Since most people don't use unique addresses, they won't be aware of the source of the spam, so they don't report it. The few of us who do are treated as troublemakers.
When I have reported this, every time I was told that it was my problem, that I had a virus, or that I was an idiot/a troll/etc. Never did anyone take any responsibility or take any action.
Slashdot itself starts anonymous speech at a lower value than speech with an ID, a slight, but not subtle, nudge to get you to provide your information
Bollocks. My name isn't "1u3hr" and I registered using a throwaway email. All Slashdot knows about me is my IP, no more than they do for "Anonymous Cowards". There's no loss of anonymity in adopting a pseudonym.
As for ACs, they are living proof of the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory, sad to say. I rarely read the and almost never reply to them.
But requiring Facebook ID though, yes, that is the end of anonymity.
I think you'd better just write your own dictionary, then you can cite it for all these posts where you tell people what words mean in your language, despite it being contrary to any sane English language definition.
How any logos are there that the average person could recognise? A few hundred? Say a thousand. Much easier to add these to the "OCR" library than the mangled text in captchas. There are only so many ads. And all the ads could be harvested and catalogued automatically, as they'd just reuse ones on other sites with identifying metadata.
Complete bullshit. And you know for a fact that in no time we'd be having to answer questions about crap like "One weird secret for losing weight/Mom is 54 and looks 27". Then we'd have to watch a flash animation. And listen to a jingle....
Chicago is notoriously democratic, and corrupt, however.
I assume you actually mean "Democratic", not "democratic", as I find it hard to imagine why the latter would be a pejorative.. And American Democrats are about as far left as any other country's "Conservative" party.
Criminal minds aren't really all the bright, that said, why not proxy off your neighbors wifi to the overseas VPN your paying for with your neighbors credit card...
A criminal who can crack wifi must also be aware of how easily he could be backtracked. The online criminal community has gotten very paranoid, and rightly so.
It might be a simple "I want to leech some free internetz" but odds are if someone is going to that much trouble to get into your network they're going to rummage around ON YOUR NETWORK too with the same level of sophistication.
Maybe. But again, it would be really stupid to do that to a neighbour. An online criminal can target anyone, anywhere, and fade away if he's detected. If he's connecting via wifi, you can turn up on his door with a baseball bat 3 minutes later. And while "YOUR NETWORK" matters to you, it probably doesn't to anyone else. Unless they like the same kind of porn you do. So of course you want to protect it, but it's more likely to be collateral damage than a targeted assault.
But the more I think about it, the more likely it is that this story is completely fictional. Though I once cracked a neighbour's wifi. If you count logging on to an unencrypted network as "cracking". I then noted the SSID and it was a router brand, so I guessed it was all on defaults and logged in to the admin screen. But that was it, logged off and just leeched for a while till my own broadband was online. Now all my neighbours wifi is encrypted. There have been a few scare stories in the news and with netbooks and smartphones all using wifi people are used to having to use passwords.
American politicians (most of them, at least) don't care one way or the other about the NRA. What they care about is how they look to the (voting) public.
No politician wants to have to do something so official and public as voting to remove a constitutional right...that would be political suicide. They're afraid, yes, but not of the NRA.
That you state the issue in those terms shows how effective the NRA has been.
b) something illegal. Identity theft, probing your network for something to steal, child porn consumption or distribution using your internet, etc.
Anything that might actually get the police/FBI to act might have them break down your door. But within 24 hours they would break down his too. Anyone doing really illegal stuff wouldn't leech off a neighbour a hundred yards away as a proxy, he'd spend $5 a month and get an overseas VPN.
If he's ever caught (and if he exists at all, and isn't just a totally made up story to generate slashdot hits, which is more than likely) he's just some jerk in his basement who thinks it's fun, but not doing anything more illegal online than you (aside from cracking your router, that is). This is basically a trivial neighbourhood dispute, like the guy who throws his cigarette butts in your yard as he works in his garden. Of course, in the wrong neighbourhood, that could get you killed....
While the mechanism described isn't very original, Google has lawyers to cover their asses and patent it so that a few years down the trail when they've implemented it all through their cloud they can't get sued by Microsoft or some troll that went ahead and patented an equivalent method. Actually, if the PTO threw it out as unpatentable, Google would probably be just as happy, so they could use it without looking over their shoulders.
.
the plans, still in discussion, would also block funding to websites that do not respond to legal challenges, for example because they are offshore.
