> maybe flag all the outgoing mail like Mr. Taco > suggested. Not perfect, but not too bad either.
Sure. What the hell. I mean, we're not going to stop companies from dumping toxic waste, so let's just have them post little signs wherever they dump so that we know to avoid it. Geezus H. Rob still does not get it. Maybe he'll never get it.
> So why is it that the free-mail systems don't > get tipped off somehow when one user mails more > than 1000+ users in a single day? Am I missing > something here?
Yes. The spammers generally do not use the free-mail systems to send. They either use them to receive "remove requests" (i.e. complaints that serve to confirm that they have valid addresses), or they just make up addresses with free-mail services' domain names as red herrings.
They also LOVE using free-home-page services to post pages full of ad banners, so they can spam people with the URLs and rack up page views and click-throughs. The free-home-page services typically respond with a slap on the wrist.
Reading stories like this makes me sad that technologies such as eCash -- the convenience of electronic exchange with the anonymity of hard currency -- seem to be having a hard time catching on. I regret not buying any eCash while there was still a U.S.-based bank working with it.
Deja still indexes these articles, but you will notice some interesting holes when you search for them.
Try a power search for "soc.culture.thai" in the forum field and "Laurence AND Godfrey" in the author field, and sort by date. You will notice big gaps of results labeled "Article Unavailable".
fremen asks, ". . . will I be under the jurisdiction of the FAA or the local law enforcement agencies . . .."
Probably the FAA. There is already a precedent: the falling Pinto in the movie The Blues Brothers. According to the "making-of" documentary, the Pinto really did have to be approved by the FAA.
...are those companies who have hundreds of IP addresses with Web servers that just redirect to a central Web server, so the companies can spam search engines with porn site links.
By "restricting new Net machines," I hope you mean providing incentives for conservation measures like IP masquerading, private subnets, etc., or disincentives for wasteful usage (see above).
If you think getting a dedicated IP address for a cable modem is excessive... I just signed up for a new DSL line, and I was given the option of having up to eight IP addresses for it. (I took just one.)
This bit of the article jumped out at me as well. You raise an interesting point; a comparison to MP3 and SMTP is probably more apt.
But I think I know where Mr. Guterman was heading with his statement. My interpretation: "It isn't important whether you get your music via MP3, or VQF, or AAC, or SDMI. What's important is that you get your music."
I think he misses something very important, though. I agree that it's not the specific format. What IS important is that you have a choice. Going back to the email client comparison: I love Pine. Eudora and Hotmail are too cumbersome for me. I definitely DO NOT want someone telling me "You have to use Hotmail or you can't get email at all." I might grudgingly go along with Hotmail, but I sure wouldn't be happy with it.
The recording industry wants to limit listeners' choice. That's not a slam on them; it's a simple fact. Their survival depends on controlling the means of distribution. They love SDMI because it keeps artists under their thumbs: A lot of unestablished artists can't (or don't want to) pay the price for development tools for making audio in a proprietary format. The barriers of entry protect the status quo; open formats like MP3 tear down barriers and threaten the status quo.
Actually, maybe tearing down barriers isn't the best analogy. Maybe open formats are more like the jet packs that make the barriers irrelevant.:-) (To which the music industry says, "Hey, they can't have jet packs unless they're our jet packs!")
Just set up a Squid server to act like The Anonymizer does. Call it http://effect.slashdot.org/ or something. Have a bunch of people volunteer to run this Squid setup, and use round-robin DNS to have effect.slashdot.org point to all of them. Then have the external links in Slashdot stories point to http://effect.slashdot.org/http://tiny.wimpy.site/ instead of directly to http://tiny.wimpy.site/.
First idea: Score responses collaboratively, NoCeM-style. Let all users assign their own scores to responses. Then let all users determine which users' scores they trust the most. Thus, we wouldn't all have to go by Rob and Co.'s opinion on who's a good moderator. (This is not meant to imply any kind of opinion on how Rob and Co. are doing.):-)
Second idea: Instead of dropping responses below a certain score, how about showing all responses, but putting some kind of flag or bullet next to those with a high score? Then you can have articles likely to be your favorites jump right out at you, while still being open to the serendipity of finding a pearl of wisdom among the "crap."
...I thing hosts registered under national domains should be required to be physically located within the country. (Can you say *.nu?) If this succeeds, then maybe we can work on *.xxx. Maybe.
I was able to get in briefly before getting this error, and after your comment was posted to Slashdot. I wonder if it's per hour, or per client, or what?
I still think it's time Slashdot came up with an httpd accelerator for all of the links it's pointing at.
Slashdot Mirror
> maybe flag all the outgoing mail like Mr. Taco
> suggested. Not perfect, but not too bad either.
Sure. What the hell. I mean, we're not going to stop companies from dumping toxic waste, so let's just have them post little signs wherever they dump so that we know to avoid it. Geezus H. Rob still does not get it. Maybe he'll never get it.
> So why is it that the free-mail systems don't
> get tipped off somehow when one user mails more
> than 1000+ users in a single day? Am I missing
> something here?
Yes. The spammers generally do not use the free-mail systems to send. They either use them to receive "remove requests" (i.e. complaints that serve to confirm that they have valid addresses), or they just make up addresses with free-mail services' domain names as red herrings.
