> Well I would have to say that Digital Impact is very high profile and you can at least contact them for the abuse, as opposed to the real shady spammers who hide when approached.
And just how, pray tell, am I supposed to tell who's "good" and who's "not good"?
> I just think that people with legit businesses can be hurt by a simple accusation in this world of "anything I don't like is spam" or "anything commercial is spam". Would you say the same if you had actually given them your email address at the store and they sent you an email?
If I gave them the email address with the understanding that it be used for solicitations, no, that's not spam.
Problem is, damn near every spam I get has a disclaimer telling me that I opted in (really? when?), and that I can opt out or unsubscribe by (clicking on the link, replying, whatever), and that the company sending it to me isn't a spammer, but is a permission-based marketer, or an high-profile legitimate marketing organization, or that they always respect remove requests.
> So even if they provide a means to get out of this then they are spammers?
YES.
Here you state that they provide a mechanism to get out of the list because obviously they made a mistake
Oh yeah, you reminded me of the one I forgot. "If we've added your address to our list by mistake..."
If you're not a spammer, you don't need these excuses, because you use a closed-loop confirmed opt-in list management process.
Incidentally, if that phrase sounds convoluted, it's because what you're describing was called opt-out, and the URL above described "opt-in".
After a few months, all the spam disclaimers started saying "this is an opt-in mailing", or "you opted in". So the phrase became "confirmed opt-in", implying that a confirmation phase was necessary.
(The PHB in Marketing knew that "opt-in" was the "good" buzzword, so Joe Spammer says he doesn't do opt-out, but opt-in, and the naive PHB signs the contract.)
A year or so after that, spam disclaimers started using language like "This is a confirmed opt-in list. To confirm your subscription, you need do nothing", so the term "closed-loop" had to be added to describe what was meant by "confirmation".
(The same thing had happened - the PHB had learned that "opt-in" was also spam, but that confirmation was good... so the spammers rebranded themselves and started selling "confirmed addresses" -- meaning "well, we've confirmed the address doesn't bounce when we spam it!", not "the owner of the address has affirmatively replied to a confirmation request containing an unguessable token".)
I'm sure that within a year or two, spammers will attempt to redefine the terms of the debate again.
> but yet they should be flogged? Stoned to death? I mean what sentence would you recommend?
For the record, when/. had this as a poll, I clicked "Go all Vlad The Impaler On Them In Front of Level3's offices To Set An Example":-)
> SHOW ME where someone tried to contact digital impact to get removed from a list
Too late. Too many spammers have used "remove links" or "global remove lists" (this goes back to 1997) as sources of harvesting and/or verifying the existence of email addresses.
Even the FTC is aware that asking to be removed is ineffective.
> $100 says I get modded down because spam is bad and I am "defending it" ergo I am bad or a troll. I have my own opinion and it does not coincide with the group so I must be punished! But i dont care I got karma to burn
The reason I accused (and still suspect) you of trolling is because these arguments have been hashed out over five years ago.
The system you describe - the sending of commercial email on an opt-out basis - is spam.
It doesn't matter if the company doing it honors remove links. It doesn't matter if the product is goat pr0n or E10000 servers with a terabyte of RAID-5. Spam is about consent, not content.
You are either trolling or - with a track record of Digital Impact / m0.net spams going back over four years long documented in news.admin.net-abuse.email, you are full of shit.
If I don't subscribe to a list, and m0.net sends me unsolicited commercial email telling me to opt out if I don't want more unsolicited commercial email from m0.net, then m0.net is a spammer.
> Everything they send out has clear and effective unsubscribe methods. > > There is a valid purpose for email marketing, calling any mass email from a company Spam is ridiculous, if they have a method for opting out and/or unsubscribing.
If you are neither trolling nor accept that the record demonstrates that you are full of shit,
there's one more option: you're shilling for m0.net, the DMA, or some other interest that stands to benefit by redefining spam as "that which you don't do". Please - and I mean this in the kindest possible way - go fuck yourself.
> TimBrown233: Father, forgive me, for I have sinned. > TheRevster31: Do not be disheartened, child, for Satan, also known as the Hun in your case, tempts us at all hours.
Except it'd be more like:
TimBrown233: Father, forgive me, for I have sinned.
PopeJayPeeDeux: A/S/L? r u a cop?
> Recommending that teens double date, holding group activities as an alternative to being alone and lazy, etc. It works very well.
