In what bizarro world can an Artist/Album/Song Title folder hierarchy be considered a "non-exportable, internal, binary database format"? Especially when it creates this hierarchy based solely on the info you put in your ID3 tags?
My own experience after replacing my Linux desktop with a Mac a few years ago: I hesitated to use the iTunes music organization for the first month or two, but manually rearranging things every time I ripped a CD got old really quick. I made a backup, held my breath, and checked the 'Let iTunes organize my music folder' box. Managing my 45+ GB music library is a breeze now and I haven't looked back.
Nope. LiveJournal users have an option to allow indexing or not. It's off by default but can be enabled by simple checking a box. My LJ is spidered by Google no problem.
Good thing, too, because Livejournal doesn't provide any way to search journals, even your own. If Google wasn't indexing it I'd never be able to find any old posts of mine. I wish other LJ users would enable this, as there's nothing more frustrating than being unable to find something you know someone posted six months or a year ago.
If I were a multi-million dollar porn-corporation somehow I doubt I'd be worried about a 1-time domain registration of $60 vs. $6.
If I had an amateur, single-person operation that was either free or just didn't make me a lot of money I'd be worried about it. I'd guess that a majority of adult sites out there are not run by multi-million dollor corporations.
Also, I think you meant "one time per year". Domain names do have to be renewed annually.
We'll get right on that just as soon as someone comes up with a good definition for "pornography". They've been trying to do that for years and haven't been able to. Why would it be any different now?
How does charging adult webmasters more money contribute to the operation of the internet? As near as I can tell, all it does is line the pockets of the.xxx registrars.
I'll rephrase your question a bit: Why, just because someone is making money on the internet, should they be asked to pay more than they are paying now, when doing so doesn't benefit anyone but the aforementioned domain registrars? Amazon and Ebay are raking it in hand over fist. How much extra should they pay, and to whom?
We're talking about bloggers not being completely upfront about their motivation in the context of veiled advertising, not people intentionally committing fraud. Apples != oranges.
Earthlink/Mindspring already pull this shit. They block all outgoing traffic on port 25 to all servers except their own SMTP servers which they've blessed.
That's right, and speaking as someone who was working in Earthlink's Abuse department at the time the port 25 block was rolled out, I can tell you authoritatively that it had an enormous positive effect on the amount of spam being sent from our network. We had previously been plagued with a few high-profile (ie, top 20 or so) professional spammers who would signup a dozen or two accounts per day with stolen credit cards and spam through various open relays, usually overseas. This block shut them down cold. I don't remember the exact numbers but our spam problem decreased by probably 50%.
I applaud any ISP that introduces this policy on their own networks.
If you're talking about the login form on the front page of their site, contrary to appearance, it is secure. The page the form appears on does not need to be sent over SSL as long as the data sent back to the server is. This is a bad idea, however, as it tends to cause this kind of distrust.
Yes, this is secure. The form itself, as it's sent to your browser, contains nothing but empty textboxes and doesn't need to be secured. As you fill in your information, it exists only on your computer. Not until you press 'Submit' does it actually go anywhere, and then it will go to whatever URI is specified in the action="" attribute. If this action is a SSL-secured URL, the data transmission will be secure.
Note however, that this is considered bad practice. Users have been taught to look for SSL on any page where they fill in sensitive information. Not using SSL for your form page may cause distrust in the system, even if the transmitted data really will be secure.
So what? The mere mention of a company/project you're involved in does not constitute spamming. What, people aren't allowed to talk about what they do? What he posted was completely on-topic.
As far as spam goes, Tor nodes will be blocked only by mail server admins who don't know how Tor works or that the default exit policy is to disallow outbound port 25.
Re:Actually, Microsoft is now paying for its
on
Gates on Google
·
· Score: 1
Millions of iMac users would disagree, as would all the companies that rushed to release iMac-like designs for everything from PCs to staplers when they saw how the iMac was selling after its initial release.
you don't think SBC is doing some sort of logging for their DSL lines?
