why do they provide filtering for free sign-up yahoo.com accounts and not for paying customers
Probably because its just a different system, or whatever. I'd think if they were into profitting from spam, they'd do the exact opposite of what you describe.
And I don't buy into that "victim" part.
Ok, so if what you're saying is that it is easy to block it, what is your theory on why they allow it? Seems to me spam costs them money, so if its so easy to block, they would.
Which makes it very clear to me that Yahoo and other big ISPs, for whatever reason, just love the existence of SPAM
That's just stupid. Sure, they may charge you for a service they provide, but they don't love spam, they are victims too. If you read and understood the description of the system they are developing, it would be apparent that they do not love spam, they are proposing the one and only approach (I can think of) that will solve the damn problem. What amazes me is that the rest of the internet has let the spam problem exist as long as it has when a solution such as this one can be implemented.
Thank you Yahoo for getting this underway, and best of luck in convincing the world that it makes sense and must be adopted.
Ok, clever comment, but it sounds like they are trying to do something about it, and from what I can tell, it seems like the right solution.
From what I can tell, the problems with yahoo mail have more to do with spammers faking the headers to have yahoo.com, rather than something yahoo is doing wrong. Regardless, yahoo is not profitting from spam, they are victims of the problem as much as anyone, so why slam them when they are trying to fix it?
But for someone to be convicted, they have to go to court, and any reasonable judge would simply throw the case out if it was a video phone. Doubtfully it would get that far though.
All you have to do is take a low resolution picture, and then use that software they use on almost every TV show to sharpen it and bring in details that weren't in the original photo.
If you are using the words to refer to the actual practice of slavery, obviously that is fine. Nobody is suggesting that slavery be forgotten about or not spoken of.
But if you are using the terms as metaphores for everyday things, it can make the concept of slavery seem more everyday and "ok". That's what might bother some people.
I tend to agree it's stupid. It seems ok to tech people, because we've seen it for so long, but someone seeing it for the first time might think it a little offensive to use a word normally reserved for a shame of our fairly recent past (in america, at least), as a metaphore for an everyday thing. I'd think "master/servant" would work as well, without carrying with it associations that can be hurtful or offensive to some.
(I got modded as flamebait and accused of being racist for an analogy elsewhere, where I showed that there are cases where most people would agree that this exact same sort of thing could be offensive....the only difference being one of degree. Maybe I should have labeled is as being sarcastic because people apparently completely missed my point...)
Sorry, but to think that using a set of terms to describe the mass killing of insects is proper if it is in reference to the mass murder of the Jewish people, is WRONG!
Well good, it looks like my analogy illustrated the point pretty well. Of course its wrong, and you are right, no one really uses those terms to my knowledge, I just made it up. It's obviously a more extreme example, but I think it shows how using metaphores based on evils of history to illustrate everyday concepts just MIGHT be a bit offensive to some people.
Yeah, and next thing you know they'll have to modify the terminology used in agriculture. Currently the machines used to spread insecticide are commonly referred to as "The Gestapo" and the insects that are targeted for extermination are referred to as "The Jews".
Next thing you know, some politically correct idiot is gonna make us find different terms, even though "Gestapo" and "Jews" sure seems to illustrate the concept nicely.
You seem to imply that's a bad thing. I think its great when they actually try to entertain you, rather than just force their product down your throat.
I personally think we are all better off for vigilante justice. Yes, it is illegal and should be prosecuted, or we would have lawlessness. But...
Imagine you riding on a bus and see someone making fun of a retarded kid he doesn't know. He's not doing anything illegal, just being an a**hole. Someone else comes up and threatens to knock his lights out if he doesn't stop.
The vigilante is in the wrong, especially if the guy keeps being mean and the vigilante makes good on his word. And yes, the vigilante may get himself in trouble with the law for it, as is correct in a civilized society. But I think anyone watching the situation would cheer on the vigilante, even as he was taken away in handcuffs for slugging the mean guy.
So I support the guy who went postal on the spammer, while I also recognise that what he did was illegal and needs some degree of punishment. I think there is nothing wrong with spammers having a little fear that if the law can't do anything about them, if they piss enough people off one of them just might lose it and bad things may happen.
It's not perfect, but it sure as hell is better than charging everyone, or even worse letting spammers have free reign.
I disagree, I think its perfect.:)
Seriously, it makes a lot of sense, and could be done without legislation if enough ISP's and email client makers got behind it. If you tried to send an email to someone was signed up to such a service, you'd get a notice that you have to agree to a potential 10 cent charge (or whatever) if the recipient was unhappy to recieve your email. (you could have your email client set to automatically say "ok" to all such prompts, of course) The charge would probably show up on your isp bill, or, if you have email through another provider, you could get an account there so that you could be charged if needed.
