Because other forms of advertising tend to be iterative; that is, you put together a print ad and tell the local paper to run it for the next four sundays. Or you buy TV time and run a particlar ad a few times.
While the restaurant was clearly stupid for not doing anything even after being warned, I'm not at all convinced that commercial enterprises are (or should be) under an obligation to find and destroy all out of date promotional material. Which is essentially what this judgement amounts to.
I see the analogy more like having a menu stuck on the window, rather than press advertising. In both cases you have an ad in a place under the direct control of the business, easily corrected (or removed if they don't have the expertise). As for "an obligation to find and destroy all out of date promotional material", I don't see that at all. If you find an old leaflet or press ad no one is insisting it remain valid indefinitely.
I swear, if "Zonk" actually read that submission, he must have been on crack to miss the errors. I mean, come on: "In one for the first article..." and "...press a key or open your or phone laptop." So, in conclusion, either Zonk doesn't read the submissions or he is an idiot... or maybe both.
He didn't just fuck up the grammar, he can't spell either: O'reilly [O'Reilly] buiding [building] Really, how hard is it to spellcheck a paragraph?
The last few weeks seem to have set new lows. Interminable dupes, stupid hoax stories they promote without any checking, even on the same page they lift them from (Firefox = spyware); on top of worsening spelling and garbled sentences, poor grammar, sensationalised and bogus editorial comments and headlines.... They have a huge momentum from the readers who submit stories and comments, and an admittedly good moderation system to promote worthwhile comments; but the editors themselves obviously don't give a shit about what they personally contribute any more.
But the 80 million spam messages you mention is not in the article that I can see, it just states:
They said the siblings and a third defendant, Richard Rutkowski, sent more than 10,000 spam e-mails over three days in July 2003. Rutkowski was acquitted.
And even if it was 80 million messages, I hate spam as much as anyone else - but 9 years? People who commit much worse crimes, violent crimes, serve less time. I think a large fine, plus 5 years or something of probabtion with the condition no computer use would be a better punishment.
As you quote, they just say "more than 10,000"; (not "10,000"), because it's the deciding factor, like having over a certain quantity of heroin to be deemed a dealer. Actually, it was another article I read that mentioned he had the AOL list of 80 million, I haven't gone into it further to see how many he's supposed to have sent, probably billions literally.
As for the appropriateness of his sentence, with parole he'll probably serve much less, and it's unlikely to be hard time, it's white collar crime. Large fines are pointless, they just declare bankruptcy and/or disappear on parole. It seems half the other posts here advocate worse punishment, in the usual redneck macho fashion.
The fact that a guy got 7 years for sending 10,000 emails seems a bit absurd to me.
Perhaps because it isn't true.
1) The "10,000" is just part of the definition of spamming in this law -- 10,000 per day. Accordng to the prosecutor, Jaynes was rated the eighth spammer in the world. For example, he sent spam to 80 million AOL.com addreses, repeatedly
2)It was 9, not 7 years
Neither the submitter, editor, and hardly any of the commenters seem to have actually RTFA...
The first is that it is a terrible injustice that these spammers won't spend 9 years in jail and have to pay $7,500 for each spam that was received. The second is that this judge is stepping way over the bounds of interpreting and applying the law and is (as it is commonly referred to) "legistlating from the bench" by declaring the punishment to not fit the crime.
Alternatively, you could RTFA and see that the "leader" was sentenced to 9 years and that was upheld, his sister, an accomplice, was the one let off. As usual, the Slashdot heading and summary are misleading and sensationalised, leading to most comments being unrelated to the facts.
[Judge] Horne upheld the conviction of her brother, Jeremy Jaynes, who prosecutors said led the operation from his Raleigh, North Carolina, area home.
DeGroot, 28, and Jaynes, 30, were each convicted in November for using false Internet addresses to send mass e-mail ads through an AOL server in Loudoun. The jury recommended that Jaynes spend nine years in prison and that DeGroot pay $7,500 in fines.
Wearing glasses can be a choice as well, some people look better with them than without. Some even wear glasses with no optical properties at all. It may be vain, but it's not infeasible.
