I should have the right to send encrypted mail from work if I feel like it.
No, you shouldn't. You are using the company's computers to send a message over the company's networks. That equipment does not belong to you; you do not have the right to do anything with it that the company does not explicitly allow.
We monitor everything. We scan all email for keywords. All encrypted mail is immediately discarded; we don't allow it for security reasons. For all we know, you could be stealing company secrets, sending/receiving a virus (whether on purpose or not), or engaging in illegal behavior.
We could care less if you send a message home to the wifey, although if it's explicit, expect it to get flagged for futher review (and salivation) by one of the geeks in the computer department - I'm one of many. All web activity is logged but we don't do anything about it unless you're blatently disregarding your job duties, or if it's pr0n or illegal. We've only fired one guy for inapproriate computer use. (He spent 2 straight days doing nothing but downloading hard core pr0n, presumably spanking it right there in his cubicle)
You have no right to privacy when using company equipment. When I pay for your time and own the equipment, I reserve the right to monitor how you use it.
The price of HDTVs is too high. Who would spend $3500 on a 25" tv???
Not many people. The real beauty of HDTV lies in large screens. I bought a 65" 16:9 HD projection TV last year. It's essentially a giant monitor, in fact, I can feed it high resolution images directly from my PC.
Regular projection TVs look like shit: You can see scan lines everywhere. My HD set is just as crisp and clear as a PC monitor, even for regular broadcast quality video, thanks to the internal line doubler. Can I watch HDTV? Nope, because there isn't any HD content available in my area. However, I can (and do) watch progressive (non-interlaced) DVDs on a regular basis at 60fps. It's better than a movie theater. And, without a built in HD decoder, my set is future proof. It accepts regular video inputs (composite, s-video, and component) so any future HDTV decoder will work with it regardless of what standards are set.
Would I buy a tube based HD set? Hell no. Regular non-HD tube sets look just fine to me. It's when you get into 40" and larger screens that HD-ready sets really shine.
To be honest, I don't know why any of us are talking about digital cable here. Digital cable != HDTV. All of the digital cable boxes I've ever seen output a standard composite signal to a TV. The boxes my cable company (Charter Communications) offers don't even output S-Video. By contrast, HD signals travel over a component video cable.
Digital cable is a joke. It's only digital up until it hits that box of theirs, where it's turned back into a regular old normal definition analog signal before being fed to your TV.
The robot's computer is a Pentium® III running Linux
Actually, it's more along the lines of avoiding a situation like:
Astronaut: Open the airlock, happy fun ball. My air supply is dwindling and I need to get back into the station.
Happy Fun Ball: GPF in airlock.exe while attempting to route all data through iexplore.exe. Cannot comply.
Astronaut: What you say!!
Problem is that no-one can come up with any kind of chemistry which can be as complex and varied as carbon based organic molecules.
However, just because nobody has come up with it yet, does not mean it isn't possible. 400 years ago, people surely thought they were on "the cutting edge", that they "knew" so much about the world around them. Compared to what we now know, we can look back and laugh our collective asses off at many of their theories and "truths".
In a few hundred years, we will be the ones being laughed at.
Given the course of history, it's silly to completely dismiss an idea based on what we currently know. This is not to say we should spend millions on research of fanatical ideas, only that we should recognize the fact that there is likely much more to this world than any of us could imagine.
a new Internet worm that takes advantage of a security flaw in Microsoft software
Is this even worth mentioning? I mean, really! Don't all worms take advantage of security flaws in Microsoft software? Why can't someone write a worm to take advantage of Apache for a change? All of these Microsoft servers being compromised are making me jealous. If only I could afford a license of Win2k Server, then I could participate in the excitement as well...
WLAN latency is BAD. 80+ milliseconds just to the AP.
Hmmmm.
PING 216.27.195.1 (216.27.195.1) from 216.27.195.214 : 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from gateway.badger.ken.clearskynet.net (216.27.195.1): icmp_seq=0 ttl=255 time=9.812 msec
64 bytes from gateway.badger.ken.clearskynet.net (216.27.195.1): icmp_seq=1 ttl=255 time=7.977 msec
64 bytes from gateway.badger.ken.clearskynet.net (216.27.195.1): icmp_seq=2 ttl=255 time=15.926 msec
64 bytes from gateway.badger.ken.clearskynet.net (216.27.195.1): icmp_seq=3 ttl=255 time=8.928 msec
64 bytes from gateway.badger.ken.clearskynet.net (216.27.195.1): icmp_seq=4 ttl=255 time=8.360 msec
This connection is as follows:
1. My server
2. Wireless antenna broadcasting ~5 miles line of sight to an antenna on top of a local mountain.
3. Wireless antenna broadcasting ~5 miles back from the top of that mountain to ISP.
4. Gateway.
I would decidedly not used the word fixed. The outcome is not predetermined.
