This is why you don't see drug dealers suing someone to collect a debt. Spammers are criminals, they simply cannot sue with regard to their criminal activities.
What's a spammer going to do, call the cops? Seriously, sometimes vigilante action is the only way to deal with criminals, particularly on the internet where law enforcement is nonexistant. If law enforcement were capable of fixing this problem, we wouldn't even be discussing it right now. Instead, I'm receiving 2500+ spams per day, all illegal.
I read an interview once with a "penis enlargement pills" spammer. He said he had never fulfilled an order, and in fact didn't even have any pills to sell. The reason? Nobody is going to complain to their credit card company that they didn't get their penis enlargement pills.
I guess if you're going to be fraudulent, might as well go all-out.
But your inflammatory tone would be really cool if our open source alternative in Firefox were somehow better. Right now, Firefox is using 373M on my computer (334M resident) with three windows open, none of which have anything bigger than this/. page. Mozilla is using 279M (I'm also running it) with a single page open. Firefox usually gets up to around 600-700M over the course of 3 or 4 days, after which it generally just dies. Otherwise, I have to kill it due to its slowness.
Why not leave IE to Microsoft; put your effort toward something you can actually fix rather than being an ankle-biting ass.
If we really had that kind of power, you'd be living in a trailer park and working at McDonald's. And that's if we decided to let you off easy.
Look, let's step back and think about this rationally.
Let's see, your example of a company that ignores the GPL and infringes on a copyright. Oh, they face consequences? Wow, as opposed to what, the BSA? Yeah, infringe Microsoft's copyrights and get your ass handed to you on a platter. Why do you keep harping on this ridiculous reasoning?
And, Rob, for a minute, why not consider that maybe Maureen O'Gara's article was just a wee bit over the top? She didn't build a very convincing case of anything except that she's a complete asshat. I am still shaking my head over that. And the wierd thing about it is that none of it was news to me. I had generally always figured that PJ was an older lady (but not too old) and probably a Jehovah's Witness simply based on her writings. Does that somehow mean that SCO actually *does* have a case?
Oh, and SCO. Yes, SCO. Let me get this straight: *we* brought them down? You have to be kidding. It doesn't matter who your lawyer is if you don't have a case to begin with. You might remember that Darl claimed that there were reams of "unix" code in Linux, then was unable to provide even a single example in court. Even the judge has pointed this out, Rob. Of course, you probably think he's our little puppet, too, right?
Seriously, Rob, if you believe your own article, you should be literally quaking with fear about now. My guess is that, instead, you're patting yourself on the back for again trolling Slashdot and bringing in more ad views that usual.
This was the same bullshit argument that the MPAA shills were using while pushing the Super DMCA bill here in TN. "If we get this legislation, we'll be able to provide better programming!" It's amazing we were able to essentially kill it after seeing just how completely crooked our legislature is.
That's what folks on your side don't seem to get: these same people can take out other sites if they want to, anyway. But, they're not.
I just don't get the argument. Perhaps it's mob justice, but you're talking about sites that are stealing information from people. Mine obviously isn't a phishing site. Nobody's going to get confused.
Seriously. Some kid goes on an IRC channel and says "hey, Mike Chaney's running a phishing site on his web site". Vigilantes go and look at the site. I'm sorry, unless someone has opened a bank recently called "Michael Chaney Consulting Corporation", I don't think anybody's going to be confused.
What happens when they come after YOU, and you don't have due process to protect you?
That was a problem in the old west, perhaps, but, well, it doesn't apply here. I'm not running a phishing site.
Without going on too much, there is a major difference between suspecting someone in a crime and catching them red-handed. These are *all* cases of "red-handed".
For a better analogy, think of the guy selling the fake Nike shoes down on the corner. The cops generally confiscate and destroy those before there's a trial. There's no trial needed- the shoes are counterfeit and illegal. Now, the seller will face a trial just because it's how we do things here (and, he might have really thought they were real). But his business is shut down before that trial.
