If I help pay for it, I should have as much access as the next guy.
And now you do. Or don't. Congratulations.
Perhaps you don't understand funding at universities. Once the class is over, or the research grant ends, there is no more money to do work for that class or that research.
.it is not stated why the 4th didn't nor how much that last drug might have cost;
A few years ago a close relative had a brain operation and was prescribed a week's worth of anti-seizure meds as a prophylaxis. I was driving her home and had to stop at the pharmacy to pick them up.
Your freedom to believe post-truth pseudoscience bullshit ends at the point where it endangers my child's safety.
Your child is vaccinated. If vaccinations work, then nobody is endangering your child's safety. Yes, I know all about "herd immunity". You're talking about your specific child, however.
You're not allowed to put uranium in your kid's lunchbox because you mistakenly believe it emits Healing Jesus Waves;
Citation required. Apparently you are not aware of this company or some of the amazing toys you can buy.
This is not about censoring things "they do not like", it's about censoring flat out lies
So you are conflating the new flag "upsetting/offensive" with "lie". Yes, "upsetting" is a pretty good synonym for "I do not like this", and a pretty poor synonym for "lie". Ditto "offensive".
While I don't like the idea that there is a small number of people judging what is true and not for the public to see,
You missed a critical part of TFS. They're not judging truth, they're flagging "upsetting-offensive". Anything that is "offensive" to one of the magic 10,000 can be flagged. Hint: the truth can sometimes be offensive or upsetting.
Obviously my argument is false since some minuscule portion of the general public qualifies as a speed reader.
No, obviously your argument is incorrect because you do not have to read text left-to-right, front-to-back, in a linear fashion. Speed reading is just one example that disproves your claim of how text must be read.
I suppose you have never read any text by scanning the first sentence of each paragraph. You know, the "topic sentence", which is supposed to identify what that paragraph is about. That's another example of "non linear" reading that contradicts your claim. Do you read newspapers in a linear, word-by-word fashion, or do you skip articles based on the headline?
Perhaps you have sufficient time to read every word in sequence for everything you read, but many people, daresay most, do not.
you still have to read an "instant message" from left to right, up to down...
No, actually, you don't. Your eye can pick out words even if you haven't read all of them sequentially. A lot of speed reading is done by seeing the entire sentence at one time. Video and audio physically prohibit gestalt input of an "instant message" simply because you cannot see or hear the entire message at one time.
Anecdotal proof of this is right here on/., where many many people respond to the "linear" text messages that appear in front of them by reading only the last few words, and then they post a reply.
Unfotunately, "write" assumes a lot of things, and to call it "IM" means you assume there is just one hop from sender to recipient, and that the recipient's SMTP mail server was the system he was logged into. It's hard for an intermediate mail server to SAML or SOML the recipient. The only reasonable assumption about those commands (not "keywords") is that they were intended to work more like "you've got mail" and not "there's a fire in the building, evacuate now". I.e., not "instant messaging".
Of course, both were made obsolete in RFC2821, sixteen years ago. While there were such commands, there was nothing that meant that email was "instant", even if it could cause "messages" to appear on someone's terminal.
Given that "email" in the time of RFC821 was often transported via UUCP, claiming that "email" was designed to be "instant messaging" is just silly. To claim that it is not a good medium for "instant messaging via video" is a very incomplete and misleading statement.
For instance, the medical field has a goal of eliminating spam and insecure transmission of medical information by creating the Direct Project, a network of curated SMTP servers
And UsenetII was intended to use a network of NNTP servers with special rules to keep spammers at bay. It is still operating? I don't think so.
The "Direct Project" will work only as long as you can limit who has access. Oops, the Internet kind of blows that limitation out of the water.
First, the fine summary claims that email isn't a good instant messaging system for audio or video. Wrong. It is not a good instant messaging system FOR ANYTHING. Email was not designed to be "instant messaging". Relying on it to be such a system is just ridiculous.
But more important, the requirements listed are simply out in left field. Video and audio are not instant messaging requirements. Video and audio are both, by their very nature, dealing in linear time. They cannot be "instant".
Cut back to a more realistic list of "instant messaging" and you have some hope of finding a solution. Perhaps accept that "secure" isn't as necessary, too. If you're dealing with top secret things, or assuming that a message that claims to be from your boss telling you to do something expensive or stupid RIGHT NOW, then maybe you shouldn't be "instant messaging" in the first place. Or at least not trying to shoehorn your critical security issues onto an application that most people don't need anywhere close to that level of security for.
