This plan would give the 2nd sleaziest profession in the world a financial incentive to attack the sleaziest profession in the world. Overnight, a new cottage industry would spring up -- spam-specialist lawyers.
I can see the commercials now: "Too much Spam? Kids getting porno in their email? Call the law offices of McSchyster and Schultz. Our team of legal and technical specialists will track down the source of the spam and MAKE THEM PAY!!!!"
I agree with you. I have seen a lot of people on Slashdot take this biased, hypocritical approach. Presumably the worst offenders are 17-year-old hax0rs who dabble in politics, absorbing every counterculture political meme with with no clue about real life and no experience outside their parents' basement.
I love my cats, but if there was some kind of a famine and I couldn't get any food, I'd grill and eat those motherfuckers without a second thought. Because if they were starving, they'd probably try to eat me if they could!
That's an awfully large-sized brush you're using to paint us with, Anonymous Eurocoward.
You just made almost a dozen categorical, unconstructive criticisms of the populace of an entire country. Interesting how, if I were to write something similar about "Arabs" or "Chinese people," I'd be accused of intolerance of even racism. But it remains ever-popular and completely OK to say things like "All Americans are nuts." Incredible. This is the attitude that many Americans (myself included) find so off-putting -- that somehow intolerance and prejudice is bad, except when it's directed towards Americans.
I'm not saying the USA doesn't have problems, I'm just saying that your snobbish, prejudiced attitude is not going to help us solve them.
And your comment "and even the colo(u)rful language they've brutally raped"... I can't even begin to understand what you mean by this idiotic statement. English has always been an "open source" language -- evolving, changing, adapting and improving with its times and settings. There is no central committee regulating the English language, unlike, say, French.
Forgive me for my armchair stock analysis, but I think that's very bad advice. For a company that has large cash reserves and usually operates in the black, Apple is undervalued. The stock recently showed a nearly 30% gain over the past few weeks since the introduction of the iTunes Music Store. Even so, Apple stock is still not too far from its 52-week low, and with the economy showing some signs of minor improvement, it's very possible it will go up substantially (along with many other solvent, stable tech companies) over the next few years. This day may not be the beginning of the next bull market -- there may be more retreats -- but that day is close at hand. Dumping stock at such an undervalued price seems like bad investing strategy to me.
As one of the nameless multitudes who receives thousands of "Get Rich Quick," "Gallons of Cheap Viagra" and "Teen Sluts With Shaved *****" spams, I have been wondering something for a while:
What's the feasibility of coming up with and implementing a brand new mail protocol -- one which somehow prevents (or at least extremely complicates) the transmission of bulk, unsolicited mail? On the server level, you could build in source address verification (so spammers couldn't disguise the source of the mail) and bandwidth limitations -- so for example, someone sending out 1000 emails could do so, but with a geometric lag for each mail they send. (Isn't this called a "tar pit"?)
In other words, since e-mail was invented in a time when spam didn't exist, it seems like we could improve upon the protocol considerably and make it harder for spammers to do their dirty work. Not being an SMTP expert, I don't know what this would require -- perhaps someone could fill me in?
Hear, hear. Slashdot needs to take a good, hard look at the message they are trying to convey about the line (in this case, not at all blurry) between IP debates and outright theft.
the distinction is NOT real...
on
Decentralization
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
as a geeky business owner, I hate to tell you that the distinction is NOT real, it is an artificial border that you have decided to draw. It is more than an "oversimplification", it is a total fabrication.
There are many hardcore geeks who are also trying to make a profit -- so many that it creates an infinitely blurred line. You are trying to invent a definition of "geeks" and "suits." In real life there are billions of different people, all with infinitely differing shades of motives and values. I hope you get some more experience with real life very soon.
You kind of have to wonder about the motives (or indeed the sanity) of someone who would write hundreds such glowing reviews for so many trivial little items.
Maybe it's like those "satisfied customers" who call up QVC or Home Shopping Network and give a testimonial about the product. They always gush, they always give a rave review. You get the feeling they just enjoy hearing their own voice on the TV set -- like it's some kind of thrilling brush with fame. Some people get really into QVC; they know the names of all the salespeople and everything.
