Re:Multiple accounts violate the Gmail TOS...
on
Gmail in the News
·
· Score: 1
Yes, but mind you, I intend to eventually pass them on. All the information Google has for each account is simply first and last name, your requested e-mail address, and your secret question. The only information that may be possibly suspicious - secondary e-mail, is optional. Mind you, of course they may have tracked where the invites may have gone, but with the recent influx of them floating around, either they're too busy working to notice, just don't care, or I'm just a lucky sonofabitch. Who knows.
Besides, as I stated before, I don't plan to hang around on the accounts for too long. My idea was to get things for them, but if worse comes to worse, I can also post the accounts with cooresponding passwords on some lonely slashdot post - say, a sig, and let nature work itself out.
PS: I realize I am also a dumbshit for leaving my GMail account linked to my Slashdot user name. No need to send a message.
One thing I noticed about GMail was that it was, at least for a short time, a small commercial market within itself. The market ebbed and flowed depending on if invites had become availble that day or not. Originally, there were few accounts, and I managed to snatch one up thanks to my Blogger account - while it lasted, my invites were gold. Before the market "crashed" a few weeks ago, I managed to get unlimited virtual hosting and some nude pictures from a college CS girl who wanted one for "geek cool". My, it was great.
Of course, then the market crashed. So now GMail Swap and others are worthless. But I've been using my invites for another purpose now - I currently have 30 GMail addresses to my name, including some interesting ones. I figure, although the rarity may not exist in having an account, the rarity could exist in having the account you want. Commercialism rises again.
Yeah, I imagine the Internet is such an evil to him. I'd like to see him prove it. Suspend his access. Then we'll see who's been influenced by that `Naughty Network`.
Backwards compatible isn't the answer, in my opinion. Just do like they've always done - support both standards until everyone migrates to the new one. If we tried to make everything backwards-compatible, we'd still be dealing with people who need tables emulated, since their browser doesn't handle them - No offense, Lynx users.
Backup all e-mails from the last 4½ years into permanent storage, and then from there, get organized. Put spam filters on, force people to sort any important mail or else it gets deleted after, say, two weeks. People always seem to want to "start from scratch". without looking at the situation rationally. Five years of documents, gone overnight. How can anyone not be at least outraged by that?
"They're not taking away rights - they're finally blocking content that you NEVER had a right to view in the first place."
Well, fine then. But if we never had a right in the first place, why was it fine to begin with? I mean, they didn't really raise a peep about it until now - you would think in the amount of time the Internet has been around, they would have attempted to do something before June of 2004, now wouldn't you?
And besides, let's not forget that this isn't going to curb the child pornography business in the least - anyone with a bit of sense will realize that the pornography industry is the single most adaptable entity in the world. And to think that this will phase them in the least is just ignorance.
"How comfortable would you be swallowing a drug made from Gila monster spit?"
I don't know. How comfortable are you "swallowing" a "drug" made from "Gila Monster" "spit"?
Thank you. I'm here all week.
Why not just train a chimpanzee to remember our passwords? Just carry them around, drop them in the "password monkey bucket", and then show them a series of pictures, followed by a keypad. I mean, it's been shown they can remember basic patterns and such, and it's not like they're going to give it up for anything stupid...like chocolate...
PS: If you're thinking of a continued chain of "tell a friends", don't bother. The time between would probably be too great. Not to mention Google might start to get a bit worried if suddenly thirty new accounts popped-up from the same IP address.
A few weeks ago, my GMail account had a "tell a friend!" link, when they were expanding the number of users. In it, you had three slots for e-mail addresses, in which three people would get an e-mail address of their choosing. All you needed was their e-mail. The problem was, they didn't bother to notice if a person used (a) the same account twice, or (b) a gmail account. So now I have three GMail accounts, which considering the current state of the market concerning these things, could be a very interesting deal. Sell the three, but keep my active account. All I'm saying really is, keep an eye out for this link - and the Genie shall reward.
