Re:Hidden tidbit in your post
on
Gates on Google
·
· Score: 1
>"Microsoft can play its old game to compete with Linux and Apple. It has to play Google's game to compete with Google."
How many fronts can Microsoft take on, at once? They're used to competing in "steamroller mode" where they mobilize the company against a smaller (or larger but less focused, like IBM) competitor, and run them over.
Indeed. Even more revealing is the part of that quote about Microsoft "playing its old game" against Linux and Apple. This leads me to believe that whoever said that seriously doesn't understand Linux, and probably not Apple, because they *can't* use their old tactics against Linux, and their old tactics haven't killed off Apple yet.
Microsoft can't "play its old game" to compete with Linux, because Linux doesn't play "the game" or by the rules. Linux is about Freedom and getting real work done with a minimum of hassle, not about games.
I don't mind [list of various forms of advertising]
Good for you! Some of us, though, would rather not be "advertised" to. Ever. I *hate* ads with a passion, even if it's for things I like. I think it's a waste of resources, and more importantly, human creativity that could be better put towards solving real problems. My mantra has always been "don't call me, I'll call you"; ie, if I'm interested in your product, I'll do the research, find out about it, and if it fits my needs, I'll contact you directly to purchase it. Fuck the middlemen, advertisers included.
Why do you think word-of-mouth is the best advertising?
Word-of-mouth isn't advertising, in the modern sense. I expect that when I hear from a friend that "product X is great!" that they are not being paid to say that. Their only motivation is that they are truly happy with the product.
Some have argued that the instant nature of shopping from home over the Internet leads to quick purchases
Since when is having to wait anywhere from a few days to whole weeks for shipping "instant"? Whoever said the above has either never done any online shopping or is a moron.
And, for the record, I sometimes fear the OSS/(and linux) community hurts their cause by their sometimes overly militant won't pay for anything mantra.
Speak for yourself. Some of us are here (in the OSS world) because of Freedom, first and foremost, utility and technical superiority secondarily, and price lastly. That is to say, even if OSS cost twice as much and did half as much as non-Free software, I'd still use it. And I do, on a regular basis, purchase both Free and non-Free software for Linux and other open source platforms. I also develop it, and contribute back when possible.
I know I don't speak for everyone in the OSS world, and there are probably many who are only using OSS because it is free as in beer. But that is not everyone, and judging a whole community is narrow-minded and stupid. Look at individuals. Observe their actions, and judge them thusly.
May I just politely say to our politicos, "fuck off"? I mean, you're already fucking up America, don't try to force your shit on the rest of the world. If they really wanted to be fucked over by you, don't you think they'd be living here (in America)?
Re:No matter how careful you are, you aren't enoug
on
ID Theft Made Easy
·
· Score: 1
A driver's license it there to privatly identify to those you show it to, a choice you make.
BULLSHIT. It is a DRIVER'S *LICENSE*, not a national ID card. If you're going to use it as one, then stop lying and calling it something else.
When I'm not driving (such as when I ride my bicycle to and from work), I don't carry my driver's license, because I don't need it, and neither does anyone else.
Somehow, I think that the top speed of 50 mph might not be that popular either.
Harley riders have never seemed to mind before! Oh wait, it doesn't make lots of noise and have lots of chrome (or have the Harley logo), so no they probably won't buy it.
Yeah, and I shouldn't have to work for a living. I'm sorry, I didn't make the rules, I just play by them because I don't want to starve to death.
And your analogy to 100+ year old tools to modern tools is a bit lame. We aren't talking about generations of developers here.
Okay, how about this: you claim to be a carpenter. Someone hires you to build a bookshelf. You can't get any screws because the store is out of them, but all you know how to use is a screwdriver. The customer doesn't care, he just wants his bookshelf and tells you to use a hammer and nails. You whine that "I shouldn't *have* to learn how to use a hammer!". You aren't really a carpenter. Replace "carpenter" with "software engineer", "screwdriver" with "VB6" and "hammer" with "another programming language".
