I put a "no UCE" comment in my SMTP banners and make reference to an acceptable-use policy.
Which has what effect, exactly? The only reference I could find to something like this is RFC 3865 which covers your case. However, as with all RFCs, they are not enforceable by law as you'd need to prove that the sender is compliant with every ad-hoc RFC extension out there. Given that sending MTAs don't need to advertise what features of the various RFCs they support, you have no way of determining whether or not said MTA would even understand that your banner is anything more than "^250.*".
That you've been able to use this in pursuing spammers is quite surprising actually. To me, this has all the force of taking a pen and writing "please return" on your quarter before dropping it into a phone booth and then complaining to the phone company when it didn't get returned to you.
Which, in fact, is the case. Most municipalities have noise bylaws restricting what noise you can emit and when. That empowers an individual; if someone wishes to lodge a complaint based on loud music after hours, there is recourse. To belabour the point: there are terms and conditions under which you can make noise which reaches my ears.
You'll notice I said sound, not noise. I should have been clearer, but I was referring to someone going up to you on the street and asking "Excuse me, do you have the time?" They're emitting sound to your ears without your explicit permission. I suppose they could write you a note, but then they're assaulting your retina with unwanted messages. Failing that, maybe they could write you an email...
No, you don't have that right, and you shouldn't. It's my mailbox, and you can't use it without my permission.
If your MTA implements the SMTP protocol, then you've already given your permission. If you want it to be permissions-based, then don't support SMTP... use some other protocol which requires prior authentication. You're saying the equivalent of "they're my ears... you can't make any sounds towards me without my permission".
You can even tell your grandmother to type what is my ip address into her browser window (omitting the spaces) and it will resolve for her. Of course, there are tons of other ones out there. http://www.dnsstuff.com/ will tell you as well, with only a few Google ads.
A few hundred a month is doing quite well? I suppose it's better than nothing, but with five kids that probably only pays for groceries for a week. Factor in the time and expense it takes to acquire and repair the clothing plus fulfill orders and you have to wonder if it's even working out to minimum wage.
Yes, a downloader. Even downloaders can have UIs. (Unless you use wget/curl all of the time.) All interface with the user needs to be friendly, usable and well designed. *All* of it. Even a downloader.
Of course, but this isn't "Ten OS X Apps with a User Interface", it's the "Ten Most Beautiful". And check out this screenshot:
Does that strike you as particularly "most beautiful" of all OS X apps out there? To me, it looks busy and uninspired... and that's supposed to be the fourth most beautiful app? More beautiful than, say, Google Earth on OS X which didn't make the list even though it's freeware as well? Screenshot:
The "extremely eye-pleasing" P2P app they mention doesn't look much different than Safari's download panel with a couple of colorful buttons thrown on top. Compare:
You're right... I thought the blank dates were just some poorly formatted HTML-table-to-text conversion and didn't even bother selecting it to reveal the text. However, whatever their reasoning it's still a matter of biting the hand that feeds you kind of thing. Smith can simply ignore everything they say and review and comment the entire game from start to finish, spoiling everything -- as can anyone. But if he wants to keep playing in the publishers' ballpark, he'll have to play by their rules or at the very least not flaunt them so openly.
RTFA -- this isn't about legality. I could request that you not report on details of my step-half-cousin-in-law's death in Iraq until after we hold the family funeral service, even if that information is publicly available elsewhere. You could choose to disclose it anyways (stick it to da man!), or you could respect my wishes. Either way, there's no legal issue involved. It's not an exact parallel to this situation, but it sorta works out similarly.
With summer in full swing, the sun's come out to say hello, and our Japanese counterparts have unleashed a behemoth known as VALKYRIE PROFILE 2: SILMERIA in their home land. While the game sits in stores thousands of miles away, it's inevitable that some of you will import it to sample the delight that will be coming to North America in late September.
