Re:Move the onus from the recipient to the sender.
on
IETF to Look at Spam
·
· Score: 1
Just like his e-mail sits on a POP3 server until he downloads it at which point its possible to store it locally if desired.
With POP3, until that point, the person has no knowledge of the e-mail, so from their point of view they do not have it. If the user chooses to download it onto her hard drive, you've now defeated the purpose of IM 2000.
The server on which the the e-mail is stored according to the notice is info enough.
I suppose just knowing that it comes from yahoo, hotmail, or the IRS is enough, eh?:-)
Re:Move the onus from the recipient to the sender.
on
IETF to Look at Spam
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
This system has some flaws:
1) If a person sees an e-mail in their inbox, then they can read it, and they are happy. Can you imagine the hordes of people who would now see that they got an e-mail, but could not get it for one reason or another? This makes e-mail *seem* fragile. Please explain to my step-father why he can see that he has e-mail, but he cannot read it on the plane. This is not a technical issue, but a psychological one, which is much harder to program around:-)
2) By what criteria could you filter the email? If you have not received the e-mail, you probably won't have enough information to tell if it is spam or not. The only information that you could go on is what is in the "notice" message.
World of Ends, recentlydiscussed on Slashdot, discusses why the simplicity (or stupidity) of the Internet is so useful. "The Internet isn't a thing. It's an agreement," they say.
That same argument applies to e-mail. Following their logic, it is best to leave SMTP alone. Simpler protocols are better. Leave the "value-added" pieces to the edge, and let the simple message transfer protocol alone.
The GPL fights fire with fire. Its proponents would much prefer a world without intellectual property laws, but since they do exist, it is only pragmatic to use them for their own ends.
I disagree. GPL proponents would prefer a world without *the need for intellectual property laws*--one in which people share source code. Given that people do not have a impetus to do that, they want a world in which people are *required* to share source code, and the only thing that can do that are IP laws.
Why stop with randomizing individual transactions?
Why not just randomize *all* payments for a particular supplier? Either they get paid by Peppercoin that month, or not. Better yet, Peppercoin can randomize their entire set of payments. Either: "Hooray! Peppercoin paid all its bills this year!" or "Sorry. We went bankrupt."
NTFS supports a wide range of features,...
However, the driver cannot read encrypted files, it ignores Windows' security information and ignores quotas set by Windows.
... allow entire contents of drives to be dynamically encrypted and decrypted on usage. The processors arent fast enough to do it in software.
Untrue. NTFS uses DES to encrypt files when they are read and written from disk. It could use a speed boost, but today's processors can do it just fine. That said, there is nothing wrong with speeding it up by putting it on the chip in hardware.
What are the consequences of not signing? If you had not been hired, they could make your hiring conditional on signing. Once you are an employee, what are they going to do? I think that firing you would be a collossal stupidity on their part, and could bring a lawsuit. What law do they claim triggered this?
Please ignore my statement above. I was wrong about what "Double Jeopardy" means. In the UK and US it does indeed mean that a person who has been acquitted of a crime cannot have an appeal.
Please. "Double Jeopardy" refers to being put in jeopardy of being convicted twice for the same crime. A trial in which the defendant is acquitted is often appealed to a higher court.
One question you might want to find the answer to: Why are you being bought? If it is so that the larger company can aquire a technology of yours, then your future does not look so bright as if you are being bought for your person-power.
Who came to the conclusion that "Computers Not Working In Education"?
As far as I read, there is no conclusion:
CAIRNCROSS So, having put it in place have
there been any real attempts to try to measure how well it's
working? Any success in doing that? WATSON Oh yes. There's a substantial
ongoing programme to try and measure the results. So far, the
results are not tremendously clear or, at least not tremendously
impressive.
and
CAIRNCROSS Now of course, it is notoriously
difficult to prove conclusively that any teaching method has a good
or bad impact. And lots of studies of computer-based learning have
reached different conclusions from Professor Angrist's
Your referenced faq page says nothing about the rate of expansion accelerating. Would you like to give us a better reference which demonstrates your point?
(text of page, for the click-impaired)
I.11. Are galaxies really moving away from us or is space-time just expanding?
This depends on how you measure things, or your choice of coordinates.
In one view, the spatial positions of galaxies are changing, and this
causes the redshift. In another view, the galaxies are at fixed
coordinates, but the distance between fixed points increases with
time, and this causes the redshift. General relativity explains how
to transform from one view to the other, and the observable effects
like the redshift are the same in both views.
You already have the right to copy your own CDs. Copying them onto your hard drive is legal. (Sharing them with thousands of others is not.) The RIAA is trying to convince you otherwise.
I don't want to spend $100 on another electronic device. I want to use the PC I already own.
As Cher said "They're my tits. If I want them put on my back, that's my business."
Furthermore, your Service Provider will collect data regarding what Applications you use, how long you use them and in which ways you use them (collectively, your "Usage Information").
This is not limited to the games you download. If you see nothing wrong with this, then you need a new monitor.
Slashdot Mirror
Just like his e-mail sits on a POP3 server until he downloads it at which point its possible to store it locally if desired.
With POP3, until that point, the person has no knowledge of the e-mail, so from their point of view they do not have it. If the user chooses to download it onto her hard drive, you've now defeated the purpose of IM 2000.
The server on which the the e-mail is stored according to the notice is info enough.