But what is interesting here is that they have no choice in the matter. The troops have been considered as Expendable.
Sure they have a choice. Learn a new language or get a job with a company that will continue to use VB6. No, they aren't considered as expendable, they've basically been told "Sorry, your favorite tool will no longer be supported. Try our new shiny tool!" Which if they had just chosen a tool whose destiny wasn't ordained by a third party they have no control over, they wouldn't have this problem.
Given the they will no longer be promoting VB6 as a viable language, how would you feel if $SOMEONE were to declare your favorite language (perl, python, java, bash, C, C++) was no longer a viable language and that you would have to learn a completely new one.
I would suck it up and learn a new language. That, or get a job with someone who still thought that $MY_FAVORITE_LANGUAGE was still viable (if the language was *that* good, which I haven't tried one yet that is).
It's part of being a professional. How many carpenters are still around who scoff at electric drills because they like the hand crank ones better? Granted, one of my favorite quotes is "a bad carpenter blames his tools, but even a master carpenter cannot make a house out of rotten wood"; however, I think that the rotting wood in this case *is* VB.
If these people can't even hack being a real software engineer, perhaps it is time for them to consider a new vocation. Those of us who are computer scientists will appreciate the breathing room and the fact that there will be one less brain dead language to have to dissuade the PHB's from using.
The point I'm hoping to make is that even Fortran code can still be run under Unix if you have no need to change it. But to simply drop a programming language and move on is an unnecessary cost to the company and society.
True, but I think that the company and whoever else use that language accepted that cost when they chose a closed, proprietary programming language. If Larry Wall suddenly decides to stop working on Perl, that won't stop it being used.
If this sounds rambling, it's only because your original post was (and maybe because of the benadryl; I hate allergies). You're arguing two points: that the programmers shouldn't have to learn a new language (false, IMHO), and that old but working programs shouldn't be dropped (true, IMHO). Compounding that, both of these are over generalized opinions, which could easily change whether they are right or wrong based on the circumstances.
We voted for all these unconstitutional laws and so-called leaders.
BULLSHIT! I never voted for any of these asses now in office, and I certainly didn't vote for these unconstitutional laws. Two major ways things came to be the way they are: One, "he who has the gold makes the rules", ie money = power and all the voting in the world won't change the fact that most (if not all) of our politicians have been bribed to go against not only the will of the people, but the good of society.
Two, as another slashdot poster's signature so insightfully puts it: "I've found the flaw in democracy. It's stupid people. Vast masses of stupid people". Even if the government wasn't corrupt and bought out, we'd still have tens of millions of people voting on some so-called moral high ground (witness the last presidential election).
As a citizen I can say that you should dislike the American people as a whole. Ultimately the buck stops here and we are the ones responsible for our government (at least for now).
Don't dislike Americans because we are Americans. Dislike people on a per person basis based on their actions, and even then realize that people can change. Anything else is pure bigotry. And BTW, we stopped being responsible for our government when it decided that the government needed to be responsible for us, and didn't need any oversight of itself. The US is no longer a government "of the people, by the people and for the people" and hasn't been for a while.
Ugh, going in reverse chronological order, I am now a little sick to the stomach of the idea of making yet another layer of abstraction on top of all the various GUI/Sound toolkits out there. While this is a neat idea (and perhaps even marketable), I could easily see it ending up in the same exact "problem" we have now (ie, too many toolkits). I say "problem" because many who think that having all these choices are a bad thing are short sighted. Consistency is one thing, but mandating that everyone use the same tools is just stupid. Choice isn't the problem; incompatibility, inconsistency and bad design are.
Anyway, back to my original subject, I found one project (Generalized Interface Toolkit) which looks to kinda-sorta do what I described in my previous post (which, yes, I am responding to). Looking at this project, it became apparent that this wasn't exactly what I wanted, and my goals don't align up perfectly with theirs, so I would probably have to start a project of my own if I wanted to see my ends met. This got me thinking about Doing-It-Yourselfness, as well as choice, and one synapse lead to another, and I started to get queasy thinking about how GITK is (and my project would become) just another layer of abstraction competing for the same mindshare. Don't get me wrong, abstraction can be good and useful, but when taken too far, or used unecessarily, it confuses people and slows things down.