With that in mind, I feel it is necessary to highlight some key areas that you should not include in your coverage:
* Please do not write about spoilers of any kind
* This includes spoiler elements of the main plot, the appearance of Freya and Lenneth as playable characters and of course, the ending
* Please do not post CG movies of any kind
* This is a Square Enix staple that runs the gamut for Japan releases, so please refrain from posting videos of our CG or pivotal cutscenes, you will be able to post CG from the English game at a later date
* Please do not post music of any kind
* Do not sample or record the music from the game, there is an official OST out for VP2 and we can't infringe on its copyright
The majority of this boils down to "don't spoil it for the gamers". Of course, this just a polite request and, given that the Japanese version has already been released, Luke Smith doesn't have to follow any of this as he points out. However, Square Enix doesn't have to do any favors for him either. I wouldn't be surprised if 1Up gets cut out of the loop when it comes to any prerelease events.
And how much of that profit would be left if they distributed the profits to the thousands of volunteers who actually slaved away coding the projects? It would certainly be an interesting result regardless of how it turns out.
You'll note that if you roll over the vile8 author link you'll see it goes to vile8@lulu.com, so while it may not be totally forthcoming I wouldn't call it deceptive.
Here's a hint as to how most of us who believe both in Science and God reconcile the two: God is actively seeking to hide Himself from us. He is, to borrow a phrase from Carl Sagan, "sufficiently advanced" enough so as to be beyond the reach of our science. Those of us who believe do so in spite of the lack of scientific evidence, because we conclude that the lack exists because of God's will.
Replace "God" with "the Invisible Pink Unicorn" and you'll find that the Invisible Pink Unicorn is also actively hiding itself from you. Given that I find your hand-waving arguments to be the product of mentally deficient thinking, I don't think there's any further discussion possible here.
As a result, I am forced to use it (and I do pay for it.). Now, I may be forced to base on Windows, or ignore updating the software. I can't use Windows XP (the "phone home" stuff is a killer; I deal with confidential/trade secret/secret material).
Do you have a solution?
It sounds to me that based on your requirements, classified material and XP usage are mutually exclusive thereby making Office unsuitable for use with such material. The solution is to use other software if the material demands such sensitive handling and then implement that as a policy organization-wide.
Another option would be to update Office on a bare-bones XP install, watch what files and registry entries get updated (see Filemon and Regmon), and then roll those updates over to Linux. This could potentially be automated with some grunt work up front.
But how do you know Office doesn't phone home under Linux and potentially leak information there? Do you require whitelisting of outbound connections on a per-application basis? And while you may create Word/Excel documents on Linux in a secure environment, odds are good that those reading them are using XP, so all your precautions would be moot anyways.
Brain differences and intelligence are interesting, but it seems we've diverged from the topic of a "soul" a fair bit. Unless you'd like to bring it full-circle and connect up the two.
Why the hell would anyone do that? If nothing bad happens, the jokes will be really lame. If something bad does happen, those who joke about it will be called insensitive clods. The fact that we don't know what's going to happen is what makes the jokes funny.
And on that note:
Comedian: "Hey, did you hear the joke about Hao Wu who posted something called 'Be serious' on slashdot?" Audience: "Uh, yeah... we just read it." Comedian: "Oh, well in that case did you hear the one about his post being marked +5 Insightful?" Audience: "What, you think we're blind? We already saw that." Comedian: "Hm... maybe I ought to joke about something that you don't already know..."
In case of biological entities, pretty much all animals on Earth have the same type of cells, and their biology is not that different from humans. Human brains are larger, but brains of dolphins and elephants are larger still. Proves nothing. Even a human child, with a brain smaller than one of a grown dog, is smarter than a dog. Where is the difference?
The neocortex? Neuron density? A number of other differences other than the mass of the brain?
Yep. It's a concept. You think the number 2 exists as a physical entity?
