is why they're trying legal (as in using the law) approaches to technical problems
That's the symptom. The problem is that corporations these days think that they can get their lawyerbots to write up a 'linking policy' or whatever shit they feel like, post it on their site, and have it enforced as law.
Those people will probably view the ad, especially if it's interesting (think of the possibilities of a long-running story type campaign).
Oh, come on. You and I know very well that advertisers aren't going to do anything nearly so cool with this as those `possibilities' of which you speak. Do a long-running storyline? And risk alienating that large chunk of the population with the memory of your typical goldfish? I think not. It's going to be lowest common denominator, as per always.
And yes, I am a whiny bitch. Thank you for noticing.
I don't think it would have made a lick of difference if the L of C mandated royalty rates ten times as high: the RIAA still would have appealed, saying it's too low.
Just the nature of the game. Whoever dies with the most money, wins. The RIAA is just playing to win.
I received an email along these lines from sendacrush.com only a couple of weeks ago, on one of my spam-only hotmail accounts that I've never given out to a human being.
I sent a complaint to an address I found on the site, but quite predictably got no response. The sending of unsolicited email is illegal; all we have to do is prove they've been doing this beyond reasonable doubt. I think a class-action full of slashdotters who quite evidently nobody has a crush on will more than fulfil that requirement. Who's up for it?:)
Okay, let's recap. You see nothing unethical... about stalking. Mmm-kay. Though that seems quite sick, I apprehend that it would be personally frustrating to try to convince you otherwise, so I shan't bother.
You have a better suggestion to stop them?
A better suggestion than stalking them? Well, I think I could probably come up with a couple. Petition for stronger anti-spam legislation. Try to educate the less technically inclined people you know about the problem. Identify and complain to the companies that do business with spammers, or indeed that spam companies themselves: by mail, over the phone, and / or in person (short of stalking them, of course).
You want your opinion on spam to get heard and respected? Then address the problem as a respectable person, not as an ignoramus.
He didn't ask if you `saw a problem with it'. He asked if it was legal. I'm fairly sure that your friendly neighbourhood law enforcement officer would take issue with it.
It's not legal to forcibly get drug dealers addicted to heroin. It's not legal to take it upon yourself to castrate rapists. It might appeal to some people's abberant sense of justice, but it sure as hell isn't legal, nor even ethical. It's uncivilised, not to mention childish to even suggest. I don't love spam any more than the next guy, but I don't think proposals such as this are particularly productive.
A fun four-dimensional exercise is 4d tic-tac-toe.
It's easiest if you build yourself up to it:
Start with your typical 3x3 tic-tac-toe, on a piece of paper.
Now add two more grids. Visualise each grid on top of the one before. It's not difficult to see how this is played. You can get three in a row on a single grid, just like normal. Or you can get three in a row by getting the middle square of each grid (3 in a row, vertically). And so on. This is basically tic-tac-toe in 3D. 3 sets of 3x3 grids. 3x3x3.
Now, add another two sets of three grids. So now you've got 3x3 3x3 grids (still with me?). You can still win just like in the 3x3x3 version. But you've got another 3x3 ways in which to do it. The tricky part is, to visualise each possible `3 in a row', you've got to mentally `rotate in' any one (and only one) 3x3x3 cubic plane.
Sorry if that's difficult to follow. If you work it through on paper, you'll see what I mean. This is what being bored in math class will lead you to think of, when plain old tic-tac-toe just doesn't seem challenging anymore.:)
AOL decreasing their own use of popup ads on their existing clients is not going to lead to your typical online advertiser curbing their own use of them. AOL is attempting to retain their clients. In order to do this, they're looking for ways to stop pissing them off. Good idea. Genius.
It's not like that for your typical online advertisers. They're generally trying to acquire new business. They want to get noticed, and if they're the kind to use popups or popunders, they're generally not the kind who are too much concerned about pissing off Joe Slashdot-User, who isn't going to click though anyway. They're aiming for the typical, unsavvy web user, who's not going to be too hesitant to give out his credit card details to the flashing lights and pretty colours. Popup ads are effective in generating this kind of business.
It's in AOL's interest to curb their use of popups. It'll help them keep their clients. It's not in the interest of your typical online advertiser to stop using them. Sorry kids, popups are here to stay.
Perhaps I'm completely missing the point here...
on
HP Backs Off DMCA Threat
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
... but as the DMCA is a statute, isn't it up to the FBI or some such to actually `use' it?
Adobe brought a `DMCA violation' to the attention of the FBI to prompt the Skylarov / Elcomsoft affair. When they backed down, the FBI did not follow suit. Is it not the case that all a person or company can do is bring a `violation' to the attention of the FBI, and let them take it from there?