(dur, fixed formatting. Yes, skip the irony. Please.)
Okay, I do admit that the first is a bit of a challenge, and I'm a bit stumped. I can make the image a part of the layer itself, so it moves, but to have the layers in different parts of the page, but moving in a fixed method; a challenge, indeed.
To go about this, first start at the same position from the top, and move down according to the paragraphs length. Somehow, we have to acquire the length of each paragraph, or else make each image layer dependant on the others in the layer - tables have the advantage here, since, well, that's their purpose. Dependant-layout content.
Now, if I could "cheat" a bit, I could use javascript to format them according to the paragraph height. But that's not the purpose of this example, and not to mention that would be extremly time-consuming, and to be honest, I'm not sure if it would be possible (I'm probably wrong, but let's just skip it.)
It took me awhile, I'll be honest. But there is a way. Have the two columns actually one large column, and use relative positioning to push the images. Let me explain. You have the content setup as such: "b" is blank, "p" is a paragraph of undetermined length, and "i" is an image.
[i ] [ p ]
Now, the paragraph layer's position is solely dependant on the image layer's position. Of course this isn't exactly what we wanted, but it can be. We "push" the image down a bit via the "relative" attribute, so that the image now rests next to the paragraph. In theory, anyway.
More problems could include variable image size, but that's another problem, another day (in other words - it's really not that hard to tweak the above example to do that). The line example could be done no-sweat if the columns weren't absolute - page flow does the work for you. Just make a new layer past the column layers, and put the line there. If the columns were absolute, however, I do admit I am stumped. However, table cells normally don't shift out of positon "absolutely", anyway, so that would be a problem neither could solve.
Okay, I do admit that the first is a bit of a challenge, and I'm a bit stumped. I can make the image a part of the layer itself, so it moves, but to have the layers in different parts of the page, but moving in a fixed method; a challenge, indeed.
To go about this, first start at the same position from the top, and move down according to the paragraphs length. Somehow, we have to acquire the length of each paragraph, or else make each image layer dependant on the others in the layer - tables have the advantage here, since, well, that's their purpose. Dependant-layout content.
Now, if I could "cheat" a bit, I could use javascript to format them according to the paragraph height. But that's not the purpose of this example, and not to mention that would be extremly time-consuming, and to be honest, I'm not sure if it would be possible.
It took me awhile, I'll be honest. But there is a way. Have the two columns actually one large column, and use relative positioning to push the images. Let me explain.
You have the content setup as such: "b" is blank, "p" is a paragraph of undetermined length, and "i" is an image.
[i ]
[ p ]
Now, the paragraph layer's position is solely dependant on the image layer's position. Of course this isn't exactly what we wanted, but it can be. We "push" the image down a bit via the "relative" attribute, so that the image now rests next to the paragraph. In theory, anyway.
example
More problems could include variable image size, but that's another problem, another day (in other words - it's really not that hard to tweak the above example to do that).
The line example could be done no-sweat if the columns weren't absolute - page flow does the work for you. Just make a new layer past the column layers, and put the line there. If the columns were absolute, however, I do admit I am stumped. However, table cells normally don't shift out of positon "absolutely", anyway, so that would be a problem neither could solve.
I should mention that W3C is trying to move people away from using inline declarations in XHTML2.0. If I remember correctly, they're illegal, or at least deprecated.
I've been using CSS for several years now, and I'll be honest - I never wanted to see a table again after I started learning. But I eventually came back every now and then. Was it because CSS wasn't up for the job? No. It was because I didn't know how to do the job in CSS. I admit CSS has some flaws here and there, but many times tables are just as bad, if not worse. I mean, a lot of the time, the problem isn't that CSS cannot do it; it's that people aren't willing to try new methods, "hack around" with the visuals, if you will.
Also, a quick inquery - what exactly is "easier" to do with tables than CSS?