So, if the "legal challenges" have a basis in fact, why not use existing laws? Sounds like a mechanism to make American laws apply to everyone in the world. And they don't even have to prove guilt, just send a threat from a lawyer, which is rightfully ignored, then Google pulls the plug on the site's income, site erased.
If you force people to use unsanitary containers to carry their food it only makes sense that their could be a corresponding increase in the risk of infection.
No one is "forced" to use unsanitary containers, the containers are sanitary when they're bought. If the users let them get dirty without bothering to clean or replace them, their kitchens are probably full of bugs and roaches too. Consider it evolution in action if they poison themselves, hopefully before they reproduce.
In any case, are people carrying handfuls of sushi and pouring in unpasteurised milk? Surely most food subject to infection, like raw meat, is in a clean package when its bought.
Dogs and cats have tooth decay too, ask any vet. Even if they haven't been given sweets by foolish owners. Wild animals with serious tooth problems are soon dead.
Was Malda given the chop? He was supposed to be some kind of Web 2.0 guru for them/ If they gave up on that mirage, his position is precarious. He's unlikely to be welcomed back here as editor. Though we will probably see more of him as a contributor as you cant spend all your life consuming drugs and hookers..
The article should be: "Clueless lawmakers who have never done and honest day's work and are clueless as to how businesses actually operate wrote laws so bad and full of holes that Facebook posts billions in profits and payed zero taxes."
Please. Quit blaming the companies
Plenty of blame to go around.
The companies drafted the laws and paid lobbyists to bribe the lawmakers to enact them.
If both stay silent, maybe end up with time served 'cause they can't be sure it which of you it was.
Rubbish. Without proof both must be freed. There is no shared responsibility or punishment. "Unless someone owns up you all go without supper" isn't a legal principle.
Slashdot Mirror
When I have reported this, every time I was told that it was my problem, that I had a virus, or that I was an idiot/a troll/etc. Never did anyone take any responsibility or take any action.
Slashdot itself starts anonymous speech at a lower value than speech with an ID, a slight, but not subtle, nudge to get you to provide your information
Bollocks. My name isn't "1u3hr" and I registered using a throwaway email. All Slashdot knows about me is my IP, no more than they do for "Anonymous Cowards". There's no loss of anonymity in adopting a pseudonym.
As for ACs, they are living proof of the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory, sad to say. I rarely read the and almost never reply to them.
But requiring Facebook ID though, yes, that is the end of anonymity.
I think you'd better just write your own dictionary, then you can cite it for all these posts where you tell people what words mean in your language, despite it being contrary to any sane English language definition.
the usage of US thoughts on the political affiliations...
Regardless, you are using the English language, not FoxNewspeak. And I doubt that you or your friends are the arbiters of "US thought".
Complete bullshit. And you know for a fact that in no time we'd be having to answer questions about crap like "One weird secret for losing weight/Mom is 54 and looks 27". Then we'd have to watch a flash animation. And listen to a jingle....
Chicago is notoriously democratic, and corrupt, however.
I assume you actually mean "Democratic", not "democratic", as I find it hard to imagine why the latter would be a pejorative.. And American Democrats are about as far left as any other country's "Conservative" party.
Criminal minds aren't really all the bright, that said, why not proxy off your neighbors wifi to the overseas VPN your paying for with your neighbors credit card...
A criminal who can crack wifi must also be aware of how easily he could be backtracked. The online criminal community has gotten very paranoid, and rightly so.
It might be a simple "I want to leech some free internetz" but odds are if someone is going to that much trouble to get into your network they're going to rummage around ON YOUR NETWORK too with the same level of sophistication.
Maybe. But again, it would be really stupid to do that to a neighbour. An online criminal can target anyone, anywhere, and fade away if he's detected. If he's connecting via wifi, you can turn up on his door with a baseball bat 3 minutes later. And while "YOUR NETWORK" matters to you, it probably doesn't to anyone else. Unless they like the same kind of porn you do. So of course you want to protect it, but it's more likely to be collateral damage than a targeted assault.
But the more I think about it, the more likely it is that this story is completely fictional. Though I once cracked a neighbour's wifi. If you count logging on to an unencrypted network as "cracking". I then noted the SSID and it was a router brand, so I guessed it was all on defaults and logged in to the admin screen. But that was it, logged off and just leeched for a while till my own broadband was online. Now all my neighbours wifi is encrypted. There have been a few scare stories in the news and with netbooks and smartphones all using wifi people are used to having to use passwords.
