You could have taken revenge by reinserting the correction and citing e.g. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. He wanted a reference, he got a reference. And he can't say that reference is not notable either.
And he will revert it as not relevant, or for some other reason. It soon becomes a game of who can spend more time pushing a small change into an article.
With nothing to gain from winning and a large amount of wasted time win or lose normal people give up.
If you spend a lot of time writing something, and then somebody decides that it's not "notable"
Then you probably didn't spend time finding reliable sources to cite.
In practice it doesn't work that way. The rules on what is and isn't a 'reliable source' are open to interpretation as are the rules on what is 'notable'. Admins appear to love deleting new articles. It's the quickest and easiest way for them to convince themselves they are helping.
Clearly Wikipedia fills a niche. The next step is a p2p model.
That could work. If we could feed in wikipedia's articles to began with that would be a great start. Throw in a public key encryption to authenticate users and you should have a system that's secure, scalable, and doesn't need much or any new hardware to function.
Any idea how much data wikipedia's contains anyway? Of course not every node would have a copy of everything.
Your spelling corrections don't get reverted? Mine always do. I completely gave up before I ever tried to make a non-trivial contribution.
I don't think small self-evident corrections get reverted much. I don't know for sure because I don't check. I figure I did my bit and there is no point wasting more time checking small corrections.
Allow admins to be voted off the island. That way they can't be TOO nasty or they'll have to start over as an untrusted user.
That seems like a good idea. Assuming a large number of anonymous votes are needed to get rid of an admin and that other admins can't interfere in any way maybe it would work.
I really don't know if a few or a lot of administrators are a-holes but I do know if you make a bunch of good faith edits sooner or later you will run into an admin on a power trip throwing his/her weight around. At that point all your good will is lost. A functional way to get rid of the bad admins could help a lot.
There's an easy reason for this. The admins are, generally speaking, dicks. This wouldn't be a problem if they were in touch with the community, but they aren't.
Agreed. The kind of people that want power over overs in their free time are not the kind of people who are good at using that power productively.
I gave up everything but small spelling corrections and rephrasing on wikipedia ages ago.
Tagging you as foe puts a red dot next to your name. I use this to tag microsoft marketers, GNAA trolls ( who rarely use the same ID anyway ), and people of sub-normal intelligence like yourself. I'd rather block all ID's over about a million but there isn't a good way to do this.
As for your page long rant above I gave up halfway though the first paragraph. I guess you only wrote it for your own emotional reasons anyway.
It's meaningless nonsense based on the flawed assumption that there is only one way to 'get it', hence the comparison with nyan cat which is also meaningless but comes with a catchy tune. You are trolling by insisting that there is more to it than total nonsense. Clearly you can't think for yourself if you repeat such rubbish just because you saw other people repeat it.
whoosh means that you totally missed the point, which is why i had to whoosh you again. it is a meme, like any other in this community. for an incomplete and changing list of slashdot memes, see my sig.
It doesn't mean 'you missed the point' at all though. It may be meant by the people that posted it to mean that but they don't have total knowledge over all subjects any more than the person they are troll-replying to. It's a null-reply used by those that can't be bothered typing. you would be better replying 'nyan nyan nyan nyan nyan' as it conveys at least the same information and is way more funny.
I swear the average IQ dropped around here by around 50 points somewhere between the creation of ID 1000000 and ID 1500000.
Two reasons this won't work spring to mind: 1) This requires core routers to attempt decryption on all SSL traffic passing though them. This is deep packet inspection on a scale the Internet has never seen and would require massively expensive router upgrades, if it's even possible at all. The companies expected to carry out all this work get no commercial benefit for their efforts. It's unlikely anyone else will pay these companies to do this work. 2) The whole security model relies on a secret key being held on a massive number of different core routers, should this secret key ever be leaked anyone with it can detect that secret data is being sent. It won't be possible for either side in the communication to know if this is happening. You want to use this against China? Guess who built the hardware that holds the secret key?
Bennett Haselton is an idiot. Read some of his bullshit trying to defame judges (www.judgejokes.com) and it's clear how little he actually understands.
I don't believe Telex could work. However whatever Bennett Haselton thinks about US judges has nothing to do with the reasons why. If he had a few bad experiences and decided to mock a few power-mongers publicly then good on him.
I can't find a mod for '-1 You What?' so I decided to reply instead.