Thank you for the clarification. It certainly adds new clarity to the situation, considering my last statement, "What isn't rigged is the outcome: It's a real competition with real winners and losers."
Unless that particular show was an extreme abberation, the team *experts* are the ones who stock the junkyard.
Experts, Leaders, The Guys Showing The Team How To Build The Device. Does it really matter?
But is it "fixed". No. The teams are genuinely out there trying to win.
I am continually amazed by new technologies. First those tiny IBM drives, now this. However, someone needs to address battery issues: I bet this puppy sucks power from portable devices like you wouldn't believe. Pop one in and watch your battery life go right down the crapper. Not that it'd stop me from buying one, mind you...
Plenty of pictures for your enjoyment. The project is 1.5 years in the making and should be completed by next summer. That is, if I don't run out of money again.:)
Yes, the show is fixed. Not too long ago, they built a couple of hovercraft on Junkyard Wars. I am building a hovercraft of my own (a real one, not made out of junk) and have spoken with both of the team leaders who built the crafts on Junkyard Wars. Basically, they submitted a list of necessary parts to the producers, who then stocked the yunkyard. Also, in addition to the two days of filming, they used a 3rd day off-camera to finish up their hovercrafts.
If you'll recall, one of the guys carved a prop out of a piece of "old" burnt wood - yes, he really did carve that prop from scratch! But the wood wasn't old. It was a brand new piece of wood specifically selected for the purpose, and the Junkyard Wars crew burnt it for them beforehand.:)
So yes, the show is rigged, but you have to give them some credit: How could you possibly have entertainment otherwise? They certainly wouldn't be able to build most of what they do if the junkyard wasn't stocked. What isn't rigged is the outcome: It's a real competition with real winners and losers.
The first sentence is very poorly written, but I interpret this to mean that if you want to link to this site using a graphic logo, you have to user their logo and you have to abide by the policies set down here.
Well, that's bullshit. Assuming I don't like CyberCheeze, I should have the right to take a picture of a pile of shit and link it to their site. Hell, I do have that right. I'd like to see them do a damn thing about it. Using their logo inappropriately or without their consent is one thing, but simply linking to their site? That's a violation of my freedom of speech/freedom of press.
Note that I have nothing against CyberCheeze. I thought their Barney reply was hilarious. But it is odd, you know, that they would attempt to pull the same bullshit.
If you let a 10 year old send and receive email, without monitoring it, you've abrogated your responsibilities as a parent.
You assume things about me that you do not know. Nowhere did I say that her email would be unmonitored, nor did I even imply it. In actuality, I agree with you: Children need all of their online activities monitored by a parent, and I fully plan to have logging & filtering software installed on my server when it comes time to set my little one up with her own accounts.
Sending solicitations to a minor is a violation of federal law whether the parent intercepts it or not. I'm hoping it can be applied to spam - it should be. I understand that it is difficult if not outright impossible to track a porn spammer down, let alone file charges against them. That doesn't mean I won't try. Hell, I'm half tempted to do it when they spam me.
But what THEY DO KNOW is that you visit adult sites
Really? I'm surprised you know so much about me. The fact of the matter is, I do much of my surfing from work and absolutely do not visit adult sites, not here, nor at home. I have a beautiful wife who fulfills that portion of me much more than porn could ever hope to.
A close friend of mine uses AOL and receives dozens of incoming porn solicitations daily. She is a strict Christian woman who has never browsed for porn, yet they still harass her.
It is NOT their legal right to send me unsolicited links to pornography and a graphic description of exactly what I'll find via said link, which I get on a daily basis. They have no idea whether I'm an adult or not. What happens when my 4 year old daughter is 10, gets her own email address, and receives this crap? I'll tell you what happens: I'll put the SOBs in jail for solicitation of a minor - assuming I can track them down.
