (which I can't find a link to) was even funnier - they claimed that "In America, newspapers sometimes run stories which are not true."
It really has nothing whatsoever to do with The Onion or this case.
Slashdot Mirror
Your underlying assumption is that Microsoft's core competency is software development
Actually, if you re-read his comment, he says that software is supposed to be their core competancy, not that it actually is.
And for the record, this is not the first time this has happened - am I the only one who remembers the directory traversal unicode exploits in IIS?
I haven't seen anywhere in the anti-spam laws that says you have a positive duty to stop spam.
We're not talking about a positive duty to stop spam - we're talking about aiding and abetting.
If you set up a device specifically to allow spam to pass through it, and the spammer is breaking the law by sending the spam, then you're breaking the law. You know that a law is being broken, and you know that your property is being used to do it (in fact, you've made a positive step to ensure the spam is sent.)
I don't think it's a huge stretch to claim that by deliberately facilitating illegal spam, you should be subject to the same law.
So, how do you break into the game soundtrack field?
You go to law school.
<muppet voice="gonzo">
Sure, if you wanna do it the easy way!
</muppet voice="gonzo">
So can't they be fined for knowingly allowing this machine to send spam?
Only if they allowed the spam to reach the destination.
It would be trivial to set up a non-delivering SMTP server and then transparently proxy all the emails to it.
I doubt any prison in the US has Internet access.
Of course you can get internet access in prison. You just have to be creative enough.
Umm, I don't know what you're smoking, but both posts you replied to do indeed state that there is a java applet, and provide a link.
Message: 13885583
If you don't want your user to download any player, they can use that java applet:
http://www.fluendo.com/products.php?product=apple
Message: 13885959
Additionally, you can just use the free free Java applet
Perhaps you need to work on your reading comprehension skills?
there are drivers which do not function correctly as modules
List them.
I too prefer pico, and use it daily.
Bill Gates never said the 640k thing you're talking about.
Hmm, I don't recall mentioning anything about a "640k" thing. Let me double-check...
Nope, I think you have me confused with someone else.
Don't you feel stupid.
Nope. But I bet you do for (a) missing the joke, and (b) ignoring my note to you.
Most of the super fast LCD's are 6-bit, which kind of sucks.
:o)
Hey, don't knock 6-bit! Man, I *so* want one! I can't wait to play Leisure Suit Larry in all its 64-color glory!
In the immortal words of Bill Gates, 6 bits ought to be enough for anybody.
(note to the humor impaired: yes, I know what '6-bit' refers to. Please don't post a correction unless you enjoy being mocked.
no offense
None taken, but I think you might want to work on your reading comprehension - it might reduce the amount you have to add that disclaimer in the future.
but his name clearly violates the policy, and even he admits that
OK, where did I say that his name *didn't* violate the policy? For that matter, where did I mention the naming policy at all?
I don't see how that qualifies as "heinous."
Please show where I said that it did.
I used the word "heinous" only once, in referring to things Blizzard has done in the past. As this is a current discussion, that qualifier pretty much excludes it.
Yeah, well "my voice is my passport" - Sneakers. :o)
Believe me that was not my intent, nor do I want it to appear as such.
/.'ers (myself included) occasionally poke fun at you.
That's too bad, because I think this is a good use for your "fame", and your position in the community. You have a position of respect - regardless of how some
Blizzard has done some heinous things in the past, and they just don't care, because there is nobody they have to answer to. They make their customers (you know, their whole entire reason for being) feel powerless. Their attitude is "Don't like it? Tough. We have something you want, and we don't care about your feelings. Pay us and shut up."
There are (at least three) people here who are chasitsing you for this - but unlike most of the rest of us, you might actually have a chance of making Blizzard change for the better. I believe it would be a welcome change by everybody.
I'm glad you posted this "rant", and I respect the belief that using your position to affect change might be abuse of power, but I disagree with that view.
In the words of Uncle Ben: "with great power comes great responsibility." This doesn't mean "don't use your power", it means "use your power responsibly."
If you could change Blizzard so that they listened to their customers, would that change be for the greater good? I think so.