Oh, sure, if the idea of one-on-one sex isn't enough and you need a hot teen foursome to get off anymore, you sick fuck!:)
As long as we're bringing up old jokes: You can always spot the pr0n hounds in your office when you invite someone to join your foursome on Saturday, and they do a quick double-take before they realize you're only talking about a round of golf.
> I agree! Just ask the Catholic Church, the multitudes of Protestant denominations, Branch Dividians, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Rastafarians, KKK, gay Christians, Charismatics, etc.
> > What a standard:)
What about the Discordians and the Church of the SubGenius?
It's like IEEE and ANSI. The best thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from!
> It seems in the past 1 1/2 years more and more proposed legislation has gotten to the point where I wonder if half my representatives can even turn on a computer or work a CD player.
> It's tempting to say "let's not wast resources on x, when y is a big problem to life an limb" Keep doing this long enough (eliminate pro sports, record companies, video games, and any other high dollar but unimportant-to-life-itself industry) and pretty soon you're living to be 280, but there's no books,or films, or video games, or art, or sports, or computers, or any of the things that make life so *enjoyable* today!
Not a sport, not music, not a game, and can't be expensive...
...pr0n!
Betcha the first SETI transmission decoded is alien pr0n. The Japanese will go nuts.
> I'm saying given that we have the death penetly that would be applied to someone with the right skills to do research on mars, lets offer then a one-way trip instead. Life sentences could count too. (spend the rest of your life behind bars on earth, or have freedom to roam mars)
All of this is bringing a horrible new meaning to the phrase "I'd kill to be the first guy on Mars!":-)
> The next goverment-sponsored RTS will be awesome. Pay 500,000 gold for a peasant, 30.6 million for a ballista.
ROFL.
Actually, the next government-sponsored RTS is being played right now. Massively-multiplayer. I hear the biggest team has over 300,000 players waiting to go:)
> > cops look at everyone when they drive down the block? It's true! They have to scan the driving habits and car colors and license plates of thousands of people before they find the guy who stole your Buick last weekend, or the other guy weaving down the road half-drunk. > > Forcing me to have a license plate should be illegal. All the rest of the things aren't those that you should [I'll assume you meant "shouldn't" here -- cars aren't invisible] expect privacy about. Phone communications, you should.
Your driving habits are private - the cops don't pull you over unless you attract their eye. You can pick your nose, sing to the radio, and in some states, even talk on a cell phone without a cop giving a rat's patoot.
Your car color/model is private - unless the cops are on the lookout for a car matching your description, you don't get a second glance. (Not even at the licence plate.) If your car matches the description of a stolen vehicle, you become interesting - someone may punch up the plate to see if the plate matches your vehicle. (In a world without license plates, "Matched the description of a suspect" might be grounds for a traffic stop, so I'll stick with the license plates as the less-invasive solution.)
If the plate matches your vehicle, but the plate's not the one that was reported stolen, the cops know who you are... for about 30 seconds, and then they forget about you because you've ceased to be interesting. If you remain interesting (plate belongs to a Ford Pinto, but is on a Porsche, or the plate matches the vehicle and was reported stolen, or plate and vehicle match, aren't stolen, but you have 20 unpaid traffic tickets:), you're busted, but that's the point.
Your phone calls are private - unless someone's looking for you. If you make a cell phone call, you broadcast who you were calling and when. If you happen to call the Wrong Number (in the big sense of the word), you become interesting, but only momentarily. Suppose KSM's cell phone number was one digit transposed from your favorite pizza joint, and you misdialed it one day. You were interesting for a few moments, but when the contents of your conversation were "Huh? Oh, wrong number", and the rest of your profile checks out asboring, you cease to be interesting. By picking up the phone for the wrong number, KSM gave away his position, which is still very interesting.
My guess is that most of what I described is automated, and that you have to go through multiple levels of "interesting" before a human even becomes aware you exist.
I'm no fan of Big Brother, but IMO, incidental surveillance - be it of your car by the cops or your calling patterns by the Man - is not a threat to your Fourth Amendment rights.
> everybody from outside who came onto their Unreal Tournament server kicked their ass. >7 nodes? What is this - an FBI LAN party?
Worse, some guy wrote half a dozen TS and SCI reports on the big computer with the bright red case and glowing red side window, because he figured that had to be the one on the secure net.