I wonder if someone could get away with suing them for sexual harassment? Hell, it works everywhere else. Tell a female coworker she looks nice in a dress, or tell some dirty joke within earshot of the wrong person, and you could wind up in court. I'd say links to "young teen sluts waiting to suck you dry" constitutes sexual harassment, wouldn't you?
As for other spam: Imagine if companies sent you advertisements via COD, only you're forced to pay. Mail man shows up at the door: "Here you go sir. 20 more ads. Charges are $5, we'll deduct it from your checking account whether you like it or not." Imagine if the palm reader at the 900 number was able to call YOU, and if you answer the phone, you're automatically charged $10. In reality, this is exactly what spammers do to you. You're paying (Internet access charges) for them to spam you. There are laws against this in the real world.
But it's damn arrogant of you to decide for everyone else whether they can use the feature or not.
I don't think anyone has an issue with people deciding to use such a feature. The problem is that 95% of computer users will be forced to use the feature out of ignorance. Even if it's off by default, you just know there will be a big helpful dialog box that comes up and highly suggests you turn it on. Hit OK to make the box go away and there you go, it's on.
Just wait 'till script kiddies start sending out smarttag-modifying VBS files. When someone's kid clicks on a harmless word on my site and gets sent to www.triplexanimalsex.com, who do you think gets to deal with the angry parents and their idiot lawyers? Or when our CEO goes out to the company's web site and finds links to our competition, who is going to get his ass fired? Me, because the idiots of the world who don't know jack about computers will assume the author of the site put those links there.
Most people have a hard enough time understanding a basic link as it is. I get complaints all the time from people who are pissed that I would put (insert something here) on our web site, when in reality they clicked on a link and were obviously no longer on our site! They certainly aren't going to understand info boxes that hover over my words.
This feature should be off by default and difficult to enable (read: buried deep in the advanced options), so only reasonably intelligent people can use it.
No, not even me. That's what "nobody" means. Nobody, not even me, should be allowed to profit off of something that the rest of the taxpayers in this country paid for. It's one thing to create and sell a commercial product that works in conjunction with the GPL'd product. It's quite another to integrate GPL code *into* a product, then sell it as my own. The taxpayers invested the money in that code! If anyone should get a return on that investment, it should be the taxpayers!
Now, if 20% of a product had government-written GPL code in it, I would be all for allowing the author to profit off of that product, as long as 20% of the money was given back to the taxpayers who funded the development of that code, and as long as that 20% portion of the source code was included with the software. That way the author is only making money off of his own hard work and the GPL'd code contained within is 100% available to everyone who purchases the software.
This has nothing to do with "corporations" or their legal status. Let's not blur the issue. This is about how everyone's money is being used to develop code that not everyone can use.
No, you're wrong. Everyone, including for-profit corporations, can use GPL'd code. They simply can't put that code in a product and sell it at a profit. Use = OK, making money off of it = NO. And this is how it should be.
Who cares if some corp uses public-domain code to make money?
I do. When taxpayer money is used to fund a project, nobody should be able to take the source code from that project, modify it, and make millions. Period.
If linux is a cancer, it must be some sort of weird "reverse-cancer". I'll be the first to admit to being a linux-newbie, but in the course of setting up my own Linux web server, I've already noticed many of linux's reverse-cancerous attributes:
:: Linux reverse-eats money from my bank account. Over $3000 is still in there that otherwise might have been spent on 2K disAdvanced server. It frightens me to think that Linux can somehow infect my bank account in this manner.
:: Linux reverse-spreads to my memory and hard drive like the cancer that it is. All sorts of free memory and drive space are present in the system compared to the *ahem*copy*ahem* of 2K server on the box next to it. I've been meaning to get this looked into by someone with more experience than I, but just haven't had the time. I hope it isn't contagious; I spent good money on 512MB of RAM to power that 2K server and would hate to see it suddenly able to get by on much less.
:: Linux's reverse-cancer infects Windows, which in turn reverse-infects my mind. Every time I power up my Windows workstation, I have an uncontrollable urge to replace it with Linux.
After careful analysis and consideration of the facts presented herein, I must come to the upsetting conclusion that this Linux thing is incredibly dangerous. I advise everyone to immediately forward a copy of this fact-sheet to their congressional representatives and demand that Linux be classified as a level 4 pathogen and steps be taken to ensure it's immediate eradication from existence.
