There's nothing new to be done. There are only easier and safer ways to do it.
I recently saw a presentation that explained how all progress in programming language came through taking stuff away. Take away GOTO, take away global variables, take away lots of other stuff. Taking options away seems to give us more maintainable, easier to read programs with less boiler plate code. Taking away null seems like a good next step that Dart apparently didn't take.
Take a look at Scala. It very effectively does away with null.
The major way it does this, is by introducing the Option type. An Option can be either Some(value) or None. It's typed of course, so Option could be Some("foo"), Some("bar") or None. And Option is secretly a List with either 1 or 0 elements, so you can access the value by performing an operation on every element of the list (each). Or you can use getOrElse(alternative), where the alternative is what needs to be returned if the option happens to be None.
It takes some getting used to, but it seems to work very well as far as I can tell.
More importantly of course, Bush and Cheney had a gigantic impact on the world, though I suppose that comes with the job of US president.
And you're right about the difference too. Berlusconi hangs out with scary people, is a creep, is corrupt and grabs as much power and money as he can, but he keeps it mostly to Italy. He doesn't set out to make the world a worse place, doesn't wage international wars for economic interests, and I haven't heard of him using torture. He's a clown. A really creepy one.
There's quite a bit of hubub about when he actually met them and if and when they had sex.
As for the moral side, remember this is not some random Joe, but a PM and leader of a supposedly Christian party. His wife left him not so much for having sex with prostitutes, but having rather close relationships with underage ones. But even if it wasn't illegal, what country would re-elect a 78 year old man that maintans a harem of 18 year old girls?
Is voting for Berlusconi really less stupid than voting for Bush? I hate Bush as much as the next guy, but I have my doubts in this case. Berlusconi was re-elected several times, even after it was abundantly clear that he was completely and irredeemably corrupt. Bush was an idiot, lied and instigated war, but Berlusconi appears to be an avatar of Satan himself. He was good buddies with Khadafi and Putin, likes calling German politicians nazi camp guards, has wild sex parties with barely legal prostitutes, controls most Italian media, partially as leader of the government, partially because of his own private media imperium. And he keeps introducing new laws to protect himself from criminal prosecution for all the cases of corruption he's been involved in.
That's irrelevant. Christians can still support democracy.
Note that this particular party is probably neither Christian not democratic. I'm not entirely sure, because there are several Italian parties in the European People's Party (the Christian democrats of the EP), but the party of Berlusconi, as famous for his wild sex parties with barely legal prostitutes, as for his control over Italian media and his laws to make himself immune to prosecution, is one of them, and the others are in league with him.
Btw, this is *not* a free market solution because it is the government imposing a restriction on what may be agreed upon between consenting parties.
That is not a requirement for a free market, and can in fact make a market unfree. Consenting parties can decide to form a cartel or monopoly, for example. What this decision seems to do, is to ban certain restrictions on the market, thereby definitely making this market more free.
A free market, like any other kind of freedom, requires protection. Or do you think slavery is freedom?
Do books of a single author really compete with other books by that same author? I'd expect if someone likes a book by a certain author, he's more likely to buy other books from that author, rather than less. So the book published elsewhere would be free publicity, not competition.
Are ebooks even worse than some of the crap that gets published on paper? I've seen plenty of paper books, well after their first printing, that still looked like no editor or proofreader had ever touched it.
In any case, my impression is that self-publishing writers arrange their own proofreading and editing, whereas writers with traditional publishers rely on the publisher for it, who cuts some costs there and publishes an unedited piece of crap.
ISPs should be offering the best possible service to their customers. If their customers don't want to receive spam (and most don't), then ISPs would do well to block spam. Spamhaus provides valuable advice for this.
A surprising number of customers don't seem to object very much to having access to illegal movies, though.
This isn't about privacy. It's not even about free speech. It's about harassment and crime. That's what they condone and support.
If you want an ISP that will defend your free speech all the way to the high court (against dangerous organizations like Scientology, for example), then you go to XS4all. If you want an ISP that will let you spam or run botnets, you go to one with this kind of policy.
One risk with honeypots: if somebody knows the honeypot address, they can fill in that address on your website, check the box that they want email, and then you're in trouble.
No idea if Spamhaus has a mechanism to prevent this. It shouldn't be too hard to compare their honeyport addresses to the addresses in your database, weren't it for the fact that they probably want to keep their addresses secret, and you're probably legally required to keep them secret.
I think in the entire history of Slashdot, only one post was ever removed. I forgot if it was due to a lost lawsuit or a lawsuit that would likely be lost and be very expensive.
If I understand correctly, Spamhaus doesn't list ISPs as spammers. From http://www.spamhaus.org/news.lasso?article=673: "The SBL lists 4 categories of abuse: spam sources, spam hosts, spam services and spam support services." and A2B was listed as a spam support service, not a spam source or spam host. I expect that ISPs can choose to use that information to not block them but only the direct spammers.