I suppose just knowing that it comes from yahoo, hotmail, or the IRS is enough, eh? :-)
This system has some flaws:
1) If a person sees an e-mail in their inbox, then they can read it, and they are happy. Can you imagine the hordes of people who would now see that they got an e-mail, but could not get it for one reason or another? This makes e-mail *seem* fragile. Please explain to my step-father why he can see that he has e-mail, but he cannot read it on the plane. This is not a technical issue, but a psychological one, which is much harder to program around :-)
2) By what criteria could you filter the email? If you have not received the e-mail, you probably won't have enough information to tell if it is spam or not. The only information that you could go on is what is in the "notice" message.
Nice try.
World of Ends, recently discussed on Slashdot, discusses why the simplicity (or stupidity) of the Internet is so useful. "The Internet isn't a thing. It's an agreement," they say.
That same argument applies to e-mail. Following their logic, it is best to leave SMTP alone. Simpler protocols are better. Leave the "value-added" pieces to the edge, and let the simple message transfer protocol alone.
The GPL fights fire with fire. Its proponents would much prefer a world without intellectual property laws, but since they do exist, it is only pragmatic to use them for their own ends.
I disagree. GPL proponents would prefer a world without *the need for intellectual property laws*--one in which people share source code. Given that people do not have a impetus to do that, they want a world in which people are *required* to share source code, and the only thing that can do that are IP laws.
Why stop with randomizing individual transactions?
Why not just randomize *all* payments for a particular supplier? Either they get paid by Peppercoin that month, or not. Better yet, Peppercoin can randomize their entire set of payments. Either: "Hooray! Peppercoin paid all its bills this year!" or "Sorry. We went bankrupt."
Until I see otherwise, I expect the latter.
FYI, here is the desk that you mean.
Wouldn't this patent cover Windows Explorer?
According to the Linux NTFS Project FAQ
...
However, the driver cannot read encrypted files, it ignores Windows' security information and ignores quotas set by Windows.
3.3 What features of NTFS does Linux support?
NTFS supports a wide range of features,
... DRM seems to be more DRRM: Digital Rights Removal Mechanism.
I don't subscribe to RMS's GNUtopian vision.
But you *do* agree with him about Digital Restrictions Management, eh?
... allow entire contents of drives to be dynamically encrypted and decrypted on usage. The processors arent fast enough to do it in software.
Untrue. NTFS uses DES to encrypt files when they are read and written from disk. It could use a speed boost, but today's processors can do it just fine. That said, there is nothing wrong with speeding it up by putting it on the chip in hardware.
No, movie sharing is *not* a copyright violation.
Distributing a copy of a movie *to others who do not own a copy* is a copyright violation.
(This is clearly stated in "My Own Book Of Laws As They Should Be".)
What are the consequences of not signing? If you had not been hired, they could make your hiring conditional on signing. Once you are an employee, what are they going to do? I think that firing you would be a collossal stupidity on their part, and could bring a lawsuit. What law do they claim triggered this?
Please ignore my statement above. I was wrong about what "Double Jeopardy" means. In the UK and US it does indeed mean that a person who has been acquitted of a crime cannot have an appeal.
Please. "Double Jeopardy" refers to being put in jeopardy of being convicted twice for the same crime. A trial in which the defendant is acquitted is often appealed to a higher court.
One question you might want to find the answer to: Why are you being bought? If it is so that the larger company can aquire a technology of yours, then your future does not look so bright as if you are being bought for your person-power.
Hee hee. This is what I get when I visit The Brain:
//global.asa, line 13
Microsoft OLE DB Provider for ODBC Drivers error '80004005'
[Microsoft][ODBC Driver Manager] The server appears to be not available.
That does not work for me, but this does
Who came to the conclusion that "Computers Not Working In Education"?
As far as I read, there is no conclusion:
CAIRNCROSS So, having put it in place have there been any real attempts to try to measure how well it's working? Any success in doing that?WATSON Oh yes. There's a substantial ongoing programme to try and measure the results. So far, the results are not tremendously clear or, at least not tremendously impressive.
and
CAIRNCROSS Now of course, it is notoriously difficult to prove conclusively that any teaching method has a good or bad impact. And lots of studies of computer-based learning have reached different conclusions from Professor Angrist'sI know I'm evil and bad for saying this, but Windows Media Encoder is free (as in beer, but not speech) and works fine.
There in Sweden, you could mail yourself a bunch of empty, open envelopes and then put whatever you want in them later.
Your referenced faq page says nothing about the rate of expansion accelerating. Would you like to give us a better reference which demonstrates your point?
(text of page, for the click-impaired)
I.11. Are galaxies really moving away from us or is space-time just expanding?
This depends on how you measure things, or your choice of coordinates. In one view, the spatial positions of galaxies are changing, and this causes the redshift. In another view, the galaxies are at fixed coordinates, but the distance between fixed points increases with time, and this causes the redshift. General relativity explains how to transform from one view to the other, and the observable effects like the redshift are the same in both views.
No they don't define it that way. It says nanometres (millionths of a millimetre).
You already have the right to copy your own CDs. Copying them onto your hard drive is legal. (Sharing them with thousands of others is not.) The RIAA is trying to convince you otherwise.
I don't want to spend $100 on another electronic device. I want to use the PC I already own.
As Cher said "They're my tits. If I want them put on my back, that's my business."
I like to ignore my music, too. 'Specially Britney and Raffi.
Furthermore, your Service Provider will collect data regarding what Applications you use, how long you use them and in which ways you use them (collectively, your "Usage Information").
This is not limited to the games you download. If you see nothing wrong with this, then you need a new monitor.
Morons yourself.