I saw a picture of this truck (the Army's version) in Popular Mechanics. There was a $40 Logitech joystick sitting on the back seat - incidentally, the same joystick a friend of mine owns. I'd like to know exactly what the hell a Logitech joystick is doing in there? Is it so the vehicle's occupants can play Quake Tournament on the seat mounted displays over a satellite link to the Internet? If you tell me it's actually part of the truck's command & control systems, I'm going to be ROTFLMAO.
The RIAA has attacked every new technology from day 1. We all remember cassettes. They did the same with CDs - ever wonder why computer CDRs are 1/8th the cost of "Music" CDRs, and why they don't work in standalone burners? The "Music" CDR is nothing more than a regular CDR with data encoded on it. The standalone burner sees this data and allows you to record on the disc. The extra cost you pay to buy these "special" CDRs goes right into the RIAA's pockets. In essence, they assume you will pirate music and are extracting a fine from you based on that assumption.
Personally, I refuse to pay $17.99 + tax for a CD that has maybe 2 or 3 good songs on it. CDs should cost less than tapes: the media costs less to produce and the data is worth the same regardless of the format. Yet they're still $8 more than the same album on tape. The whole thing just screams "rip-off", and I haven't bought a CD in years for this reason alone. Instead, I download the one-hit-wonders, listen to them for a couple of weeks, and move on to the next one. I've yet to download an entire album - it's too darn much work to find every song perfectly encoded.
I'd be willing to pay a small monthly fee - $5 or so, but certainly not more than $10 - for a service full of high quality music and unlimited downloads. IMHO, considering the fact that CD sales continued to rise greatly last year in spite of Napster, I think the RIAA could add a ton of money to their bank accounts with such a system - and hopefully give some of that to the artists. I'd never pay for a peer-to-peer system like Napster, though. Too hard to find high quality encodings, and why should the RIAA profit over the use of our bandwidth?
As for this survey, it's obviously flawed, as are most surveys. I never did understand why anyone thinks they can interview a few thousand people and call it good, considering there are billions of us. If they interviewed a few million, the data might be a little more valid.
Hmm.. looks like you could have saved 5 months of trouble if you had just shown them what it was being used for. It would have made them look like idiots too.
You can't be serious. Who in their right mind would let the police search their house without a warrent? Certainly not I. The last house we lived in was not very well oriented to the sun. My wife and I are plant lovers and had to put banks of full spectrum florescent lighting throughout the house to keep our plants alive while we lived there. We're talking basic houseplants here, folks. At night, a large window at the front of the house lit the entire street up due to the lighting in that room.
We didn't get harassed, but a cop lived down the street and I'm sure it was only a matter of time. Had he knocked on my door and asked what the lights were for, I would have simply smiled and said, "Wouldn't you like to know?" I wasn't doing anything illegal, but if law enforcement wants to look through my house, they're not doing it without a warrant. Fuck 'em. Make 'em go through the work. And do as Hammy did, if they illegally harass you, sue the sons of bitches. The whole war on drugs has gotten so out of hand that innocent citizens are being victimized, and I for one will make their lives as miserable as I can if they try to pull that shit on me.
Since when? I challenge anyone to win a major election without a few million dollars. Money, in fact, does get candidates elected. If I spend $10mil on my campaign and you spend none, well, a monkey could deduce who will win that election.
>> 2. All spam must contain a link allowing you
>> be removed from the list; again, it's the law.
When was the last time you received a piece of spam that (a) came from a valid address, and (b) had a valid link that you were able to follow and that directly resulted in less spam showing up in your inbox?
The problem is that 99% of spammers are already breaking the laws. As much as I hate spam, I can get over the "get rich quick!!!!!!!" and "free satellite TV!!!!" ads I see on a daily basis. What I cannot get over is the unsolicited porn. Now, I enjoy my porn as much as the next guy, but damnit, in a few years my daughter is going to be old enough to have and use her own computer, and if I EVER find unsolicited porn in her inbox I'm going to hire someone to track the sender down and perform a bobbit-ectomy on him.
Slashdot Mirror
I should have the right to send encrypted mail from work if I feel like it.
No, you shouldn't. You are using the company's computers to send a message over the company's networks. That equipment does not belong to you; you do not have the right to do anything with it that the company does not explicitly allow.
