Corporations have no right to kick down my door and point guns at me and force me to do their will.
Government is the only entity with that power. Shrink the size and influence of government, and you increase freedom.
I can always tell a corporation to go pound sand, UNLESS it's in bed with the government.
Government isn't here to "serve me", by the way, it's here to make sure that we don't interfere with each other's freedoms. That's its raison d'etre: to ensure freedom, not to take it away!
Ah, good to know this won't affect information on the Internet.
I'm also 100% sure that once the Office of Net Neutrality is set up, and has a presence in every city so that they can randomly audit routing tables, that their power will never be abused, that the mandate will never be expanded by this or any future administration to achieve its political goals, that it won't turn into a jobs program, that the agents won't be susceptible to bribes or otherwise getting in bed with the industry, etc etc.
Apparently you're flamebait, and I'm a troll. Moderation gone berserk.
I'm amazed at the pure, child-like faith that people here have of the government. They take a one-line versio of several hundred pages of law, and argue that nobody sane can disagree with the law, since that one line is unassailable.
The government is not your mommy and daddy, people. Power is too concentrated already.
How can you describe this as anything other than the government deciding what's allowed and what's not allowed on the Internet?
This is far, far scarier than anything that an ISP might try to pull. The government can't be routed around even in theory. And they're the only entity legally allowed to use guns to enforce their will.
The law SERIOUSLY needs to be gutted. I think the common law system is fatally flawed in this way. There's no way for a reasonably informed and intelligent citizen to be able to scratch the surface of the thousands of laws, decisions, precedents which could be brought to bear on him at any moment. How can that possibly be fair?
It certainly can be, depending on the situation. Especially in cases where the law and the situation are both so convoluted, like this one, that the defendant had no reasonable way to know ahead of time that he was committing a crime.
If it takes the jury more than a half hour to determine that a crime was even committed, and the defendant was in good faith attempting to fulfill all his obligations but struck a different, but still reasonable, balance from the one the jury would have picked, I don't see how anybody can possibly convict.
That network engineer, IIRC, said here something to the effect that he didn't think Childs had any criminal intent, and that he was doing what he thought was right for the city. The only reason for the conviction was that the letter of the law appeared to be against him.
This was a case where a fully informed jury should have acquitted, but unfortunately juries are not fully informed. A jury has the right, nay the responsibility, to judge the LAW as well as the FACTS.
Basically, put yourself in Childs' situation. You did what you thought was right. (Let's assume that's the case, since I believe that's what the juror said.) Wouldn't you hope that somebody would inject some common sense at some point rather than robotically reading the law?
That's why we have juries. But judges tell them all they can do is robotically read the law. It's awful.
pfft, BS, 98% of spam is fire and forget. Mail should be either rejected at SMTP time or delivered. Anything else is breaking your mail system, and asking for mail to mysteriously disappear.
Post-receipt scanning is evil. Either accept the mail and deliver it, or reject it at SMTP time.
I reject your assertion that the spambot will employ machine learning and figure a way through after a rejection.
The correct solution is to employ massive delays on the SMTP transaction if an email is spam. This is a pseudo-tarpit. The mail is eventually rejected.
I'm not advocating going filterless. I'm saying that instead of putting "borderline" spam in a spam folder, simply reject it.
The "check-up" on the automatic system that you advocate would then be done by the sender, who gets notified that the mail didn't get delivered. If a message ends up in a spam folder, then it effectively hasn't been delivered, but nobody knows about it.
This is why spam folders should be Considered Harmful. Effectively, it's a delivery failure without a notice. You should either accept mail or reject it, not pretend to accept it and then stash it someplace where nobody reads it.
Using a spam folder treats outright, obvious spam with more courtesy than the borderline stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay. So now that the government has the power to decide, what happens when they change their decision?
Corporations have no right to kick down my door and point guns at me and force me to do their will.
Government is the only entity with that power. Shrink the size and influence of government, and you increase freedom.
I can always tell a corporation to go pound sand, UNLESS it's in bed with the government.
Government isn't here to "serve me", by the way, it's here to make sure that we don't interfere with each other's freedoms. That's its raison d'etre: to ensure freedom, not to take it away!
Right, freedom, pfft, it's so overrated. What has it ever done for you or me, I want to know!
Ah, good to know this won't affect information on the Internet.
I'm also 100% sure that once the Office of Net Neutrality is set up, and has a presence in every city so that they can randomly audit routing tables, that their power will never be abused, that the mandate will never be expanded by this or any future administration to achieve its political goals, that it won't turn into a jobs program, that the agents won't be susceptible to bribes or otherwise getting in bed with the industry, etc etc.