The factual truth is that less than one-tenth of one percent of Catholic priests in the U.S. have even been accused of molestation.
OK, how does that compare to priests of other faiths?
This percentage is lower than it is for the general population.
Which would be meaningful if everybody else in the general population was ordained as minister and placed in a position of authority above children.
the school is a private school, and they can limit membersip on any criteria, for any reason or none at all, virtually without exception
Then your country is even more fscked than I thought.
In the city I live (Edmonton, Canada) the law states that a landlord can evict someone for no reason. The reasoning is that it's privately held land, and the owner should have the right to limit to evict tenants on any criteria (pretty much what you just said.)
A few years ago, a woman in an apartment complex complained to the health board that there was cat shit in the playground sandbox. She had complained to the management, but nothing was ever done about it. The health board fined the landlord, and ordered them to clean it up and keep it clean.
The landlord eviced the woman, with "no reason" given. The woman took the landlord to court, stating that she was being evicted because she had complained. She won.
In the judgement, the court said that while the landlord had the right to evict someone for no reason, if there *was* a reason, that reason had to be legally sound - and that they didn't have the right to evict someone for exercising their rights.
What use is it to have "guaranteed" rights if a private organization can arbitrarily restrict services to you for exercising them?
So.. premeditated assault is practical?
Bingo. First thing I thought of when I heard this.
While it's *possible* this is a virus (as others have said), I'd look at hardware first. A bad tranciever will generate more bad traffic than a virus could ever hope to.
On the off chance that you're not a troll, I'll respond here.
The point here is that software programming is more complex than flipping burgers.
No, the point is that flipping burgers for a fast-food chain is in no way comparable to being paid to do something you would already be doing, rather than having to give up that thing you love to go work in a fast-food joint.
It is an insult that they even throw a paltry couple thousand at these guys who are doing real, complex engineering of software.
So, rather than "insulting" them, Google should have done nothing, and let the programmers languish?
Isn't that chip on your shoulder getting a little heavy for you?
I can make more at McDonald's
Wow, McDonalds is hiring coders?
especially considering meals are discounted 75%.
Yeah, but the downside is that it's McDonalds "food".
In March I bought a Dlink wireless router and a A/G card for my laptop, and they work exactly as advertised.
I can use the laptop anywhere in the house, and even out in the yard. The hardest part was getting WPA running on Linux (took me about 1/2 hour.)
I had a friend visit for a couple of weeks, and his iBook worked flawlessly with it too.
THIS JUST IN: ANONYMOUS COWARD LAUNCES STRAW MAN ATTACK, EVEN AFTER BEING TOLD WHAT THE TOPIC WAS ABOUT.
one reference
Referenced != picked up and passed along as "real" news stories.
two refererences
One instance of being picked up, which I already counted in my original post
three references:
Second instance, which I said did not have any information as to whether it was presented as satire or not
four references
Referenced != picked up and passed along as "real" news stories.
Please show where else Onion articles were picked up and passed along as "real" news stories.
if you think a site with headlines like, "Study Reveals Pittsburgh Unprepared For Full-Scale Zombie Attack" is real then you have much bigger problems
And if *you* think that dogs eat aeroplanes, then you should see a psychiatrist.
The argument was nobody would believe that Onion stories are real. I have provided proof that *SOMEONE* thinks that story was real. Seriously - read the article - the paper still believed it *AFTER* they were told it was fake. When they finally figured out they'd reported satire as real news, the retraction they printed (which I can't find a link to) was even funnier - they claimed that "In America, newspapers sometimes run stories which are not true."
It really has nothing whatsoever to do with The Onion or this case.
Then why are you bringing it up?
Here's more
That has no more than what's already been mentioned.
The Onion has been mistakenly referenced more than once.
Referenced != picked up and passed along as "real" news stories.
I count at least four.
I count exactly two (and one doesn't have any other information as to whether it was presented as real news or as satire). Where are the others?
Journalism really has gone down the mountain if Onion stories are routinely being run as actual news.... Have any linkage to one of these?
I think he's got a case of "it happened once, in a foreign non-english newspaper, so that means that it happens on a regular basis."
If it happens on a regular basis, I'm sure we'd have heard about it.