We monitor everything. We scan all email for keywords. All encrypted mail is immediately discarded; we don't allow it for security reasons. For all we know, you could be stealing company secrets, sending/receiving a virus (whether on purpose or not), or engaging in illegal behavior.
We could care less if you send a message home to the wifey, although if it's explicit, expect it to get flagged for futher review (and salivation) by one of the geeks in the computer department - I'm one of many. All web activity is logged but we don't do anything about it unless you're blatently disregarding your job duties, or if it's pr0n or illegal. We've only fired one guy for inapproriate computer use. (He spent 2 straight days doing nothing but downloading hard core pr0n, presumably spanking it right there in his cubicle)
You have no right to privacy when using company equipment. When I pay for your time and own the equipment, I reserve the right to monitor how you use it.
The price of HDTVs is too high. Who would spend $3500 on a 25" tv???
Not many people. The real beauty of HDTV lies in large screens. I bought a 65" 16:9 HD projection TV last year. It's essentially a giant monitor, in fact, I can feed it high resolution images directly from my PC.
Regular projection TVs look like shit: You can see scan lines everywhere. My HD set is just as crisp and clear as a PC monitor, even for regular broadcast quality video, thanks to the internal line doubler. Can I watch HDTV? Nope, because there isn't any HD content available in my area. However, I can (and do) watch progressive (non-interlaced) DVDs on a regular basis at 60fps. It's better than a movie theater. And, without a built in HD decoder, my set is future proof. It accepts regular video inputs (composite, s-video, and component) so any future HDTV decoder will work with it regardless of what standards are set.
Would I buy a tube based HD set? Hell no. Regular non-HD tube sets look just fine to me. It's when you get into 40" and larger screens that HD-ready sets really shine.
I've tried Digital cable from Shaw
To be honest, I don't know why any of us are talking about digital cable here. Digital cable != HDTV. All of the digital cable boxes I've ever seen output a standard composite signal to a TV. The boxes my cable company (Charter Communications) offers don't even output S-Video. By contrast, HD signals travel over a component video cable.
Digital cable is a joke. It's only digital up until it hits that box of theirs, where it's turned back into a regular old normal definition analog signal before being fed to your TV.
The robot's computer is a Pentium® III running Linux
Actually, it's more along the lines of avoiding a situation like:
Astronaut: Open the airlock, happy fun ball. My air supply is dwindling and I need to get back into the station.
Happy Fun Ball: GPF in airlock.exe while attempting to route all data through iexplore.exe. Cannot comply.
Astronaut: What you say!!
Problem is that no-one can come up with any kind of chemistry which can be as complex and varied as carbon based organic molecules.
However, just because nobody has come up with it yet, does not mean it isn't possible. 400 years ago, people surely thought they were on "the cutting edge", that they "knew" so much about the world around them. Compared to what we now know, we can look back and laugh our collective asses off at many of their theories and "truths".
In a few hundred years, we will be the ones being laughed at.
Given the course of history, it's silly to completely dismiss an idea based on what we currently know. This is not to say we should spend millions on research of fanatical ideas, only that we should recognize the fact that there is likely much more to this world than any of us could imagine.
a new Internet worm that takes advantage of a security flaw in Microsoft software
Is this even worth mentioning? I mean, really! Don't all worms take advantage of security flaws in Microsoft software? Why can't someone write a worm to take advantage of Apache for a change? All of these Microsoft servers being compromised are making me jealous. If only I could afford a license of Win2k Server, then I could participate in the excitement as well...
some day....
WLAN latency is BAD. 80+ milliseconds just to the AP.
Hmmmm.
PING 216.27.195.1 (216.27.195.1) from 216.27.195.214 : 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from gateway.badger.ken.clearskynet.net (216.27.195.1): icmp_seq=0 ttl=255 time=9.812 msec
64 bytes from gateway.badger.ken.clearskynet.net (216.27.195.1): icmp_seq=1 ttl=255 time=7.977 msec
64 bytes from gateway.badger.ken.clearskynet.net (216.27.195.1): icmp_seq=2 ttl=255 time=15.926 msec
64 bytes from gateway.badger.ken.clearskynet.net (216.27.195.1): icmp_seq=3 ttl=255 time=8.928 msec
64 bytes from gateway.badger.ken.clearskynet.net (216.27.195.1): icmp_seq=4 ttl=255 time=8.360 msec
This connection is as follows:
1. My server
2. Wireless antenna broadcasting ~5 miles line of sight to an antenna on top of a local mountain.
3. Wireless antenna broadcasting ~5 miles back from the top of that mountain to ISP.
4. Gateway.
Looks like a lot less than 80+ms to me.
