Thats a very smart move on their part, one year isn't long enough for anything too alarming to develop in this arena, but it is long enough for the issues to become less clouded, by holding off the decision the UN gives things time to develop closer to a point at which the issues are clear enough for some thing closer to consensus to emerge.
I am waiting for the prices to go down in the glasses version of this type of technology. That would allow me to not only added data wile I am riding but when I am walking down the street. Imagine you can pull up your date file an impress her with all the stuff you remember about her. Also you can have that poem there for you to recite that will rock.
If you Recite a poem thats prewriten by some one else, I'm firmly of the opinion it will backfire on you, I firmly believe that only the person who wrote the poem should use it that way, only for them will it rock, for anyone else it will stink!!!
I know we all hate and despise spam, but doesn't a possible 20 years in the clink sound a bit excessive?
Seems to me that the punishment should fit the crime - in this case, economic penalties (aka, "big fat fines"), and mandatory loss of Internet access would be more appropriate.
Damm sissy, no I for one don't think it's excessive, considering, how much spam/damage a "professional" spammer does before we catch the bastard. If I had my way the penalties would be proportionate to how much spam they'd done, even if it got to a million years in prison, that'd be a proper life sentence.
Whats with people always worried about hurting proven criminals, how about worrying about how criminals hurt the rest of us, sure take all measures to avoid sentancing a innocent person, but the guilty, why be so soft on them??
do the crime do the time, sounds fair enough to me.
Blake Stowell was quoted as saying, "From preliminary research, we appear to be under some form of 'Slashdot Effect' -- involving both duplicate stories and annoying links."
Slightly off topic but it's gotta be said, who else finds it appropriate that this mans initials are BS:-D.
This is another win for the collective voice of the people, and/. was in the vanguard of this, good going guys, next time some cynic tells you you cannot do anything about stuff, remember this.
Not too bad, not quiet as strong as I Like, but not as gutless as most spam law, if we combine this with better and better technical solutions we'll beat this yet. I still think some sort of transparent signing system would be a help to make it harder to fake the origin, esp if it was implemented right down to firmware in routers, and the protocol itself.
And maybe two classes of email public and private, private its illegal to contact without the strictest permission, public ok but still no spamming, (i.e. a reporter might need a public one for story leads etc), we could have a convention like say fred@foo.bar.net is private and fred@pub.foo.bar.net is public, in addition we could looks at having some data in the mx records to id it as public or private. As individuals we might choose not to have a public email, or to only accept polite requests for permission to contact us from those we care to on the public, and on the private maybe only cryptologically signed messages from people in our address book.
Re:Unfortunately much spam originates from the US.
on
UK Spam Law Goes Live
·
· Score: 1
Proletariat of the world, unite to kill spammers. The more painful and slower, the better.
Here's a simple statement that covers all past statements from Darl McBride/and or SCO, and I'm confident all future one's:
Darl your wrong, go check your facts, your a complete Moron*, here save the courts and everyone a lot of time go of and shoot your stupid self, thank you.
*Hmmmm I guess the Moron stands to reason their from Utah, they tell me thats the home of the Morons:-D
PS: Don't tell me the last bits inflammatory, anyone keeps coming to my door to annoy me, has got it coming:-D.
Management will never be outsourced because how else will executives' relatives make a living ?
Management will never be outsourced, because their the bastards in control of the companies, the out sourcing etc, hence they will always be over paid, overrated, under worked (in terms of work thats actually productive, many will still work themselves into the ground doing useless, or even worse than useless things), this is why we're stuck with the incompetent losers for the foreseeable future.
I get a lot of "you're a programmer, what is this pointy arrow on my screen for?" kinds of questions from random acquaintances. This type of question reveals that people know that programming has something to do with all the shiny buttons on their screen, but know little else.
With such a superficial understanding of what computer science is all about, it is not hard to see how members of the general public might think programming is something anyone can be trained to do, rather than something that requires individuals with a special type of thought process.
They also think programming is just a way to make a living, much as their jobs might be. They don't realize that many of us have been doing this since a very early age and will continue to do it job or no job. I don't think many secretaries would go home and type up letters just for the fun of it.
You are so are so right!!, I'm a University trained computer scientist, and I have know problem with either the uni route or the self taught, so long as the result is right, but I've seen too many people from both routes who just don't have it, it not something you can teach, but it's something that can be developed with teaching.
First: forget about software being an "engineering" discipline.