Turned out that was the UT server, case-modded by a couple of uncleared interns. Oops.
> If you have no command of your native tongue, you can't communicate. If you can't communicate, you can't be an effective leader. The man is a hopeless dunce. Some things are beyond defending.
AAY! YOO TAK BACK WOT YOU SAID ABOU' JEAN CHRETIEN! E's been elected wot, tree, four time now? Da Canadien pipples, dey lov him!
>>Tools not have moral > >
Tools have moral. Fire bad!
No No! Fire good! PREDATOR was a UAV-man! But he was still dragon! Burninating the terrorists! Burninating the missiles! Burninating the baby milk factories! BABY MILK FACTORIIIIIIIIIIES!!!
> > If Echelon is used fairly and honestly in these types of situations, then I will not complain one bit about the extraordinary secrecy of its network.
> > In order for Echelon to find Mohammed they had to scan the voices of him and thousands if not millions of others. By design using Echelon on the bad guys requiers using Echelon on the good guys as well.
Really? You know it was a voiceprint, compared against the voiceprints of everyone on the planet? What's your clearance? And since when was I, along with 250,000 geeks reading this today, cleared for this?:)
You don't know how it works. I don't know it works. (And anyone who does know how it works, ain't talking!)
It's just as likely that the network was "looking" for KSM by using cell numbers, or other data that had nothing to do with voiceprints. It's also likely that once the network found something "interesting", humans probably put a few pieces together, looked more closely, and eventually concluded that yes, they'd found their target.
But supposing you were right - did you know that cops look at everyone when they drive down the block? It's true! They have to scan the driving habits and car colors and license plates of thousands of people before they find the guy who stole your Buick last weekend, or the other guy weaving down the road half-drunk.
And as anyone who watches FOX TV (purveyors of fine car-crunching cop video mayhem since 1986!) knows, there are even video cameras in patrol cars that run all the time! The cops are video taping everyone! Oh, the horror!
Of course, nobody objects to this - it's called routine police work. Your car, my car, everybody on the street remains on the video tape after the shift, but the cops have forgotten about us by the time they're half a block away. And there's no guy whose job it is to watch every second of every patrol car's video tape as the cops come back from each shift, in case someone missed something - there can't be any such guy, because cops have budgets, and it'd be an utter waste of manpower.
By the same logic, it's highly probable - virtually certain, I'd wager - that Echelon works the same way. This Slashdot post may end up in a database. (I mean a database other than Google:-) So may our phone calls. But unless the network is already looking for you, it's No Big Deal. Echelon may be vastly more powerful than the one that brings you "World's Funni^H^H^H^H^HWildeest Police Videos", but it isn't interested in you - and while it's vastly better funded than your local cops, it's still limited by the number of humans it can hire, train, and pay.
Finally, there's a huge signal-to-noise problem, which makes it highly likely that Echelon works hard to keep people off the humans' radar than putting themon it. With crime, you don't call the SWAT team for every break-and-enter or domestic dispute. Likewise, you don't want waste your intel analysts' time with wisecracking Slashdotters (unless they need a humor break:)
I agree with the first poster - it's very hard to describe this as "bittersweet". This is precisely what Echelon is for.
> It sounds like a TiVo.. with all the stuff you want taken out of it and replaced with stuff that put more money in thier pokets. I can't imagine this will even start to put a dint in the PVR market.. instead it might Boost sales.. Give everyone a taste of how cool PVR's are and when they get sick of the subscription they will hunt out on thier own to buy a PVR with all the good stuff in it still.
A large portion of the populace still thinks AOL is "the Internet".
If AOL spends a billion or two to give everyone a taste of Mystro - thereby convincing the Great Unwashed that PVRs are "like VCRs, but they suck, and have more ads" - and they've pre-empted TiVo from ever gaining traction.
Think about it - if the average Joe's first impression of a PVR was this thing, would he risk dropping another $299 on a TiVo?
If it costs AOL/TW a billion or two to wipe TiVo off the map, that's money well spent.
> Taking a peaceful walk in the woods, or going for a long, straight drive down a quiet highway with the radio turned off and the laptop hundreds of miles away...it's very relaxing.
GPS receiver. Laptop.
Scrap the long straight drive for Highway 1 down the Pacific coast, and crank up the radio.
Very different kind of relaxing. You'll gain a new appreciation for "fractal". I didn't think they made roads that curvy. The GPS track has to be seen to be believed.