Of course if you want to discourage spam on the internet, you also want to discourage people from accepting spammers as customers. That's probably what the "spam support service" category is for.
Who decides that their opinions suck? Good ISPs tend to be pretty knowledgable on spam issues, and they consider Spamhaus an authority on the subject. It's ISPs who decide that Spamhaus's opinion matters. You may decide that Spamhaus's opinions suck, but apparently there aren't a lot of ISPs that consider your opinion very authoritative on the subject.
It's like claiming that Einstein's opinion on quantum mechanics sucks. You lack the credibility that Spamhaus has.
The problem is, when entities upstream from users (both senders and receivers) are deluded into using Spamhaus, and that in turn screws up those user's email -- the users themselves have zero recourse.
Of course you've got recourse! Use a different ISP. It's really that simple. Vote with your feet.
Not quite. Spamhaus is the advisor. They advise ISPs to block an IP range, and it's up to individual ISPs to decide what to do with that advice. Some ignore it, but many find Spamhaus's advise so valuable that they automatically implement their advice. But it's still the ISP's choice and responsibility.
Don't like it? Then sue the ISP. But they're not required to accept your traffic if they decide it's not in the interest of their paying customers. Your only recourse is suing Spamhaus for libel if they lied about your behaviour. But if they document their cases well, and can prove that the category they put you in conforms with their published policies, then I doubt you'll have much chance there. And of course you'll have to sue them in the country they're based in.
I don't see any reference to stolen data on their submission page.
In any case, if you think there's anything suspicious, then of course you should report. But if you block an account without a court order, then you're not reliable payment infrastructure, because nobody will ever truly be able to count on you. Perhaps you're unreliable because the law forces you to be unreliable, but that doesn't change the fact that you are. And we need international payment infrastructure that is reliable. More so than PayPal or credit cards have proven to be.
Slashdot Mirror
There's nothing new to be done. There are only easier and safer ways to do it.
I recently saw a presentation that explained how all progress in programming language came through taking stuff away. Take away GOTO, take away global variables, take away lots of other stuff. Taking options away seems to give us more maintainable, easier to read programs with less boiler plate code. Taking away null seems like a good next step that Dart apparently didn't take.
Take a look at Scala. It very effectively does away with null.
The major way it does this, is by introducing the Option type. An Option can be either Some(value) or None. It's typed of course, so Option could be Some("foo"), Some("bar") or None. And Option is secretly a List with either 1 or 0 elements, so you can access the value by performing an operation on every element of the list (each). Or you can use getOrElse(alternative), where the alternative is what needs to be returned if the option happens to be None.
It takes some getting used to, but it seems to work very well as far as I can tell.
You guys have read the Illuminatus! trilogy, right?
Android without Android App-store is not competitive.
By "Android App-store" did you mean Android Market? If so, then Amazon seems to be doing just fine with its own store.
Are they? My impression is that the Amazon app store is really awful in comparison to the Android Market.
"Who are we to judge the PM?" Really? That's the entire job of a voter!
More importantly of course, Bush and Cheney had a gigantic impact on the world, though I suppose that comes with the job of US president.
And you're right about the difference too. Berlusconi hangs out with scary people, is a creep, is corrupt and grabs as much power and money as he can, but he keeps it mostly to Italy. He doesn't set out to make the world a worse place, doesn't wage international wars for economic interests, and I haven't heard of him using torture. He's a clown. A really creepy one.
There's quite a bit of hubub about when he actually met them and if and when they had sex.
As for the moral side, remember this is not some random Joe, but a PM and leader of a supposedly Christian party. His wife left him not so much for having sex with prostitutes, but having rather close relationships with underage ones. But even if it wasn't illegal, what country would re-elect a 78 year old man that maintans a harem of 18 year old girls?
My 2 year old son seems quite able to buy and install Android apps on his tablet. And use them, of course.
He also knows his way around an iPad, though Apple's store has slightly better security than Google.
Is voting for Berlusconi really less stupid than voting for Bush? I hate Bush as much as the next guy, but I have my doubts in this case. Berlusconi was re-elected several times, even after it was abundantly clear that he was completely and irredeemably corrupt. Bush was an idiot, lied and instigated war, but Berlusconi appears to be an avatar of Satan himself. He was good buddies with Khadafi and Putin, likes calling German politicians nazi camp guards, has wild sex parties with barely legal prostitutes, controls most Italian media, partially as leader of the government, partially because of his own private media imperium. And he keeps introducing new laws to protect himself from criminal prosecution for all the cases of corruption he's been involved in.
That's irrelevant. Christians can still support democracy.