........
If you want an accurate model for computer programming, the closest model is that of the mathematician, because really, computer science is a branch of mathematics. It is the branch that deals with implementation and design of algorithms. In a sense, programmers model thought processes; things humans would have to do manually if the computer didn't exist.
When you look at it this way, you're much closer to modelling what's actually going on when a programmer grabs his keyboard. We consider the process an individual human would take to achieve some result; then we codify the process as a set of rules that can be automated and vastly accelerated; then we empower a computer, a lifeless, inanimate object, to perform those rules for us.
........
But I'm rambling. Your conceptual approach is that of the mathematician. A design process which mixes equal amounts of knowledge, skill, and inspiration. None of which can be planned like an assembly line.
YES! Some one else who gets it, you are so right!!, and because Computer Science is in essence Mathematics, we have some of the same problems, in particular almost anyone can do it a little, all be it badly, sadly unlike mathematics where most people know their not good (or even underrate themselves), and most employers know the difference between someone who can and a wannabe, in computing people get to produce code, think themselves some kind of computing "gods", and even get lauded by others even though they are totally clueless wannabe's. hence that totally clueless remark in the article:
.... Low-skill jobs like coding are moving offshore and what's left in their place are more advanced project management jobs.
Hello if you think coding is a "Low-skill job" then your problems is, you've either never employed a real coder, or your so clueless you never noticed or appreciated them when you had them.
Programming computers well, like doing mathematics well, is one of the most skilled jobs in the world, so much so that for anyone who hasn't got it, it can seem to be impossibly hard.
Sadly too many people think putting together buggy, often not working VB programs, and other such abominations, is good programming.
Software development projects fail all the time, no matter what their size. The Standish Group, an IT-research firm in West Yarmouth, Mass., has been keeping track of this phenomenon since 1994, and the good news is that we are doing much better at completing projects than we used to. The bad news is that in 2000, only 28 percent of software projects could be classed as complete successes (meaning they were executed on time and on budget), while 23 percent failed outright (meaning that they were abandoned). Those numbers are improvements over a 16 percent success rate and a 31 percent failure rate when the first study was done in 1994.p>
I notice two things about it, they only refer to the commercial worlds development, and the improvement they mention, has a time frame of 1994 to 2000, which sort of matches "surprisingly" well (or not so surprisingly) with the commercial worlds adoptance of OSS.
Which fits because with OSS, your less likely to need to start from scratch, meaning you can pitch into an app which is already a success, and you just about cannot over estimate the benefits of the collaboration, as you really do save so much time and effort, but probably most important, the vital things that you have never been able to convince your pointy haired types mattered, (you know minor stuff like stability, actually working, instead of looking really like it would work), gets done. Of course the commercial world does give something back for this, mainly that finished look and feel, that really don't matter that much in the geek world but are vital in the Marketing World.
I am looking forward to Cringley's next column where he proposes to answer the question of why auditing capabilities were not inlcuded in the touch screen voting machines.
I can answer THAT for you right now. He's going to (correctly) assert that the reason there is no paper-trail requirement is that the political establishment DOES NOT WANT ONE. The original vote tally is a one-time process, but the recount process can drag on forever, and THAT is what "they" want to avoid forever more.
Hmmmmm I think it primarily about fraud, but not the political fraud that most people will think of, call it program fraud, if you know your program is total crap, but you wish to sell it anyway, convince the customer that there is a really good reason not to include any features that would lead to discovery/proof of the fact that you've cheated them.
This sort of fraud is rather common, M$ have built their entire business on it, of course you cannot fool the geek/tech community, nor are the company in question's own techies involved in the fraud as such, but they can get away with it because, no one really listens to us properly, they seem to always assume that we're talking about some esoteric aspects of the matter that really aren't important in real/normal life.
And of course there are always people who are geeks or have geek type quals who help the lie: i.e. die hard VMS freaks who will swear black and blue that M$ is ok, because of the tenuous connection between VMS and windows NT; people with uni degree's in IT who never really understood half of what they were studying; and most of all those who have so sold there souls for the greater $$$$ to be had by being a pointy haired suite wearing type, that they will never break ranks with the pointy haired world.
Yeaharrr finally things are getting back on track, and mankind is starting to remember who and what we are, and what we are for, finally the Adventure continues....
when you think about it, BUT this should come from IETF or some other body not from a company. A few important points:
1) Who will issue the keys?