These web sites need to be shut down, too. There's no reason for a judge to determine if it's illegal. It is.
And have the lawyer write a simple letter explaining that you'll be paid through the end of your employment regardless of finding a replacement. Remember, too, to take the high road, don't stoop to this guy's level. It'll make him look all the more like the ass that he is.
And it never will be until the slimeballs behind this (movie industry) get what they want. They are willing to pay more and wield more influence than the electronics makers. Watch for some legislation to be bought soon.
I know most of us here probably don't do accounting, so here's the answer. Your accountants want you to lease. A lease payment is immediately deductible as a business expense in the year that it's taken. Buying a piece of equipment is different- the purchase must be depreciated over some number of years. What this means is that if I buy a $10,000 server, and it's depreciated over the course of 3 years, I get to take a $3,333.33 deduction this year, next year, and the year after. That also means that I have $6,666.67 that I'll be taxed on this year. But that also means that, even if I make a profit next year, $3,333.33 of it won't be taxed. Note that if I have a profit this year and a loss next year, as a business, I can get a refund.
If you build a business slowly over a number of years, you always have enough depreciable assets from prior years that the hit isn't so bad on an ongoing basis. Even so, if there's a choice between buying a $10,000 server that'll last 3 years, or just leasing it for $3,333.33 per year, I won't have a big tax hit up front.
Anyway, I'm not a CPA or an attorney, so this isn't official financial or legal advice. I pay plenty of money for those types of advice, you will, too.
I don't see how this survey can be considered FUD. They aren't saying anything either is better or worse than the other. They simply relay feelings of their respondants.
Right, so we have to wonder why it's so different than reality. Digging deeper, we find that the survey was conducted by a Windows consulting company, and all respondants are subscribers to their Win2K newsletter.
Ahhhhhh. So we'll ask a bunch of Windows users the questions.
I didn't say Clinton was a moral reprobate. What I did was state facts, and the fact is that Bill Clinton perjured himself in court and tampered with witnesses. He was reprimanded by a judge and disbarred. I don't think folks like yourself really grasp the gravity of that situation. For an attorney to openly lie in court is not taken lightly.
Bush is okay, frankly, no worse than Clinton. But, no, I'm not a conservative at all, more of a libertarian. I believe in full legalization of prostitution, drugs, etc. I don't fit in well with the conservative crowd.
I mostly agree with you on the Schiavo case, but that wasn't exactly split between conservatives and liberals. As I mentioned elsewhere, Jesse Jackson, not exactly a flaming conservative, was on the side of the Schindlers. It was an odd case.
The way it looks to me is that Clinton was assassinated on so called character and moral issues.
Well, you can call it "character and moral issues", but the fact is that Clinton perjured himself in court in a civil case, and attempted to tamper with witnesses. These "character and moral issues" caused him to be disbarred in his home state of Arkansas. It's fun to laugh about "hey, it was just a headjob", but the bottom line is that he committed a crime in court and was punished for it.
He also abused his various positions of power, both as governor of Arkansas and as POTUS to harrass women. Is it a moral issue? You tell me. His biggest supporters were the very same who pushed for such actions to be made illegal in the workplace (any workplace but governmental offices, I suppose).
This is why I get tired of politics. It was a huge freaking deal when Clarence Thomas was accused of such, but it was part of the vast right-wing conspiracy when Clinton did it. (yes, those two sentences are different- Clinton admitted it)
I'm neither conservative nor liberal, so that knife cuts both ways. I tired quickly of conservatives who stood up for Thomas but were all over Clinton at the first accusation.
Look at how this administration handled the Schiavo case, they jumped in to try and pander to the religious right, but as soon as the polls showed them it was not a popular cause they left the right to fight on it's own.
Not surprising, though, given that Bush's brother had also jumped in the middle of it on the state level, and continued to do so up until last month. By the way, I gotta ask, is Jesse Jackson now part of "the right"? He was standing with the Schindlers just a couple of days ago. The issue pulled an odd mix of people, so no surprise that it seemed to cause strife within the Republican party.