So, to you, it's just a symbolic idea? You previously said that "it's what makes you you" -- I must have misread the word "makes" as being a simile for "creates". So even if the concept of a soul weren't around, I'd be no different. Just as if the concept of the number 2 weren't around... I might not have 2 hands, but I'd still have a hand at the end of each arm.
Based on this Webster's definition, the soul could be outlined as the software that runs on your biological hardware (and firmware, if you count the spinal cord.)
But in the case of humans (not computers) the hardware *is* the software.
Because it's an abstract concept, duh. Pencils have no soul - what's your problem?
Pencils are made from trees, and trees are living things. I'm a living thing and you say that I have a soul. Why not a pencil then? How do you know pencils don't have souls?
What I'm doing here is trying to get a definition of what a soul is out of you, but you keep evading the issue. If it's simply an imaginary abstract concept used as a mental exercise, then that's great. However, you are stating that a soul is something that actually exists. If that's the case, you should be able to define exactly what it is and how you have determined its existence.
So, if there is an update to my purchased copy of MS Office which I cannot retrieve because WGA won't work on Wine, because (naturally) Wine is not an Genuine Windows platform, isn't that pushing Windows monopoly into another area?
Oh, please. Maybe you didn't read the system requirements on the box. Did you find Linux-based Windows API implementations listed there? No? Didn't think so, because it's not supported. Wine isn't even Windows -- you can't activate Wine by using a Windows registration key as it's only an API compatibility layer. If your configuration is listed on the requirements box and you find it no longer works, then you have a genuine issue. But how does not getting updates for a configuration that Microsoft never said it would support in the first place have anything to do with a Windows monopoly? Did your Linux vendor force you to purchase Office along with your Linux installation?
It [soul] does exist - it's what makes you you. The fact that it has no physical form is immaterial.
Is it also what makes a dog a dog? Or what makes a venus fly trap a venus fly trap? Or a pencil a pencil? If it has no physical form, then how do you know it exists? What led to its discovery?
Slashdot Mirror
I put a "no UCE" comment in my SMTP banners and make reference to an acceptable-use policy.
Which has what effect, exactly? The only reference I could find to something like this is RFC 3865 which covers your case. However, as with all RFCs, they are not enforceable by law as you'd need to prove that the sender is compliant with every ad-hoc RFC extension out there. Given that sending MTAs don't need to advertise what features of the various RFCs they support, you have no way of determining whether or not said MTA would even understand that your banner is anything more than "^250.*".
That you've been able to use this in pursuing spammers is quite surprising actually. To me, this has all the force of taking a pen and writing "please return" on your quarter before dropping it into a phone booth and then complaining to the phone company when it didn't get returned to you.
Which, in fact, is the case. Most municipalities have noise bylaws restricting what noise you can emit and when. That empowers an individual; if someone wishes to lodge a complaint based on loud music after hours, there is recourse. To belabour the point: there are terms and conditions under which you can make noise which reaches my ears.
You'll notice I said sound, not noise. I should have been clearer, but I was referring to someone going up to you on the street and asking "Excuse me, do you have the time?" They're emitting sound to your ears without your explicit permission. I suppose they could write you a note, but then they're assaulting your retina with unwanted messages. Failing that, maybe they could write you an email...
No, you don't have that right, and you shouldn't. It's my mailbox, and you can't use it without my permission.
If your MTA implements the SMTP protocol, then you've already given your permission. If you want it to be permissions-based, then don't support SMTP... use some other protocol which requires prior authentication. You're saying the equivalent of "they're my ears... you can't make any sounds towards me without my permission".
Or, if you have popups blocked, here's one of the easiest ways:
http://www.whatismyipaddress.com/
You can even tell your grandmother to type what is my ip address into her browser window (omitting the spaces) and it will resolve for her. Of course, there are tons of other ones out there. http://www.dnsstuff.com/ will tell you as well, with only a few Google ads.