> The improved capabilities of orbiting telescopes and robotic exploration [nasa.gov] have pretty much eliminated the need for manned missions in the short- to medium-term. It's not that we're not exploring, we're just not sticking our (astronaut's) necks out.
For the most part, you're right, but for Mars, I respectfully disagree.
A freshman geology student with a pickaxe, a shovel, and an hour's worth of oxygen could teach us more about Martian history than any robotic sample return mission we have on the drawing board.
> I suggest you read the writings of Bernard Lietaers or George Soros. These former players are of the opinion that the worlds financial system is unsustainable, and that it's going to crash. These guys know what they're talking about, and I trust their opinions. If and when such a crash happens, overvalued opinions will be brought back into line with what they're actually worth. But anyway, that's OT.
Or, now that they've made their money, they would now like to make sure nobody else can play the game.
To bring this back on topic - Soros pontificating on how he'd like to remake world financial markets reminds me an awful lot of how Bill Gates Sr. would like to tax away all/most of Bill Gates Jr.'s wealth upon Jr's demise, because "nobody should have that much money". (Gee, Papa Gates, if you and your kid really believe that "nobody should have that much money", why hasn't your son been selling off his stock holdings and giving the money to the US Treasury:-)
If it takes $100M to start a company, you can bet your ass that Bill Gates Sr. and Jr. would be overjoyed by a system that taxes, say, 90% of someone's wealth at death.
Under such a system, only families like the Gates family would be able to pass on a fortunes big enough to start new businesses, while pissants who were only able to save up $50M in their lives would only pass on $5M, rendering them harmless.
New ad campaign! Not 750, but 1000 hours access per month! AOL now gives you 33% more!1!!
> The more hours you spend at work, the less you spend with friends and family. You can't have a great family life if it consists of kissing your kids before you run out the door in the morning and gazing at them after they've gone to sleep at night.
There are some unfortunate people who can't stand rugrats, but got roped into breeding anyways. (Google for the term "oopsed" for how this can happen to someone who isn't sufficiently paranoid. Moral of the story is, if you don't wanna breed, you're responsible for getting yourself snipped/clipped, don't rely on your partner's good faith.)
For such poor bastards, what you've described is the closest thing to a perfect family life they'll ever see!
> and perhaps a special category for "Most Gratuitous Use Of The Word Fuck" > > As the Oscars are American, wouldn't that have to be "Most Gratuitous Use of the Word 'BelCENSORED
No, it's "Fuck". The Oscars are aired in prime time to an audience of millions, including children. "Fuck" was the politest fripping euphemism they could find.
> Not only will it not work, it will also > >a) Cost a massive amount of money > b) Be a right royal pain in the ass to implement and maintain > c) Make people point at you and laugh > >Still interested?
If you're a politician, the first two are features, not bugs, and the fact that it doesn't work, and that people point and laugh, are immaterial.
That is, programs that cost a massive amount of money, and that are royal pains in the ass to implement tend to keep the amount of tribute required high. High levels of tribute reduces the amount of leisure time available to the serf; this is a feature, as some serfs would spend that leisure time not just pointing and laughing, but campaigning against you in the next election.
> I will try your suggestion at the first chance I get. > > PS. >You are also my first "Friend" on/.
Glad I could help, and I appreciate the kind sentiment.
But if you think that's gonna encourage me to confirm or deny whether my method of learning pancake-flipping was borne out of "learning it the hard way, repeatedly, and in messy fashion, and almost starting a fire once or twice", you're nuts:)
Slashdot Mirror
And just how, pray tell, am I supposed to tell who's "good" and who's "not good"?
> I just think that people with legit businesses can be hurt by a simple accusation in this world of "anything I don't like is spam" or "anything commercial is spam". Would you say the same if you had actually given them your email address at the store and they sent you an email?
If I gave them the email address with the understanding that it be used for solicitations, no, that's not spam.
Problem is, damn near every spam I get has a disclaimer telling me that I opted in (really? when?), and that I can opt out or unsubscribe by (clicking on the link, replying, whatever), and that the company sending it to me isn't a spammer, but is a permission-based marketer, or an high-profile legitimate marketing organization, or that they always respect remove requests.
> So even if they provide a means to get out of this then they are spammers?
YES.
Here you state that they provide a mechanism to get out of the list because obviously they made a mistake
Oh yeah, you reminded me of the one I forgot. "If we've added your address to our list by mistake..."