You're a moron.
Well thanks for quickly bringing this this to a civilised level of debate. You stupid gun-stroking cunt.
Yes, I'm not an American, so I will never understand how your right to carry a gun is exactly like abolishing slavery.
American politicians (most of them, at least) don't care one way or the other about the NRA. What they care about is how they look to the (voting) public.
The NRA presents itself as speaking for the voters. Maybe they do. But the NRA certainly spends a few million a year to lobby in Washington. http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000082
No politician wants to have to do something so official and public as voting to remove a constitutional right...that would be political suicide. They're afraid, yes, but not of the NRA.
That you state the issue in those terms shows how effective the NRA has been.
American politicians are too afraid of the NRA nutters to ban real guns. So they want to ban toys.
b) something illegal. Identity theft, probing your network for something to steal, child porn consumption or distribution using your internet, etc.
Anything that might actually get the police/FBI to act might have them break down your door. But within 24 hours they would break down his too. Anyone doing really illegal stuff wouldn't leech off a neighbour a hundred yards away as a proxy, he'd spend $5 a month and get an overseas VPN.
If he's ever caught (and if he exists at all, and isn't just a totally made up story to generate slashdot hits, which is more than likely) he's just some jerk in his basement who thinks it's fun, but not doing anything more illegal online than you (aside from cracking your router, that is). This is basically a trivial neighbourhood dispute, like the guy who throws his cigarette butts in your yard as he works in his garden. Of course, in the wrong neighbourhood, that could get you killed....
While the mechanism described isn't very original, Google has lawyers to cover their asses and patent it so that a few years down the trail when they've implemented it all through their cloud they can't get sued by Microsoft or some troll that went ahead and patented an equivalent method. Actually, if the PTO threw it out as unpatentable, Google would probably be just as happy, so they could use it without looking over their shoulders. .
the plans, still in discussion, would also block funding to websites that do not respond to legal challenges, for example because they are offshore.
So, if the "legal challenges" have a basis in fact, why not use existing laws? Sounds like a mechanism to make American laws apply to everyone in the world. And they don't even have to prove guilt, just send a threat from a lawyer, which is rightfully ignored, then Google pulls the plug on the site's income, site erased.
If you force people to use unsanitary containers to carry their food it only makes sense that their could be a corresponding increase in the risk of infection.
No one is "forced" to use unsanitary containers, the containers are sanitary when they're bought. If the users let them get dirty without bothering to clean or replace them, their kitchens are probably full of bugs and roaches too. Consider it evolution in action if they poison themselves, hopefully before they reproduce.
In any case, are people carrying handfuls of sushi and pouring in unpasteurised milk? Surely most food subject to infection, like raw meat, is in a clean package when its bought.
I didn't say I was surprised at it. Just expressing my disgust.
"breaks" for vehicle brakes keeps coming up here. Is this an Americanism?
Just an illiteratism. Like lose/loose; peek/peak, horde/hoard, etc., all wrong more than right here.
Dogs and cats have tooth decay too, ask any vet. Even if they haven't been given sweets by foolish owners. Wild animals with serious tooth problems are soon dead.
Link to the source, not some asshole plagiarising it to get ad hits.
Was Malda given the chop? He was supposed to be some kind of Web 2.0 guru for them/ If they gave up on that mirage, his position is precarious. He's unlikely to be welcomed back here as editor. Though we will probably see more of him as a contributor as you cant spend all your life consuming drugs and hookers..
The article should be: "Clueless lawmakers who have never done and honest day's work and are clueless as to how businesses actually operate wrote laws so bad and full of holes that Facebook posts billions in profits and payed zero taxes." Please. Quit blaming the companies
Plenty of blame to go around.
The companies drafted the laws and paid lobbyists to bribe the lawmakers to enact them.
FYI, past tense of "pay" is "paid".
It's not a dilemma for the prisoners at all. The case doesn't hinge on getting them to testify against each other.
If both stay silent, maybe end up with time served 'cause they can't be sure it which of you it was.
Rubbish. Without proof both must be freed. There is no shared responsibility or punishment. "Unless someone owns up you all go without supper" isn't a legal principle.
I am a bit of a Ron Paul fan I have never heard him say anything specifically regarding domain name ownership.
Right. So, he has no problem is appealing to a UN agency to take away property from someone, as long as they give it to him.
he just wants it.
Well, that pretty much shuts down any rational debate.