I have to wonder if a subculture like that might have sprung up on Amazon.com? The fame of being a "Top 10 Reviewer" might lead some people to go off the deep end.
Absolutely majestic. The meteor shower peaked around 4:50 local time, when I counted 55 in a 5-minute period. Some of the meteors happened simultaneously. I'm glad I set my alarm for 3:30 (although it took quite an act of willpower to get up)!!!
No, I disagree. The media's job is to report the news. In the USA, the biggest news today is obviously the 9/11 anniversary.
And -- by the way -- people can watch what they want to see. Advertising rates are determined by viewership totals. It's a fairly effective form of democracy. The news channels must display the news that we care about; otherwise, they will be unable to make ends meet.
I definitely see a tremendous moral difference between 9/11 and, well, most anything on that list.
Sept. 11th was simply the largest mass-murder of all time. People can try to deflect blame back to the USA, but the fact remains: those people deliberately chose to pilot the planes into the WTC and the Pentagon. They decided to do it, of their own free will. The USA didn't FORCE them to do it.
It's like saying a criminal killed an old lady because of his difficult childhood. Certainly, it was a factor... but the blame lies with the criminal, who made the final decision to cut the old woman's throat.
I'm a full-time Java developer... I derive about 75% of my income from Java programming.
And I don't think Java's dead. It's great for some uses, but not so great for others.
One of the places where Java is at a distinct disadvantage is in developing client-side applications. The AWT/Swing classes, as far as GUI development go, are laughable -- pitiful, even. There is no comparison between these and, say, Cocoa on Mac OS X. AWT/Swing are too inelegant, too clumsy, and quite frankly, their elements are butt-ugly when they finally get drawn on your screen.
As for performance: we've been able to get some very good performance out of our server-side apps with some careful programming and judicious use of JNI.
But yeah, if Java is experiencing problems, I'd say that MS is probably not to blame for most of those.
I took that comic strip to be part of the well-deserved backlash against the French, rather than Apple. Of course, when you insult the French, you're just preaching to the choir, too.
It has been said elsewhere in this forum, probably much more eloquently than I could put it. But it's true: don't put your stuff on a public HTTP server if you don't want it linked to. THAT'S THE NATURE OF THE TECHNOLOGY!!!
This kind of stuff makes me angrier still, because people who want to prevent deep-linking could easily do it in a more acceptable way. Instead of suing & complaining, you could design your website to prevent it! Just use a handful of PHP scripts, which check (via cookies, or the REFERRER value, or a generated seed value, or a combination of simple methods) to make sure you have come from a valid page!
If people want to prevent deep-linking, well, it's their own funeral! But they should take responsibility for doing it themselves.
Well, that's a great point, and it's a good illustration of the double-edged sword of free speech. You are free to say whatever dumbshit, ridiculous things you want. But you are also free to deal with the social consequences.
When you publish something on the web, it is publicly available via HTTP. End of story. Responsible netizens can observe the requests of "robots.txt" but they don't have to. If you want something more controlled, create a VPN or intranet or some other kind of non-public data server.
Your argument is similar to that of newspaper publishers who didn't like "deep linking." What they couldn't (or didn't want to) understand is that the nature of an HTTP web server is quite simple. A client asks for a file, the server gives it back. Using that protocol implies that you are OK with that. If you're not, I suggest you look into different technologies, instead of complaining about lack of control, in a medium that was never intended to provide it.
Slashdot Mirror
This plan would give the 2nd sleaziest profession in the world a financial incentive to attack the sleaziest profession in the world. Overnight, a new cottage industry would spring up -- spam-specialist lawyers.
I can see the commercials now: "Too much Spam? Kids getting porno in their email? Call the law offices of McSchyster and Schultz. Our team of legal and technical specialists will track down the source of the spam and MAKE THEM PAY!!!!"