If you're not a spammer, you don't need these excuses, because you use a closed-loop confirmed opt-in list management process.
Incidentally, if that phrase sounds convoluted, it's because what you're describing was called opt-out, and the URL above described "opt-in".
After a few months, all the spam disclaimers started saying "this is an opt-in mailing", or "you opted in". So the phrase became "confirmed opt-in", implying that a confirmation phase was necessary.
(The PHB in Marketing knew that "opt-in" was the "good" buzzword, so Joe Spammer says he doesn't do opt-out, but opt-in, and the naive PHB signs the contract.)
A year or so after that, spam disclaimers started using language like "This is a confirmed opt-in list. To confirm your subscription, you need do nothing", so the term "closed-loop" had to be added to describe what was meant by "confirmation".
(The same thing had happened - the PHB had learned that "opt-in" was also spam, but that confirmation was good... so the spammers rebranded themselves and started selling "confirmed addresses" -- meaning "well, we've confirmed the address doesn't bounce when we spam it!", not "the owner of the address has affirmatively replied to a confirmation request containing an unguessable token".)
I'm sure that within a year or two, spammers will attempt to redefine the terms of the debate again.
> but yet they should be flogged? Stoned to death? I mean what sentence would you recommend?
For the record, when /. had this as a poll, I clicked "Go all Vlad The Impaler On Them In Front of Level3's offices To Set An Example" :-)
> SHOW ME where someone tried to contact digital impact to get removed from a list
Too late. Too many spammers have used "remove links" or "global remove lists" (this goes back to 1997) as sources of harvesting and/or verifying the existence of email addresses.
Even the FTC is aware that asking to be removed is ineffective.
> $100 says I get modded down because spam is bad and I am "defending it" ergo I am bad or a troll. I have my own opinion and it does not coincide with the group so I must be punished! But i dont care I got karma to burn
The reason I accused (and still suspect) you of trolling is because these arguments have been hashed out over five years ago.
The system you describe - the sending of commercial email on an opt-out basis - is spam.
It doesn't matter if the company doing it honors remove links. It doesn't matter if the product is goat pr0n or E10000 servers with a terabyte of RAID-5. Spam is about consent, not content.
You are either trolling or - with a track record of Digital Impact / m0.net spams going back over four years long documented in news.admin.net-abuse.email, you are full of shit.
If I don't subscribe to a list, and m0.net sends me unsolicited commercial email telling me to opt out if I don't want more unsolicited commercial email from m0.net, then m0.net is a spammer.
> Everything they send out has clear and effective unsubscribe methods.
>
> There is a valid purpose for email marketing, calling any mass email from a company Spam is ridiculous, if they have a method for opting out and/or unsubscribing.
If you are neither trolling nor accept that the record demonstrates that you are full of shit, there's one more option: you're shilling for m0.net, the DMA, or some other interest that stands to benefit by redefining spam as "that which you don't do". Please - and I mean this in the kindest possible way - go fuck yourself.
> TheRevster31: Do not be disheartened, child, for Satan, also known as the Hun in your case, tempts us at all hours.
Except it'd be more like:
TimBrown233: Father, forgive me, for I have sinned.
PopeJayPeeDeux: A/S/L? r u a cop?
Oh, sure, if the idea of one-on-one sex isn't enough and you need a hot teen foursome to get off anymore, you sick fuck! :)
As long as we're bringing up old jokes: You can always spot the pr0n hounds in your office when you invite someone to join your foursome on Saturday, and they do a quick double-take before they realize you're only talking about a round of golf.
>
> What a standard
What about the Discordians and the Church of the SubGenius?
It's like IEEE and ANSI. The best thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from!
You're new to this Internet thing, aren't you? :)
Well duh. That's what interns and aides are for.
Bloody peasant.
Not a sport, not music, not a game, and can't be expensive...
Betcha the first SETI transmission decoded is alien pr0n. The Japanese will go nuts.
All of this is bringing a horrible new meaning to the phrase "I'd kill to be the first guy on Mars!" :-)
ROFL.
Actually, the next government-sponsored RTS is being played right now. Massively-multiplayer. I hear the biggest team has over 300,000 players waiting to go :)
>
> Forcing me to have a license plate should be illegal. All the rest of the things aren't those that you should [I'll assume you meant "shouldn't" here -- cars aren't invisible] expect privacy about. Phone communications, you should.