Anyway, I guess my point is that while it might be useful to some ("write once for ALL Linux GUI's!"), the idea also sort of disgusts me. As with many ideas that disgust me, however, it would probably make a lot of money. Look for your copy of GUI Uber Alles(tm) at a computer store near you soon!
This gets me to thinking: could someone just make a toolkit that is easy to use and will generate a binary that will work with multiple toolkits? Something like GGI's backends to work with X, SVGALib, etc. Only you write once, compile once, and link to a library that would dynamically detect what toolkit is currently in use and use it. Heck, they do it for cross platform toolkits like Tk and Qt, why not do something similar for all the toolkits on Linux?
Methinks something like this probably already exists, but if not, well it can go on the end of my endless list of things todo (right after "save the world"). Off to freshmeat.net to look . ..
You ask "What Linux distribution is best for games?", but then you mention non-Linux games. If you want to play Windows games, install Windows. If you are really dedicated to switching to Linux, wipe Windows, throw out your Windows games and go to tuxgames.com. If the game(s) you want to play don't run under Linux, complain (loudly but rationally) to the companies that make those games. Don't try some half-assed "portability layer" which will only leave you bitter about Linux when the Next Great Thing won't run under it.
The only thing Cedega does is to dissuade publishers from making real Linux games and actually porting to something other than Windows. Transgaming is almost as bad for open source as Microsoft is by itself.
As time progresses and the market matures, we will see a plethora of games on Linux.
Depends on what you call a "plethora" ("Jeffe, do you know what a 'plethora' is?"). For me, Linux *does* have a plethora of games. I'll admit, I'm no hardcore gamer, but I bought a lot of Linux games when Loki was still around (I still miss them), and I *still* haven't had time to play through them all.
BTW, ever since Loki went away the state of Linux games has been getting _worse_, not better, IMHO. Sure, we at least have companies doing ports on their own these days and Carmack is one of my heroes just for porting Id's games to Linux, but without Loki porting games and so-called Linux companies like Transgaming snatching up titles and "porting" (I use that word in the loosest sense) to Linux, games on Linux are in dire straits.
And yet still, I persist, and refuse to pay for games that aren't ported to Linux. Mainly because, like I said, it works for me. I still have plenty of games I can play *legally*, that I *paid* for, under Linux, as opposed to the flavor of the week pirated games on Windows.
While I don't think he'll ever say it directly, this is as clear as he ever needs to be when it comes to his opinion of RMS.
Why must you bash RMS? Why must you make it so "Linux vs. RMS" when it doesn't need to be, and, indeed, it isn't?
Did it ever occur to you that RMS was an "everyday user"? That he had a problem "right in front of his face" and he "saw the technical issues" that needed to be overcome (ie, lack of source and drivers for a printer he wanted to use)?
is this proof that sometimes the ends justify the means?
No, it's proof that rich smucks who cheated their way to the top are always willing to spend a few bucks to make themselves look better.
Let's see if the Linux community can match his generosity.
Ok, sure, why the heck not. According to this, Bill is worth 29.5 billion dollars. A rough estimate of my own "investments" puts me roughly at a paltry $10,000, and ignoring the fact that Bill will probably "donate" things which are of dubious value (ie, Microsoft software), and that Mr. Gates will still have 28.75 billion dollars after this, sure I'm willing to donate $250 dollars to "match his generosity" (2.5%). Or, if he donates Microsoft software, I promise I'll submit a patch to an open source product RSN.