Not really, no. See above re: massive amounts of storage and processing for logging this much traffic. There's really little to no benefit for them, as SBC isn't in the data mining business (whether Google is can be argued, but it's outside the scope of this comment).
How do you think the RIAA and MPAA are able to identify and sue people over P2P usage? Logging my friend.
They do that the same way I identified and whacked spammers during the years I spent in a large network abuse department: Logging of IP addresses and authentication information, not traffic. Traffic logs aren't need to ID someone. All the ISP needs to do is compare the IP address in question and the date/time of the incident with your RADIUS or DHCP logs. That gives you the account responsible, but no details on what they actually do on-line. For that you need logs or mail headers or similar from the reporting party.
You're joking, right? Do you really think your ISP "caches and logs all of your web browsing habits"? Do you know the immense amounts of storage that would take for even a mid-sized ISP?
Not to mention that a lot of internet access these days is handled through third parties. My DSL line doesn't actually touch my ISP's network, it goes straight to SBC. Most dialup accounts I've used in the past actually used leased UUNET, PSI, Sprint, or Level 3 POPs, not equipment belonging to my actual ISP. The very most the average ISP could expect to log these days is DNS requests. The ISP I sysadmin for doesn't even do that, for any of our dialup, DSL, or T1/frame relay accounts.
Interesting, especially since movie ratings aren't written into law, they're a voluntary self-governing scheme. The theater could have let in all the kids they wanted and there's not a thing the cops could have done about it.
I wonder how they justified wasting taxpayer money on something this stupid?
Slashdot Mirror
In what bizarro world can an Artist/Album/Song Title folder hierarchy be considered a "non-exportable, internal, binary database format"? Especially when it creates this hierarchy based solely on the info you put in your ID3 tags?
My own experience after replacing my Linux desktop with a Mac a few years ago: I hesitated to use the iTunes music organization for the first month or two, but manually rearranging things every time I ripped a CD got old really quick. I made a backup, held my breath, and checked the 'Let iTunes organize my music folder' box. Managing my 45+ GB music library is a breeze now and I haven't looked back.
"That's like asking the square root of a million. No one will ever know." -- Nelson (in CABF11)
Just don't forget to drive on the wrong side of the road as you do it.
Nope. LiveJournal users have an option to allow indexing or not. It's off by default but can be enabled by simple checking a box. My LJ is spidered by Google no problem.
Good thing, too, because Livejournal doesn't provide any way to search journals, even your own. If Google wasn't indexing it I'd never be able to find any old posts of mine. I wish other LJ users would enable this, as there's nothing more frustrating than being unable to find something you know someone posted six months or a year ago.
It would be better than .xxx in the global namespace, but you have it backward. It would be .xxx.us, .xxx.uk, etc. See also, co.uk, com.au, and so on.
If I were a multi-million dollar porn-corporation somehow I doubt I'd be worried about a 1-time domain registration of $60 vs. $6.
If I had an amateur, single-person operation that was either free or just didn't make me a lot of money I'd be worried about it. I'd guess that a majority of adult sites out there are not run by multi-million dollor corporations.
Also, I think you meant "one time per year". Domain names do have to be renewed annually.
We'll get right on that just as soon as someone comes up with a good definition for "pornography". They've been trying to do that for years and haven't been able to. Why would it be any different now?
He's not my type, personally, but hey, to each his own.
How does charging adult webmasters more money contribute to the operation of the internet? As near as I can tell, all it does is line the pockets of the .xxx registrars.
I'll rephrase your question a bit: Why, just because someone is making money on the internet, should they be asked to pay more than they are paying now, when doing so doesn't benefit anyone but the aforementioned domain registrars? Amazon and Ebay are raking it in hand over fist. How much extra should they pay, and to whom?
That is, of course, why God invented tab completion.
Corporate shilling != fraud
We're talking about bloggers not being completely upfront about their motivation in the context of veiled advertising, not people intentionally committing fraud. Apples != oranges.
Amazingly, I understand that Sirius has more than one channel, so you're always free to not listen to him.
But then, I have no use for either Howard Stern or subscription radio (or most non-subscription radio, for that matter).
