but at least in the USA, free speech does not mean "a guaranteed audience".
nor does it mean you are free to force your speech upon unwilling recipients.
yet this is exactly what political spammers try to achieve. they purchase "opt-in" lists then carefully and deliberately tailor their emails to evade filtering.
"free speech" also does not mean you can steal other peoples resources in order to "speak in public".
relay rape and using compromised PCs to send spam has been a favorite of political spammers (as well as "regular" spammers).
recall that the recent california political spams were sent through compromised school network PCs in korea.
there is also quite a difference between public speech and spam. with public speech you are not trespassing on individual private property in order to "exercise" your "free speech". with spam you always are.
your right to free speech does not override my private property rights.
"We therefore categorically reject the argument that a vendor has a right under the Constitution or otherwise to send unwanted material into the home of another. If this prohibition operates to impede the flow of even valid ideas, the answer is that no one has a right to press even 'good' ideas on an unwilling recipient. That we are often 'captives' outside the sanctuary of the home and subject to objectionable speech and other sound does not mean we must be captives everywhere. (cite omitted) The asserted right of a mailer, we repeat, stops at the outer boundary of every person's domain." - Justice Burger, for the majority, in ROWAN v. U. S. POST OFFICE DEPT. , 397 U.S. 728 (1970)
thank you US Supreme Court for one of your saner rulings.
and just to make it clear:
my domain = my pc, my hard drive, my mailbox. my property. not yours to abuse.
spam is so cheap, it doesnt matter if 1 person out of 1 billion reads it. it'll still be economically viable for spammers to operate. it costs them almost nothing to send spam via huge zombie nets.
the less people read spam, the more spam spammers will send in order to compensate.
the only real way to combat spam is to make spam so expensive it's no longer viable as a marketing tool.
if they ddos a US military site, you really should know what they are doing.
i guess you can take the ostrich approach and do nothing until the feds arrive, but theres also the willfull negligence / attractive nuisance doctrines in law... do you really want to deal with that?
"20 years ago, you wouldn't have used a C based Unix machine in place of a Mainframe, now would you? Back then, OSes were written in "safe" languages like ALGOL, FORTRAN, and LISP."
2004 - 20 = 1984
"Some operating systems from the 1980s include: AmigaOS, HP-UX, Macintosh, MS-DOS, and ULTRIX."
AmigaOS: 68k asm. check. HP-UX: C. check. Macintosh: pascal and 68k asm. check. MS-DOS: x86 asm. check. ULTRIX: C. check. SunOS (1984): C. check. Unix SVR2(1984): C. check. OS-9: Asm, later C. check.
I know of OSes written in Forth and LISP (forth in the 1980s being basically a glorified macro assembler) and none of them were very successful, but i've never heard of one in the 1980s written in FORTRAN.
not only would the applicant lose the patent and the filing fee, the filing fee would be awarded to the individual who provided the first prior art which invalidated the patent.
try running complex X apps (like openoffice, mozilla) over a slow WAN link.
it's intolerably slow, because of all the rendering api calls. even (seemingly) simple apps become pure torture. if a window becomes obscured and has to redraw, you'll want to put your fist through the monitor.
now run the same app via something like vnc. it's no longer totally unbearable. it's actually usable.
gosling is quite right on this point. it's far more efficient to just stream it as (compressed) video data when you have to talk over networks.
you know absolutely zilch about the legal system, quit playing armchair lawyer and get off the couch for once.
if you really believe jurists have no say in the matter then you've never heard or seen the OJ simpson trial. you've been living under a rock for decades.
it is your right as a jurist to believe whoever and whatever you want. if you believe the prosector is making shit up, if you believe the witnesses are not credible, if you believe the case is a farce, then it is your absolute right as a jurist to deliberate and vote that way.
there is no law saying to have to believe any single thing the prosecution or defense presents is credible.
the judge can't hold you in contempt of court for thinking the prosecutor is a lying sack of shit or that the defense is guilty as hell despite the evidence.