This reminds me of a few weeks ago when we got our new computer from Dell. The first thing I did, while he was asleep, was gut the bastard of pretty much all of their "optional" software - I freed about 5GB total, not to mention countless hours of headaches. Then from there I had explicit instructions not to get online - but of course I had to, seeing as the shipped version of Norton was several updates behind. Of course all hellfire broke loose after he woke up and, god-forbid, found me online!
"Why the hell are you online! I haven't backed-up the system!" "Back-up? It's a new computer! It came with the install disk! What would you have to back-up?" "Really? Well, still, I don't want this thing to get any viruses!" "I've only been downloading patches." "Still!" "Are you suggesting Norton Anti-Virus is going to infect us with a virus?" "You never know!"
Needless to say, I try to keep away from him as much as possible. And if this is off-topic, may the mods strike me down fully.
PS: I didn't have the heart to tell him Windows XP auto-connected to the internet to register itself upon first boot.
From the makers of Windows XP, comes the latest release of their highly-propped OS, simply entitled "Windows 95". Features include a lack of active viruses, stuff that works, and things that don't move when you don't click on them. Says one enthusiastic tech support employee, "This is great. I haven't pissed since Service Pack 2."
Thinking about this for a second, I can see how this might actually work. They'll continue Windows as the home use OS, and begin selling Linux as the more professional, XP pro- style OS. Though, knowing Microsoft, they'll just cut some code out, such as that annoying "lack of bugs" feature that bothers so many Microsoft execs. If all else fails, they'll give Linux a bad name, and maybe drive some business back to Windows.
...because tech workers are embracing it! I mean, why fight spam when it offers to enlarge your penis by 237% in 48 hours? This is truly a golden age of technology! Hallelujah!
What scares me is that since these emails are still going out, that means they are making business from it. Some people are actually stupid enough to believe the junk mail they get. Sad.
Slashdot Mirror
Cybersex with combo moves...gawd...
Yes, but mind you, I intend to eventually pass them on. All the information Google has for each account is simply first and last name, your requested e-mail address, and your secret question. The only information that may be possibly suspicious - secondary e-mail, is optional. Mind you, of course they may have tracked where the invites may have gone, but with the recent influx of them floating around, either they're too busy working to notice, just don't care, or I'm just a lucky sonofabitch. Who knows.
Besides, as I stated before, I don't plan to hang around on the accounts for too long. My idea was to get things for them, but if worse comes to worse, I can also post the accounts with cooresponding passwords on some lonely slashdot post - say, a sig, and let nature work itself out.
PS: I realize I am also a dumbshit for leaving my GMail account linked to my Slashdot user name. No need to send a message.
One thing I noticed about GMail was that it was, at least for a short time, a small commercial market within itself. The market ebbed and flowed depending on if invites had become availble that day or not. Originally, there were few accounts, and I managed to snatch one up thanks to my Blogger account - while it lasted, my invites were gold. Before the market "crashed" a few weeks ago, I managed to get unlimited virtual hosting and some nude pictures from a college CS girl who wanted one for "geek cool". My, it was great.
Of course, then the market crashed. So now GMail Swap and others are worthless. But I've been using my invites for another purpose now - I currently have 30 GMail addresses to my name, including some interesting ones. I figure, although the rarity may not exist in having an account, the rarity could exist in having the account you want. Commercialism rises again.
I think this is probably going to be a great oppritunity, for those with the right idea. Can you say "disposable DVD resell market"? I'll be rich!
Now all we need is a Slashdot mirror, and we can play Pong.
Yeah, I imagine the Internet is such an evil to him. I'd like to see him prove it. Suspend his access. Then we'll see who's been influenced by that `Naughty Network`.
Backwards compatible isn't the answer, in my opinion. Just do like they've always done - support both standards until everyone migrates to the new one. If we tried to make everything backwards-compatible, we'd still be dealing with people who need tables emulated, since their browser doesn't handle them - No offense, Lynx users.
