FTP is great, but there are two problems (as far as our organization is concerned) - it requires a client...Something that offers web management and a web interface.
What browser can't do FTP? They create the web interface for you. What could be simpler?
At least in China, it might be possible for spammers to get the death penalty.
They could extradite Ralsky and give him a bullet in the back of the head. The same way the US sends "terrorist suspects" to countries that have no qualms with torturing them.
The individual in question stands for ideals that would obliterate the company were they realised. The company has absolutely no reason to employ such an individual.
You could say the same about hard-line communists, or anarchists. Yet many work mundane 9-5 jobs while expressing their political views in their own time. As long as someone does the jobe they're paid for that should be it. They might nor be promoted, but that's another story.
Not sure quite what part of this is new
The spam part.
Except if you agreed to receive it, it's not spam, just email. All the newsletters, mailing lists and such I subscribe to improve me in various ways, I hope. But it would be just stupid to call them spam, as apparently the PR flack who sent out this press release did when reaching for a hook to make it sound slightly interesting.
There is no better way to preserve the quality and integrity of an exceptional marijuana plant, than to make an exact duplicate of it, and in her infinite wisdom, Mother Nature provided the means of doing just that. I'm going to teach you how to start with Marijuana Cloning!....
Someone who's this greedy, self-centered and determined to make a mess of everyone's life, liberty and property for his own advancement would discretely get his ass kicked one day on his way home from work.
Yes, because vigilante justice is so much more satisfying. You could wear white sheets and caps and set up burning crosses on the lawns of anyone who complained about your methods.
I've made a number of posts that received unabashedly anti-American replies.
Not like "the war in Iraq is bad," more like "you and your country suck"
Those rednecks who started off this topic with "the rest of the world/UN suck so they can pry our Internet out of our cold dead hands" provoking that response. Anyway, the whole country doesn't suck. But your foreign policies do, and this topic is about how little the US wants to cooperate with anyone -- it's "you're with us or you're with the terrorists" again.
Yes, but they could have complied with Ellison's actual request, which was to remove it from their own servers. And, legally speaking, were required to do so. Which was why, when they failed, they were sued.
I don't know if that's true -- "legally required" how? Doesn't really matter anyway, that was susbsidiary to my point, which I won't bore you by repeating. Also, after looking up the status of this case, Ellison has settled with AOL and they've kissed up now. I wonder how much he screwed them for.
Ellison said: "Through this litigation, I have come to realize that AOL respects the rights of authors and artists, and has a comprehensive system for addressing the complaints of copyright holders. I would not have settled this case if I were not sure that AOL is doing what it can do to fight online piracy. Because not all Internet service providers are as responsible as AOL, and because individual acts of online piracy continue, I am glad to have called attention to the problem of online piracy through this litigation.
I'll note that you can download Ellison's books on alt.binaries.e-books to this day. Personally, I either buy or borrow real books to read so I have no personal agenda.
And refused (or rather, incompetently failed) to remove the material when requested to do so, thus losing their legal protection against such things. His stance on AOL was entirely fair, I believe.
Do you know anything about Usenet? It's practically impossible to comply and run a decent feed. Usenet is ephemeral anyway. Articles expire in days or weeks; and no single ISP could delete a post from every other server. And as I said, it did not originate with AOL, they have no authority to delete it from other servers. But more importantly, my point stands: Ellison gave a free pass to the guy who posted his story, and went after the company that had unwittingly allowed access to it. You may think this justified, but if generally applied this would lead to a completely locked down Internet, ISPs wouldn't let you use news, IRC or anything that allowed you to upload for fear of being sued. If Ellison wanted to protect his copyright he had a case against the poster, he published it. AOL acted as the delivery service, (I don't know if they tried the common carrier defence). That he ignored the willful act and went after the jackpot loses any moral authority he has on the subject.
Along comes the work, posted online. The author has to make an effort to protect the work, because signing the e-rights gave the publisher the right to release it. If the writer doesn't, they are in violation of their contract and the whole thing can be cancelled.
Rubbish. Why then do none of the other thousands of authors whose work you can find online do this? As long as the author himself has not put the work up, which would violate most publishing contracts which give the sole right to publish to the publisher, then it's not the author's responsibility to police this. The publisher has the right and means to do this should they want. Authors' contracts usually delegate the authority to pursue infringement cases to the publisher. I guess Harlan's didn't think it was worth the trouble to try to sue someone who had scanned and OCRed some of his stories.
Actually, from what I know about this case, Harlan has no moral high ground. He made a deal with the guy who posted the files, the person who directly and knowingly violated his copyright, so he would give evidence against AOL, which WAS NOT the news server the files were posted from, merely one which carried the newsgroup with deep pockets.
