please excuse me while i puke all over myself and/or punch out my monitor.
and i object to this being pejoratively tagged "gay". not only does it illustrate some of homophobia that goes on on slashdot, it's not even accurate. i don't know any gay people that act like half-witted suburban 12 year old girls that put pony stickers on their trapper keepers and have animated "Diva!" GIFs on their myspace homepage. unless they're being ironic. and something tells me slashdot is not being ironic.
if you have "nothing against gays" i heartily suggest you take that usage of "gay" out of your vocabulary. people won't know that you don't unless you do. and if you do have a problem with gays, well then that's another issue entirely.
p.s. no fair, it's not midnight on the west coast yet.
i thought hydrophobic meant uh... dislike of water and hydrophilic meant like of water. doesn't this mean that something that's got 'superhydrophilicity' powers is going to really like water? like, your carnuba wax car wax makes water bead because it's, well, waxy. am i missing something?
Can you retest the "Bulletproof Water" myth, if anything, because it was so cool!?
I was wondering, for example, what would happen if you used a deer slug or some projectile of solid lead. I don't know about a whole lot about ammunition, but it seems that the 50 cal rounds are big and fast but not necessarily solid. And what about squib rounds? Could they possibly be more effective in this case than regularly-packed ones?
i'm so confused. isn't this the same lycos that has their sidesearch spyware (http://www3.ca.com/securityadvisor/pest/pest.aspx ?id=453078521)?
and if so, isn't this a bit disingenuous to be a anti-spam patriot while perpetuating their own brand of spyware? i mean, really, now.
Yep yep. Am I evil for thinking that this may be beneficial to me as an IT consultant? I figure that I tell clients that AOL is crap and it's their problem their money if they continue to use it.
(AOL's autofix thing for network connections, by the way, has broken the connections of two of my clients' computers and costs them a fortune for me to come out there and delete AOL's autoconfig'ed settings. Stupid, stupid stuff.)
I know this is all horribly off topic but whatever.
"We are stunned that RealNetworks has adopted the tactics and ethics of a hacker."
I'm not surprised. Real's software and business practices have been deplorable for years.
yes, you may very well be right. estimates say that employees spend so much time per day cleaning up spam that email's efficiency over a phone call or a paper memo has been called into question.
the legislation's purpose, however, is not to increase efficiency nor reduce costs. and if a small or struggling company decides that either the upfront cost of the switchover is too expensive or that the legal liability would be too high, they still might roll back to more low tech ways of doing things.
i agree. my typewriter statement was factitious in order to show how the law could adversely affect small business. my point is that it should be important for these legislators to consider the financial impact that this would have. not only would it drive up cost for everyone but would favor large businesses with preexisting IT infrastructures over smaller companies whose IT person might some multipurpose employee that by chance knows how to reboot computers, share printers, and run windows update (which, for a majority of small businesses, is all the IT expertise you need).
more importantly, the whole premise of the law, in my opinion, is garbage. i believe that the law puts an unreasonable amount of responsibility on the employer rather than the employees. people need to start being proactive in protecting themselves from the internet.
if implemented, choosing *who* to sue would also be a litigious nightmare. do you sue the IT girl? if so, do we start selling IT malpractice insurance (i would need some)? do you sue the 3rd party ISP? What about the company that wrote the spam filter, should it fail to work? if a company filters their corporate mail but not, say, the employee's hotmail account, are they still liable for damages?
but even if i can prove that the legislation would create a litigious nightmare isn't sufficient to show that the law shouldn't exist. The *real* problem with this legislation is how it holds the entity that provides the transport for the offensive material responsible for the offensive material. would we sue the phone company or the USPS for sending us audio and paper versions of porn spam? do we do so now? no, we (united states) create things like the do-not-call list and find methods of empowering the consumer rather than punishing the provider. to me, and i think most people, holding the service provider responsible sounds absurd.
however it seems that legislators have taken a different view of this in when it comes to the internet (the first death of napster, for example, and all the stuff that's happened in the wake of the DMCA). i have theories, but i'm not yet sure why this is.
i have to admit that i'm really excited to see what happens. thankfully, i'm not in the E.U. so i can watch from afar. and after belaboring the topic a bit more, an etch-a-sketch is sounding pretty appealing. ^_^
But would you be able the prove that the company providing the method in which the offensive material is delivered is responsible for that material?
if porn telemarketing existed, for example, would it makes sense to blame the company for giving you a phone number that a 3rd party obtained and and diailed to solicit porn to you?
same goes for snail mail. do you hold the USPS responsible for potentially offensive junk mail?
Sounds like that is going to put a huge amount of burden on the companies. If I were running my own private business, I'd be inclined to unplug everyone's network connections and hand out typewriters. I don't know how strict the legistlation is, but it sounds to me that this might promote anti-technology.
Re:sounds like something i could use
on
GNOME for Grandma
·
· Score: 1
actually, it's really not fair to say i was battling red hat; it went fine but i'm doing it in virtual pc 2004 which is the true culprit of my woes... thanks!:)
sounds like something i could use
on
GNOME for Grandma
·
· Score: 2, Funny
for myself.:B right now i'm battling my first red hat installation...
agreed. there's more than one reason to dislike a relationship with mac and real. as far as i'm concerned, real is no better than a spammer that installs spyware on your computer.
Re:Good... down with Real
on
Real Problems
·
· Score: 1
yeah, those bastards can burn in hell even if it means that microsoft gets more of the market share. and their demise would be *so* apropos. they've always had crap software and a crappy business philosophy that i don't even know where to begin.