I can't see it being allowed or encouraged for a (Star Fleet) officer on active duty, if a simple safe procedure to give anyone better than 20/20 vision was available (as it arguably is now, and surely will in a decade or two). Civilians may dress up or mutilate themselves in all kinds of bizarre ways back on earth. (Remember Baron Harkonnen who enjoyed cultivating various skin lesions...)
If corps are citizens then they should be allowed a vote (under section 1), and be counted in the census for the purposes of assigning representatives (section 2). They aren't. Corporations are not citizens, and do not have rights.
You're joking, but in Hong Kong corporations do have a vote, and most "citizens" don't. The Legislative Council has half its seats elected by "functional constituencies", analagous to the medieval guilds of London. Several of these, like "Banking" are dominated by corporate members. The British made a half-hearted attempt to introduce democracy before the colony was given to China in 1997, but China rolled most of those reforms back as soon as they did take over. Now the debate is on when real democracy will be introduced; it's promised in the Basic Law, but no implementation date, and Beijing is using every excuse to keep it in the indefinite future.
The key word is "go back a century." China's government is still doing what they do best -- steal, kill and destroy. They haven't learned.
Just as background: I live in Hoing Kong, and I hate that we were handed over to Beijing, and know all about the invasion of Tibet, the Cultural Revolution, the Great Leap Forward, laogai, etc, etc. But to return to the subject: an American complains that another country is "stealing, killing and destroying"? Where have you been the last three years?
However, that is different to expecting any random individual required to enforce an area of law (e.g., the guys checking ID at the airport) to quote me chapter and verse on demand. That is not their job. In this case, common sense says that a law requiring ID would not be unreasonable and probably exists, the other guys are just doing their job, and walking in with an attitude to create a scene was the wrong answer.
Gilmore has been waiting two years for someone to "quote the chapter and verse of the law". So common sense suggests that this law either does not exist, and he was lied to, or the government thinks it has the right to make and enforce secret laws.
i guess is why the editors just post whatever they find in their inbox.
Having RTFA, I think the only thing that has happened since the last time this was on Slashdot is that the Post Gazette did this story about him. It's more important than most of the dupes, and at least it isn't on the same day as has been their recent habit. sad that Slashdot has lowered the bar so much that only fucking up a little is acceptable.
Okay, China only oppresses 1.3 billion of its own people. Tibet? Oh, people annexed against their will don't count.
And how about American Indians? Mexicans? Hawaiians? Inuits? The Tibetans were conquered, but at least there was no genocide there. No one has clean hands if you go back even a century. Americans have no unique claim to virtue; and no right to lecture to anyone about keeping your government in check.
Before blasting slashdot, I think slashdot has handled this better simply by nature than most other news sites.
The other places were, I think, just web bulletin boards, not self-proclaimed "news" sites". Also, in the thread linked (which wasn't the original appearance of the image, apparently), the POSTER ADMITTED IT WAS A FAKE two hours after posting it, several hours before it was submitted to Slashdot. If Taco had bothered to scan the link submitted, he would have seen that. Asdie from that, a minute reading the text of the image should have aroused anyone's suspicion; and of course it would have been only a few minute's work to actually run MS's spyware checker himself to see if it occurred. If after all that he still thought it worth posting, surely it should have been less definite, eg "Does MS AntiSpywarethink Firefox is Spyware?"
China may have better training in mathematics for a larger number of people. These same mathematicians are willing to lay down for an oppressive central government that does not respect their individual right to self government. These mathematicians would be better off if they also had some background in understanding the rights of man.
Yes, China still has a totalitarian government. However, scientists are among the forefront of those crticising it, sometimes they get publicity, often they get punished.
And how about your own country? Understand that "rights of man" does not mean "rights of Americans". At least China mostly just oppresses its own people.
This is clearly a fake, and they even state as much in the forum.
The image was posted by grab_grab_the_haddock timestamped
Yesterday, 03:56 PM
A few posts down the same guy posts Yesterday, 05:53 PM, 2 hours later: "Funny? It's absolutely priceless. Only MikeHunt would be stupid enough to so passionately debunk a blatantly photoshopped image which was put up for a joke. Hilarious."
He was wrong, Taco was even more stupid. I can't work out what timezones all these posts there and on slashdot refer to; but I'm pretty sure the follow up admission was there before it went up on Slashdot, not that anyone should have taken it at face value. I might believe a false positive for just about anything, but there is a description of Firefox there that no one at Microsoft would be stupid enough to write.