>Godel's Theorem shows that there exist true theorems that are unprovable
False. Godel's theorem shows that there exist true theorems that cannot be proven with a consistent formal system.
I must be stupid, because I don't see how "cannot be proven" is not "unprovable". Unless you are assuming that I didn't mean "with a consistent formal system".
the relevance of Godel's theorem to any comparison between humans and computers is nil.
I never said there was. The post I was responding to made that claim. I know the difference between physics and maths.
No, I must disagree. As I mentioned,.gov,.edu..mil are regulated and not sold to the first bidder so you know if you go to one of these sites you're not going to get a phishing &/or porn site.
Instead of typing in http://www.whitehouse.gov/ to see what the Retard In Chief is up to, I could simply type "whitehouse" and bingo - done.
This can be and is a function in most browsers. No need to remove it from the actual URL. This is rather like the way Windows hides the file extensions; and rather like that it can lead to unexpected results. With "whitehouse.gov" you can be sure it's the one at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but what if you happened to type "thewhitehouse" or some other reasonable variation that had been squatted? And there is more than one legitimate "White House" in the world. (A former royal palace in London, for example, predating the one in Washington.) I personally often type a partial URL into the Google searchbox and get the real site on the "lucky" button reliably.
The problem is that TLDs administered by for-profit registries like ORG and NET have been debased so they have no meaning, and new ones have no obvious reason not to go the same way.
Could TLD's be usefull if they were properly restricted?
They could be, but as most are controlled by commercial registrars who make money by selling domains rather than restricing them, it's not going to happen, or if it does there will be constant pressure to allow money to override any other criteria.
China is not pro corporation. They are for tight control of corporations by the govt.
Tight control by members of the government, or more often, their children. Most of the large corporations in China are firmly controlled by "Red Princes", the sons and daughters of the Communist Party bosses. When it comes to a conflict between ideology and business, these days business often wins in China. On the whole, it's a good thing, in comparison to purely state-directed business, which lead to famine and poverty.
or will people hunting for the biggest fish just waste and deplete a valuable food source for local people?
The big fish usually go to the restaurants in Bangkok or Chiang Mai, where they go for a very high price. The locals would much rather sell it and be able to buy food for a few months than eat it in one feast. Maybe this village didn't have transport to get it there fresh.
Isn't it time they get rid of them instead? They don't have any meaning anymore.
Not quite. I think the CCTLDs are necessary and useful. Also.gov and.gov.cctld. Maybe edu. The rest by the lack of enforcement of any conditions have just become a scam to deceive surfers and fleece companies by forcing them to pay or be squatted by a look-alike or worse. No porn site is going to exclusively use.xxx, no telephone company is exclusively going to use.tel.
Salzenberg was working for a company that started using some seriously shady practices.
Having read most of the docs, all I can see is that HMS were spidering websites, using proxies and ignoring robots.txt. But why did they do this? They're not a search engine. What were they looking for? Addresses for spam? Personal data to correlate with their medical records?
am I the only one who thinks that spelling is like 1/100th as important as the message that you are trying to get across?
What a straight line. Of course spelling and grammar is important. It shows you paid attention in primary school. I don't know anything about you aside from the words you type. So I'll judge you a idiot and won't waste my time puzzling through your text to see if you perhaps have a point. The same way I have to wear a suit and tie if I want people to take me seriously in a business context, though I'll actually do most of my work wearing shorts and sandals and no shirt in front of my PC.
I've almost gotten to the point where I consider a phrase like "makes its own gravy" to be written wrong because of the missing apostrophe, because it's so common -- even in advertising copy, for pete's sake.
Note: "Makes its own gravy" is CORRECT -- "it's" = "it is", not possessive. The rule is, for almost all pronouns (except "one") no apostrophe with possessive. And "Pete" is a name, give it a capital.
If you notice an error in a post and don't correct it before hitting the submit button, it's like deliberately stabbing your readers in the eye.
Don't take it personally. My grammar is pretty good (I work professionally as an editor) but my typing isn't. My problems with Slashdot posts are mostly technical: 1) no built-in spellcheck 2) an ugly interface with a crappy small font (Why can't we choose the font in our preferences?) 2) no undo 3) preview sometimes takes 30 seconds or more. All of which contribute to a "Fuck it, just type and submit" mentality; when I see the result I often cringe but there's nothing to be done then. If I really want to do it right I type it in my text editor and preview as well, especially if I have links, but that's really way too much time to spend on this ephemera.