Obviously, most people wouldn't want to have their inbox protected in this way unless enough other people were on the service too, so for that reason maybe some legislation would help. But assuming the "critical mass" hurdle could be overcome, it really doesn't have to be enforced by law.
Ok, if there are 1,000,000 people with this level of concern, and they each sent 50 USD to the Mozilla Foundation
But, "rational" people wouldn't do that. If you -- individually -- send $50, how much do you think the product will be improved based on your contribution alone? Remember, you can't control how much other people send. Whether of not everyone else sends $50, it is doubtful you will get even $1 of material benefit from your $50 investment.
People, in general, don't think collectively. (suggestion: read up on game theory)
If Linux is better and less expensive, why is it necessary to force people to use it? Are they too ignorant to figure it out for themselves?
Here is one way this could be true. Say I am a little tiny department and I need five computers. It might well be easier and cheaper to simply use microsoft stuff....everyone knows how to use it, other departments we have to share docs with use it so everyone is compatible, and the cost of 5 copies of windows and office is no big deal compared to those other issues.
However, if ALL departments go OSS, it becomes cheaper for everyone, since the compatility issue goes away, since people moving between departments will not have to be retrained, etc.
Well, I'd say where your plan can hurt is by fooling the people attempting it that they are going to get results, so they stop trying to do things that will actually make a difference.
A far more effective approach, IMO, would be to simply make it a bad idea (for everyone) to send spam . A really, really bad idea. Because you might end up in jail, because you will get huge fines, or just because your message will reach no one. It will take a combination of legislation, enforcement, and technical means to solve this, not just appealing to the spammers to stop because we don't think its in their interest to keep doing it.
I don't think people would be doing it so much today if it was such a bad idea for all of them. It doesn't cost them much, there is little risk of "bad things" happening as a result, and they make a few bucks off a few idiots. Until that is changed, it will be in many people's selfish interests to spam, and spam they will.
Surely the risk hasn't changed, just our estimate of it...
Now think about that a bit...our estimate of it is the only thing we are talking about when we talk about such predictions. If we had all the information there was to have, we wouldn't talk in terms of risk, we could just say exactly when one would hit. (ok, i suppose quantum theory introduces a certain level of true uncertainty, but still....)
Another of saying it is, if the weatherman was smart enough, there is never really a 60% chance of rain tomorrow....its either 0% or 100%.
I was not serious about the stockholders making the decision.
My point was that at most companies (any company I've been at anyway, although they tend to be smaller companies), an employee is ultimately the one who makes the decision on such things. Even if that employee is the CEO or CTO.
(Agree except for Alien 3, which killed off all the characters you rooted for in Alien 2, making it less fun to go back and watch 2 knowing that the little girl and the bot bit the dust soon after. Damn them....)
But on your last point, I think there are a lot of sequels that are only green lighted because they have a better chance at making money than non-sequels. So there is a lower threshold they have to meet....sucking isn't specific to sequels, but sequels might be more likely to suck.
I enjoy good graphics and effects. I salute the work of the artists and modelers and animators and programmers that make them happen. What's so wrong about that?
Nobody questions that a good story and screenplay make for a better movie, but is there something wrong with admitting that part of the reason I go to see a movie is to appreciate the work of all the talented and creative people who participated in bringing it to the screen, rather than just the select few?
Well the traditional definition of fruit is that it should be sweet (for instance in Websters:..." the usually edible reproductive body of a seed plant; especially : one having a sweet pulp associated with the seed "). The reason a cucumber or tomato or pumpkin or squash etc are not generally considered to be fruits is that they are not sweet enough. Remember, the word was not invented by scientists, it was people who wanted to describe a certain kind of thing, and tomatoes and pumpkins and such probably did not fit what they were talking about.
EVEN if users have to jump through hoops like not executing from inside the mail program, saving it to the desktop, unzipping, scanning -- they'll screw something up. It is the nature of the beast.
I can't agree with that. If the default behavior of all common mail programs so discourages people from executing attachments, I think the worm problem (at least as it exists today with things like sobig) would be effectively solved.
That's not to say that nobody will find a way to execute such a program. The problem with sobig, though, was that so *many* people ended up running it, because of how easy it is to do in mail programs.
Slashdot Mirror
Whether they care or not has nothing to do with whether they support it. Their actions support it, their motivations are irrelevant.
why do they provide filtering for free sign-up yahoo.com accounts and not for paying customers
Probably because its just a different system, or whatever. I'd think if they were into profitting from spam, they'd do the exact opposite of what you describe.