I would decidedly not used the word fixed. The outcome is not predetermined.
...
Thank you for the clarification. It certainly adds new clarity to the situation, considering my last statement, "What isn't rigged is the outcome: It's a real competition with real winners and losers."
Unless that particular show was an extreme abberation, the team *experts* are the ones who stock the junkyard.
Experts, Leaders, The Guys Showing The Team How To Build The Device. Does it really matter?
But is it "fixed". No. The teams are genuinely out there trying to win.
(sigh)
I am continually amazed by new technologies. First those tiny IBM drives, now this. However, someone needs to address battery issues: I bet this puppy sucks power from portable devices like you wouldn't believe. Pop one in and watch your battery life go right down the crapper. Not that it'd stop me from buying one, mind you...
You're building a cool toy, and didn't provide a URL? C'mon, c'mon, c'mon. Let me see it!
:)
Well, for fear of swamping my meager 1Mbps connection, here you go:
http://www.ryanwright.com/hover/
Plenty of pictures for your enjoyment. The project is 1.5 years in the making and should be completed by next summer. That is, if I don't run out of money again.
Yes, the show is fixed. Not too long ago, they built a couple of hovercraft on Junkyard Wars. I am building a hovercraft of my own (a real one, not made out of junk) and have spoken with both of the team leaders who built the crafts on Junkyard Wars. Basically, they submitted a list of necessary parts to the producers, who then stocked the yunkyard. Also, in addition to the two days of filming, they used a 3rd day off-camera to finish up their hovercrafts.
:)
If you'll recall, one of the guys carved a prop out of a piece of "old" burnt wood - yes, he really did carve that prop from scratch! But the wood wasn't old. It was a brand new piece of wood specifically selected for the purpose, and the Junkyard Wars crew burnt it for them beforehand.
So yes, the show is rigged, but you have to give them some credit: How could you possibly have entertainment otherwise? They certainly wouldn't be able to build most of what they do if the junkyard wasn't stocked. What isn't rigged is the outcome: It's a real competition with real winners and losers.
The first sentence is very poorly written, but I interpret this to mean that if you want to link to this site using a graphic logo, you have to user their logo and you have to abide by the policies set down here.
Well, that's bullshit. Assuming I don't like CyberCheeze, I should have the right to take a picture of a pile of shit and link it to their site. Hell, I do have that right. I'd like to see them do a damn thing about it. Using their logo inappropriately or without their consent is one thing, but simply linking to their site? That's a violation of my freedom of speech/freedom of press.
Note that I have nothing against CyberCheeze. I thought their Barney reply was hilarious. But it is odd, you know, that they would attempt to pull the same bullshit.
If you let a 10 year old send and receive email, without monitoring it, you've abrogated your responsibilities as a parent.
You assume things about me that you do not know. Nowhere did I say that her email would be unmonitored, nor did I even imply it. In actuality, I agree with you: Children need all of their online activities monitored by a parent, and I fully plan to have logging & filtering software installed on my server when it comes time to set my little one up with her own accounts.
Sending solicitations to a minor is a violation of federal law whether the parent intercepts it or not. I'm hoping it can be applied to spam - it should be. I understand that it is difficult if not outright impossible to track a porn spammer down, let alone file charges against them. That doesn't mean I won't try. Hell, I'm half tempted to do it when they spam me.
But what THEY DO KNOW is that you visit adult sites
Really? I'm surprised you know so much about me. The fact of the matter is, I do much of my surfing from work and absolutely do not visit adult sites, not here, nor at home. I have a beautiful wife who fulfills that portion of me much more than porn could ever hope to. A close friend of mine uses AOL and receives dozens of incoming porn solicitations daily. She is a strict Christian woman who has never browsed for porn, yet they still harass her.
It is their legal right to contact you
It is NOT their legal right to send me unsolicited links to pornography and a graphic description of exactly what I'll find via said link, which I get on a daily basis. They have no idea whether I'm an adult or not. What happens when my 4 year old daughter is 10, gets her own email address, and receives this crap? I'll tell you what happens: I'll put the SOBs in jail for solicitation of a minor - assuming I can track them down.