It is not our property - we did not make it, we have ZERO say. It is like if I knit a sweater. I can charge nothing for it(give it away), I can charge 5 bucks or I can charge 5,000 bucks. My choice. Your choice is to pay or not pay for it. If i see that people are not buying my sweaters I can either reduce the price or leave it as is. Again I have a choice to sell at the price that I want to sell, you have the choice to buy it or not. I can't see why this concept is so hard to grasp?
You, like many before you, Don't Get It. Information is not like a sweater, or any other physical property. Information can be duplicated for very little cost. And sure, the creator of information (whether it's an idea, song, or movie) has control over that information. But as soon as they choose to share it with others, their control of it is lost; that is the nature of information. Yet, at the same time, they are not deprived of the information, because it is easily copyable.
Copyright and patents were devised to encourage people to share their information, rather than keep it to themselves. And creators still have the option of not sharing their information if they don't want. Creators should realize that coyright and patents are ARTIFICIAL restrictions put on information, solely for the good of society. That they have exclusive use of it is merely due to the fact that society (in general) is nice enough to agree to that. The current extensions on copyright and patent were pushed through by greedy people who don't fully understand the purpose of copyright and patents, and society never agreed to them. The creators have broken the social contract, therefore society feels no duty to respect their half of it.
It goes like this. Joe Spammer decides to use several_thousand_names@mydomainname.com as his assumed identity. A do-gooder site gets reports of that mydomainname.com is "sending" this spam to, oh, say a zillion people. They promptly "blacklist" my domain -- from whence, I hasten to point out, no spam has ever been, or will ever be, sent. However, my domain is a valid domain that I depend upon to make my living. Various ISP's, through a compounding of stupidity (but still with the intent to "do good"), promptly bounce our valid emails, because the do-gooders site says we are spammers.
Any blacklist that does this should die a horrible fiery death; any mail admin that blocks on domainname without even asking for a full email with headers should be impaled, Vlad Dracule style.
This is why tools like SpamCop exist, and everyone should be using them regularly. Moral of the story: never trust the "From: " line.
The only reason the government gets technology like this developed is intelligent people will do anything for their degree or grant money.
No, the only reason they get technology like this is because we allow them to ask for it. You think that if they offered enough money (say $157,673) that some company wouldn't jump to make this same product for them? Should we boycott IBM because they sell computers to the government which they then use to crack codes or monitor the Internet (Carnivore, etc)? Should we boycott Smith and Wesson because they make guns for agents to use? No, we should tell our government that they are not allowed to do these things. Making of tools should not be punished; commiting bad/wrong acts should be disallowed, especially in a government "by the people, of the people and for the people".
Interestingly enough, gamers on the Mac (Yes, there are a few!) don't have as many problems with this kinda protection since they can have store and mount CD images directly off their hard drive.
This isn't mac specific; it's the same for Linux. I've run into very few games under Linux that require the CD in the drive to run, and even those could be circumvented by mounting a disk image off the hard drive. One notable example is NeverWinter Nights. Whenever my friends and I get together for a LAN party, they have to do all sorts of CD exchanging and copying just to get NWN to work under Windows, while I just fire it up on dual screen and level up while waiting for them. BTW, NWN is sweet at 2048x768;)
No, it's the perfect tool. It pays for the impact of vehicles in the same way as gambling, smoking, and alcohol pay for their impact: through a sin tax.
While I agree it's the perfect tool, I wish that we would stop calling them "sin" taxes. For one, not all of us believe in "sin". For another, wouldn't it be more appropriate to call it (ab)use taxes? Think about it: you (ab)use your lungs (through smoking), you pay to fix them; you (ab)use your liver (through drinking), you pay to fix it; you (ab)use the roads, you pay to fix them. That way, you're not forcing morals on anyone and just being more honest. I know it's mostly semantics, but the idea of a "sin" tax just bothers me.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. Even more revealing is the part of that quote about Microsoft "playing its old game" against Linux and Apple. This leads me to believe that whoever said that seriously doesn't understand Linux, and probably not Apple, because they *can't* use their old tactics against Linux, and their old tactics haven't killed off Apple yet.
