I use a catch-all (*@server) address, but most spam comes to one address (cfc@server). Is there something I can put in my.forward to reject mail to that address while still allowing all others through?
Actually, no. This Hotmail issue is just a symptom of the real security hole, which is in IE5+. Have they fixed that yet? How long have they known about it?
I searched for "free wireless coffee" and got a list of cell phone stores; okay, I understand the wireless, but where's the coffee? I searched for "brothel" and got a list of restaurants. "Stripper" turned up a furniture store; ok, fair enough. But how in hell does "porn" get me a list of ATTORNEYS!?
Ok, I expected this kind of crap in the mainstream media, but on Slashdot? Of course nothing happened on Y2K. I've been telling people nothing was going to happen for the past year -- Not because of some misplaced "faith in technology," but because I know a handfull of people who work(ed) in the Y2K preparation business. I've heard people claim that the "experts were split," but everyone I've ever talked to who actually knew anything about the issue themselves said it was going to be no big deal, because while there was potential problems, everything important was going to be prepared in time. At worst, people might be minorly inconvenienced. But planes falling out of the sky, all the "Y2K command center" hype -- It was just that. Hype. In other words, bullshit. And as geeks, I thought the people who run Slashdot would know that.
On the other hand, my ex-girlfriend (who I originally met over the Net, but that's another story) lives in Oklahoma in the USA, and is now engaged to a man from South Africa whom she met thru the Net... They're currently in the process of getting a visa so he can move to the US.
And shall Disney tell its cable customers, resort guests, etc. that they have been boycotted by certain religions? More to the point, do Linux distributors have a responsibility to their customers to tell them that Microsoft will make their products gratuitously incompatible with Linux?
These arguements are invalid. You're discussing completely different situations, because the people watching the Disney channel are not paying to know that other people are watching it too. They're paying so that they can watch it.
A better analogy would be whether or not the Disney channel has an obligation to tell their advertisers, who are actually paying to have people see their ads, that certain religions boycott the Disney channel. Personally, I would say they aren't under any obligation to do so, except possibly if the commercial is clearly aimed at a religious group that Disney knows doesn't watch their channel.
I'd just like to note that I was born and raised in the USA, and that being a reasonably sane individual, I of course am well aware that this country is SERIOUSLY fucked up. Then again, so is every other country on Earth...
This article barely touches on the problems of censorware. The author seems to be under the illusion that if you make a "clean" server, as in one free of adult content, it won't get censored.
Unfortunately, this is not the case. Every censorware program that I know of simply blocks any website that their creators find objectionable -- and their creators are mostly right-wing Christians. Sites on homosexuality, Wicca, safe sex, and even the websites of prominent feminist organizations like NOW are all blocked by most censorware programs, as are any websites that criticize censorship, especially if they criticize whichever piece of censorware you're using.
Frankly, I would be more pissed off at your ISP if they DID create a "clean" server to avoid it getting blocked. Being Pagan myself, I would be pretty offended by the idea that I couldn't create a homepage that made reference to my religion on the "clean" server, but a Christian could. That would simply be wrong. In fact, your ISP could probably get sued for discrimination if they did that.
I don't see how any supporter of free speech can justify bowing down to censorware. That's giving them power over you, allowing them to dictate not only what people who choose to use their services see, but also allowing them to dictate what YOU put on the Web because you're afraid of being censored.
I say fuck censorship. Put the seven dirty words on your website, and say they're there just so you'll be banned by censorware. Then get all your friends to do the same thing. And monitor the ban lists of products like NetNanny and CyberPatrol. Once your site's banned, you can put a banner up: "This site banned by (censorware product)." Banners that say such things are available for download, though I don't recall where from.
It looks ugly and uncomfortable. Besides the risk of falling asleep, it appears that you can only use that chair in one very specific position, and who really wants to spend 16 hours a day in the EXACT same position? I for one like to be able to move around, cross my legs, etc., and I suspect in that chair that you'd have to get out of it if you wanted to move at all... Not that getting out of that contraption looks easy, either. As usual, a ridiculously high price accompanying a rather worthless product.