They also LOVE using free-home-page services to post pages full of ad banners, so they can spam people with the URLs and rack up page views and click-throughs. The free-home-page services typically respond with a slap on the wrist.
Reading stories like this makes me sad that technologies such as eCash -- the convenience of electronic exchange with the anonymity of hard currency -- seem to be having a hard time catching on. I regret not buying any eCash while there was still a U.S.-based bank working with it.
Wouldn't this also be an appealing platform for brute-force attacks?
Legerdemain, do you mind if I come over to your house and exercise my right to free speech in your living room with a can of spray paint? :-)
"What seems much nicer to me would be to make all of the burglars wear big orange hats, so I can tell them to go away when they knock on my door."
Deja still indexes these articles, but you will notice some interesting holes when you search for them.
Try a power search for "soc.culture.thai" in the forum field and "Laurence AND Godfrey" in the author field, and sort by date. You will notice big gaps of results labeled "Article Unavailable".
Think about this story as you read the following MS releases...
That's an oxymoron.
fremen asks, ". . . will I be under the jurisdiction of the FAA or the local law enforcement agencies . . . ."
Probably the FAA. There is already a precedent: the falling Pinto in the movie The Blues Brothers. According to the "making-of" documentary, the Pinto really did have to be approved by the FAA.
Now if only the stupid thing would obey my stupid preference settings. Everything under Options/Preferences/Connection seems to be ignored.
.rpm to .deb without fuss. :-)
At least alien converted their
...are those companies who have hundreds of IP addresses with Web servers that just redirect to a central Web server, so the companies can spam search engines with porn site links.
By "restricting new Net machines," I hope you mean providing incentives for conservation measures like IP masquerading, private subnets, etc., or disincentives for wasteful usage (see above).
If you think getting a dedicated IP address for a cable modem is excessive... I just signed up for a new DSL line, and I was given the option of having up to eight IP addresses for it. (I took just one.)
Then you scan the message text for the strings "Murkowski" and "S.1618". ;-)
I like this idea. I've always thought that an MP3-upload feature is the one thing that could save the MiniDisc format.
This bit of the article jumped out at me as well. You raise an interesting point; a comparison to MP3 and SMTP is probably more apt.
:-) (To which the music industry says, "Hey, they can't have jet packs unless they're our jet packs!")
But I think I know where Mr. Guterman was heading with his statement. My interpretation: "It isn't important whether you get your music via MP3, or VQF, or AAC, or SDMI. What's important is that you get your music."
I think he misses something very important, though. I agree that it's not the specific format. What IS important is that you have a choice. Going back to the email client comparison: I love Pine. Eudora and Hotmail are too cumbersome for me. I definitely DO NOT want someone telling me "You have to use Hotmail or you can't get email at all." I might grudgingly go along with Hotmail, but I sure wouldn't be happy with it.
The recording industry wants to limit listeners' choice. That's not a slam on them; it's a simple fact. Their survival depends on controlling the means of distribution. They love SDMI because it keeps artists under their thumbs: A lot of unestablished artists can't (or don't want to) pay the price for development tools for making audio in a proprietary format. The barriers of entry protect the status quo; open formats like MP3 tear down barriers and threaten the status quo.
Actually, maybe tearing down barriers isn't the best analogy. Maybe open formats are more like the jet packs that make the barriers irrelevant.
I think I suggested this to them a month ago or so, and said suggestion was promptly ignored.
Or maybe I am just imagining that I suggested it to them.
Just set up a Squid server to act like The Anonymizer does. Call it http://effect.slashdot.org/ or something. Have a bunch of people volunteer to run this Squid setup, and use round-robin DNS to have effect.slashdot.org point to all of them. Then have the external links in Slashdot stories point to http://effect.slashdot.org/http://tiny.wimpy.site/ instead of directly to http://tiny.wimpy.site/.
Remember when it was called ''propaganda''?
It would greatly amuse me to see Niue buy all of the *.nu servers. Then again, they probably have the money to do this by now.
Ever heard of garnisheeing?
The Borg know this tactic well. :-)
First idea: Score responses collaboratively, NoCeM-style. Let all users assign their own scores to responses. Then let all users determine which users' scores they trust the most. Thus, we wouldn't all have to go by Rob and Co.'s opinion on who's a good moderator. (This is not meant to imply any kind of opinion on how Rob and Co. are doing.) :-)
Second idea: Instead of dropping responses below a certain score, how about showing all responses, but putting some kind of flag or bullet next to those with a high score? Then you can have articles likely to be your favorites jump right out at you, while still being open to the serendipity of finding a pearl of wisdom among the "crap."
...I thing hosts registered under national domains should be required to be physically located within the country. (Can you say *.nu?) If this succeeds, then maybe we can work on *.xxx. Maybe.
...have a look at Sam Spade. I think it's better anyway.
I was able to get in briefly before getting this error, and after your comment was posted to Slashdot. I wonder if it's per hour, or per client, or what?
I still think it's time Slashdot came up with an httpd accelerator for all of the links it's pointing at.
And what about today's 70mm film? Hmmmm?