Because Slashdot's policy is to never ever remove an article once posted. They believe that that policy helps immunize them from some types of lawsuits -
No. A couple of days ago a dupe appeared (of the 30,000 year old bacteria that came back to life). It had disappeared the mext time I refreshed the page.
Anyway, the "legal defence" idea is stupid. That kind of thing only flies when you (the owner or publisher) don't directly post content, just provide a venue -- like these comments, for instance. Even then they could be forced to remove something, but might escape paying damages. If they post it as editors, having a policy of never retracting a story would be as successful a defence as bringing up a prior murder conviction as allowing you to get away with it again.
I'm a few years older than you. I still remember the horror of learning long division of pounds, shillings, pence, and of pounds, ounces (stones, hundredweights, tons, chains, furlongs, yards... aaaargh!).
Mabe not. I had a few years of Imperial units too. 63360 inches to the mile, 114 pounds to the hundredweight, 21 shillings to the guinea...
Statistically normal and random are not the same concepts. The sequence 123456789101112131415... is statistically normal (as any given digit is going to appear about 1/10th of the time), but obviously not random.
So? That's not pi.
Intuitively, the question answered is "How hard is it to write an algorithm that outputs this sequence?...There are several closed for formula for calculating pi to any number of digits."
Your intuition seems to be cryptographic. I already said that pi and such numbers were useless for that. Just because something is "easy" or "hard" to calculate has no bearing on whether it is random.
Half a kilo of butter, or a pound of butter is a reasonable purchase. Grams just don't cut it. What am I getting if I ask for 80 grams of salami? Well I guess I can visualize it and some Europeans buy it that way, but the average everyday user of a measuring system is nearly innumerate. They want to buy one or two or maybe a half of something.
The whole reason we (countries that use rational measurement systems)have standard prefixes is that we can use appropriate units and avoud huge integers or fractions in common usage. I don't know why you think this is difficult. Would you prefer to be using pounds, shillings and pennies instead of dollars and cents -- that was one reform the US did before most other countries. So do you say "80 cents" or "eight-tenths of a dollar" (or 16 shillings)? And unless you're buying in bulk, most food is bought in quantites (or units) less than a pound, let alone a kilo. That's why you use ounces, by the way. Three ounces is about 80 gm. At the deli, most food here is labelled as price/100gm (cheese, ham, etc); a the butcher and green grocer it's mostly by the kilo. It makes things a lot simpler to just multiply weight in kilos by price in dollars/kilo.
The metric equivalents never seem to be just right, but we'll just have to live with them
After a few months you adjust. Australia went metric when I was at primary school.
A pure computational method for generating randomness has not been found...and I'd guess it can't be done.A pure computational method for generating randomness has not been found...and I'd guess it can't be done.
On the contrary, I think there are lots of these. Digits in pi, for example. The problem with that is that it's easily reproducible, and so useless for encryption, but would work fine for shuffling tracks (use some seed based on time, say, to give an offset so that it won't do the same sequence each time).
Heinlein did it best, and perhaps first, in All You ZombiesAll You Zombies, 1959. The protagonist is an orphan, born as a female, later gets pregnant, has a child, while giving birth the doctors discover she is a hermaphrodite, and as her uterus was destroyed, convert her into a male who grows up to be recruited into the Time Corps, who later goes back to seduce herself, then kidnaps the baby, takes it back 20 years to leave it at an orphanage...
Slashdot Mirror
I see the analogy more like having a menu stuck on the window, rather than press advertising. In both cases you have an ad in a place under the direct control of the business, easily corrected (or removed if they don't have the expertise). As for "an obligation to find and destroy all out of date promotional material", I don't see that at all. If you find an old leaflet or press ad no one is insisting it remain valid indefinitely.
I swear, if "Zonk" actually read that submission, he must have been on crack to miss the errors. I mean, come on: ..." ... or maybe both.
"In one for the first article
and
"...press a key or open your or phone laptop."
So, in conclusion, either Zonk doesn't read the submissions or he is an idiot
He didn't just fuck up the grammar, he can't spell either:
O'reilly [O'Reilly]
buiding [building]
Really, how hard is it to spellcheck a paragraph?