Con: it's against express wishes of US three letter agencies who want their backdoors
The real con depends upon:
how hard it is to outload the code from this processor to verify it against the source and
How hard it is to compile the source to install it in the processor
For ever iota of "hard" above "automatic" there will be more people who will never bother doing either, and will never bother installing any updates. For those people, you've made it easier for bad guys to hack this processor because you've given them the code to look at and find exploits, which they would otherwise have to reverse engineer or bit bang.
As recently as last night. As long ago as VLC 1.1.13. I think it has a build date in 2012.
but ClearQAM gradually phased out so that CableCard was the only option that could receive everything you pay for.
Yes. the cableCard is what decrypts the channels that are now encrypted.
(I paraphrase the lack of API.)
Given that SD gave out for free a program to view programs from the HDHomeRun, I think your's is a very poor paraphrase.
Did they really later open it up so that it works?
Is this a "have you stopped beating your wife yet" kind of question? I know of no "later"; it has worked all along where I am.
What has changed is that the HD Quick View program has bloated to the point that it can no longer decode the MPEG video stream in real time, choosing instead to worry about things like getting images of the current content on channels from some web server somewhere and showing progress bars for EVERY channel. The old one simply showed a list of available channels it got from the device, now it's a program guide and helpful image display along with a non-functional video viewer.
But the cable co's are now encrypting to make cable on all but a few channels making it impossible for me to view on the platform of my choice.
The reason for the cableCard you claim you have more than one of is to do the decryption of content. If your cableCard isn't decrypting the content you are paying for, it is broken. Call the cable company and get it fixed.
I have an HDHomeRun with a cable card, and VLC talks to it just great on Linux. At the point it hits the net it is unencrypted and ready for many different viewing programs. I've even got a DLNA (IIRC) app on one of my Android tablets that can view the content from the HDHR.
they mailed me at least 8 different 1.5" thick catalogs in the post for the next several years
I like catalogs like that. They are much easier to use than an online search -- even though Mouser and Newark are getting much better. It's still easier, and more fun, to scan the pages looking for something by sight instead of having to come up with all the right search terms for it. And it is much easier when you're dealing with pieces that go together, like what plug matches this particular socket. It seems the online catalogs aren't very good at telling you that, at least I've not found them to be, but the paper catalogs usually have the matching bits on the same or next page. And if you want the three-pin version of something after you've found the four pin, bingo, it's on the previous line, not another search.
You're begging the question. SPAM is unwanted mail. You "wanted" it by opting in at some point (probably within the context of a purchase or something).
Like I said, that's the lie that spammers use to excuse their spam. No, sorry, I did not want it, nor did I "opt-in" to it.
Someone who doesn't intend to spam will provide an opt-out link. It's 2017, not 2002. Use it.
I am certain that I've already commented on this. Someone who doesn't intend to spam DOESN'T SPAM IN THE FIRST PLACE. And many "opt-out" links are invalid to start with, have no effect when they aren't outright invalid, and don't work well with a true email reader (that isn't a web browser.)
If you can't reject at the SMTP level then that means you're not running your own mail server.
You're pretty quick.
Every ISP or mail service in the last 20 years has maintained abuse accounts
Yeah, complaining to the spammers ISP or mail service is such a productive use of time. IF the spammer's ISP obeys the RFCs and has an abuse address at all.
use "PizzaHut+mymail@gmail.com"
now you have a unique one for them that you can block off at any time.
You don't need to block it off, it will be sent to someone else who already has the "pizzahut@gmail.com" address, with the added benefit of telling them who is using their address to sign up for pizzahut spam.
Try "mymail+pizzahut@gmail.com".
Thanks to everyone who thinks I need to know how to avoid this spam, but I already do. I am well aware and a long time user of RFC5233 addressing.
It is better to block it at the SMTP level and refuse to accept the message in the first place.
You might think so, but do you REALLY think any spammer cares about or even looks at the bounces from their spam?
Unfortunately, the only way to "block it at the SMPT level" for users is to return error code 67 (IIRC) from procmail, and that doesn't work if you are using IMAP to pull email from a server that has already taken final delivery.
that doesn't mean it isn't a legitimate justification for a lot of commercial email.