The average juror has no clue to what degree the judge, prosecution and law enforcement can manipulate the evidence and court procedure to make the phrase "fair trial" a fucking joke.
well since you are obviously "not" the average juror, you should vote your conscience on a jury. since you're smarter than everyone else. jury nullification is a powerful tool against "the evil empire".
by advocating avoidance of jury duty and by avoiding it yourself, you just exacerbate the problem, by leaving juries entirely up to those "average jurors" you so despise.
you could make a difference, but your apathy leads you not to.
afaik RF does not strip electrons from atoms, create free radicals which cause dna damage.
sure RF (microwaves) can cook you, but that's an entirely different story. afaik heating tissue does not cause cancer -- one would expect stastically significant increase of cancer in burn victims if that were true.
are there other mechanisms for cancer / leukemia other than dna damage?
not using a write blocker in and of itself does not automatically invalidate digital evidence, any more than using subpoena'd digital logs or records from third parties does.
what it does do is make it difficult for the defense to claim tampering, IFF it can be shown the data wasn't tampered with (or outright forged) before being duplicated.
like any other evidence, corroboration is the key. you need witnesses / experts to back up the integrity of the evidence presented.
Slashdot Mirror
They couldnt just subpoena the company, because the admin was the prime suspect.
The only way to get unaltered evidence was to sieze the servers.
steve jackson games were raided by the Secret Service, a completely different organization than the FBI.
You are arguing that, in essence, unsolicited email is trespass, much like standing on your front lawn with a sign would be.
The supreme court said it, not me. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the judges.
...when I say,
fuck you, verisign
has a really fucked up idea of "free speech".
but at least in the USA, free speech does not mean "a guaranteed audience".
nor does it mean you are free to force your speech upon unwilling recipients.
yet this is exactly what political spammers try to achieve. they purchase "opt-in" lists then carefully and deliberately tailor their emails to evade filtering.
"free speech" also does not mean you can steal other peoples resources in order to "speak in public".
relay rape and using compromised PCs to send spam has been a favorite of political spammers (as well as "regular" spammers).
recall that the recent california political spams were sent through compromised school network PCs in korea.
there is also quite a difference between public speech and spam. with public speech you are not trespassing on individual private property in order to "exercise" your "free speech". with spam you always are.
your right to free speech does not override my private property rights.
"We therefore categorically reject the argument that a vendor has a right under the Constitution or otherwise to send unwanted material into the
home of another. If this prohibition operates to impede the flow of even valid ideas, the answer is that no one has a right to press even 'good' ideas on an unwilling recipient. That we are often 'captives' outside the sanctuary of the home and subject to objectionable speech and other sound
does not mean we must be captives everywhere. (cite omitted) The asserted right of a mailer, we repeat, stops at the outer boundary of every person's domain. " - Justice Burger, for the majority, in ROWAN v. U. S. POST OFFICE DEPT. , 397 U.S. 728 (1970)
thank you US Supreme Court for one of your saner rulings.
and just to make it clear:
my domain = my pc, my hard drive, my mailbox. my property. not yours to abuse.
when you're in prison
spam is so cheap, it doesnt matter if 1 person out of 1 billion reads it. it'll still be economically viable for spammers to operate. it costs them almost nothing to send spam via huge zombie nets.
the less people read spam, the more spam spammers will send in order to compensate.
the only real way to combat spam is to make spam so expensive it's no longer viable as a marketing tool.
if they ddos a US military site, you really should know what they are doing.
i guess you can take the ostrich approach and do nothing until the feds arrive, but theres also the willfull negligence / attractive nuisance doctrines in law... do you really want to deal with that?
doesnt seem to work for the israelis
doesnt seem to work anywhere, for that matter
actually business were using CP/M and MS-DOS. for mainframes they used VAXen. or HP.
MVS was used iirc a lot in banking. i'm pretty certain MVS is assembler.
afaik symbolics never saw wide use in business applications -- it mainly found success with AI research. symbolics didn't last long, that's for sure.
theres a lot of still-running business VAXen though. that really says something.
VMS was written in assembler...
Hokay...
"20 years ago, you wouldn't have used a C based Unix machine in place of a Mainframe, now would you? Back then, OSes were written in "safe" languages like ALGOL, FORTRAN, and LISP."