I agree with you. I have seen a lot of people on Slashdot take this biased, hypocritical approach. Presumably the worst offenders are 17-year-old hax0rs who dabble in politics, absorbing every counterculture political meme with with no clue about real life and no experience outside their parents' basement.
I love my cats, but if there was some kind of a famine and I couldn't get any food, I'd grill and eat those motherfuckers without a second thought. Because if they were starving, they'd probably try to eat me if they could!
Congrats. You're the first American online to ever admit that the US are having problems.
And if you really believe that, you should start reading more stuff online than just Slashdot and pr0n.
That's an awfully large-sized brush you're using to paint us with, Anonymous Eurocoward.
You just made almost a dozen categorical, unconstructive criticisms of the populace of an entire country. Interesting how, if I were to write something similar about "Arabs" or "Chinese people," I'd be accused of intolerance of even racism. But it remains ever-popular and completely OK to say things like "All Americans are nuts." Incredible. This is the attitude that many Americans (myself included) find so off-putting -- that somehow intolerance and prejudice is bad, except when it's directed towards Americans.
I'm not saying the USA doesn't have problems, I'm just saying that your snobbish, prejudiced attitude is not going to help us solve them.
And your comment "and even the colo(u)rful language they've brutally raped"... I can't even begin to understand what you mean by this idiotic statement. English has always been an "open source" language -- evolving, changing, adapting and improving with its times and settings. There is no central committee regulating the English language, unlike, say, French.
Forgive me for my armchair stock analysis, but I think that's very bad advice. For a company that has large cash reserves and usually operates in the black, Apple is undervalued. The stock recently showed a nearly 30% gain over the past few weeks since the introduction of the iTunes Music Store. Even so, Apple stock is still not too far from its 52-week low, and with the economy showing some signs of minor improvement, it's very possible it will go up substantially (along with many other solvent, stable tech companies) over the next few years. This day may not be the beginning of the next bull market -- there may be more retreats -- but that day is close at hand. Dumping stock at such an undervalued price seems like bad investing strategy to me.
Well, it would certainly give a brand new meaning to her song "Trigger Happy Jack"...
As one of the nameless multitudes who receives thousands of "Get Rich Quick," "Gallons of Cheap Viagra" and "Teen Sluts With Shaved *****" spams, I have been wondering something for a while:
What's the feasibility of coming up with and implementing a brand new mail protocol -- one which somehow prevents (or at least extremely complicates) the transmission of bulk, unsolicited mail? On the server level, you could build in source address verification (so spammers couldn't disguise the source of the mail) and bandwidth limitations -- so for example, someone sending out 1000 emails could do so, but with a geometric lag for each mail they send. (Isn't this called a "tar pit"?)
In other words, since e-mail was invented in a time when spam didn't exist, it seems like we could improve upon the protocol considerably and make it harder for spammers to do their dirty work. Not being an SMTP expert, I don't know what this would require -- perhaps someone could fill me in?
Those Big Music Executives are a bunch of shitfaced, midget-humping jism-dumpsters. I invite them to eat my ass.
Tonight I'm drunk enough to burn through karma points on an idiotic post like this.
I agree with everything except #4 -- re-entry speed was > 12000 mph, there is zero survivability at that stage of re-entry.
Hear, hear. Slashdot needs to take a good, hard look at the message they are trying to convey about the line (in this case, not at all blurry) between IP debates and outright theft.
as a geeky business owner, I hate to tell you that the distinction is NOT real, it is an artificial border that you have decided to draw. It is more than an "oversimplification", it is a total fabrication.
There are many hardcore geeks who are also trying to make a profit -- so many that it creates an infinitely blurred line. You are trying to invent a definition of "geeks" and "suits." In real life there are billions of different people, all with infinitely differing shades of motives and values. I hope you get some more experience with real life very soon.
You kind of have to wonder about the motives (or indeed the sanity) of someone who would write hundreds such glowing reviews for so many trivial little items.
Maybe it's like those "satisfied customers" who call up QVC or Home Shopping Network and give a testimonial about the product. They always gush, they always give a rave review. You get the feeling they just enjoy hearing their own voice on the TV set -- like it's some kind of thrilling brush with fame. Some people get really into QVC; they know the names of all the salespeople and everything.