It is not a legitimate excuse for the commercial email I receive based on such lies. I ALWAYS uncheck this "pre-selected opt-in" (an oxymoron), and the spammer ALWAYS tells me that I opted-in.
If I order a pizza on PizzaHut.com, and next week Pizza Hut sends me an email with their weekly special offers, that isn't spam.
Yes, it is. Unsolicited commercial junk email. UCE. BY DEFINITION.
Spam is all the completely unsolicited boner pills, home mortgage, weight loss, and other garbage coming from randos who bought or harvested my email address somewhere,
Spam is not defined by topic. It is defined by UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL EMAIL. Yes, there are many sources of spam. The fact that you bought a pizza at Pizza Hut does not excuse their unsolicited commercial email, which is spam.
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.
Earlier in that statement he says that there is good evidence of mishandling of known Top Secret material. But finding a prosecutor who would prosecute would be hard.
Shouldn't have provided your e-mail to them if you don't want them to use it.
Most online order forms demand an email for the purposes of communicating about that order. Further use of that email address for unsolicited commercial junk email is SPAM.
Plus most of these stores seem to honor a remove from list request.
"Seem to". And many of them don't. And many of them have invalid or non-working "unsub" links. Even the working ones don't help when your email reader doesn't do "the web" -- because it is an EMAIL READER. My procmail rc is filled with such "honorable" spammers.
Yeah having to opt out, rather than opt in is painful but this still differentiates from real spam.
No, it doesn't. It's unsolicited commercial junk email from the very first one.
You signed up for it when you bought a product or made an inquiry on their site and did not uncheck a box that signed you up for them most-likely.
That's the lie every spammer uses to justify their garbage. De-selecting the "send me all kinds of email about stuff I don't want" checkbox does nothing.
If you're still getting it you're just too lazy to unsubscribe.
I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM JUNK EMAIL LISTS THAT I DID NOT SUBSCRIBE TO IN THE FIRST PLACE. THE FIRST PIECE OF SPAM IS STILL SPAM.
Slashdot Mirror
It basically looks just the same as that from a film.
The fact it "looks just the same" (not really, if you know what to look for) doesn't mean it isn't innovation.
So I suppose the criterion should be innovation that is good for the customer.
Why? Isn't an innovation that makes it easier to distribute content in higher quality an innovation, even if you can't tell the difference?
Now, I know that when it first came out, the digital theater systems tended to "blue screen of death" too often, but please.
If I help pay for it, I should have as much access as the next guy.
And now you do. Or don't. Congratulations.
Perhaps you don't understand funding at universities. Once the class is over, or the research grant ends, there is no more money to do work for that class or that research.
.it is not stated why the 4th didn't nor how much that last drug might have cost;
A few years ago a close relative had a brain operation and was prescribed a week's worth of anti-seizure meds as a prophylaxis. I was driving her home and had to stop at the pharmacy to pick them up.
$1100. One week.
Your freedom to believe post-truth pseudoscience bullshit ends at the point where it endangers my child's safety.
Your child is vaccinated. If vaccinations work, then nobody is endangering your child's safety. Yes, I know all about "herd immunity". You're talking about your specific child, however.
You're not allowed to put uranium in your kid's lunchbox because you mistakenly believe it emits Healing Jesus Waves;
Citation required. Apparently you are not aware of this company or some of the amazing toys you can buy.
Think of the children.
This is not about censoring things "they do not like", it's about censoring flat out lies
So you are conflating the new flag "upsetting/offensive" with "lie". Yes, "upsetting" is a pretty good synonym for "I do not like this", and a pretty poor synonym for "lie". Ditto "offensive".
While I don't like the idea that there is a small number of people judging what is true and not for the public to see,
You missed a critical part of TFS. They're not judging truth, they're flagging "upsetting-offensive". Anything that is "offensive" to one of the magic 10,000 can be flagged. Hint: the truth can sometimes be offensive or upsetting.
Obviously my argument is false since some minuscule portion of the general public qualifies as a speed reader.
No, obviously your argument is incorrect because you do not have to read text left-to-right, front-to-back, in a linear fashion. Speed reading is just one example that disproves your claim of how text must be read.