Right, so I'm so non-political that I'm political? Holy crap, what a load.
The term "slash" is used in this context to exaggerate the problem. Given that our inflation rate has hovered at just over 0% for quite a few years, it seems unlikely that any budgets were cut, much less slash.
The bottom line is that the SA editorial is just more of the sensationalism that I expect from the NYT, not a supposed scientific publication.
No more discussions of how policies affect science either so what if the budget for the National Science Foundation is slashed?
This is the kind of political bullshit that finally drove me to drop the subscription after 6 or 7 years of it, and it's a shame. Nobody "slashed" the NSF budget, they just didn't increase it as much as you wanted. There is a major difference, and the way that you say it makes a large difference on the perception.
Such stupid language is pure politics, and bullshit politics at that. It's not science, nor does it have any place in a scientific magazine.
I noticed, too, that the Clinton administration could do no wrong, whereas the Bush administration can do no right. In actuality, there is little, if any, difference between their policies. Again, we're dealing with simplistic liberal politics.
I don't for a second blame SA for not lending any credibility to creationism or "intelligent design". However, there is plenty of stupid crap, like the sentence that I pointed out above, which has nothing to do with science yet ends up printed on their pages, anyway.
Why not get serious about depoliticizing your magazine? Seriously- I know of at least one other subscriber who dropped SA for the same reason, and I haven't even asked anybody else.
It's a shame, really, as SA used to be one of the best magazines around. Now it's little more than a snobbish, liberal "Discover".
Slashdot Mirror
All it'll take is one spammer to file a lawsuit against these guys to stop them dead in their tracks.
Read about the clean hands doctrine and get back with us.
This is why you don't see drug dealers suing someone to collect a debt. Spammers are criminals, they simply cannot sue with regard to their criminal activities.
What's a spammer going to do, call the cops? Seriously, sometimes vigilante action is the only way to deal with criminals, particularly on the internet where law enforcement is nonexistant. If law enforcement were capable of fixing this problem, we wouldn't even be discussing it right now. Instead, I'm receiving 2500+ spams per day, all illegal.
Yeah, and in Norfolk, VA, PETA euthanizes 85% of animals that come to the shelter, as compared to 27% at the ASPCA shelter. Do the math.
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petarebuttal.cfm
Well, they won't have the cow, they'll treat it nicely. Or something.
I read an interview once with a "penis enlargement pills" spammer. He said he had never fulfilled an order, and in fact didn't even have any pills to sell. The reason? Nobody is going to complain to their credit card company that they didn't get their penis enlargement pills.
I guess if you're going to be fraudulent, might as well go all-out.
It's not over
Put this in your root crontab:
0 0 * * * echo "You're runnng Linux, you don't have a virus."
But your inflammatory tone would be really cool if our open source alternative in Firefox were somehow better. Right now, Firefox is using 373M on my computer (334M resident) with three windows open, none of which have anything bigger than this /. page. Mozilla is using 279M (I'm also running it) with a single page open. Firefox usually gets up to around 600-700M over the course of 3 or 4 days, after which it generally just dies. Otherwise, I have to kill it due to its slowness.
Why not leave IE to Microsoft; put your effort toward something you can actually fix rather than being an ankle-biting ass.
If we really had that kind of power, you'd be living in a trailer park and working at McDonald's. And that's if we decided to let you off easy.
Look, let's step back and think about this rationally.
Let's see, your example of a company that ignores the GPL and infringes on a copyright. Oh, they face consequences? Wow, as opposed to what, the BSA? Yeah, infringe Microsoft's copyrights and get your ass handed to you on a platter. Why do you keep harping on this ridiculous reasoning?
And, Rob, for a minute, why not consider that maybe Maureen O'Gara's article was just a wee bit over the top? She didn't build a very convincing case of anything except that she's a complete asshat. I am still shaking my head over that. And the wierd thing about it is that none of it was news to me. I had generally always figured that PJ was an older lady (but not too old) and probably a Jehovah's Witness simply based on her writings. Does that somehow mean that SCO actually *does* have a case?