I wonder if someone could get away with suing them for sexual harassment? Hell, it works everywhere else. Tell a female coworker she looks nice in a dress, or tell some dirty joke within earshot of the wrong person, and you could wind up in court. I'd say links to "young teen sluts waiting to suck you dry" constitutes sexual harassment, wouldn't you?
As for other spam: Imagine if companies sent you advertisements via COD, only you're forced to pay. Mail man shows up at the door: "Here you go sir. 20 more ads. Charges are $5, we'll deduct it from your checking account whether you like it or not." Imagine if the palm reader at the 900 number was able to call YOU, and if you answer the phone, you're automatically charged $10. In reality, this is exactly what spammers do to you. You're paying (Internet access charges) for them to spam you. There are laws against this in the real world.
But it's damn arrogant of you to decide for everyone else whether they can use the feature or not.
I don't think anyone has an issue with people deciding to use such a feature. The problem is that 95% of computer users will be forced to use the feature out of ignorance. Even if it's off by default, you just know there will be a big helpful dialog box that comes up and highly suggests you turn it on. Hit OK to make the box go away and there you go, it's on.
Just wait 'till script kiddies start sending out smarttag-modifying VBS files. When someone's kid clicks on a harmless word on my site and gets sent to www.triplexanimalsex.com, who do you think gets to deal with the angry parents and their idiot lawyers? Or when our CEO goes out to the company's web site and finds links to our competition, who is going to get his ass fired? Me, because the idiots of the world who don't know jack about computers will assume the author of the site put those links there.
Most people have a hard enough time understanding a basic link as it is. I get complaints all the time from people who are pissed that I would put (insert something here) on our web site, when in reality they clicked on a link and were obviously no longer on our site! They certainly aren't going to understand info boxes that hover over my words.
This feature should be off by default and difficult to enable (read: buried deep in the advanced options), so only reasonably intelligent people can use it.
Not even you?
No, not even me. That's what "nobody" means. Nobody, not even me, should be allowed to profit off of something that the rest of the taxpayers in this country paid for. It's one thing to create and sell a commercial product that works in conjunction with the GPL'd product. It's quite another to integrate GPL code *into* a product, then sell it as my own. The taxpayers invested the money in that code! If anyone should get a return on that investment, it should be the taxpayers!
Now, if 20% of a product had government-written GPL code in it, I would be all for allowing the author to profit off of that product, as long as 20% of the money was given back to the taxpayers who funded the development of that code, and as long as that 20% portion of the source code was included with the software. That way the author is only making money off of his own hard work and the GPL'd code contained within is 100% available to everyone who purchases the software.
This has nothing to do with "corporations" or their legal status. Let's not blur the issue. This is about how everyone's money is being used to develop code that not everyone can use.
No, you're wrong. Everyone, including for-profit corporations, can use GPL'd code. They simply can't put that code in a product and sell it at a profit. Use = OK, making money off of it = NO. And this is how it should be.
Who cares if some corp uses public-domain code to make money?
I do. When taxpayer money is used to fund a project, nobody should be able to take the source code from that project, modify it, and make millions. Period.
If linux is a cancer, it must be some sort of weird "reverse-cancer". I'll be the first to admit to being a linux-newbie, but in the course of setting up my own Linux web server, I've already noticed many of linux's reverse-cancerous attributes:
:: Linux reverse-eats money from my bank account. Over $3000 is still in there that otherwise might have been spent on 2K disAdvanced server. It frightens me to think that Linux can somehow infect my bank account in this manner.
:: Linux reverse-spreads to my memory and hard drive like the cancer that it is. All sorts of free memory and drive space are present in the system compared to the *ahem*copy*ahem* of 2K server on the box next to it. I've been meaning to get this looked into by someone with more experience than I, but just haven't had the time. I hope it isn't contagious; I spent good money on 512MB of RAM to power that 2K server and would hate to see it suddenly able to get by on much less.
:: Linux's reverse-cancer infects Windows, which in turn reverse-infects my mind. Every time I power up my Windows workstation, I have an uncontrollable urge to replace it with Linux.