Slashdot Mirror
I use a catch-all (*@server) address, but most spam comes to one address (cfc@server). Is there something I can put in my .forward to reject mail to that address while still allowing all others through?
Actually, no. This Hotmail issue is just a symptom of the real security hole, which is in IE5+. Have they fixed that yet? How long have they known about it?
My results weren't exactly impressive, either.
I searched for "free wireless coffee" and got a list of cell phone stores; okay, I understand the wireless, but where's the coffee? I searched for "brothel" and got a list of restaurants. "Stripper" turned up a furniture store; ok, fair enough. But how in hell does "porn" get me a list of ATTORNEYS!?
Ok, I expected this kind of crap in the mainstream media, but on Slashdot? Of course nothing happened on Y2K. I've been telling people nothing was going to happen for the past year -- Not because of some misplaced "faith in technology," but because I know a handfull of people who work(ed) in the Y2K preparation business. I've heard people claim that the "experts were split," but everyone I've ever talked to who actually knew anything about the issue themselves said it was going to be no big deal, because while there was potential problems, everything important was going to be prepared in time. At worst, people might be minorly inconvenienced. But planes falling out of the sky, all the "Y2K command center" hype -- It was just that. Hype. In other words, bullshit. And as geeks, I thought the people who run Slashdot would know that.
On the other hand, my ex-girlfriend (who I originally met over the Net, but that's another story) lives in Oklahoma in the USA, and is now engaged to a man from South Africa whom she met thru the Net... They're currently in the process of getting a visa so he can move to the US.
These arguements are invalid. You're discussing completely different situations, because the people watching the Disney channel are not paying to know that other people are watching it too. They're paying so that they can watch it.
A better analogy would be whether or not the Disney channel has an obligation to tell their advertisers, who are actually paying to have people see their ads, that certain religions boycott the Disney channel. Personally, I would say they aren't under any obligation to do so, except possibly if the commercial is clearly aimed at a religious group that Disney knows doesn't watch their channel.
But even then it's really a matter of opinion.
I'd just like to note that I was born and raised in the USA, and that being a reasonably sane individual, I of course am well aware that this country is SERIOUSLY fucked up. Then again, so is every other country on Earth...
This article barely touches on the problems of censorware. The author seems to be under the illusion that if you make a "clean" server, as in one free of adult content, it won't get censored.
Unfortunately, this is not the case. Every censorware program that I know of simply blocks any website that their creators find objectionable -- and their creators are mostly right-wing Christians. Sites on homosexuality, Wicca, safe sex, and even the websites of prominent feminist organizations like NOW are all blocked by most censorware programs, as are any websites that criticize censorship, especially if they criticize whichever piece of censorware you're using.
Frankly, I would be more pissed off at your ISP if they DID create a "clean" server to avoid it getting blocked. Being Pagan myself, I would be pretty offended by the idea that I couldn't create a homepage that made reference to my religion on the "clean" server, but a Christian could. That would simply be wrong. In fact, your ISP could probably get sued for discrimination if they did that.
I don't see how any supporter of free speech can justify bowing down to censorware. That's giving them power over you, allowing them to dictate not only what people who choose to use their services see, but also allowing them to dictate what YOU put on the Web because you're afraid of being censored.
I say fuck censorship. Put the seven dirty words on your website, and say they're there just so you'll be banned by censorware. Then get all your friends to do the same thing. And monitor the ban lists of products like NetNanny and CyberPatrol. Once your site's banned, you can put a banner up: "This site banned by (censorware product)." Banners that say such things are available for download, though I don't recall where from.
See http://www.peacefire.org/ for more info.
It looks ugly and uncomfortable. Besides the risk of falling asleep, it appears that you can only use that chair in one very specific position, and who really wants to spend 16 hours a day in the EXACT same position? I for one like to be able to move around, cross my legs, etc., and I suspect in that chair that you'd have to get out of it if you wanted to move at all... Not that getting out of that contraption looks easy, either. As usual, a ridiculously high price accompanying a rather worthless product.