Your driving habits are private - the cops don't pull you over unless you attract their eye. You can pick your nose, sing to the radio, and in some states, even talk on a cell phone without a cop giving a rat's patoot.
Your car color/model is private - unless the cops are on the lookout for a car matching your description, you don't get a second glance. (Not even at the licence plate.) If your car matches the description of a stolen vehicle, you become interesting - someone may punch up the plate to see if the plate matches your vehicle. (In a world without license plates, "Matched the description of a suspect" might be grounds for a traffic stop, so I'll stick with the license plates as the less-invasive solution.)
If the plate matches your vehicle, but the plate's not the one that was reported stolen, the cops know who you are... for about 30 seconds, and then they forget about you because you've ceased to be interesting. If you remain interesting (plate belongs to a Ford Pinto, but is on a Porsche, or the plate matches the vehicle and was reported stolen, or plate and vehicle match, aren't stolen, but you have 20 unpaid traffic tickets :), you're busted, but that's the point.
Your phone calls are private - unless someone's looking for you. If you make a cell phone call, you broadcast who you were calling and when. If you happen to call the Wrong Number (in the big sense of the word), you become interesting, but only momentarily. Suppose KSM's cell phone number was one digit transposed from your favorite pizza joint, and you misdialed it one day. You were interesting for a few moments, but when the contents of your conversation were "Huh? Oh, wrong number", and the rest of your profile checks out asboring, you cease to be interesting. By picking up the phone for the wrong number, KSM gave away his position, which is still very interesting.
My guess is that most of what I described is automated, and that you have to go through multiple levels of "interesting" before a human even becomes aware you exist.
I'm no fan of Big Brother, but IMO, incidental surveillance - be it of your car by the cops or your calling patterns by the Man - is not a threat to your Fourth Amendment rights.
>7 nodes? What is this - an FBI LAN party?
Worse, some guy wrote half a dozen TS and SCI reports on the big computer with the bright red case and glowing red side window, because he figured that had to be the one on the secure net.
Turned out that was the UT server, case-modded by a couple of uncleared interns. Oops.
AAY! YOO TAK BACK WOT YOU SAID ABOU' JEAN CHRETIEN! E's been elected wot, tree, four time now? Da Canadien pipples, dey lov him!
>
> Tools have moral. Fire bad!
No No! Fire good! PREDATOR was a UAV-man! But he was still dragon! Burninating the terrorists! Burninating the missiles! Burninating the baby milk factories! BABY MILK FACTORIIIIIIIIIIES!!!
>
> In order for Echelon to find Mohammed they had to scan the voices of him and thousands if not millions of others. By design using Echelon on the bad guys requiers using Echelon on the good guys as well.
Really? You know it was a voiceprint, compared against the voiceprints of everyone on the planet? What's your clearance? And since when was I, along with 250,000 geeks reading this today, cleared for this? :)
You don't know how it works. I don't know it works. (And anyone who does know how it works, ain't talking!)
It's just as likely that the network was "looking" for KSM by using cell numbers, or other data that had nothing to do with voiceprints. It's also likely that once the network found something "interesting", humans probably put a few pieces together, looked more closely, and eventually concluded that yes, they'd found their target.
But supposing you were right - did you know that cops look at everyone when they drive down the block? It's true! They have to scan the driving habits and car colors and license plates of thousands of people before they find the guy who stole your Buick last weekend, or the other guy weaving down the road half-drunk.
And as anyone who watches FOX TV (purveyors of fine car-crunching cop video mayhem since 1986!) knows, there are even video cameras in patrol cars that run all the time! The cops are video taping everyone! Oh, the horror!
Of course, nobody objects to this - it's called routine police work. Your car, my car, everybody on the street remains on the video tape after the shift, but the cops have forgotten about us by the time they're half a block away. And there's no guy whose job it is to watch every second of every patrol car's video tape as the cops come back from each shift, in case someone missed something - there can't be any such guy, because cops have budgets, and it'd be an utter waste of manpower.
By the same logic, it's highly probable - virtually certain, I'd wager - that Echelon works the same way. This Slashdot post may end up in a database. (I mean a database other than Google :-) So may our phone calls. But unless the network is already looking for you, it's No Big Deal. Echelon may be vastly more powerful than the one that brings you "World's Funni^H^H^H^H^HWildeest Police Videos", but it isn't interested in you - and while it's vastly better funded than your local cops, it's still limited by the number of humans it can hire, train, and pay.