The last few weeks seem to have set new lows. Interminable dupes, stupid hoax stories they promote without any checking, even on the same page they lift them from (Firefox = spyware); on top of worsening spelling and garbled sentences, poor grammar, sensationalised and bogus editorial comments and headlines.... They have a huge momentum from the readers who submit stories and comments, and an admittedly good moderation system to promote worthwhile comments; but the editors themselves obviously don't give a shit about what they personally contribute any more.
But the 80 million spam messages you mention is not in the article that I can see, it just states:
They said the siblings and a third defendant, Richard Rutkowski, sent more than 10,000 spam e-mails over three days in July 2003. Rutkowski was acquitted.
And even if it was 80 million messages, I hate spam as much as anyone else - but 9 years? People who commit much worse crimes, violent crimes, serve less time. I think a large fine, plus 5 years or something of probabtion with the condition no computer use would be a better punishment.
As you quote, they just say "more than 10,000"; (not "10,000"), because it's the deciding factor, like having over a certain quantity of heroin to be deemed a dealer. Actually, it was another article I read that mentioned he had the AOL list of 80 million, I haven't gone into it further to see how many he's supposed to have sent, probably billions literally.
As for the appropriateness of his sentence, with parole he'll probably serve much less, and it's unlikely to be hard time, it's white collar crime. Large fines are pointless, they just declare bankruptcy and/or disappear on parole. It seems half the other posts here advocate worse punishment, in the usual redneck macho fashion.
Perhaps because it isn't true.
1) The "10,000" is just part of the definition of spamming in this law -- 10,000 per day. Accordng to the prosecutor, Jaynes was rated the eighth spammer in the world. For example, he sent spam to 80 million AOL.com addreses, repeatedly
2)It was 9, not 7 years
Neither the submitter, editor, and hardly any of the commenters seem to have actually RTFA...
Alternatively, you could RTFA and see that the "leader" was sentenced to 9 years and that was upheld, his sister, an accomplice, was the one let off. As usual, the Slashdot heading and summary are misleading and sensationalised, leading to most comments being unrelated to the facts.
I do. If not Lasik, then perhaps permanently inserted lenses. You can still wear sunglasses all day if you like.
I can't see it being allowed or encouraged for a (Star Fleet) officer on active duty, if a simple safe procedure to give anyone better than 20/20 vision was available (as it arguably is now, and surely will in a decade or two). Civilians may dress up or mutilate themselves in all kinds of bizarre ways back on earth. (Remember Baron Harkonnen who enjoyed cultivating various skin lesions...)
You're joking, but in Hong Kong corporations do have a vote, and most "citizens" don't. The Legislative Council has half its seats elected by "functional constituencies", analagous to the medieval guilds of London. Several of these, like "Banking" are dominated by corporate members. The British made a half-hearted attempt to introduce democracy before the colony was given to China in 1997, but China rolled most of those reforms back as soon as they did take over. Now the debate is on when real democracy will be introduced; it's promised in the Basic Law, but no implementation date, and Beijing is using every excuse to keep it in the indefinite future.
anniversary: The yearly return of a noteworthy date. (Oxford English Dictionary)
(Please don't regale me with "one month anniversaries of your first date" you celebrated in high school.) This is worse than "very unique".
Baldness can be a choice. However, wearing eyeglasses in the 24th century (they'll be obsolete in 20 years, I think) is just a stupid anachronism.
Just as background: I live in Hoing Kong, and I hate that we were handed over to Beijing, and know all about the invasion of Tibet, the Cultural Revolution, the Great Leap Forward, laogai, etc, etc. But to return to the subject: an American complains that another country is "stealing, killing and destroying"? Where have you been the last three years?
Gilmore has been waiting two years for someone to "quote the chapter and verse of the law". So common sense suggests that this law either does not exist, and he was lied to, or the government thinks it has the right to make and enforce secret laws.
Having RTFA, I think the only thing that has happened since the last time this was on Slashdot is that the Post Gazette did this story about him. It's more important than most of the dupes, and at least it isn't on the same day as has been their recent habit. sad that Slashdot has lowered the bar so much that only fucking up a little is acceptable.
And how about American Indians? Mexicans? Hawaiians? Inuits? The Tibetans were conquered, but at least there was no genocide there. No one has clean hands if you go back even a century. Americans have no unique claim to virtue; and no right to lecture to anyone about keeping your government in check.