Oh, and SCO. Yes, SCO. Let me get this straight: *we* brought them down? You have to be kidding. It doesn't matter who your lawyer is if you don't have a case to begin with. You might remember that Darl claimed that there were reams of "unix" code in Linux, then was unable to provide even a single example in court. Even the judge has pointed this out, Rob. Of course, you probably think he's our little puppet, too, right?
Seriously, Rob, if you believe your own article, you should be literally quaking with fear about now. My guess is that, instead, you're patting yourself on the back for again trolling Slashdot and bringing in more ad views that usual.
Bravo.
Asshat.
This was the same bullshit argument that the MPAA shills were using while pushing the Super DMCA bill here in TN. "If we get this legislation, we'll be able to provide better programming!" It's amazing we were able to essentially kill it after seeing just how completely crooked our legislature is.
Um, what's to stop them from doing it now?
That's what folks on your side don't seem to get: these same people can take out other sites if they want to, anyway. But, they're not.
I just don't get the argument. Perhaps it's mob justice, but you're talking about sites that are stealing information from people. Mine obviously isn't a phishing site. Nobody's going to get confused.
Seriously. Some kid goes on an IRC channel and says "hey, Mike Chaney's running a phishing site on his web site". Vigilantes go and look at the site. I'm sorry, unless someone has opened a bank recently called "Michael Chaney Consulting Corporation", I don't think anybody's going to be confused.
What happens when they come after YOU, and you don't have due process to protect you?
That was a problem in the old west, perhaps, but, well, it doesn't apply here. I'm not running a phishing site.
Without going on too much, there is a major difference between suspecting someone in a crime and catching them red-handed. These are *all* cases of "red-handed".
For a better analogy, think of the guy selling the fake Nike shoes down on the corner. The cops generally confiscate and destroy those before there's a trial. There's no trial needed- the shoes are counterfeit and illegal. Now, the seller will face a trial just because it's how we do things here (and, he might have really thought they were real). But his business is shut down before that trial.
These web sites need to be shut down, too. There's no reason for a judge to determine if it's illegal. It is.
And let's blame guns for killing people, too. This is standard liberal politics....
...it'll be gone in 5 years. Oh well, I'm sure MSN will have something to replace it.
And have the lawyer write a simple letter explaining that you'll be paid through the end of your employment regardless of finding a replacement. Remember, too, to take the high road, don't stoop to this guy's level. It'll make him look all the more like the ass that he is.
And it never will be until the slimeballs behind this (movie industry) get what they want. They are willing to pay more and wield more influence than the electronics makers. Watch for some legislation to be bought soon.
How can you mention "Star Wars Porn" without mentioning "Natalie Portman"?
than those same developing nations having to disgorge all their cash to the US to buy software from Microsoft and Sun.
I know most of us here probably don't do accounting, so here's the answer. Your accountants want you to lease. A lease payment is immediately deductible as a business expense in the year that it's taken. Buying a piece of equipment is different- the purchase must be depreciated over some number of years. What this means is that if I buy a $10,000 server, and it's depreciated over the course of 3 years, I get to take a $3,333.33 deduction this year, next year, and the year after. That also means that I have $6,666.67 that I'll be taxed on this year. But that also means that, even if I make a profit next year, $3,333.33 of it won't be taxed. Note that if I have a profit this year and a loss next year, as a business, I can get a refund.
If you build a business slowly over a number of years, you always have enough depreciable assets from prior years that the hit isn't so bad on an ongoing basis. Even so, if there's a choice between buying a $10,000 server that'll last 3 years, or just leasing it for $3,333.33 per year, I won't have a big tax hit up front.
Anyway, I'm not a CPA or an attorney, so this isn't official financial or legal advice. I pay plenty of money for those types of advice, you will, too.
I don't see how this survey can be considered FUD. They aren't saying anything either is better or worse than the other. They simply relay feelings of their respondants.