I suppose you have never read any text by scanning the first sentence of each paragraph. You know, the "topic sentence", which is supposed to identify what that paragraph is about. That's another example of "non linear" reading that contradicts your claim. Do you read newspapers in a linear, word-by-word fashion, or do you skip articles based on the headline?
Perhaps you have sufficient time to read every word in sequence for everything you read, but many people, daresay most, do not.
you still have to read an "instant message" from left to right, up to down...
No, actually, you don't. Your eye can pick out words even if you haven't read all of them sequentially. A lot of speed reading is done by seeing the entire sentence at one time. Video and audio physically prohibit gestalt input of an "instant message" simply because you cannot see or hear the entire message at one time.
Anecdotal proof of this is right here on /., where many many people respond to the "linear" text messages that appear in front of them by reading only the last few words, and then they post a reply.
Of course, both were made obsolete in RFC2821, sixteen years ago. While there were such commands, there was nothing that meant that email was "instant", even if it could cause "messages" to appear on someone's terminal.
Given that "email" in the time of RFC821 was often transported via UUCP, claiming that "email" was designed to be "instant messaging" is just silly. To claim that it is not a good medium for "instant messaging via video" is a very incomplete and misleading statement.
For instance, the medical field has a goal of eliminating spam and insecure transmission of medical information by creating the Direct Project, a network of curated SMTP servers
And UsenetII was intended to use a network of NNTP servers with special rules to keep spammers at bay. It is still operating? I don't think so.
The "Direct Project" will work only as long as you can limit who has access. Oops, the Internet kind of blows that limitation out of the water.
But more important, the requirements listed are simply out in left field. Video and audio are not instant messaging requirements. Video and audio are both, by their very nature, dealing in linear time. They cannot be "instant".
Cut back to a more realistic list of "instant messaging" and you have some hope of finding a solution. Perhaps accept that "secure" isn't as necessary, too. If you're dealing with top secret things, or assuming that a message that claims to be from your boss telling you to do something expensive or stupid RIGHT NOW, then maybe you shouldn't be "instant messaging" in the first place. Or at least not trying to shoehorn your critical security issues onto an application that most people don't need anywhere close to that level of security for.
Con: it's against express wishes of US three letter agencies who want their backdoors
The real con depends upon:
For ever iota of "hard" above "automatic" there will be more people who will never bother doing either, and will never bother installing any updates. For those people, you've made it easier for bad guys to hack this processor because you've given them the code to look at and find exploits, which they would otherwise have to reverse engineer or bit bang.
When did this happen?!
As recently as last night. As long ago as VLC 1.1.13. I think it has a build date in 2012.
but ClearQAM gradually phased out so that CableCard was the only option that could receive everything you pay for.
Yes. the cableCard is what decrypts the channels that are now encrypted.
(I paraphrase the lack of API.)
Given that SD gave out for free a program to view programs from the HDHomeRun, I think your's is a very poor paraphrase.
Did they really later open it up so that it works?
Is this a "have you stopped beating your wife yet" kind of question? I know of no "later"; it has worked all along where I am. What has changed is that the HD Quick View program has bloated to the point that it can no longer decode the MPEG video stream in real time, choosing instead to worry about things like getting images of the current content on channels from some web server somewhere and showing progress bars for EVERY channel. The old one simply showed a list of available channels it got from the device, now it's a program guide and helpful image display along with a non-functional video viewer.
But the cable co's are now encrypting to make cable on all but a few channels making it impossible for me to view on the platform of my choice.
The reason for the cableCard you claim you have more than one of is to do the decryption of content. If your cableCard isn't decrypting the content you are paying for, it is broken. Call the cable company and get it fixed.
I have an HDHomeRun with a cable card, and VLC talks to it just great on Linux. At the point it hits the net it is unencrypted and ready for many different viewing programs. I've even got a DLNA (IIRC) app on one of my Android tablets that can view the content from the HDHR.
We could make decoy trackers that would draw the poachers to a place so they can be easily arrested.
Yes, we need lots more laws about what is illegal to do with radio. Making it illegal to track a radio signal is a really good idea.