Microsoft can't "play its old game" to compete with Linux, because Linux doesn't play "the game" or by the rules. Linux is about Freedom and getting real work done with a minimum of hassle, not about games.
Good for you! Some of us, though, would rather not be "advertised" to. Ever. I *hate* ads with a passion, even if it's for things I like. I think it's a waste of resources, and more importantly, human creativity that could be better put towards solving real problems. My mantra has always been "don't call me, I'll call you"; ie, if I'm interested in your product, I'll do the research, find out about it, and if it fits my needs, I'll contact you directly to purchase it. Fuck the middlemen, advertisers included.
Word-of-mouth isn't advertising, in the modern sense. I expect that when I hear from a friend that "product X is great!" that they are not being paid to say that. Their only motivation is that they are truly happy with the product.
Since when is having to wait anywhere from a few days to whole weeks for shipping "instant"? Whoever said the above has either never done any online shopping or is a moron.
Speak for yourself. Some of us are here (in the OSS world) because of Freedom, first and foremost, utility and technical superiority secondarily, and price lastly. That is to say, even if OSS cost twice as much and did half as much as non-Free software, I'd still use it. And I do, on a regular basis, purchase both Free and non-Free software for Linux and other open source platforms. I also develop it, and contribute back when possible.
I know I don't speak for everyone in the OSS world, and there are probably many who are only using OSS because it is free as in beer. But that is not everyone, and judging a whole community is narrow-minded and stupid. Look at individuals. Observe their actions, and judge them thusly.
May I just politely say to our politicos, "fuck off"? I mean, you're already fucking up America, don't try to force your shit on the rest of the world. If they really wanted to be fucked over by you, don't you think they'd be living here (in America)?
BULLSHIT. It is a DRIVER'S *LICENSE*, not a national ID card. If you're going to use it as one, then stop lying and calling it something else.
When I'm not driving (such as when I ride my bicycle to and from work), I don't carry my driver's license, because I don't need it, and neither does anyone else.
Harley riders have never seemed to mind before! Oh wait, it doesn't make lots of noise and have lots of chrome (or have the Harley logo), so no they probably won't buy it.
Yeah, and I shouldn't have to work for a living. I'm sorry, I didn't make the rules, I just play by them because I don't want to starve to death.
Okay, how about this: you claim to be a carpenter. Someone hires you to build a bookshelf. You can't get any screws because the store is out of them, but all you know how to use is a screwdriver. The customer doesn't care, he just wants his bookshelf and tells you to use a hammer and nails. You whine that "I shouldn't *have* to learn how to use a hammer!". You aren't really a carpenter. Replace "carpenter" with "software engineer", "screwdriver" with "VB6" and "hammer" with "another programming language".
Sure they have a choice. Learn a new language or get a job with a company that will continue to use VB6. No, they aren't considered as expendable, they've basically been told "Sorry, your favorite tool will no longer be supported. Try our new shiny tool!" Which if they had just chosen a tool whose destiny wasn't ordained by a third party they have no control over, they wouldn't have this problem.
I would suck it up and learn a new language. That, or get a job with someone who still thought that $MY_FAVORITE_LANGUAGE was still viable (if the language was *that* good, which I haven't tried one yet that is).
It's part of being a professional. How many carpenters are still around who scoff at electric drills because they like the hand crank ones better? Granted, one of my favorite quotes is "a bad carpenter blames his tools, but even a master carpenter cannot make a house out of rotten wood"; however, I think that the rotting wood in this case *is* VB.
If these people can't even hack being a real software engineer, perhaps it is time for them to consider a new vocation. Those of us who are computer scientists will appreciate the breathing room and the fact that there will be one less brain dead language to have to dissuade the PHB's from using.
True, but I think that the company and whoever else use that language accepted that cost when they chose a closed, proprietary programming language. If Larry Wall suddenly decides to stop working on Perl, that won't stop it being used.