Right, so we have to wonder why it's so different than reality. Digging deeper, we find that the survey was conducted by a Windows consulting company, and all respondants are subscribers to their Win2K newsletter.
Ahhhhhh. So we'll ask a bunch of Windows users the questions.
It's a very biased survey, and it's FUD.
I didn't say Clinton was a moral reprobate. What I did was state facts, and the fact is that Bill Clinton perjured himself in court and tampered with witnesses. He was reprimanded by a judge and disbarred. I don't think folks like yourself really grasp the gravity of that situation. For an attorney to openly lie in court is not taken lightly.
Bush is okay, frankly, no worse than Clinton. But, no, I'm not a conservative at all, more of a libertarian. I believe in full legalization of prostitution, drugs, etc. I don't fit in well with the conservative crowd.
I mostly agree with you on the Schiavo case, but that wasn't exactly split between conservatives and liberals. As I mentioned elsewhere, Jesse Jackson, not exactly a flaming conservative, was on the side of the Schindlers. It was an odd case.
for Taco to dupe an April Fool's post.
So you like Clinton?
Yep.
The way it looks to me is that Clinton was assassinated on so called character and moral issues.
Well, you can call it "character and moral issues", but the fact is that Clinton perjured himself in court in a civil case, and attempted to tamper with witnesses. These "character and moral issues" caused him to be disbarred in his home state of Arkansas. It's fun to laugh about "hey, it was just a headjob", but the bottom line is that he committed a crime in court and was punished for it.
He also abused his various positions of power, both as governor of Arkansas and as POTUS to harrass women. Is it a moral issue? You tell me. His biggest supporters were the very same who pushed for such actions to be made illegal in the workplace (any workplace but governmental offices, I suppose).
This is why I get tired of politics. It was a huge freaking deal when Clarence Thomas was accused of such, but it was part of the vast right-wing conspiracy when Clinton did it. (yes, those two sentences are different- Clinton admitted it)
I'm neither conservative nor liberal, so that knife cuts both ways. I tired quickly of conservatives who stood up for Thomas but were all over Clinton at the first accusation.
Look at how this administration handled the Schiavo case, they jumped in to try and pander to the religious right, but as soon as the polls showed them it was not a popular cause they left the right to fight on it's own.
Not surprising, though, given that Bush's brother had also jumped in the middle of it on the state level, and continued to do so up until last month. By the way, I gotta ask, is Jesse Jackson now part of "the right"? He was standing with the Schindlers just a couple of days ago. The issue pulled an odd mix of people, so no surprise that it seemed to cause strife within the Republican party.
Right, so I'm so non-political that I'm political? Holy crap, what a load.
The term "slash" is used in this context to exaggerate the problem. Given that our inflation rate has hovered at just over 0% for quite a few years, it seems unlikely that any budgets were cut, much less slash.
The bottom line is that the SA editorial is just more of the sensationalism that I expect from the NYT, not a supposed scientific publication.
No more discussions of how policies affect science either so what if the budget for the National Science Foundation is slashed?
This is the kind of political bullshit that finally drove me to drop the subscription after 6 or 7 years of it, and it's a shame. Nobody "slashed" the NSF budget, they just didn't increase it as much as you wanted. There is a major difference, and the way that you say it makes a large difference on the perception.
Such stupid language is pure politics, and bullshit politics at that. It's not science, nor does it have any place in a scientific magazine.
I noticed, too, that the Clinton administration could do no wrong, whereas the Bush administration can do no right. In actuality, there is little, if any, difference between their policies. Again, we're dealing with simplistic liberal politics.
I don't for a second blame SA for not lending any credibility to creationism or "intelligent design". However, there is plenty of stupid crap, like the sentence that I pointed out above, which has nothing to do with science yet ends up printed on their pages, anyway.
Why not get serious about depoliticizing your magazine? Seriously- I know of at least one other subscriber who dropped SA for the same reason, and I haven't even asked anybody else.
It's a shame, really, as SA used to be one of the best magazines around. Now it's little more than a snobbish, liberal "Discover".