A few hundred a month is doing quite well? I suppose it's better than nothing, but with five kids that probably only pays for groceries for a week. Factor in the time and expense it takes to acquire and repair the clothing plus fulfill orders and you have to wonder if it's even working out to minimum wage.
Civilians have no business wandering around a war zone.
Right. And war zones *never* occur around civilian populations like, say, northern France where there's still unexploded ordnance from WWII.
Of course you can tell the mine the war is over, but will it really want to self-destruct?
What happens when the mine "chooses" not be inactivated?
Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Hell, that's infinitely better!
Yes, a downloader. Even downloaders can have UIs. (Unless you use wget/curl all of the time.) All interface with the user needs to be friendly, usable and well designed. *All* of it. Even a downloader.
i sitionfull.jpg
a rth.jpg
s missionfull.jpga n.jpg
Of course, but this isn't "Ten OS X Apps with a User Interface", it's the "Ten Most Beautiful". And check out this screenshot:
http://www.mathgamehouse.com/images/phillryu/acqu
Does that strike you as particularly "most beautiful" of all OS X apps out there? To me, it looks busy and uninspired... and that's supposed to be the fourth most beautiful app? More beautiful than, say, Google Earth on OS X which didn't make the list even though it's freeware as well? Screenshot:
http://saya.s145.xrea.com/archives/images/GoogleE
The "extremely eye-pleasing" P2P app they mention doesn't look much different than Safari's download panel with a couple of colorful buttons thrown on top. Compare:
P2P app: http://www.mathgamehouse.com/images/phillryu/tran
Safari: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/is/diary/mac/SafariDownloadM
I'd say the list could perhaps qualify as top ten nice OS X application icons.
You're right ... I thought the blank dates were just some poorly formatted HTML-table-to-text conversion and didn't even bother selecting it to reveal the text. However, whatever their reasoning it's still a matter of biting the hand that feeds you kind of thing. Smith can simply ignore everything they say and review and comment the entire game from start to finish, spoiling everything -- as can anyone. But if he wants to keep playing in the publishers' ballpark, he'll have to play by their rules or at the very least not flaunt them so openly.
RTFA -- this isn't about legality. I could request that you not report on details of my step-half-cousin-in-law's death in Iraq until after we hold the family funeral service, even if that information is publicly available elsewhere. You could choose to disclose it anyways (stick it to da man!), or you could respect my wishes. Either way, there's no legal issue involved. It's not an exact parallel to this situation, but it sorta works out similarly.
The majority of this boils down to "don't spoil it for the gamers". Of course, this just a polite request and, given that the Japanese version has already been released, Luke Smith doesn't have to follow any of this as he points out. However, Square Enix doesn't have to do any favors for him either. I wouldn't be surprised if 1Up gets cut out of the loop when it comes to any prerelease events.
And how much of that profit would be left if they distributed the profits to the thousands of volunteers who actually slaved away coding the projects? It would certainly be an interesting result regardless of how it turns out.
You'll note that if you roll over the vile8 author link you'll see it goes to vile8@lulu.com, so while it may not be totally forthcoming I wouldn't call it deceptive.
This is an article about Lulu... you're thinking of the Bubba service.
Here's a hint as to how most of us who believe both in Science and God reconcile the two: God is actively seeking to hide Himself from us. He is, to borrow a phrase from Carl Sagan, "sufficiently advanced" enough so as to be beyond the reach of our science. Those of us who believe do so in spite of the lack of scientific evidence, because we conclude that the lack exists because of God's will.
Replace "God" with "the Invisible Pink Unicorn" and you'll find that the Invisible Pink Unicorn is also actively hiding itself from you. Given that I find your hand-waving arguments to be the product of mentally deficient thinking, I don't think there's any further discussion possible here.
As a result, I am forced to use it (and I do pay for it.). Now, I may be forced to base on Windows, or ignore updating the software. I can't use Windows XP (the "phone home" stuff is a killer; I deal with confidential/trade secret/secret material).