Note that this particular party is probably neither Christian not democratic. I'm not entirely sure, because there are several Italian parties in the European People's Party (the Christian democrats of the EP), but the party of Berlusconi, as famous for his wild sex parties with barely legal prostitutes, as for his control over Italian media and his laws to make himself immune to prosecution, is one of them, and the others are in league with him.
Btw, this is *not* a free market solution because it is the government imposing a restriction on what may be agreed upon between consenting parties.
That is not a requirement for a free market, and can in fact make a market unfree. Consenting parties can decide to form a cartel or monopoly, for example. What this decision seems to do, is to ban certain restrictions on the market, thereby definitely making this market more free.
A free market, like any other kind of freedom, requires protection. Or do you think slavery is freedom?
Do books of a single author really compete with other books by that same author? I'd expect if someone likes a book by a certain author, he's more likely to buy other books from that author, rather than less. So the book published elsewhere would be free publicity, not competition.
Are ebooks even worse than some of the crap that gets published on paper? I've seen plenty of paper books, well after their first printing, that still looked like no editor or proofreader had ever touched it.
In any case, my impression is that self-publishing writers arrange their own proofreading and editing, whereas writers with traditional publishers rely on the publisher for it, who cuts some costs there and publishes an unedited piece of crap.
Reputation. Spamhaus has an excellent record on identifying and blocking spammers and services that support spam. DHS not so much.
ISPs should be offering the best possible service to their customers. If their customers don't want to receive spam (and most don't), then ISPs would do well to block spam. Spamhaus provides valuable advice for this.
A surprising number of customers don't seem to object very much to having access to illegal movies, though.
This isn't about privacy. It's not even about free speech. It's about harassment and crime. That's what they condone and support.
If you want an ISP that will defend your free speech all the way to the high court (against dangerous organizations like Scientology, for example), then you go to XS4all. If you want an ISP that will let you spam or run botnets, you go to one with this kind of policy.
One risk with honeypots: if somebody knows the honeypot address, they can fill in that address on your website, check the box that they want email, and then you're in trouble.
No idea if Spamhaus has a mechanism to prevent this. It shouldn't be too hard to compare their honeyport addresses to the addresses in your database, weren't it for the fact that they probably want to keep their addresses secret, and you're probably legally required to keep them secret.
I think in the entire history of Slashdot, only one post was ever removed. I forgot if it was due to a lost lawsuit or a lawsuit that would likely be lost and be very expensive.
If I understand correctly, Spamhaus doesn't list ISPs as spammers. From http://www.spamhaus.org/news.lasso?article=673: "The SBL lists 4 categories of abuse: spam sources, spam hosts, spam services and spam support services." and A2B was listed as a spam support service, not a spam source or spam host. I expect that ISPs can choose to use that information to not block them but only the direct spammers.
Of course if you want to discourage spam on the internet, you also want to discourage people from accepting spammers as customers. That's probably what the "spam support service" category is for.
Who decides that their opinions suck? Good ISPs tend to be pretty knowledgable on spam issues, and they consider Spamhaus an authority on the subject. It's ISPs who decide that Spamhaus's opinion matters. You may decide that Spamhaus's opinions suck, but apparently there aren't a lot of ISPs that consider your opinion very authoritative on the subject.
It's like claiming that Einstein's opinion on quantum mechanics sucks. You lack the credibility that Spamhaus has.
The problem is, when entities upstream from users (both senders and receivers) are deluded into using Spamhaus, and that in turn screws up those user's email -- the users themselves have zero recourse.
Of course you've got recourse! Use a different ISP. It's really that simple. Vote with your feet.
I never signed up for Spamhaus to be my "Internet Mommy."
Then what are you complaining about? If you don't use Spamhaus as your internet mommy, then you can still receive all the spam you want.
Not quite. Spamhaus is the advisor. They advise ISPs to block an IP range, and it's up to individual ISPs to decide what to do with that advice. Some ignore it, but many find Spamhaus's advise so valuable that they automatically implement their advice. But it's still the ISP's choice and responsibility.
Don't like it? Then sue the ISP. But they're not required to accept your traffic if they decide it's not in the interest of their paying customers. Your only recourse is suing Spamhaus for libel if they lied about your behaviour. But if they document their cases well, and can prove that the category they put you in conforms with their published policies, then I doubt you'll have much chance there. And of course you'll have to sue them in the country they're based in.
Why do you support an ISP that supports spammers? By doing so, you're helping to keep spam alive.
Drop them, and move to a more respectable ISP.
I don't see any reference to stolen data on their submission page.
In any case, if you think there's anything suspicious, then of course you should report. But if you block an account without a court order, then you're not reliable payment infrastructure, because nobody will ever truly be able to count on you. Perhaps you're unreliable because the law forces you to be unreliable, but that doesn't change the fact that you are. And we need international payment infrastructure that is reliable. More so than PayPal or credit cards have proven to be.