Backup all e-mails from the last 4½ years into permanent storage, and then from there, get organized. Put spam filters on, force people to sort any important mail or else it gets deleted after, say, two weeks. People always seem to want to "start from scratch". without looking at the situation rationally. Five years of documents, gone overnight. How can anyone not be at least outraged by that?
"They're not taking away rights - they're finally blocking content that you NEVER had a right to view in the first place."
Well, fine then. But if we never had a right in the first place, why was it fine to begin with? I mean, they didn't really raise a peep about it until now - you would think in the amount of time the Internet has been around, they would have attempted to do something before June of 2004, now wouldn't you?
And besides, let's not forget that this isn't going to curb the child pornography business in the least - anyone with a bit of sense will realize that the pornography industry is the single most adaptable entity in the world. And to think that this will phase them in the least is just ignorance.
"How comfortable would you be swallowing a drug made from Gila monster spit?" I don't know. How comfortable are you "swallowing" a "drug" made from "Gila Monster" "spit"? Thank you. I'm here all week.
Why not just train a chimpanzee to remember our passwords? Just carry them around, drop them in the "password monkey bucket", and then show them a series of pictures, followed by a keypad. I mean, it's been shown they can remember basic patterns and such, and it's not like they're going to give it up for anything stupid...like chocolate...
You just killed 1337. Gee, thanks.
"My problem is on the other end: when I SEND someone e-mail I don't want someone else to read it." And thus the *.*.*.* IP blocklist was born.
PS: If you're thinking of a continued chain of "tell a friends", don't bother. The time between would probably be too great. Not to mention Google might start to get a bit worried if suddenly thirty new accounts popped-up from the same IP address.
A few weeks ago, my GMail account had a "tell a friend!" link, when they were expanding the number of users. In it, you had three slots for e-mail addresses, in which three people would get an e-mail address of their choosing. All you needed was their e-mail. The problem was, they didn't bother to notice if a person used (a) the same account twice, or (b) a gmail account. So now I have three GMail accounts, which considering the current state of the market concerning these things, could be a very interesting deal. Sell the three, but keep my active account. All I'm saying really is, keep an eye out for this link - and the Genie shall reward.
(dur, fixed formatting. Yes, skip the irony. Please.)
Okay, I do admit that the first is a bit of a challenge, and I'm a bit stumped. I can make the image a part of the layer itself, so it moves, but to have the layers in different parts of the page, but moving in a fixed method; a challenge, indeed.
To go about this, first start at the same position from the top, and move down according to the paragraphs length. Somehow, we have to acquire the length of each paragraph, or else make each image layer dependant on the others in the layer - tables have the advantage here, since, well, that's their purpose. Dependant-layout content.
Now, if I could "cheat" a bit, I could use javascript to format them according to the paragraph height. But that's not the purpose of this example, and not to mention that would be extremly time-consuming, and to be honest, I'm not sure if it would be possible (I'm probably wrong, but let's just skip it.)
It took me awhile, I'll be honest. But there is a way. Have the two columns actually one large column, and use relative positioning to push the images. Let me explain. You have the content setup as such: "b" is blank, "p" is a paragraph of undetermined length, and "i" is an image.
[i ][ p ]
Now, the paragraph layer's position is solely dependant on the image layer's position. Of course this isn't exactly what we wanted, but it can be. We "push" the image down a bit via the "relative" attribute, so that the image now rests next to the paragraph. In theory, anyway.
example
More problems could include variable image size, but that's another problem, another day (in other words - it's really not that hard to tweak the above example to do that). The line example could be done no-sweat if the columns weren't absolute - page flow does the work for you. Just make a new layer past the column layers, and put the line there. If the columns were absolute, however, I do admit I am stumped. However, table cells normally don't shift out of positon "absolutely", anyway, so that would be a problem neither could solve.