If this is the case, would not HP's original statement in regards to the researchers violating the DMCA be enough to set the ball in motion? If the FBI were to agree that the event in question is a DMCA violation, would their backing down be enough to prevent further action from being taken?
IANAL and I'm not even from the US, so maybe I've completely misunderstood how this works. But isn't there more to it than HP just deciding to stop waving the DMCA stick?
Such data result in impressive 3D maps of asteroids, which have often
surprised astronomers with their weird shapes. Some prove to be binary systems (one space rock orbiting another) and one even looks like a dog bone.
Why is it that I'm picturing a couple of ageing hippy astronomers, passing around a joint and checking out the skies?
``Whoa, dude, that's rock's shaped really weird...'' ``Yeah... looks like a dog bone or somethin'...'' *toke* *toke* ``Heh heh... check out Uranus...''
Something that has been irritating me no end of late is the frequency with which articles on Satirewire are copied verbatim and passed off as original work. This doesn't just happen on the 'net. The student magazine of my university (which will remain nameless) has on a number of occasions published Satirewire articles uncited and unacknowledged. I've emailed the editors to complain of this, without receiving so much as a reply (let alone a printed acknowledgement, god forbid).
This, I suppose, is the risk of running a great site like Satirewire that produces high-quality, original, goddamned funny content - people read it, wish they could write something as good, then figure "what the hell" and just steal it. I guess Marlatt could take it as a compliment, but only insofar as you would take having your house robbed as a compliment.
Wow, here in the US, we had people who might say such things -- they were call the Ku Klux Klan!
Just a word in my defense...
I was, in fact, being sarcastic. I think the attitude of the Australian government towards those seeking refuge in this country is absolutely disgusting. The game was my way of speaking out against it. Who says code can't be speech?
Slashdot Mirror
is why they're trying legal (as in using the law) approaches to technical problems
That's the symptom. The problem is that corporations these days think that they can get their lawyerbots to write up a 'linking policy' or whatever shit they feel like, post it on their site, and have it enforced as law.
The scary thing is, many of them are right.
Cybersex. Sod the sword fighting algorithms. :)
Hey, I'm getting the same thing in freaking Australia. You know why? When you hit www.listen4ever.com/, you get a 302 Moved Temporarily.
This isn't a `silent redirect', kids. This isn't a global conspiracy. Move along now. Nothing to see here.
Those people will probably view the ad, especially if it's interesting (think of the possibilities of a long-running story type campaign).
Oh, come on. You and I know very well that advertisers aren't going to do anything nearly so cool with this as those `possibilities' of which you speak. Do a long-running storyline? And risk alienating that large chunk of the population with the memory of your typical goldfish? I think not. It's going to be lowest common denominator, as per always.
And yes, I am a whiny bitch. Thank you for noticing.
- $50: All Night Tech Support
- PvP+PA
- Illiad: Not Funny
Tell it like it is, Gabe & Tycho, yeah!Eugh, it's too early.
You mean, like, stomach-mounted rocket launchers? :)
There is nothing illegal in "sampling" a song.
I think you mean ``immoral'', not ``illegal''. One is not necessarily the other.
I don't think it would have made a lick of difference if the L of C mandated royalty rates ten times as high: the RIAA still would have appealed, saying it's too low.
Just the nature of the game. Whoever dies with the most money, wins. The RIAA is just playing to win.
I received an email along these lines from sendacrush.com only a couple of weeks ago, on one of my spam-only hotmail accounts that I've never given out to a human being.
:)
I sent a complaint to an address I found on the site, but quite predictably got no response. The sending of unsolicited email is illegal; all we have to do is prove they've been doing this beyond reasonable doubt. I think a class-action full of slashdotters who quite evidently nobody has a crush on will more than fulfil that requirement. Who's up for it?
Ethical? I see nothing wrong with it. . .
Okay, let's recap. You see nothing unethical... about stalking. Mmm-kay. Though that seems quite sick, I apprehend that it would be personally frustrating to try to convince you otherwise, so I shan't bother.
You have a better suggestion to stop them?
A better suggestion than stalking them? Well, I think I could probably come up with a couple. Petition for stronger anti-spam legislation. Try to educate the less technically inclined people you know about the problem. Identify and complain to the companies that do business with spammers, or indeed that spam companies themselves: by mail, over the phone, and / or in person (short of stalking them, of course).
You want your opinion on spam to get heard and respected? Then address the problem as a respectable person, not as an ignoramus.
He didn't ask if you `saw a problem with it'. He asked if it was legal. I'm fairly sure that your friendly neighbourhood law enforcement officer would take issue with it.