2004 - 20 = 1984
"Some operating systems from the 1980s include: AmigaOS, HP-UX, Macintosh, MS-DOS, and ULTRIX."
AmigaOS: 68k asm. check.
HP-UX: C. check.
Macintosh: pascal and 68k asm. check.
MS-DOS: x86 asm. check.
ULTRIX: C. check.
SunOS (1984): C. check.
Unix SVR2(1984): C. check.
OS-9: Asm, later C. check.
I know of OSes written in Forth and LISP (forth in the 1980s being basically a glorified macro assembler) and none of them were very successful, but i've never heard of one in the 1980s written in FORTRAN.
bytes are bytes and numbers are numbers.
this kind of philosophy is what causes programmers to avoid Java.
"Back then, OSes were written in "safe" languages like ALGOL, FORTRAN, and LISP."
no they weren't. they were written in assembler. or C.
Which OS is written in FORTRAN?
java did promise to fill both embedded hardware and web-app space.
it failed on both counts.
not only would the applicant lose the patent and the filing fee, the filing fee would be awarded to the individual who provided the first prior art which invalidated the patent.
try running complex X apps (like openoffice, mozilla) over a slow WAN link.
it's intolerably slow, because of all the rendering api calls. even (seemingly) simple apps become pure torture. if a window becomes obscured and has to redraw, you'll want to put your fist through the monitor.
now run the same app via something like vnc. it's no longer totally unbearable. it's actually usable.
gosling is quite right on this point. it's far more efficient to just stream it as (compressed) video data when you have to talk over networks.
not only is it an optical illusion, they also have very strong magnets buried to create the "magnetic vortex" purported to be there.
I guess what it means is that the Saudis would have been perfectly happy with a game where christian crusaders converted mosques into churches.
bullshit.
you know absolutely zilch about the legal system, quit playing armchair lawyer and get off the couch for once.
if you really believe jurists have no say in the matter then you've never heard or seen the OJ simpson trial. you've been living under a rock for decades.
it is your right as a jurist to believe whoever and whatever you want. if you believe the prosector is making shit up, if you believe the witnesses are not credible, if you believe the case is a farce, then it is your absolute right as a jurist to deliberate and vote that way.
there is no law saying to have to believe any single thing the prosecution or defense presents is credible.
the judge can't hold you in contempt of court for thinking the prosecutor is a lying sack of shit or that the defense is guilty as hell despite the evidence.
The average juror has no clue to what degree the judge, prosecution and law enforcement can manipulate the evidence and court procedure to make the phrase "fair trial" a fucking joke.
well since you are obviously "not" the average juror, you should vote your conscience on a jury. since you're smarter than everyone else. jury nullification is a powerful tool against "the evil empire".
by advocating avoidance of jury duty and by avoiding it yourself, you just exacerbate the problem, by leaving juries entirely up to those "average jurors" you so despise.
you could make a difference, but your apathy leads you not to.
or maybe it's just plain laziness on your part.
you have more power as a jurist than you do anything else. your single vote probably won't decide a president, but it can decide life or death.
fuck your apathy.
they result in vendor lock-in, which is particularly bad if you're trying to write code independent of the RDBMS engine.
a very bad design decision all around.
for non ionizing radiation to cause cancer
a nobel prize awaits if you figure it out
afaik RF does not strip electrons from atoms, create free radicals which cause dna damage.
sure RF (microwaves) can cook you, but that's an entirely different story. afaik heating tissue does not cause cancer -- one would expect stastically significant increase of cancer in burn victims if that were true.
are there other mechanisms for cancer / leukemia other than dna damage?
do pay attention in class next time then.
not using a write blocker in and of itself does not automatically invalidate digital evidence, any more than using subpoena'd digital logs or records from third parties does.
what it does do is make it difficult for the defense to claim tampering, IFF it can be shown the data wasn't tampered with (or outright forged) before being duplicated.
like any other evidence, corroboration is the key. you need witnesses / experts to back up the integrity of the evidence presented.