How about putting a receiver on tracking devices,
You mean like this, which is essentially long-range RFID?
they mailed me at least 8 different 1.5" thick catalogs in the post for the next several years
I like catalogs like that. They are much easier to use than an online search -- even though Mouser and Newark are getting much better. It's still easier, and more fun, to scan the pages looking for something by sight instead of having to come up with all the right search terms for it. And it is much easier when you're dealing with pieces that go together, like what plug matches this particular socket. It seems the online catalogs aren't very good at telling you that, at least I've not found them to be, but the paper catalogs usually have the matching bits on the same or next page. And if you want the three-pin version of something after you've found the four pin, bingo, it's on the previous line, not another search.
You're begging the question. SPAM is unwanted mail. You "wanted" it by opting in at some point (probably within the context of a purchase or something).
Like I said, that's the lie that spammers use to excuse their spam. No, sorry, I did not want it, nor did I "opt-in" to it.
Someone who doesn't intend to spam will provide an opt-out link. It's 2017, not 2002. Use it.
I am certain that I've already commented on this. Someone who doesn't intend to spam DOESN'T SPAM IN THE FIRST PLACE. And many "opt-out" links are invalid to start with, have no effect when they aren't outright invalid, and don't work well with a true email reader (that isn't a web browser.)
If you can't reject at the SMTP level then that means you're not running your own mail server.
You're pretty quick.
Every ISP or mail service in the last 20 years has maintained abuse accounts
Yeah, complaining to the spammers ISP or mail service is such a productive use of time. IF the spammer's ISP obeys the RFCs and has an abuse address at all.
use "PizzaHut+mymail@gmail.com" now you have a unique one for them that you can block off at any time.
You don't need to block it off, it will be sent to someone else who already has the "pizzahut@gmail.com" address, with the added benefit of telling them who is using their address to sign up for pizzahut spam.
Try "mymail+pizzahut@gmail.com".
Thanks to everyone who thinks I need to know how to avoid this spam, but I already do. I am well aware and a long time user of RFC5233 addressing.
It is better to block it at the SMTP level and refuse to accept the message in the first place.
You might think so, but do you REALLY think any spammer cares about or even looks at the bounces from their spam?
Unfortunately, the only way to "block it at the SMPT level" for users is to return error code 67 (IIRC) from procmail, and that doesn't work if you are using IMAP to pull email from a server that has already taken final delivery.
that doesn't mean it isn't a legitimate justification for a lot of commercial email.
It is not a legitimate excuse for the commercial email I receive based on such lies. I ALWAYS uncheck this "pre-selected opt-in" (an oxymoron), and the spammer ALWAYS tells me that I opted-in.
If I order a pizza on PizzaHut.com, and next week Pizza Hut sends me an email with their weekly special offers, that isn't spam.
Yes, it is. Unsolicited commercial junk email. UCE. BY DEFINITION.
Spam is all the completely unsolicited boner pills, home mortgage, weight loss, and other garbage coming from randos who bought or harvested my email address somewhere,
Spam is not defined by topic. It is defined by UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL EMAIL. Yes, there are many sources of spam. The fact that you bought a pizza at Pizza Hut does not excuse their unsolicited commercial email, which is spam.
The only thing that happened was that in deciding that she had done nothing worth an indictment over,
That's not what Comey said. Here:
Earlier in that statement he says that there is good evidence of mishandling of known Top Secret material. But finding a prosecutor who would prosecute would be hard.
Shouldn't have provided your e-mail to them if you don't want them to use it.
Most online order forms demand an email for the purposes of communicating about that order. Further use of that email address for unsolicited commercial junk email is SPAM.
Plus most of these stores seem to honor a remove from list request.
"Seem to". And many of them don't. And many of them have invalid or non-working "unsub" links. Even the working ones don't help when your email reader doesn't do "the web" -- because it is an EMAIL READER. My procmail rc is filled with such "honorable" spammers.
Yeah having to opt out, rather than opt in is painful but this still differentiates from real spam.
No, it doesn't. It's unsolicited commercial junk email from the very first one.
You signed up for it when you bought a product or made an inquiry on their site and did not uncheck a box that signed you up for them most-likely.
That's the lie every spammer uses to justify their garbage. De-selecting the "send me all kinds of email about stuff I don't want" checkbox does nothing.
If you're still getting it you're just too lazy to unsubscribe.
I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM JUNK EMAIL LISTS THAT I DID NOT SUBSCRIBE TO IN THE FIRST PLACE. THE FIRST PIECE OF SPAM IS STILL SPAM.