If this sounds rambling, it's only because your original post was (and maybe because of the benadryl; I hate allergies). You're arguing two points: that the programmers shouldn't have to learn a new language (false, IMHO), and that old but working programs shouldn't be dropped (true, IMHO). Compounding that, both of these are over generalized opinions, which could easily change whether they are right or wrong based on the circumstances.
BULLSHIT! I never voted for any of these asses now in office, and I certainly didn't vote for these unconstitutional laws. Two major ways things came to be the way they are: One, "he who has the gold makes the rules", ie money = power and all the voting in the world won't change the fact that most (if not all) of our politicians have been bribed to go against not only the will of the people, but the good of society.
Two, as another slashdot poster's signature so insightfully puts it: "I've found the flaw in democracy. It's stupid people. Vast masses of stupid people". Even if the government wasn't corrupt and bought out, we'd still have tens of millions of people voting on some so-called moral high ground (witness the last presidential election).
Don't dislike Americans because we are Americans. Dislike people on a per person basis based on their actions, and even then realize that people can change. Anything else is pure bigotry. And BTW, we stopped being responsible for our government when it decided that the government needed to be responsible for us, and didn't need any oversight of itself. The US is no longer a government "of the people, by the people and for the people" and hasn't been for a while.
Ugh, going in reverse chronological order, I am now a little sick to the stomach of the idea of making yet another layer of abstraction on top of all the various GUI/Sound toolkits out there. While this is a neat idea (and perhaps even marketable), I could easily see it ending up in the same exact "problem" we have now (ie, too many toolkits). I say "problem" because many who think that having all these choices are a bad thing are short sighted. Consistency is one thing, but mandating that everyone use the same tools is just stupid. Choice isn't the problem; incompatibility, inconsistency and bad design are.
Anyway, back to my original subject, I found one project (Generalized Interface Toolkit) which looks to kinda-sorta do what I described in my previous post (which, yes, I am responding to). Looking at this project, it became apparent that this wasn't exactly what I wanted, and my goals don't align up perfectly with theirs, so I would probably have to start a project of my own if I wanted to see my ends met. This got me thinking about Doing-It-Yourselfness, as well as choice, and one synapse lead to another, and I started to get queasy thinking about how GITK is (and my project would become) just another layer of abstraction competing for the same mindshare. Don't get me wrong, abstraction can be good and useful, but when taken too far, or used unecessarily, it confuses people and slows things down.
Anyway, I guess my point is that while it might be useful to some ("write once for ALL Linux GUI's!"), the idea also sort of disgusts me. As with many ideas that disgust me, however, it would probably make a lot of money. Look for your copy of GUI Uber Alles(tm) at a computer store near you soon!
This gets me to thinking: could someone just make a toolkit that is easy to use and will generate a binary that will work with multiple toolkits? Something like GGI's backends to work with X, SVGALib, etc. Only you write once, compile once, and link to a library that would dynamically detect what toolkit is currently in use and use it. Heck, they do it for cross platform toolkits like Tk and Qt, why not do something similar for all the toolkits on Linux?
Methinks something like this probably already exists, but if not, well it can go on the end of my endless list of things todo (right after "save the world"). Off to freshmeat.net to look . .
The only thing Cedega does is to dissuade publishers from making real Linux games and actually porting to something other than Windows.
Transgaming is almost as bad for open source as Microsoft is by itself.
Depends on what you call a "plethora" ("Jeffe, do you know what a 'plethora' is?"). For me, Linux *does* have a plethora of games. I'll admit, I'm no hardcore gamer, but I bought a lot of Linux games when Loki was still around (I still miss them), and I *still* haven't had time to play through them all.
BTW, ever since Loki went away the state of Linux games has been getting _worse_, not better, IMHO. Sure, we at least have companies doing ports on their own these days and Carmack is one of my heroes just for porting Id's games to Linux, but without Loki porting games and so-called Linux companies like Transgaming snatching up titles and "porting" (I use that word in the loosest sense) to Linux, games on Linux are in dire straits.