You can't have seriously got to the age of 16 and not known what a condom is? Were you educated by religious nutcases who never let you have any contact with the world?
I'm posting this Anonymously so I can mod anyone who replies with 'whoosh' as a troll. 'Whoosh' was never funny.
Diagnosis: anally retentive.
That's not a meaningful reply. Are you objecting to the main content of my posting or my anti-whoosh rant?
Don't try to battle slashdot memes. You will lose.
'In soviet russia...' is a meme, 'correlation != causation' is a meme. Even goatse links, GNAA posts, or the posts that say 'here is a link to a nice mirror' and it's actually a link to a picture of a mirror make better memes than 'Whoosh'.
'Whoosh' is just one meaningless word repeated over and over. It's basicly nyan cat without the funky music or retro animation. It's a nothing-meme.
I can't find a mod for '-1 You What?' so I decided to reply instead.
You can't have seriously got to the age of 16 and not known what a condom is? Were you educated by religious nutcases who never let you have any contact with the world?
I'm posting this Anonymously so I can mod anyone who replies with 'whoosh' as a troll. 'Whoosh' was never funny.
Also, remember that RFC stands for "Request For Comment". I guess we could start some sort of RFC Police force, where people actually have to abide by RFC *proposals*, but then I wouldn't be able to use my non-compliant bats with RFC 1149. So much for internet usage after dark.
A lot of RFC's started as proposals but some became authoritative. It's a mess finding out what you are meant to follow and what you are not. Sadly no other approach has ever worked. The whole thing is decentralized, no 'Police force' is going to work across all countries involved and even if it could work it would get quickly subverted by governments, legal systems, and big companies. Feel free to check for RFC compliant mailers with greet pauses, greylisting (which is also a RFC abuse), check HELO names, and any other mail check you can come up with. Everyone doing their own checking is the nearest to a RFC police force we are going to get.
RFC 1149 is another example of the April 1st lying tradition that slashdot falls so hard for every year.
Neither of those are necessarily set up. It doesn't matter what RFCs state, the people responsible for servers don't have to bother handle email coming in, and many obviously don't. Try emailing them sometime, count the bounces.
It matters for everyone who sets up mail servers correctly. If I find a big domain has a broken postmaster@ address I submit it to rfc-ignorant and mail whatever contact address I can find at that domain. You are right about them not caring, I rarely get a reply and when I do it's often from someone with no technical skills.
They might be the same person but the RFC states these address have to resolve to a human. If they don't with gmail, yahoomail, or whatever they these sites should be listed on rfc-ignorant.
So, let's say they do resolve to a human, does the RFC say they have to do anything about it?
Anyway, as a user of email - free email at that - please explain to me how I can be "abused"?
Spam? The little I get is no skin off my ass. Yahoo, Hotmail, Gmail, etc... is paying for the bandwidth.
How else can one be "abused" by email?
I believe the RFC says the mail has to be delivered to a human. It doesn't say the human has to read it, be capable of understanding it, or do anything with it. It might be worth reading the actual RFCs involved to check the details but that tends to be a huge time sink.
I consider spam an abusive waste of my time. Maybe you don't, that's up to you.
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses ( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks ( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it (X) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers (X) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists (X) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it (X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email (X) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses ( ) Asshats (X) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email (X) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches (X) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft (X) Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable (X) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation (X) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud (X) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Sending email should be free (X) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome (X) I don't want the government reading my email ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
Those of us who had email addresses in the early days of the Internet age remember sending notes to webmaster email addresses to report malicious email behavior
Webmaster@ will get you the webmaster. Postmaster@ will get you the postmaster.
They might be the same person but the RFC states these address have to resolve to a human. If they don't with gmail, yahoomail, or whatever they these sites should be listed on rfc-ignorant.
Email police? No, won't work. What happened to that standard spam solution form slashdot used to use?
And you know better than someone who has been buying thing in that currency for many years? It's sad that slashdot is now full of arrogant types who think they know better than everyone else.
GBP is correct. UKP is still used. The fact it is wrong does not change the fact it is still used.
Slashdot Mirror
You could have taken revenge by reinserting the correction and citing e.g. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. He wanted a reference, he got a reference. And he can't say that reference is not notable either.
And he will revert it as not relevant, or for some other reason. It soon becomes a game of who can spend more time pushing a small change into an article.
With nothing to gain from winning and a large amount of wasted time win or lose normal people give up.