The only reason this is costing him a dime is because the company apparently decided to commit a second crime (filing a false police report) in retaliation; this requires him to retain his own lawyer to defend himself against the criminal charges involved, and could/would have happened even if he had resigned.
From what I saw in the warrant, the company didn't directly accuse him of criminal acts; they said that since his letter to the company (complaining of their immoral and probably illegal practices) he had accessed their source code which was worth X million dollars, vital trade secrets, etc; implying he was going to release or sell it. Though why the police took this as a cue to strip his home I don't really see. I thought you needed more than suspicion to conduct such an intrusive search.
Some years ago I quit from an employer that was months late with my salary. One of the delaying tactics they used at the Labour Tribunal hearing was to say that I had hacked their network (which I had set up) and asking for an injunction to prevent me doing that -- though how the court could do that aside from locking me up in solitary I don't know. The judge thankfully ignored this claim.
My favorite is that if God is infinite but one can still perceive part of God, then they are perceiving a finite part of infinity... and any finite value over infinity counts for zero, so they're really not perceiving anything at all
This is just a version of Zeno's paradox, which means Achilles can never pass the tortoise. But he can. Explained by the theory of integration, summing infinite series (Isaac Newton, IIRC). I'm much too rusty on this, but look it up in an introduction to calculus if you are interested.
Slashdot Mirror
What browser can't do FTP? They create the web interface for you. What could be simpler?
They could extradite Ralsky and give him a bullet in the back of the head. The same way the US sends "terrorist suspects" to countries that have no qualms with torturing them.
You could say the same about hard-line communists, or anarchists. Yet many work mundane 9-5 jobs while expressing their political views in their own time. As long as someone does the jobe they're paid for that should be it. They might nor be promoted, but that's another story.
The spam part.
Except if you agreed to receive it, it's not spam, just email. All the newsletters, mailing lists and such I subscribe to improve me in various ways, I hope. But it would be just stupid to call them spam, as apparently the PR flack who sent out this press release did when reaching for a hook to make it sound slightly interesting.
Cloning Marijuana Made Simple.
Yes, because vigilante justice is so much more satisfying. You could wear white sheets and caps and set up burning crosses on the lawns of anyone who complained about your methods.
Those rednecks who started off this topic with "the rest of the world/UN suck so they can pry our Internet out of our cold dead hands" provoking that response. Anyway, the whole country doesn't suck. But your foreign policies do, and this topic is about how little the US wants to cooperate with anyone -- it's "you're with us or you're with the terrorists" again.
I don't know if that's true -- "legally required" how? Doesn't really matter anyway, that was susbsidiary to my point, which I won't bore you by repeating. Also, after looking up the status of this case, Ellison has settled with AOL and they've kissed up now. I wonder how much he screwed them for.
I'll note that you can download Ellison's books on alt.binaries.e-books to this day. Personally, I either buy or borrow real books to read so I have no personal agenda.Do you know anything about Usenet? It's practically impossible to comply and run a decent feed. Usenet is ephemeral anyway. Articles expire in days or weeks; and no single ISP could delete a post from every other server. And as I said, it did not originate with AOL, they have no authority to delete it from other servers. But more importantly, my point stands: Ellison gave a free pass to the guy who posted his story, and went after the company that had unwittingly allowed access to it. You may think this justified, but if generally applied this would lead to a completely locked down Internet, ISPs wouldn't let you use news, IRC or anything that allowed you to upload for fear of being sued. If Ellison wanted to protect his copyright he had a case against the poster, he published it. AOL acted as the delivery service, (I don't know if they tried the common carrier defence). That he ignored the willful act and went after the jackpot loses any moral authority he has on the subject.
Rubbish. Why then do none of the other thousands of authors whose work you can find online do this? As long as the author himself has not put the work up, which would violate most publishing contracts which give the sole right to publish to the publisher, then it's not the author's responsibility to police this. The publisher has the right and means to do this should they want. Authors' contracts usually delegate the authority to pursue infringement cases to the publisher. I guess Harlan's didn't think it was worth the trouble to try to sue someone who had scanned and OCRed some of his stories.
Actually, from what I know about this case, Harlan has no moral high ground. He made a deal with the guy who posted the files, the person who directly and knowingly violated his copyright, so he would give evidence against AOL, which WAS NOT the news server the files were posted from, merely one which carried the newsgroup with deep pockets.
False. Godel's theorem shows that there exist true theorems that cannot be proven with a consistent formal system.
I must be stupid, because I don't see how "cannot be proven" is not "unprovable". Unless you are assuming that I didn't mean "with a consistent formal system".
the relevance of Godel's theorem to any comparison between humans and computers is nil.