</sarcasm>
Apparently you're flamebait, and I'm a troll. Moderation gone berserk.
I'm amazed at the pure, child-like faith that people here have of the government. They take a one-line versio of several hundred pages of law, and argue that nobody sane can disagree with the law, since that one line is unassailable.
The government is not your mommy and daddy, people. Power is too concentrated already.
How can you describe this as anything other than the government deciding what's allowed and what's not allowed on the Internet?
This is far, far scarier than anything that an ISP might try to pull. The government can't be routed around even in theory. And they're the only entity legally allowed to use guns to enforce their will.
The law SERIOUSLY needs to be gutted. I think the common law system is fatally flawed in this way. There's no way for a reasonably informed and intelligent citizen to be able to scratch the surface of the thousands of laws, decisions, precedents which could be brought to bear on him at any moment. How can that possibly be fair?
You mean "blue in the face". Red would imply embarrassment. Those would be the other folks, not the ones getting blue in the face.
It certainly can be, depending on the situation. Especially in cases where the law and the situation are both so convoluted, like this one, that the defendant had no reasonable way to know ahead of time that he was committing a crime.
If it takes the jury more than a half hour to determine that a crime was even committed, and the defendant was in good faith attempting to fulfill all his obligations but struck a different, but still reasonable, balance from the one the jury would have picked, I don't see how anybody can possibly convict.
That network engineer, IIRC, said here something to the effect that he didn't think Childs had any criminal intent, and that he was doing what he thought was right for the city. The only reason for the conviction was that the letter of the law appeared to be against him.
This was a case where a fully informed jury should have acquitted, but unfortunately juries are not fully informed. A jury has the right, nay the responsibility, to judge the LAW as well as the FACTS.
Basically, put yourself in Childs' situation. You did what you thought was right. (Let's assume that's the case, since I believe that's what the juror said.) Wouldn't you hope that somebody would inject some common sense at some point rather than robotically reading the law?
That's why we have juries. But judges tell them all they can do is robotically read the law. It's awful.
http://fija.org/
Can a blood sample be taken this way?
Not taxed?? It's taxed twice, once as corporate profits, and then again on distributions / capital gains.
What are you talking about? This is a library that you include as part of your page when serving it to IE. End-users don't need to install anything.
It doesn't do anything useful.
Why wouldn't it? It doesn't require them to actually do anything. This is for developers.
No, with normal encryption like this, you're trying to make sure that only the other party can decrypt and read your communication.
What kills DRM is the attempt to allow the other party to read, but not decrypt, the communication. This is obviously silly.
No, the signal is the amount of time it takes to do the password comparison, and the noise is the random amount of time on top of it.
To circumvent: try each password 100 times. It'll become clear what the actual time to compare the password is.
That tab grouping sounds like a really useful feature. What is the extension you use for that? I found a number of them that seem similar...
pfft, BS, 98% of spam is fire and forget. Mail should be either rejected at SMTP time or delivered. Anything else is breaking your mail system, and asking for mail to mysteriously disappear.
I misunderstood what you said. That isn't exactly the same as being confused.
Perfectly fair. I didn't mean it pejoratively.
imagine the fun nightmares that begin when a personal relation that the receiver doesn't care to offend starts sending them spam
Seems like a filter that rejects those mails is the perfect solution! The recipient can't be blamed, it's that dang filter. :-)
Post-receipt scanning is evil. Either accept the mail and deliver it, or reject it at SMTP time.
I reject your assertion that the spambot will employ machine learning and figure a way through after a rejection.
The correct solution is to employ massive delays on the SMTP transaction if an email is spam. This is a pseudo-tarpit. The mail is eventually rejected.
Does any email from a new source get put into a spam folder? You might want to fix that problem first.
I think you're confused.
I'm not advocating going filterless. I'm saying that instead of putting "borderline" spam in a spam folder, simply reject it.
The "check-up" on the automatic system that you advocate would then be done by the sender, who gets notified that the mail didn't get delivered. If a message ends up in a spam folder, then it effectively hasn't been delivered, but nobody knows about it.
This is why spam folders should be Considered Harmful. Effectively, it's a delivery failure without a notice. You should either accept mail or reject it, not pretend to accept it and then stash it someplace where nobody reads it.
Using a spam folder treats outright, obvious spam with more courtesy than the borderline stuff.
Can you explain how SPF would be of any help at all here?