Earthlink/Mindspring already pull this shit. They block all outgoing traffic on port 25 to all servers except their own SMTP servers which they've blessed.
That's right, and speaking as someone who was working in Earthlink's Abuse department at the time the port 25 block was rolled out, I can tell you authoritatively that it had an enormous positive effect on the amount of spam being sent from our network. We had previously been plagued with a few high-profile (ie, top 20 or so) professional spammers who would signup a dozen or two accounts per day with stolen credit cards and spam through various open relays, usually overseas. This block shut them down cold. I don't remember the exact numbers but our spam problem decreased by probably 50%.
I applaud any ISP that introduces this policy on their own networks.
If you're talking about the login form on the front page of their site, contrary to appearance, it is secure. The page the form appears on does not need to be sent over SSL as long as the data sent back to the server is. This is a bad idea, however, as it tends to cause this kind of distrust.
See my response to another poster's question about this.
Yes, this is secure. The form itself, as it's sent to your browser, contains nothing but empty textboxes and doesn't need to be secured. As you fill in your information, it exists only on your computer. Not until you press 'Submit' does it actually go anywhere, and then it will go to whatever URI is specified in the action="" attribute. If this action is a SSL-secured URL, the data transmission will be secure.
Note however, that this is considered bad practice. Users have been taught to look for SSL on any page where they fill in sensitive information. Not using SSL for your form page may cause distrust in the system, even if the transmitted data really will be secure.
So what? The mere mention of a company/project you're involved in does not constitute spamming. What, people aren't allowed to talk about what they do? What he posted was completely on-topic.
Sorry, Mr. Berners-Lee. I didn't mean to misunderstand everything you've written on the subject.
I wish you'd posted under your user ID so that I could befriend you
Don't bother. Trolls (terribly unoriginal ones, no less) aren't worth it.
OP: come on, that's four years old! can't you come up with some new material?
I guess Adaquacy trolls shouldn't come as a surprise in a story linking to something on K5.
My vote goes to Mel Brooks.
Oh, wait...
Here's a nickel, kid. Go buy yourself a sense of humor.
As far as spam goes, Tor nodes will be blocked only by mail server admins who don't know how Tor works or that the default exit policy is to disallow outbound port 25.
Details
Millions of iMac users would disagree, as would all the companies that rushed to release iMac-like designs for everything from PCs to staplers when they saw how the iMac was selling after its initial release.
you don't think SBC is doing some sort of logging for their DSL lines?
Not really, no. See above re: massive amounts of storage and processing for logging this much traffic. There's really little to no benefit for them, as SBC isn't in the data mining business (whether Google is can be argued, but it's outside the scope of this comment).
How do you think the RIAA and MPAA are able to identify and sue people over P2P usage? Logging my friend.
They do that the same way I identified and whacked spammers during the years I spent in a large network abuse department: Logging of IP addresses and authentication information, not traffic. Traffic logs aren't need to ID someone. All the ISP needs to do is compare the IP address in question and the date/time of the incident with your RADIUS or DHCP logs. That gives you the account responsible, but no details on what they actually do on-line. For that you need logs or mail headers or similar from the reporting party.
You're joking, right? Do you really think your ISP "caches and logs all of your web browsing habits"? Do you know the immense amounts of storage that would take for even a mid-sized ISP?
Not to mention that a lot of internet access these days is handled through third parties. My DSL line doesn't actually touch my ISP's network, it goes straight to SBC. Most dialup accounts I've used in the past actually used leased UUNET, PSI, Sprint, or Level 3 POPs, not equipment belonging to my actual ISP. The very most the average ISP could expect to log these days is DNS requests. The ISP I sysadmin for doesn't even do that, for any of our dialup, DSL, or T1/frame relay accounts.
There were cops (real cops!) there checking IDs.
Interesting, especially since movie ratings aren't written into law, they're a voluntary self-governing scheme. The theater could have let in all the kids they wanted and there's not a thing the cops could have done about it.
I wonder how they justified wasting taxpayer money on something this stupid?