It's not legal to forcibly get drug dealers addicted to heroin. It's not legal to take it upon yourself to castrate rapists. It might appeal to some people's abberant sense of justice, but it sure as hell isn't legal, nor even ethical. It's uncivilised, not to mention childish to even suggest. I don't love spam any more than the next guy, but I don't think proposals such as this are particularly productive.
Shhyeah, and monkeys might fly out of my butt.
Incidentally, I'm currently implementing this as a Java applet.
- Start with your typical 3x3 tic-tac-toe, on a piece of paper.
- Now add two more grids. Visualise each grid on top of the one before. It's not difficult to see how this is played. You can get three in a row on a single grid, just like normal. Or you can get three in a row by getting the middle square of each grid (3 in a row, vertically). And so on. This is basically tic-tac-toe in 3D. 3 sets of 3x3 grids. 3x3x3.
- Now, add another two sets of three grids. So now you've got 3x3 3x3 grids (still with me?). You can still win just like in the 3x3x3 version. But you've got another 3x3 ways in which to do it. The tricky part is, to visualise each possible `3 in a row', you've got to mentally `rotate in' any one (and only one) 3x3x3 cubic plane.
Sorry if that's difficult to follow. If you work it through on paper, you'll see what I mean. This is what being bored in math class will lead you to think of, when plain old tic-tac-toe just doesn't seem challenging anymore.AOL decreasing their own use of popup ads on their existing clients is not going to lead to your typical online advertiser curbing their own use of them. AOL is attempting to retain their clients. In order to do this, they're looking for ways to stop pissing them off. Good idea. Genius.
It's not like that for your typical online advertisers. They're generally trying to acquire new business. They want to get noticed, and if they're the kind to use popups or popunders, they're generally not the kind who are too much concerned about pissing off Joe Slashdot-User, who isn't going to click though anyway. They're aiming for the typical, unsavvy web user, who's not going to be too hesitant to give out his credit card details to the flashing lights and pretty colours. Popup ads are effective in generating this kind of business.
It's in AOL's interest to curb their use of popups. It'll help them keep their clients. It's not in the interest of your typical online advertiser to stop using them. Sorry kids, popups are here to stay.
... but as the DMCA is a statute, isn't it up to the FBI or some such to actually `use' it?
Adobe brought a `DMCA violation' to the attention of the FBI to prompt the Skylarov / Elcomsoft affair. When they backed down, the FBI did not follow suit. Is it not the case that all a person or company can do is bring a `violation' to the attention of the FBI, and let them take it from there?
If this is the case, would not HP's original statement in regards to the researchers violating the DMCA be enough to set the ball in motion? If the FBI were to agree that the event in question is a DMCA violation, would their backing down be enough to prevent further action from being taken?
IANAL and I'm not even from the US, so maybe I've completely misunderstood how this works. But isn't there more to it than HP just deciding to stop waving the DMCA stick?
``Whoa, dude, that's rock's shaped really weird...''
``Yeah... looks like a dog bone or somethin'...''
*toke* *toke*
``Heh heh... check out Uranus...''
No, probably not.
Something that has been irritating me no end of late is the frequency with which articles on Satirewire are copied verbatim and passed off as original work. This doesn't just happen on the 'net. The student magazine of my university (which will remain nameless) has on a number of occasions published Satirewire articles uncited and unacknowledged. I've emailed the editors to complain of this, without receiving so much as a reply (let alone a printed acknowledgement, god forbid).
This, I suppose, is the risk of running a great site like Satirewire that produces high-quality, original, goddamned funny content - people read it, wish they could write something as good, then figure "what the hell" and just steal it. I guess Marlatt could take it as a compliment, but only insofar as you would take having your house robbed as a compliment.
Pants-wettingly funny book, anyway. Get it.
They chose, `notorious'. That's kinda sweet.
The ICPAA.
Oh dear, another huge content cartel. That's the last thing we need. Maybe it'll start with:
This ridiculous feint at getting some quick cash by the Indian ISPs will be forgotten by this time next month.
... I suppose you can always fake it.
Wow, here in the US, we had people who might say such things -- they were call the Ku Klux Klan!
Just a word in my defense...
I was, in fact, being sarcastic. I think the attitude of the Australian government towards those seeking refuge in this country is absolutely disgusting. The game was my way of speaking out against it. Who says code can't be speech?
Never knew bartenders read /. as well ;-)
Indeed. Jokes about us being "Denied of Service" were bandied about.
We left a note informing late arrivals of the new meeting-place. Some dubbed this note a "301 Redirect" message.