I never said there was. The post I was responding to made that claim. I know the difference between physics and maths.
No, I must disagree. As I mentioned, .gov, .edu. .mil are regulated and not sold to the first bidder so you know if you go to one of these sites you're not going to get a phishing &/or porn site.
Instead of typing in http://www.whitehouse.gov/ to see what the Retard In Chief is up to, I could simply type "whitehouse" and bingo - done.
This can be and is a function in most browsers. No need to remove it from the actual URL. This is rather like the way Windows hides the file extensions; and rather like that it can lead to unexpected results. With "whitehouse.gov" you can be sure it's the one at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but what if you happened to type "thewhitehouse" or some other reasonable variation that had been squatted? And there is more than one legitimate "White House" in the world. (A former royal palace in London, for example, predating the one in Washington.) I personally often type a partial URL into the Google searchbox and get the real site on the "lucky" button reliably.
The problem is that TLDs administered by for-profit registries like ORG and NET have been debased so they have no meaning, and new ones have no obvious reason not to go the same way.
It's a natural law: make a grammar flame, hoist yourself petardwise.
They could be, but as most are controlled by commercial registrars who make money by selling domains rather than restricing them, it's not going to happen, or if it does there will be constant pressure to allow money to override any other criteria.
Like Slashdot.org.
Tight control by members of the government, or more often, their children. Most of the large corporations in China are firmly controlled by "Red Princes", the sons and daughters of the Communist Party bosses. When it comes to a conflict between ideology and business, these days business often wins in China. On the whole, it's a good thing, in comparison to purely state-directed business, which lead to famine and poverty.
The big fish usually go to the restaurants in Bangkok or Chiang Mai, where they go for a very high price. The locals would much rather sell it and be able to buy food for a few months than eat it in one feast. Maybe this village didn't have transport to get it there fresh.
Not quite. I think the CCTLDs are necessary and useful. Also .gov and .gov.cctld. Maybe edu. The rest by the lack of enforcement of any conditions have just become a scam to deceive surfers and fleece companies by forcing them to pay or be squatted by a look-alike or worse. No porn site is going to exclusively use .xxx, no telephone company is exclusively going to use .tel.
Having read most of the docs, all I can see is that HMS were spidering websites, using proxies and ignoring robots.txt. But why did they do this? They're not a search engine. What were they looking for? Addresses for spam? Personal data to correlate with their medical records?
What a straight line. Of course spelling and grammar is important. It shows you paid attention in primary school. I don't know anything about you aside from the words you type. So I'll judge you a idiot and won't waste my time puzzling through your text to see if you perhaps have a point. The same way I have to wear a suit and tie if I want people to take me seriously in a business context, though I'll actually do most of my work wearing shorts and sandals and no shirt in front of my PC.
Okay, some other posts have made the point that the OP didn't actually mean "its" was wrong.
Note: "Makes its own gravy" is CORRECT -- "it's" = "it is", not possessive. The rule is, for almost all pronouns (except "one") no apostrophe with possessive. And "Pete" is a name, give it a capital.
Don't take it personally. My grammar is pretty good (I work professionally as an editor) but my typing isn't. My problems with Slashdot posts are mostly technical: 1) no built-in spellcheck 2) an ugly interface with a crappy small font (Why can't we choose the font in our preferences?) 2) no undo 3) preview sometimes takes 30 seconds or more. All of which contribute to a "Fuck it, just type and submit" mentality; when I see the result I often cringe but there's nothing to be done then. If I really want to do it right I type it in my text editor and preview as well, especially if I have links, but that's really way too much time to spend on this ephemera.
From what I saw in the warrant, the company didn't directly accuse him of criminal acts; they said that since his letter to the company (complaining of their immoral and probably illegal practices) he had accessed their source code which was worth X million dollars, vital trade secrets, etc; implying he was going to release or sell it. Though why the police took this as a cue to strip his home I don't really see. I thought you needed more than suspicion to conduct such an intrusive search.
Some years ago I quit from an employer that was months late with my salary. One of the delaying tactics they used at the Labour Tribunal hearing was to say that I had hacked their network (which I had set up) and asking for an injunction to prevent me doing that -- though how the court could do that aside from locking me up in solitary I don't know. The judge thankfully ignored this claim.
This is just a version of Zeno's paradox, which means Achilles can never pass the tortoise. But he can. Explained by the theory of integration, summing infinite series (Isaac Newton, IIRC). I'm much too rusty on this, but look it up in an introduction to calculus if you are interested.