And I don't buy into that "victim" part.
Ok, so if what you're saying is that it is easy to block it, what is your theory on why they allow it? Seems to me spam costs them money, so if its so easy to block, they would.
Which makes it very clear to me that Yahoo and other big ISPs, for whatever reason, just love the existence of SPAM
That's just stupid. Sure, they may charge you for a service they provide, but they don't love spam, they are victims too. If you read and understood the description of the system they are developing, it would be apparent that they do not love spam, they are proposing the one and only approach (I can think of) that will solve the damn problem . What amazes me is that the rest of the internet has let the spam problem exist as long as it has when a solution such as this one can be implemented.
Thank you Yahoo for getting this underway, and best of luck in convincing the world that it makes sense and must be adopted.
Ok, clever comment, but it sounds like they are trying to do something about it, and from what I can tell, it seems like the right solution.
From what I can tell, the problems with yahoo mail have more to do with spammers faking the headers to have yahoo.com, rather than something yahoo is doing wrong. Regardless, yahoo is not profitting from spam, they are victims of the problem as much as anyone, so why slam them when they are trying to fix it?
But for someone to be convicted, they have to go to court, and any reasonable judge would simply throw the case out if it was a video phone. Doubtfully it would get that far though.
Well I live in San Francisco, and now I REALLY want some GloFish. Before they were controversial, now they are illegal.... how cool!
Yeah I guess its a hassle, but having them be contaband makes it all the more worth it.
All you have to do is take a low resolution picture, and then use that software they use on almost every TV show to sharpen it and bring in details that weren't in the original photo.
If you are using the words to refer to the actual practice of slavery, obviously that is fine. Nobody is suggesting that slavery be forgotten about or not spoken of.
But if you are using the terms as metaphores for everyday things, it can make the concept of slavery seem more everyday and "ok". That's what might bother some people.
I tend to agree it's stupid. It seems ok to tech people, because we've seen it for so long, but someone seeing it for the first time might think it a little offensive to use a word normally reserved for a shame of our fairly recent past (in america, at least), as a metaphore for an everyday thing. I'd think "master/servant" would work as well, without carrying with it associations that can be hurtful or offensive to some.
(I got modded as flamebait and accused of being racist for an analogy elsewhere, where I showed that there are cases where most people would agree that this exact same sort of thing could be offensive....the only difference being one of degree. Maybe I should have labeled is as being sarcastic because people apparently completely missed my point...)
Sorry, but to think that using a set of terms to describe the mass killing of insects is proper if it is in reference to the mass murder of the Jewish people, is WRONG!
Well good, it looks like my analogy illustrated the point pretty well. Of course its wrong, and you are right, no one really uses those terms to my knowledge, I just made it up. It's obviously a more extreme example, but I think it shows how using metaphores based on evils of history to illustrate everyday concepts just MIGHT be a bit offensive to some people.
Yeah, and next thing you know they'll have to modify the terminology used in agriculture. Currently the machines used to spread insecticide are commonly referred to as "The Gestapo" and the insects that are targeted for extermination are referred to as "The Jews".
Next thing you know, some politically correct idiot is gonna make us find different terms, even though "Gestapo" and "Jews" sure seems to illustrate the concept nicely.
You seem to imply that's a bad thing. I think its great when they actually try to entertain you, rather than just force their product down your throat.
It's not available online.
And what really sucks is that it's printed in DRM ink, which will prevent people from scanning it and putting it on the net.
I personally think we are all better off for vigilante justice. Yes, it is illegal and should be prosecuted, or we would have lawlessness. But...
Imagine you riding on a bus and see someone making fun of a retarded kid he doesn't know. He's not doing anything illegal, just being an a**hole. Someone else comes up and threatens to knock his lights out if he doesn't stop.
The vigilante is in the wrong, especially if the guy keeps being mean and the vigilante makes good on his word. And yes, the vigilante may get himself in trouble with the law for it, as is correct in a civilized society. But I think anyone watching the situation would cheer on the vigilante, even as he was taken away in handcuffs for slugging the mean guy.
So I support the guy who went postal on the spammer, while I also recognise that what he did was illegal and needs some degree of punishment. I think there is nothing wrong with spammers having a little fear that if the law can't do anything about them, if they piss enough people off one of them just might lose it and bad things may happen.
It's not perfect, but it sure as hell is better than charging everyone, or even worse letting spammers have free reign.
:)
I disagree, I think its perfect.