If you spend a lot of time writing something, and then somebody decides that it's not "notable"
Then you probably didn't spend time finding reliable sources to cite.
In practice it doesn't work that way. The rules on what is and isn't a 'reliable source' are open to interpretation as are the rules on what is 'notable'. Admins appear to love deleting new articles. It's the quickest and easiest way for them to convince themselves they are helping.
Clearly Wikipedia fills a niche. The next step is a p2p model.
That could work. If we could feed in wikipedia's articles to began with that would be a great start. Throw in a public key encryption to authenticate users and you should have a system that's secure, scalable, and doesn't need much or any new hardware to function.
Any idea how much data wikipedia's contains anyway? Of course not every node would have a copy of everything.
Your spelling corrections don't get reverted? Mine always do. I completely gave up before I ever tried to make a non-trivial contribution.
I don't think small self-evident corrections get reverted much. I don't know for sure because I don't check. I figure I did my bit and there is no point wasting more time checking small corrections.
Allow admins to be voted off the island. That way they can't be TOO nasty or they'll have to start over as an untrusted user.
That seems like a good idea. Assuming a large number of anonymous votes are needed to get rid of an admin and that other admins can't interfere in any way maybe it would work.
I really don't know if a few or a lot of administrators are a-holes but I do know if you make a bunch of good faith edits sooner or later you will run into an admin on a power trip throwing his/her weight around. At that point all your good will is lost. A functional way to get rid of the bad admins could help a lot.
There's an easy reason for this. The admins are, generally speaking, dicks. This wouldn't be a problem if they were in touch with the community, but they aren't.
Agreed. The kind of people that want power over overs in their free time are not the kind of people who are good at using that power productively.
I gave up everything but small spelling corrections and rephrasing on wikipedia ages ago.
Tagging you as foe puts a red dot next to your name. I use this to tag microsoft marketers, GNAA trolls ( who rarely use the same ID anyway ), and people of sub-normal intelligence like yourself. I'd rather block all ID's over about a million but there isn't a good way to do this.
As for your page long rant above I gave up halfway though the first paragraph. I guess you only wrote it for your own emotional reasons anyway.
It's meaningless nonsense based on the flawed assumption that there is only one way to 'get it', hence the comparison with nyan cat which is also meaningless but comes with a catchy tune. You are trolling by insisting that there is more to it than total nonsense. Clearly you can't think for yourself if you repeat such rubbish just because you saw other people repeat it.
So Whoosh to you. You clearly don't get it.
Whoosh!!
whoosh means that you totally missed the point, which is why i had to whoosh you again. it is a meme, like any other in this community. for an incomplete and changing list of slashdot memes, see my sig.
It doesn't mean 'you missed the point' at all though. It may be meant by the people that posted it to mean that but they don't have total knowledge over all subjects any more than the person they are troll-replying to. It's a null-reply used by those that can't be bothered typing. you would be better replying 'nyan nyan nyan nyan nyan' as it conveys at least the same information and is way more funny.
I swear the average IQ dropped around here by around 50 points somewhere between the creation of ID 1000000 and ID 1500000.
Two reasons this won't work spring to mind:
1) This requires core routers to attempt decryption on all SSL traffic passing though them. This is deep packet inspection on a scale the Internet has never seen and would require massively expensive router upgrades, if it's even possible at all. The companies expected to carry out all this work get no commercial benefit for their efforts. It's unlikely anyone else will pay these companies to do this work.
2) The whole security model relies on a secret key being held on a massive number of different core routers, should this secret key ever be leaked anyone with it can detect that secret data is being sent. It won't be possible for either side in the communication to know if this is happening. You want to use this against China? Guess who built the hardware that holds the secret key?
Bennett Haselton is an idiot. Read some of his bullshit trying to defame judges (www.judgejokes.com) and it's clear how little he actually understands.
I don't believe Telex could work. However whatever Bennett Haselton thinks about US judges has nothing to do with the reasons why. If he had a few bad experiences and decided to mock a few power-mongers publicly then good on him.
That's Telix, not telex.
I can't find a mod for '-1 You What?' so I decided to reply instead.
You can't have seriously got to the age of 16 and not known what a condom is? Were you educated by religious nutcases who never let you have any contact with the world?
I'm posting this Anonymously so I can mod anyone who replies with 'whoosh' as a troll. 'Whoosh' was never funny.