After careful analysis and consideration of the facts presented herein, I must come to the upsetting conclusion that this Linux thing is incredibly dangerous. I advise everyone to immediately forward a copy of this fact-sheet to their congressional representatives and demand that Linux be classified as a level 4 pathogen and steps be taken to ensure it's immediate eradication from existence.
I saw a picture of this truck (the Army's version) in Popular Mechanics. There was a $40 Logitech joystick sitting on the back seat - incidentally, the same joystick a friend of mine owns. I'd like to know exactly what the hell a Logitech joystick is doing in there? Is it so the vehicle's occupants can play Quake Tournament on the seat mounted displays over a satellite link to the Internet? If you tell me it's actually part of the truck's command & control systems, I'm going to be ROTFLMAO.
The RIAA has attacked every new technology from day 1. We all remember cassettes. They did the same with CDs - ever wonder why computer CDRs are 1/8th the cost of "Music" CDRs, and why they don't work in standalone burners? The "Music" CDR is nothing more than a regular CDR with data encoded on it. The standalone burner sees this data and allows you to record on the disc. The extra cost you pay to buy these "special" CDRs goes right into the RIAA's pockets. In essence, they assume you will pirate music and are extracting a fine from you based on that assumption.
Personally, I refuse to pay $17.99 + tax for a CD that has maybe 2 or 3 good songs on it. CDs should cost less than tapes: the media costs less to produce and the data is worth the same regardless of the format. Yet they're still $8 more than the same album on tape. The whole thing just screams "rip-off", and I haven't bought a CD in years for this reason alone. Instead, I download the one-hit-wonders, listen to them for a couple of weeks, and move on to the next one. I've yet to download an entire album - it's too darn much work to find every song perfectly encoded.
I'd be willing to pay a small monthly fee - $5 or so, but certainly not more than $10 - for a service full of high quality music and unlimited downloads. IMHO, considering the fact that CD sales continued to rise greatly last year in spite of Napster, I think the RIAA could add a ton of money to their bank accounts with such a system - and hopefully give some of that to the artists. I'd never pay for a peer-to-peer system like Napster, though. Too hard to find high quality encodings, and why should the RIAA profit over the use of our bandwidth?
As for this survey, it's obviously flawed, as are most surveys. I never did understand why anyone thinks they can interview a few thousand people and call it good, considering there are billions of us. If they interviewed a few million, the data might be a little more valid.
Hmm.. looks like you could have saved 5 months of trouble if you had just shown them what it was being used for. It would have made them look like idiots too.
You can't be serious. Who in their right mind would let the police search their house without a warrent? Certainly not I. The last house we lived in was not very well oriented to the sun. My wife and I are plant lovers and had to put banks of full spectrum florescent lighting throughout the house to keep our plants alive while we lived there. We're talking basic houseplants here, folks. At night, a large window at the front of the house lit the entire street up due to the lighting in that room.
We didn't get harassed, but a cop lived down the street and I'm sure it was only a matter of time. Had he knocked on my door and asked what the lights were for, I would have simply smiled and said, "Wouldn't you like to know?" I wasn't doing anything illegal, but if law enforcement wants to look through my house, they're not doing it without a warrant. Fuck 'em. Make 'em go through the work. And do as Hammy did, if they illegally harass you, sue the sons of bitches. The whole war on drugs has gotten so out of hand that innocent citizens are being victimized, and I for one will make their lives as miserable as I can if they try to pull that shit on me.
Votes get a candidate elected, not money.
Since when? I challenge anyone to win a major election without a few million dollars. Money, in fact, does get candidates elected. If I spend $10mil on my campaign and you spend none, well, a monkey could deduce who will win that election.
>> 2. All spam must contain a link allowing you >> be removed from the list; again, it's the law. When was the last time you received a piece of spam that (a) came from a valid address, and (b) had a valid link that you were able to follow and that directly resulted in less spam showing up in your inbox? The problem is that 99% of spammers are already breaking the laws. As much as I hate spam, I can get over the "get rich quick!!!!!!!" and "free satellite TV!!!!" ads I see on a daily basis. What I cannot get over is the unsolicited porn. Now, I enjoy my porn as much as the next guy, but damnit, in a few years my daughter is going to be old enough to have and use her own computer, and if I EVER find unsolicited porn in her inbox I'm going to hire someone to track the sender down and perform a bobbit-ectomy on him.