Slashdot Mirror
please excuse me while i puke all over myself and/or punch out my monitor.
and i object to this being pejoratively tagged "gay". not only does it illustrate some of homophobia that goes on on slashdot, it's not even accurate. i don't know any gay people that act like half-witted suburban 12 year old girls that put pony stickers on their trapper keepers and have animated "Diva!" GIFs on their myspace homepage. unless they're being ironic. and something tells me slashdot is not being ironic.
if you have "nothing against gays" i heartily suggest you take that usage of "gay" out of your vocabulary. people won't know that you don't unless you do. and if you do have a problem with gays, well then that's another issue entirely.
p.s. no fair, it's not midnight on the west coast yet.
i thought hydrophobic meant uh... dislike of water and hydrophilic meant like of water. doesn't this mean that something that's got 'superhydrophilicity' powers is going to really like water? like, your carnuba wax car wax makes water bead because it's, well, waxy. am i missing something?
when do you think the ripped from the headlines version will be out?
Can you retest the "Bulletproof Water" myth, if anything, because it was so cool!?
I was wondering, for example, what would happen if you used a deer slug or some projectile of solid lead. I don't know about a whole lot about ammunition, but it seems that the 50 cal rounds are big and fast but not necessarily solid. And what about squib rounds? Could they possibly be more effective in this case than regularly-packed ones?
http://www.dooce.com/about.html
plasmas suxor.
i find this all so very funny.
it reminds me of a post last week about lyco's anti-spyware screensaver and yet they have their own spyware.
incidentally, no one answered my previous query as to whether lycos actually does author sidesearch.
i'm so confused. isn't this the same lycos that has their sidesearch spyware (http://www3.ca.com/securityadvisor/pest/pest.aspx ?id=453078521)?
and if so, isn't this a bit disingenuous to be a anti-spam patriot while perpetuating their own brand of spyware? i mean, really, now.
I'm sure they're well-intentioned. Gmail supported Mozilla, then Safari before IE (and to my knowledge is still unsupported).
Yep yep. Am I evil for thinking that this may be beneficial to me as an IT consultant? I figure that I tell clients that AOL is crap and it's their problem their money if they continue to use it. (AOL's autofix thing for network connections, by the way, has broken the connections of two of my clients' computers and costs them a fortune for me to come out there and delete AOL's autoconfig'ed settings. Stupid, stupid stuff.) I know this is all horribly off topic but whatever.
someone should offer steve some cheese to go with his whine.
"We are stunned that RealNetworks has adopted the tactics and ethics of a hacker." I'm not surprised. Real's software and business practices have been deplorable for years.
i'm looking forward to patching their AV software.
yes, you may very well be right. estimates say that employees spend so much time per day cleaning up spam that email's efficiency over a phone call or a paper memo has been called into question.
the legislation's purpose, however, is not to increase efficiency nor reduce costs. and if a small or struggling company decides that either the upfront cost of the switchover is too expensive or that the legal liability would be too high, they still might roll back to more low tech ways of doing things.
i agree. my typewriter statement was factitious in order to show how the law could adversely affect small business. my point is that it should be important for these legislators to consider the financial impact that this would have. not only would it drive up cost for everyone but would favor large businesses with preexisting IT infrastructures over smaller companies whose IT person might some multipurpose employee that by chance knows how to reboot computers, share printers, and run windows update (which, for a majority of small businesses, is all the IT expertise you need).
more importantly, the whole premise of the law, in my opinion, is garbage. i believe that the law puts an unreasonable amount of responsibility on the employer rather than the employees. people need to start being proactive in protecting themselves from the internet.
if implemented, choosing *who* to sue would also be a litigious nightmare. do you sue the IT girl? if so, do we start selling IT malpractice insurance (i would need some)? do you sue the 3rd party ISP? What about the company that wrote the spam filter, should it fail to work? if a company filters their corporate mail but not, say, the employee's hotmail account, are they still liable for damages?
but even if i can prove that the legislation would create a litigious nightmare isn't sufficient to show that the law shouldn't exist. The *real* problem with this legislation is how it holds the entity that provides the transport for the offensive material responsible for the offensive material. would we sue the phone company or the USPS for sending us audio and paper versions of porn spam? do we do so now? no, we (united states) create things like the do-not-call list and find methods of empowering the consumer rather than punishing the provider. to me, and i think most people, holding the service provider responsible sounds absurd.
however it seems that legislators have taken a different view of this in when it comes to the internet (the first death of napster, for example, and all the stuff that's happened in the wake of the DMCA). i have theories, but i'm not yet sure why this is.
i have to admit that i'm really excited to see what happens. thankfully, i'm not in the E.U. so i can watch from afar. and after belaboring the topic a bit more, an etch-a-sketch is sounding pretty appealing. ^_^
But would you be able the prove that the company providing the method in which the offensive material is delivered is responsible for that material? if porn telemarketing existed, for example, would it makes sense to blame the company for giving you a phone number that a 3rd party obtained and and diailed to solicit porn to you? same goes for snail mail. do you hold the USPS responsible for potentially offensive junk mail?
Sounds like that is going to put a huge amount of burden on the companies. If I were running my own private business, I'd be inclined to unplug everyone's network connections and hand out typewriters. I don't know how strict the legistlation is, but it sounds to me that this might promote anti-technology.
actually, it's really not fair to say i was battling red hat; it went fine but i'm doing it in virtual pc 2004 which is the true culprit of my woes... thanks! :)
for myself. :B right now i'm battling my first red hat installation...
agreed. there's more than one reason to dislike a relationship with mac and real. as far as i'm concerned, real is no better than a spammer that installs spyware on your computer.
yep. not impressed.
Ah, bless'd job security...
yeah, those bastards can burn in hell even if it means that microsoft gets more of the market share. and their demise would be *so* apropos. they've always had crap software and a crappy business philosophy that i don't even know where to begin.