The other places were, I think, just web bulletin boards, not self-proclaimed "news" sites". Also, in the thread linked (which wasn't the original appearance of the image, apparently), the POSTER ADMITTED IT WAS A FAKE two hours after posting it, several hours before it was submitted to Slashdot. If Taco had bothered to scan the link submitted, he would have seen that. Asdie from that, a minute reading the text of the image should have aroused anyone's suspicion; and of course it would have been only a few minute's work to actually run MS's spyware checker himself to see if it occurred. If after all that he still thought it worth posting, surely it should have been less definite, eg "Does MS AntiSpywarethink Firefox is Spyware?"
Yes, China still has a totalitarian government. However, scientists are among the forefront of those crticising it, sometimes they get publicity, often they get punished.
And how about your own country? Understand that "rights of man" does not mean "rights of Americans". At least China mostly just oppresses its own people.
The image was posted by grab_grab_the_haddock timestamped Yesterday, 03:56 PM
A few posts down the same guy posts Yesterday, 05:53 PM, 2 hours later: "Funny? It's absolutely priceless. Only MikeHunt would be stupid enough to so passionately debunk a blatantly photoshopped image which was put up for a joke. Hilarious."
He was wrong, Taco was even more stupid. I can't work out what timezones all these posts there and on slashdot refer to; but I'm pretty sure the follow up admission was there before it went up on Slashdot, not that anyone should have taken it at face value. I might believe a false positive for just about anything, but there is a description of Firefox there that no one at Microsoft would be stupid enough to write.
No. A couple of days ago a dupe appeared (of the 30,000 year old bacteria that came back to life). It had disappeared the mext time I refreshed the page.
Anyway, the "legal defence" idea is stupid. That kind of thing only flies when you (the owner or publisher) don't directly post content, just provide a venue -- like these comments, for instance. Even then they could be forced to remove something, but might escape paying damages. If they post it as editors, having a policy of never retracting a story would be as successful a defence as bringing up a prior murder conviction as allowing you to get away with it again.
Mabe not. I had a few years of Imperial units too. 63360 inches to the mile, 114 pounds to the hundredweight, 21 shillings to the guinea...
So? That's not pi.
Intuitively, the question answered is "How hard is it to write an algorithm that outputs this sequence?...There are several closed for formula for calculating pi to any number of digits."
Your intuition seems to be cryptographic. I already said that pi and such numbers were useless for that. Just because something is "easy" or "hard" to calculate has no bearing on whether it is random.
The whole reason we (countries that use rational measurement systems)have standard prefixes is that we can use appropriate units and avoud huge integers or fractions in common usage. I don't know why you think this is difficult. Would you prefer to be using pounds, shillings and pennies instead of dollars and cents -- that was one reform the US did before most other countries. So do you say "80 cents" or "eight-tenths of a dollar" (or 16 shillings)? And unless you're buying in bulk, most food is bought in quantites (or units) less than a pound, let alone a kilo. That's why you use ounces, by the way. Three ounces is about 80 gm. At the deli, most food here is labelled as price/100gm (cheese, ham, etc); a the butcher and green grocer it's mostly by the kilo. It makes things a lot simpler to just multiply weight in kilos by price in dollars/kilo.
The metric equivalents never seem to be just right, but we'll just have to live with them
After a few months you adjust. Australia went metric when I was at primary school.
And what has that to do with the solar chimney: greenhouse -> hot air ->wind turbine -> electricity?
On the contrary, I think there are lots of these. Digits in pi, for example. The problem with that is that it's easily reproducible, and so useless for encryption, but would work fine for shuffling tracks (use some seed based on time, say, to give an offset so that it won't do the same sequence each time).
Well, it wasn't just that. He also had a dumb spelling mistake ("mathmatician"). That helps. I wonder if they'll use that in the dupe.
Heinlein did it best, and perhaps first, in All You ZombiesAll You Zombies, 1959. The protagonist is an orphan, born as a female, later gets pregnant, has a child, while giving birth the doctors discover she is a hermaphrodite, and as her uterus was destroyed, convert her into a male who grows up to be recruited into the Time Corps, who later goes back to seduce herself, then kidnaps the baby, takes it back 20 years to leave it at an orphanage...