Do you have a solution?
It sounds to me that based on your requirements, classified material and XP usage are mutually exclusive thereby making Office unsuitable for use with such material. The solution is to use other software if the material demands such sensitive handling and then implement that as a policy organization-wide.
Another option would be to update Office on a bare-bones XP install, watch what files and registry entries get updated (see Filemon and Regmon), and then roll those updates over to Linux. This could potentially be automated with some grunt work up front.
But how do you know Office doesn't phone home under Linux and potentially leak information there? Do you require whitelisting of outbound connections on a per-application basis? And while you may create Word/Excel documents on Linux in a secure environment, odds are good that those reading them are using XP, so all your precautions would be moot anyways.
Brain differences and intelligence are interesting, but it seems we've diverged from the topic of a "soul" a fair bit. Unless you'd like to bring it full-circle and connect up the two.
Why the hell would anyone do that? If nothing bad happens, the jokes will be really lame. If something bad does happen, those who joke about it will be called insensitive clods. The fact that we don't know what's going to happen is what makes the jokes funny.
And on that note:
Comedian: "Hey, did you hear the joke about Hao Wu who posted something called 'Be serious' on slashdot?"
Audience: "Uh, yeah... we just read it."
Comedian: "Oh, well in that case did you hear the one about his post being marked +5 Insightful?"
Audience: "What, you think we're blind? We already saw that."
Comedian: "Hm... maybe I ought to joke about something that you don't already know..."
In case of biological entities, pretty much all animals on Earth have the same type of cells, and their biology is not that different from humans. Human brains are larger, but brains of dolphins and elephants are larger still. Proves nothing. Even a human child, with a brain smaller than one of a grown dog, is smarter than a dog. Where is the difference?
The neocortex? Neuron density? A number of other differences other than the mass of the brain?
Only things that think really have souls...
Why is that?
Yep. It's a concept. You think the number 2 exists as a physical entity?
So, to you, it's just a symbolic idea? You previously said that "it's what makes you you" -- I must have misread the word "makes" as being a simile for "creates". So even if the concept of a soul weren't around, I'd be no different. Just as if the concept of the number 2 weren't around... I might not have 2 hands, but I'd still have a hand at the end of each arm.
Based on this Webster's definition, the soul could be outlined as the software that runs on your biological hardware (and firmware, if you count the spinal cord.)
But in the case of humans (not computers) the hardware *is* the software.
Because it's an abstract concept, duh. Pencils have no soul - what's your problem?
Pencils are made from trees, and trees are living things. I'm a living thing and you say that I have a soul. Why not a pencil then? How do you know pencils don't have souls?
What I'm doing here is trying to get a definition of what a soul is out of you, but you keep evading the issue. If it's simply an imaginary abstract concept used as a mental exercise, then that's great. However, you are stating that a soul is something that actually exists. If that's the case, you should be able to define exactly what it is and how you have determined its existence.
So, if there is an update to my purchased copy of MS Office which I cannot retrieve because WGA won't work on Wine, because (naturally) Wine is not an Genuine Windows platform, isn't that pushing Windows monopoly into another area?
Oh, please. Maybe you didn't read the system requirements on the box. Did you find Linux-based Windows API implementations listed there? No? Didn't think so, because it's not supported. Wine isn't even Windows -- you can't activate Wine by using a Windows registration key as it's only an API compatibility layer. If your configuration is listed on the requirements box and you find it no longer works, then you have a genuine issue. But how does not getting updates for a configuration that Microsoft never said it would support in the first place have anything to do with a Windows monopoly? Did your Linux vendor force you to purchase Office along with your Linux installation?
It [soul] does exist - it's what makes you you. The fact that it has no physical form is immaterial.
Is it also what makes a dog a dog? Or what makes a venus fly trap a venus fly trap? Or a pencil a pencil? If it has no physical form, then how do you know it exists? What led to its discovery?