Seriously, it makes a lot of sense, and could be done without legislation if enough ISP's and email client makers got behind it. If you tried to send an email to someone was signed up to such a service, you'd get a notice that you have to agree to a potential 10 cent charge (or whatever) if the recipient was unhappy to recieve your email. (you could have your email client set to automatically say "ok" to all such prompts, of course) The charge would probably show up on your isp bill, or, if you have email through another provider, you could get an account there so that you could be charged if needed.
Obviously, most people wouldn't want to have their inbox protected in this way unless enough other people were on the service too, so for that reason maybe some legislation would help. But assuming the "critical mass" hurdle could be overcome, it really doesn't have to be enforced by law.
Ok, if there are 1,000,000 people with this level of concern, and they each sent 50 USD to the Mozilla Foundation
But, "rational" people wouldn't do that. If you -- individually -- send $50, how much do you think the product will be improved based on your contribution alone? Remember, you can't control how much other people send. Whether of not everyone else sends $50, it is doubtful you will get even $1 of material benefit from your $50 investment.
People, in general, don't think collectively. (suggestion: read up on game theory)
If Linux is better and less expensive, why is it necessary to force people to use it? Are they too ignorant to figure it out for themselves?
Here is one way this could be true. Say I am a little tiny department and I need five computers. It might well be easier and cheaper to simply use microsoft stuff....everyone knows how to use it, other departments we have to share docs with use it so everyone is compatible, and the cost of 5 copies of windows and office is no big deal compared to those other issues.
However, if ALL departments go OSS, it becomes cheaper for everyone, since the compatility issue goes away, since people moving between departments will not have to be retrained, etc.
Well, I'd say where your plan can hurt is by fooling the people attempting it that they are going to get results, so they stop trying to do things that will actually make a difference.
A far more effective approach, IMO, would be to simply make it a bad idea (for everyone) to send spam . A really, really bad idea. Because you might end up in jail, because you will get huge fines, or just because your message will reach no one. It will take a combination of legislation, enforcement, and technical means to solve this, not just appealing to the spammers to stop because we don't think its in their interest to keep doing it.
I don't think people would be doing it so much today if it was such a bad idea for all of them. It doesn't cost them much, there is little risk of "bad things" happening as a result, and they make a few bucks off a few idiots. Until that is changed, it will be in many people's selfish interests to spam, and spam they will.
Surely the risk hasn't changed, just our estimate of it...
....its either 0% or 100%.
Now think about that a bit...our estimate of it is the only thing we are talking about when we talk about such predictions. If we had all the information there was to have, we wouldn't talk in terms of risk, we could just say exactly when one would hit. (ok, i suppose quantum theory introduces a certain level of true uncertainty, but still....)
Another of saying it is, if the weatherman was smart enough, there is never really a 60% chance of rain tomorrow
I was not serious about the stockholders making the decision.
My point was that at most companies (any company I've been at anyway, although they tend to be smaller companies), an employee is ultimately the one who makes the decision on such things. Even if that employee is the CEO or CTO.
If it is not their employees that recommend and make decsions on such things as operating systems, who would it be? Even management is employees.
Maybe they should have the stockholders hold a vote?
(Agree except for Alien 3, which killed off all the characters you rooted for in Alien 2, making it less fun to go back and watch 2 knowing that the little girl and the bot bit the dust soon after. Damn them....)
But on your last point, I think there are a lot of sequels that are only green lighted because they have a better chance at making money than non-sequels. So there is a lower threshold they have to meet....sucking isn't specific to sequels, but sequels might be more likely to suck.
How about "story as well as graphics"?
I enjoy good graphics and effects. I salute the work of the artists and modelers and animators and programmers that make them happen. What's so wrong about that?
Nobody questions that a good story and screenplay make for a better movie, but is there something wrong with admitting that part of the reason I go to see a movie is to appreciate the work of all the talented and creative people who participated in bringing it to the screen, rather than just the select few?
Well the traditional definition of fruit is that it should be sweet (for instance in Websters: ..." the usually edible reproductive body of a seed plant; especially : one having a sweet pulp associated with the seed "). The reason a cucumber or tomato or pumpkin or squash etc are not generally considered to be fruits is that they are not sweet enough. Remember, the word was not invented by scientists, it was people who wanted to describe a certain kind of thing, and tomatoes and pumpkins and such probably did not fit what they were talking about.
EVEN if users have to jump through hoops like not executing from inside the mail program, saving it to the desktop, unzipping, scanning -- they'll screw something up. It is the nature of the beast.
I can't agree with that. If the default behavior of all common mail programs so discourages people from executing attachments, I think the worm problem (at least as it exists today with things like sobig) would be effectively solved.
That's not to say that nobody will find a way to execute such a program. The problem with sobig, though, was that so *many* people ended up running it, because of how easy it is to do in mail programs.