2) Is anonymous mail possible if the receiver allows it?
Hmmmm I don't see any thing stopping us going both ways, i.e. we have an account or two on the new signed system, and we have the old style, we're just maybe more careful about giving out our emails on the unsigned system, and we never use them for lists or groups where the signed one is an option.
Furthermore spamming is a social problem emerging from our commercial world and technical solutions can never be 100%. What if:
a) I send spam from a "secure" domain?
b) forge certificates?
c) the certificates are too expensive? (like SSL, I think it should be included with a domain)
I like the "Bayes" spam filters best. You get 99.5% spam protection and keep anonymous mail.
We all see the need for authenticated senders (biz communication, etc.), but we should be careful...
As I said above why be either or about it, we can use both systems, and we can Bayesian filter what comes in via both.
As for points a) and b) these are abuse issues and can be policed by the community running the system: those running the "secure" domain in point a), or if they (can/will)not, those accepting from them, i.e. they can go on a blackhole list.
As for point b) don't we already have procedures for this?
In short the problems are surmountable yes abuses will occur, and the system will not be in perfect, but it can be better, hopefully over time we can transition, most if not all email to this system or one like it, then the spammers loose one of their chief weapons, the ability to forge email headers etc with ease (i.e. it becomes harder for them).
The screen was way too small, yeah I know they said it was too big, but thats ok for these midgits, but I'm built like a truck, so big is no problem, any thing < 20", even in this mode is way too small. Also I'd need choice of OS, (linux for me) why would you want to run some other OS on it, what ever you run on the main machine needs to run on the portable interface as well, so they need to look at some way for it to pull it's OS from the main box, or some other easy soln to get the OS/interface you want on it.
Slashdot Mirror
Thats a very smart move on their part, one year isn't long enough for anything too alarming to develop in this arena, but it is long enough for the issues to become less clouded, by holding off the decision the UN gives things time to develop closer to a point at which the issues are clear enough for some thing closer to consensus to emerge.
Hmmmm the more I think about it the more I question the existence of good patents!!
PS: the battles not quite over yet so don't slack of just yet
This is another win for the collective voice of the people, and /. was in the vanguard of this, good going guys, next time some cynic tells you you cannot do anything about stuff, remember this.
Just rescind all software and Internet patents, pass a law that abolishes them. done.
And maybe two classes of email public and private, private its illegal to contact without the strictest permission, public ok but still no spamming, (i.e. a reporter might need a public one for story leads etc), we could have a convention like say fred@foo.bar.net is private and fred@pub.foo.bar.net is public, in addition we could looks at having some data in the mx records to id it as public or private. As individuals we might choose not to have a public email, or to only accept polite requests for permission to contact us from those we care to on the public, and on the private maybe only cryptologically signed messages from people in our address book.
I'm not really a sadist but for spammers, ... I'll make an exception.
I wonder has anyone ever looked into the viability of generating our own portable magnetosphere, for a space craft??
No change there then :-D
Which fits because with OSS, your less likely to need to start from scratch, meaning you can pitch into an app which is already a success, and you just about cannot over estimate the benefits of the collaboration, as you really do save so much time and effort, but probably most important, the vital things that you have never been able to convince your pointy haired types mattered, (you know minor stuff like stability, actually working, instead of looking really like it would work), gets done. Of course the commercial world does give something back for this, mainly that finished look and feel, that really don't matter that much in the geek world but are vital in the Marketing World.
Yeaharrr finally things are getting back on track, and mankind is starting to remember who and what we are, and what we are for, finally the Adventure continues....
As for points a) and b) these are abuse issues and can be policed by the community running the system: those running the "secure" domain in point a), or if they (can/will)not, those accepting from them, i.e. they can go on a blackhole list.
As for point b) don't we already have procedures for this?
In short the problems are surmountable yes abuses will occur, and the system will not be in perfect, but it can be better, hopefully over time we can transition, most if not all email to this system or one like it, then the spammers loose one of their chief weapons, the ability to forge email headers etc with ease (i.e. it becomes harder for them).
The screen was way too small, yeah I know they said it was too big, but thats ok for these midgits, but I'm built like a truck, so big is no problem, any thing < 20", even in this mode is way too small. Also I'd need choice of OS, (linux for me) why would you want to run some other OS on it, what ever you run on the main machine needs to run on the portable interface as well, so they need to look at some way for it to pull it's OS from the main box, or some other easy soln to get the OS/interface you want on it.