Diagnosis: anally retentive.
That's not a meaningful reply. Are you objecting to the main content of my posting or my anti-whoosh rant?
Whoosh
Don't try to battle slashdot memes. You will lose.
'In soviet russia...' is a meme, 'correlation != causation' is a meme. Even goatse links, GNAA posts, or the posts that say 'here is a link to a nice mirror' and it's actually a link to a picture of a mirror make better memes than 'Whoosh'.
'Whoosh' is just one meaningless word repeated over and over. It's basicly nyan cat without the funky music or retro animation. It's a nothing-meme.
I'm posting this Anonymously so I can mod anyone who replies with 'whoosh' as a troll. 'Whoosh' was never funny.
I messed that up.
I can't find a mod for '-1 You What?' so I decided to reply instead.
You can't have seriously got to the age of 16 and not known what a condom is? Were you educated by religious nutcases who never let you have any contact with the world?
I'm posting this Anonymously so I can mod anyone who replies with 'whoosh' as a troll. 'Whoosh' was never funny.
Also, remember that RFC stands for "Request For Comment". I guess we could start some sort of RFC Police force, where people actually have to abide by RFC *proposals*, but then I wouldn't be able to use my non-compliant bats with RFC 1149. So much for internet usage after dark.
A lot of RFC's started as proposals but some became authoritative. It's a mess finding out what you are meant to follow and what you are not. Sadly no other approach has ever worked. The whole thing is decentralized, no 'Police force' is going to work across all countries involved and even if it could work it would get quickly subverted by governments, legal systems, and big companies. Feel free to check for RFC compliant mailers with greet pauses, greylisting (which is also a RFC abuse), check HELO names, and any other mail check you can come up with. Everyone doing their own checking is the nearest to a RFC police force we are going to get.
RFC 1149 is another example of the April 1st lying tradition that slashdot falls so hard for every year.
Neither of those are necessarily set up. It doesn't matter what RFCs state, the people responsible for servers don't have to bother handle email coming in, and many obviously don't. Try emailing them sometime, count the bounces.
It matters for everyone who sets up mail servers correctly. If I find a big domain has a broken postmaster@ address I submit it to rfc-ignorant and mail whatever contact address I can find at that domain. You are right about them not caring, I rarely get a reply and when I do it's often from someone with no technical skills.
Good and necessary answer. Don't forget abuse@ for all kinds of bad behaviour, not just email.
And hostmaster@ for host related matters. I was trying to correct the summary not provide a full list of RFC mandated email addresses.
They might be the same person but the RFC states these address have to resolve to a human. If they don't with gmail, yahoomail, or whatever they these sites should be listed on rfc-ignorant.
So, let's say they do resolve to a human, does the RFC say they have to do anything about it?
Anyway, as a user of email - free email at that - please explain to me how I can be "abused"?
Spam? The little I get is no skin off my ass. Yahoo, Hotmail, Gmail, etc ... is paying for the bandwidth.
How else can one be "abused" by email?
I believe the RFC says the mail has to be delivered to a human. It doesn't say the human has to read it, be capable of understanding it, or do anything with it. It might be worth reading the actual RFCs involved to check the details but that tends to be a huge time sink.
I consider spam an abusive waste of my time. Maybe you don't, that's up to you.
Your post advocates a
( ) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based (X) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(X) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
(X) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
(X) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
(X) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( ) Asshats
(X) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
(X) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
(X) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
(X) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
(X) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
(X) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
(X) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
(X) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
(X) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!
Those of us who had email addresses in the early days of the Internet age remember sending notes to webmaster email addresses to report malicious email behavior
Webmaster@ will get you the webmaster.
Postmaster@ will get you the postmaster.
They might be the same person but the RFC states these address have to resolve to a human. If they don't with gmail, yahoomail, or whatever they these sites should be listed on rfc-ignorant.
Email police? No, won't work. What happened to that standard spam solution form slashdot used to use?
Seriously, its not.
And you know better than someone who has been buying thing in that currency for many years? It's sad that slashdot is now full of arrogant types who think they know better than everyone else.
GBP is correct. UKP is still used. The fact it is wrong does not change the fact it is still used.
'in common usage' != correct by ISO standards.
Of course sir! I'll correct the invoice right away and add a 50 GBP administration charge on it to cover my time.
Seriously, both UKP and GBP are in common usage and either is better than the high-ascii UK pound symbol.