Finally, there's a huge signal-to-noise problem, which makes it highly likely that Echelon works hard to keep people off the humans' radar than putting themon it. With crime, you don't call the SWAT team for every break-and-enter or domestic dispute. Likewise, you don't want waste your intel analysts' time with wisecracking Slashdotters (unless they need a humor break :)
I agree with the first poster - it's very hard to describe this as "bittersweet". This is precisely what Echelon is for.
Ahem:
s/dead_horse/ded_kitty/g
A large portion of the populace still thinks AOL is "the Internet".
If AOL spends a billion or two to give everyone a taste of Mystro - thereby convincing the Great Unwashed that PVRs are "like VCRs, but they suck, and have more ads" - and they've pre-empted TiVo from ever gaining traction.
Think about it - if the average Joe's first impression of a PVR was this thing, would he risk dropping another $299 on a TiVo?
If it costs AOL/TW a billion or two to wipe TiVo off the map, that's money well spent.
GPS receiver. Laptop.
Scrap the long straight drive for Highway 1 down the Pacific coast, and crank up the radio.
Very different kind of relaxing. You'll gain a new appreciation for "fractal". I didn't think they made roads that curvy. The GPS track has to be seen to be believed.
>
> When did life turn into a Hilary Swank action flick? [imdb.com]
The alternative was Hilary Rosen, and "action" in Swank. Be thankful.
For the most part, you're right, but for Mars, I respectfully disagree.
A freshman geology student with a pickaxe, a shovel, and an hour's worth of oxygen could teach us more about Martian history than any robotic sample return mission we have on the drawing board.
Or, now that they've made their money, they would now like to make sure nobody else can play the game.
To bring this back on topic - Soros pontificating on how he'd like to remake world financial markets reminds me an awful lot of how Bill Gates Sr. would like to tax away all/most of Bill Gates Jr.'s wealth upon Jr's demise, because "nobody should have that much money". (Gee, Papa Gates, if you and your kid really believe that "nobody should have that much money", why hasn't your son been selling off his stock holdings and giving the money to the US Treasury :-)
If it takes $100M to start a company, you can bet your ass that Bill Gates Sr. and Jr. would be overjoyed by a system that taxes, say, 90% of someone's wealth at death.
Under such a system, only families like the Gates family would be able to pass on a fortunes big enough to start new businesses, while pissants who were only able to save up $50M in their lives would only pass on $5M, rendering them harmless.
New ad campaign! Not 750, but 1000 hours access per month! AOL now gives you 33% more!1!!
> The more hours you spend at work, the less you spend with friends and family. You can't have a great family life if it consists of kissing your kids before you run out the door in the morning and gazing at them after they've gone to sleep at night.
There are some unfortunate people who can't stand rugrats, but got roped into breeding anyways. (Google for the term "oopsed" for how this can happen to someone who isn't sufficiently paranoid. Moral of the story is, if you don't wanna breed, you're responsible for getting yourself snipped/clipped, don't rely on your partner's good faith.)
For such poor bastards, what you've described is the closest thing to a perfect family life they'll ever see!
*ducks and runs*
>
> As the Oscars are American, wouldn't that have to be "Most Gratuitous Use of the Word 'Bel CENSORED
No, it's "Fuck". The Oscars are aired in prime time to an audience of millions, including children. "Fuck" was the politest fripping euphemism they could find.
>
>a) Cost a massive amount of money
> b) Be a right royal pain in the ass to implement and maintain
> c) Make people point at you and laugh
>
>Still interested?
If you're a politician, the first two are features, not bugs, and the fact that it doesn't work, and that people point and laugh, are immaterial.
That is, programs that cost a massive amount of money, and that are royal pains in the ass to implement tend to keep the amount of tribute required high. High levels of tribute reduces the amount of leisure time available to the serf; this is a feature, as some serfs would spend that leisure time not just pointing and laughing, but campaigning against you in the next election.
>
> PS.
>You are also my first "Friend" on
Glad I could help, and I appreciate the kind sentiment.
But if you think that's gonna encourage me to confirm or deny whether my method of learning pancake-flipping was borne out of "learning it the hard way, repeatedly, and in messy fashion, and almost starting a fire once or twice", you're nuts :)
Happy pancaking!