I have to wonder if a subculture like that might have sprung up on Amazon.com? The fame of being a "Top 10 Reviewer" might lead some people to go off the deep end.
Absolutely majestic. The meteor shower peaked around 4:50 local time, when I counted 55 in a 5-minute period. Some of the meteors happened simultaneously. I'm glad I set my alarm for 3:30 (although it took quite an act of willpower to get up)!!!
Nope, this is incorrect - antibacterial soap contains triclosan which is an antibacterial agent. It does contribute to the problem.
Check out this article as a reference.
Here's a new story that Star Trek could try.
Some drunken Finn posted this on alt.stupidity many years back. It is hilarious (for its stupidity) and worth a read.
DAMN YOU PIRARD -- the script
No, I disagree. The media's job is to report the news. In the USA, the biggest news today is obviously the 9/11 anniversary.
And -- by the way -- people can watch what they want to see. Advertising rates are determined by viewership totals. It's a fairly effective form of democracy. The news channels must display the news that we care about; otherwise, they will be unable to make ends meet.
Hear hear, sielwolf. Well spoken.
I definitely see a tremendous moral difference between 9/11 and, well, most anything on that list.
Sept. 11th was simply the largest mass-murder of all time. People can try to deflect blame back to the USA, but the fact remains: those people deliberately chose to pilot the planes into the WTC and the Pentagon. They decided to do it, of their own free will. The USA didn't FORCE them to do it.
It's like saying a criminal killed an old lady because of his difficult childhood. Certainly, it was a factor... but the blame lies with the criminal, who made the final decision to cut the old woman's throat.
the rest is from pr0n and drug sales, yes. ;)
I'm a full-time Java developer... I derive about 75% of my income from Java programming.
And I don't think Java's dead. It's great for some uses, but not so great for others.
One of the places where Java is at a distinct disadvantage is in developing client-side applications. The AWT/Swing classes, as far as GUI development go, are laughable -- pitiful, even. There is no comparison between these and, say, Cocoa on Mac OS X. AWT/Swing are too inelegant, too clumsy, and quite frankly, their elements are butt-ugly when they finally get drawn on your screen.
As for performance: we've been able to get some very good performance out of our server-side apps with some careful programming and judicious use of JNI.
But yeah, if Java is experiencing problems, I'd say that MS is probably not to blame for most of those.
I took that comic strip to be part of the well-deserved backlash against the French , rather than Apple. Of course, when you insult the French, you're just preaching to the choir, too.
It has been said elsewhere in this forum, probably much more eloquently than I could put it. But it's true: don't put your stuff on a public HTTP server if you don't want it linked to. THAT'S THE NATURE OF THE TECHNOLOGY!!!
This kind of stuff makes me angrier still, because people who want to prevent deep-linking could easily do it in a more acceptable way. Instead of suing & complaining, you could design your website to prevent it! Just use a handful of PHP scripts, which check (via cookies, or the REFERRER value, or a generated seed value, or a combination of simple methods) to make sure you have come from a valid page!
If people want to prevent deep-linking, well, it's their own funeral! But they should take responsibility for doing it themselves.
You know what, I actually found that amusing.
Well, that's a great point, and it's a good illustration of the double-edged sword of free speech. You are free to say whatever dumbshit, ridiculous things you want. But you are also free to deal with the social consequences.
When you publish something on the web, it is publicly available via HTTP. End of story. Responsible netizens can observe the requests of "robots.txt" but they don't have to. If you want something more controlled, create a VPN or intranet or some other kind of non-public data server.
Your argument is similar to that of newspaper publishers who didn't like "deep linking." What they couldn't (or didn't want to) understand is that the nature of an HTTP web server is quite simple. A client asks for a file, the server gives it back. Using that protocol implies that you are OK with that. If you're not, I suggest you look into different technologies, instead of complaining about lack of control, in a medium that was never intended to provide it.