And yet still, I persist, and refuse to pay for games that aren't ported to Linux. Mainly because, like I said, it works for me. I still have plenty of games I can play *legally*, that I *paid* for, under Linux, as opposed to the flavor of the week pirated games on Windows.
Why must you bash RMS? Why must you make it so "Linux vs. RMS" when it doesn't need to be, and, indeed, it isn't?
Did it ever occur to you that RMS was an "everyday user"? That he had a problem "right in front of his face" and he "saw the technical issues" that needed to be overcome (ie, lack of source and drivers for a printer he wanted to use)?
No, it's proof that rich smucks who cheated their way to the top are always willing to spend a few bucks to make themselves look better.
Ok, sure, why the heck not. According to this, Bill is worth 29.5 billion dollars. A rough estimate of my own "investments" puts me roughly at a paltry $10,000, and ignoring the fact that Bill will probably "donate" things which are of dubious value (ie, Microsoft software), and that Mr. Gates will still have 28.75 billion dollars after this, sure I'm willing to donate $250 dollars to "match his generosity" (2.5%). Or, if he donates Microsoft software, I promise I'll submit a patch to an open source product RSN.
You, like many before you, Don't Get It. Information is not like a sweater, or any other physical property. Information can be duplicated for very little cost. And sure, the creator of information (whether it's an idea, song, or movie) has control over that information. But as soon as they choose to share it with others, their control of it is lost; that is the nature of information. Yet, at the same time, they are not deprived of the information, because it is easily copyable.
Copyright and patents were devised to encourage people to share their information, rather than keep it to themselves. And creators still have the option of not sharing their information if they don't want. Creators should realize that coyright and patents are ARTIFICIAL restrictions put on information, solely for the good of society. That they have exclusive use of it is merely due to the fact that society (in general) is nice enough to agree to that. The current extensions on copyright and patent were pushed through by greedy people who don't fully understand the purpose of copyright and patents, and society never agreed to them. The creators have broken the social contract, therefore society feels no duty to respect their half of it.
FULL STOP - It wasn't Clinton. Get your facts straight.
Any blacklist that does this should die a horrible fiery death; any mail admin that blocks on domainname without even asking for a full email with headers should be impaled, Vlad Dracule style.
This is why tools like SpamCop exist, and everyone should be using them regularly. Moral of the story: never trust the "From: " line.
You first.
"Build a house."
"And you?"
(still my #1 favorite movie of all time
No, the only reason they get technology like this is because we allow them to ask for it. You think that if they offered enough money (say $157,673) that some company wouldn't jump to make this same product for them? Should we boycott IBM because they sell computers to the government which they then use to crack codes or monitor the Internet (Carnivore, etc)? Should we boycott Smith and Wesson because they make guns for agents to use? No, we should tell our government that they are not allowed to do these things. Making of tools should not be punished; commiting bad/wrong acts should be disallowed, especially in a government "by the people, of the people and for the people".
This isn't mac specific; it's the same for Linux. I've run into very few games under Linux that require the CD in the drive to run, and even those could be circumvented by mounting a disk image off the hard drive. One notable example is NeverWinter Nights. Whenever my friends and I get together for a LAN party, they have to do all sorts of CD exchanging and copying just to get NWN to work under Windows, while I just fire it up on dual screen and level up while waiting for them. BTW, NWN is sweet at 2048x768
One, two, three, four, five, six, seven...hmph....Oswald was a fag.
Old McDonald had a farm, ee-aye, ee-aye, oh. And on this farm he shot some guys.
While I agree it's the perfect tool, I wish that we would stop calling them "sin" taxes. For one, not all of us believe in "sin". For another, wouldn't it be more appropriate to call it (ab)use taxes? Think about it: you (ab)use your lungs (through smoking), you pay to fix them; you (ab)use your liver (through drinking), you pay to fix it; you (ab)use the roads, you pay to fix them. That way, you're not forcing morals on anyone and just being more honest. I know it's mostly semantics, but the idea of a "sin" tax just bothers me.