Okay, I do admit that the first is a bit of a challenge, and I'm a bit stumped. I can make the image a part of the layer itself, so it moves, but to have the layers in different parts of the page, but moving in a fixed method; a challenge, indeed. To go about this, first start at the same position from the top, and move down according to the paragraphs length. Somehow, we have to acquire the length of each paragraph, or else make each image layer dependant on the others in the layer - tables have the advantage here, since, well, that's their purpose. Dependant-layout content. Now, if I could "cheat" a bit, I could use javascript to format them according to the paragraph height. But that's not the purpose of this example, and not to mention that would be extremly time-consuming, and to be honest, I'm not sure if it would be possible. It took me awhile, I'll be honest. But there is a way. Have the two columns actually one large column, and use relative positioning to push the images. Let me explain. You have the content setup as such: "b" is blank, "p" is a paragraph of undetermined length, and "i" is an image. [i ] [ p ] Now, the paragraph layer's position is solely dependant on the image layer's position. Of course this isn't exactly what we wanted, but it can be. We "push" the image down a bit via the "relative" attribute, so that the image now rests next to the paragraph. In theory, anyway. example More problems could include variable image size, but that's another problem, another day (in other words - it's really not that hard to tweak the above example to do that). The line example could be done no-sweat if the columns weren't absolute - page flow does the work for you. Just make a new layer past the column layers, and put the line there. If the columns were absolute, however, I do admit I am stumped. However, table cells normally don't shift out of positon "absolutely", anyway, so that would be a problem neither could solve.
I should mention that W3C is trying to move people away from using inline declarations in XHTML2.0. If I remember correctly, they're illegal, or at least deprecated.
I still know people who use the marquee tag. If you expect change as drastic as such to happen overnight, you're sorely mistaken.
I've been using CSS for several years now, and I'll be honest - I never wanted to see a table again after I started learning. But I eventually came back every now and then. Was it because CSS wasn't up for the job? No. It was because I didn't know how to do the job in CSS. I admit CSS has some flaws here and there, but many times tables are just as bad, if not worse. I mean, a lot of the time, the problem isn't that CSS cannot do it; it's that people aren't willing to try new methods, "hack around" with the visuals, if you will. Also, a quick inquery - what exactly is "easier" to do with tables than CSS?
This reminds me of a few weeks ago when we got our new computer from Dell. The first thing I did, while he was asleep, was gut the bastard of pretty much all of their "optional" software - I freed about 5GB total, not to mention countless hours of headaches. Then from there I had explicit instructions not to get online - but of course I had to, seeing as the shipped version of Norton was several updates behind. Of course all hellfire broke loose after he woke up and, god-forbid, found me online!
"Why the hell are you online! I haven't backed-up the system!"
"Back-up? It's a new computer! It came with the install disk! What would you have to back-up?"
"Really? Well, still, I don't want this thing to get any viruses!"
"I've only been downloading patches."
"Still!"
"Are you suggesting Norton Anti-Virus is going to infect us with a virus?"
"You never know!"
Needless to say, I try to keep away from him as much as possible. And if this is off-topic, may the mods strike me down fully.
PS: I didn't have the heart to tell him Windows XP auto-connected to the internet to register itself upon first boot.
Tis 7pm for me, being EST. And I take it it'd be Midnight exactly for GMT, so it makes sense, if you think about.
From the makers of Windows XP, comes the latest release of their highly-propped OS, simply entitled "Windows 95". Features include a lack of active viruses, stuff that works, and things that don't move when you don't click on them. Says one enthusiastic tech support employee, "This is great. I haven't pissed since Service Pack 2."
Thinking about this for a second, I can see how this might actually work. They'll continue Windows as the home use OS, and begin selling Linux as the more professional, XP pro- style OS. Though, knowing Microsoft, they'll just cut some code out, such as that annoying "lack of bugs" feature that bothers so many Microsoft execs. If all else fails, they'll give Linux a bad name, and maybe drive some business back to Windows.